F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

Clearly you already know where Boeing is headquartered....

the alternate amendment passed... unanimously (save Akin). Is Boeing everywhere... in every Congressional district in the U.S.? Like I said, like I'll to say, far be it for you to actually address the content/intent of Akin's letter/amendment... or the alternate amendment. Is there a reason the F-35 Program Office refuses to provide a date? I mean... a reason other than they haven't a clue? That the date has now been shifted 4 times... 4 times? Imagine, U.S. legislators demanding Lockheed Martin actually provide a date!!!

[Guest Derek L]

the alternate amendment passed... unanimously (save Akin). Is Boeing everywhere... in every Congressional district in the U.S.? Like I said, like I'll to say, far be it for you to actually address the content/intent of Akin's letter/amendment... or the alternate amendment. Is there a reason the F-35 Program Office refuses to provide a date? I mean... a reason other than they haven't a clue? That the date has now been shifted 4 times... 4 times? Imagine, U.S. legislators demanding Lockheed Martin actually provide a date!!!

Not a clue, but according to these guys:

They're ahead of their flight testing schedule for this year...

[waldo]

Not a clue

what! Not a clue... but that didn't stop you from blustering about Boeing... did it?

but according to these guys:

They're ahead of their flight testing schedule for this year...

right... I wondered how long it would take you to throw that out. Of course, consider the source, hey? Why would/should anyone believe a thing Lockheed Martin has to say about... cough, cough... "progress". Let's hear/read that from an independent review/source, hey? One like the U.S. DOT&E as mentioned in the following post you so conveniently bypassed... another of your refuse to acknowledge best!

Again, as I'm aware, actual program testing is at about the 20% level. When I pointed this out to MLW member 'Derek L', he pretty much shrugged it off and offered up a blinding trust of the "Military Industrial Complex"!

when you read the latest damning 2011 annual report of the

U.S. DOT&E

... again... just what do you have to compare?

Operational Assessment

• The JSF Operational Test Team completed an operational assessment of the F-35 program and determined that it is

not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements

. The JSF Operational Test Team assessed the program based on measured and predicted performance against requirements from the JSF Operational Requirements Document, which was re-validated in 2009.

• The primary operational effectiveness deficiencies include poor performance in the human systems integration (e.g. helmet-mounted display, night vision capability) and aircraft handling characteristics, as well as shortfalls in maneuvering performance (e.g. F-35A combat radius, which is a KPP, and F-35C acceleration).

• The driving operational suitability deficiencies include an inadequate Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) for deployed operations, excessive time for low observable maintenance repair and restoration capability, low reliability and poor maintainability performance, and deficient crypto key management and interface compatibility.

• The assessment was completed prior to release of an updated program integrated master schedule. While additional time and resources in development may aid the program in resolving some deficiencies, several requirements are not going to be met given current, known program plans. After the new master schedule is available, along with documentation of the application of the additional resources applied to SDD plans, an updated operational assessment may be provided.

[Guest Derek L]

what! Not a clue... but that didn't stop you from blustering about Boeing... did it?

right... I wondered how long it would take you to throw that out. Of course, consider the source, hey? Why would/should anyone believe a thing Lockheed Martin has to say about... cough, cough... "progress". Let's hear/read that from an independent review/source, hey? One like the U.S. DOT&E as mentioned in the following post you so conveniently bypassed... another of your refuse to acknowledge best!

A quick recap:

-Waldo cites critical legislation put forth by a US congressmen that happens to have Super Hornets built within his district

-Said new legislation will enact a performance based contract

-Waldo cites a report from last year

-Lockheed releases news stating they’re ahead of schedule for this years testing, and will have Block2A LRIP aircraft ready for next summer.

-Waldo demands an “independent source” {see} blog or opinions from outside the program.

[DogOnPorch]

It's clear that there is no aircraft waldo would find suitable so why bother continuing? It's like trying to convince an anarchist that voting is a good thing.

Besides...Canada will buy new aircraft with or without waldo's blessing. That he'd prefer Canadian pilots to fly biplanes...or kites...or lawn darts...is immaterial.

[waldo]

-Waldo demands an “independent source” {see} blog or opinions from outside the program.

demands? Really? How desperate are you? Of course you want to tout a Lockheed Martin "press release"... you like and revel in propaganda! I simply pointed out the independent source... actually, the most significant profile independent source of review, the, 'Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E)'... you know, the source and it's damning report on Lockheed Martin - the source/report you refuse to acknowledge and respond to.

[waldo]

It's clear that there is no aircraft waldo would find suitable so why bother continuing? It's like trying to convince an anarchist that voting is a good thing.

Besides...Canada will buy new aircraft with or without waldo's blessing. That he'd prefer Canadian pilots to fly biplanes...or kites...or lawn darts...is immaterial.

Goose... are you out of jingoPorn to post?

[DogOnPorch]

Goose... are you out of jingoPorn to post?

Gosh no...but I don't really feel like describing how an aircraft stays in the air to you so early in the day.

[Guest Derek L]

demands? Really? How desperate are you? Of course you want to tout a Lockheed Martin "press release"... you like and revel in propaganda! I simply pointed out the independent source... actually, the most significant profile independent source of review, the, 'Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E)'... you know, the source and it's damning report on Lockheed Martin - the source/report you refuse to acknowledge and respond to.

The report from last year? You’re trying to convince me with a report from last year versus the release of a testing schedule released two days ago? Come on Waldo, drink the LockMart purple Kool-aid, it’s ever so tasty and refreshing

[waldo]

The report from last year? You’re trying to convince me with a report from last year versus the release of a testing schedule released two days ago? Come on Waldo, drink the LockMart purple Kool-aid, it’s ever so tasty and refreshing

the report from last year? You mean the one that's a little over 4 months old!!!

hey Mav... why are your lips so purple?

[waldo]

Gosh no...but I don't really feel like describing how an aircraft stays in the air to you so early in the day.

stick down means what again?

[GostHacked]

We're not buying the F-35C.

Thanks for missing the bigger point about the costs associated with the F-35. If they bought the C, they would have to upgrade a good deal of their aircraft carriers. That cost put it out of reach and they are going to go with the SVTOL option.

[Smallc]

Thanks for missing the bigger point about the costs associated with the F-35.

I think you're missing the point altogether. The F-35A, being bought in the thousands, is not the F-35C.

[GostHacked]

That he'd prefer Canadian pilots to fly biplanes...or kites...or lawn darts...is immaterial.

Pure conjecture. But don't let that get in the way of rational discussion.

[Guest Derek L]

the report from last year? You mean the one that's a little over 4 months old!!!

hey Mav... why are your lips so purple?

And it was a report based on information obtained from what year?

[Guest Derek L]

Thanks for missing the bigger point about the costs associated with the F-35. If they bought the C, they would have to upgrade a good deal of their aircraft carriers. That cost put it out of reach and they are going to go with the SVTOL option.

This is true partially, but it’s a reflection on the cost overruns of the QE program and politics, not the F-35, coupled with the fact that the RN was never going to operate their carriers in the same way as the Americans, hence no real requirement for the carrier version…….

The coalition governments switch to the “C” from the “B” originally was nothing but pure poltics, and the money wasted in the interim could have kept a portion of the Harrier’s and HMS Ark Royal in service till HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service…….To say nothing of the embarrassment the Cameron government received when only several months after retiring the Ark, they found themselves a bit partner in Libya.

[DogOnPorch]

stick down means what again?

This is why we can't let you near an aircraft full of people.

[DogOnPorch]

They made 384 of these monsters (Canada didn't need to spend a dime for these babies) and not a single one fired a shot in anger. Must have been useless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruE8yhkHke8

[waldo]

They made 384 of these monsters

ahem! Goose... did you forget where your dedicated jingoPorn thread is?

[DogOnPorch]

ahem! Goose... did you forget where your dedicated jingoPorn thread is?

How is that changing the flat on your Sunbird going?

Edited May 11, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

the report from last year? You mean the one that's a little over 4 months old!!!

hey Mav... why are your lips so purple?

What say you?

Using 2012 dollar values, the Pentagon projects the Air Force version of the F-35, the aircraft being purchased by most international customers, to cost $78.7 million. The carrier version’s is projected to cost $87 million, and the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff, vertical-landing version, $106 million.

[waldo]

What say you?

Using 2012 dollar values, the Pentagon projects the Air Force version of the F-35, the aircraft being purchased by most international customers, to cost $78.7 million.

The carrier version’s is projected to cost $87 million, and the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff, vertical-landing version, $106 million.

I say you're not very quick, you don't learn from your mistakes and you're becoming quite a bore! You tried this same BS earlier when you... you... brought up the F-35 Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) and kept harping on how "low" it was at "only" $109 Million per jet. Of course, I had to educate you on the distinction between "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars), and "TY (then-year)" dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation over the duration of the program)... and bring your understanding up to date that the real considered APUC cost, per the latest Pentagon F-35 SAR is $137 Million per jet (TY dollars). Gee, I wonder why the $137 million number is the number used exclusively by those in the know... is the actual number quoted/referenced, hey?

so, of course, all you've done here, once again, is revert back to your earlier playbook... you could quote the TY costs for the respective variants... you could do that, right?

here, read it again:

no - absolutely not! Those two respective numbers have the same reference point... apply to the same reference period. The distinction is your quoted $109 million APUC per jet figure reflects "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars)... my quoted $137 million APUC per jet figure reflects "TY (then-year)" dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation over the duration of the program).

Fun with numbers eh?

yes, there appears to be some real creative/inventive number dicing/slicing going on, all around. The way numbers have been "managed/reduced" (reduced!!!) is by having the JSF program reduce procurement quantities through 2017 by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. Quite clearly the U.S. Congress' emphatic "no mo money" hit home... forcing a push-out of costs to later years; albeit an additional driver was the reality of having to retrofit ongoing problem related design changes into production aircraft. So... easy peasey... just reduce how many are being made. But wait! Talk about a queue forming up. Let's see how JSF partner countries make out against the U.S. Airforce/Navy/Marines "when (if!)" ultimate production does finally ramp-up... uhhh... if it does!

The latest U.S. GAO report states, "the JSF program continues to experience cost growth and delays, projected annual funding needs are unprecedented, averaging more than $13 billion a year through 2035"

.

of course, since no one, absolutely no one, knows the IOC dates for the F-35... since the F-35 Program Office steadfastly refuses to provide them... where speculation now has the "Canadian sweet spot" for delivery in... what? 2022? 2023? Care to take a stab at the TY costs projected into 2022/2023? Oh my!

but hey now, I note your referenced link starts out by covering my earlier reference to GOP Rep. Akin's amendment (which became Dem Rep. Smith's alternate amendment) attempting to force Lockheed Martin to finally come forward with actual initial operational capability (IOC) dates - I see you kind of glossed right on over that, hey?

speaking of performance based funding for Lockheed Martin... as opposed to the past funding on blind faith, the following just released letter is from U.S. GOP Rep. Todd Akin - a letter to his fellow House members in preparation for an amendment he is about to bring forward... an amendment to formally restrain Lockheed Martin funding until the F-35 Program Office delivers an actual "IOC date" (an Initial Operating Capability date).

The IOC date, the date that has been shifted out now 4 times, the date the F-35 Program Office now refuses to provide... where it's actually stated it doesn't know, it has no idea for a new date... it won't even provide an estimate! Now, that's performance!!!

Edited May 13, 2012 by waldo

[Guest Derek L]

I say you're not very quick, you don't learn from your mistakes and you're becoming quite a bore! You tried this same BS earlier when you... you... brought up the F-35 Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) and kept harping on how "low" it was at "only" $109 Million per jet. Of course, I had to educate you on the distinction between "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars), and "TY (then-year)" dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation over the duration of the program)... and bring your understanding up to date that the real considered APUC cost, per the latest Pentagon F-35 SAR is $137 Million per jet (TY dollars). Gee, I wonder why the $137 million number is the number used exclusively by those in the know... is the actual number quoted/referenced, hey?

so, of course, all you've done here, once again, is revert back to your earlier playbook... you could quote the TY costs for the respective variants... you could do that, right?

here, read it again:

of course, since no one, absolutely no one, knows the IOC dates for the F-35... since the F-35 Program Office steadfastly refuses to provide them... where speculation now has the "Canadian sweet spot" for delivery in... what? 2022? 2023? Care to take a stab at the TY costs projected into 2022/2023? Oh my!

but hey now, I note your referenced link starts out by covering my earlier reference to GOP Rep. Akin's amendment (which became Dem Rep. Smith's alternate amendment) attempting to force Lockheed Martin to finally come forward with actual initial operational capability (IOC) dates - I see you kind of glossed right on over that, hey?

So, DND’s estimates of 75 million per tail, in today’s dollars, are almost correct? Or are you going to keep referring to the average that includes two aircraft types we’re not purchasing?

DND= $75 million per F-35A

Pentagon =~$78 million per F-35A

Edited May 13, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

So, DND’s estimates of 75 million per tail, in today’s dollars, are almost correct? Or are you going to keep referring to the average that includes two aircraft types we’re not purchasing?

you either don't have a clue... or you're purposely just having

Fun with numbers eh?

in any case, let me remind you, once again... you... you... were the one who first beaked off about APUC costs when you referenced the 2010 APUC cost of $109 Million per. I've also challenged you, several times now, to provide a statement on the clear delineation between variants within the JSFail development program - you insist in claiming isolation; claiming no commonality between variants. In that regard, if you check out the latest U.S. Air Force 2013 budget submission document, you'll read several prominent references that tout the cost saving advantages of the program... that the commonality between -A, -B & -C variants, brings forward significant cost savings. And yet, you continually chide others, every chance you get, if anything but the -A variant gets mentioned. Of course you do - you don't know what you're talking about!

DND= $75 million per F-35A

Pentagon =~$78 million per F-35A

yes, you are having fun with numbers... aren't you? Tell me. How does this latest 2011 estimate number... 20 Million per plane lower than last year's numbers... happen? Was there a miraculous change within the program... did Lockheed Martin finally, after a decade of failure, suddenly turn it around... in a year? Let's have a look at a sampling of those past Pentagon APUC numbers, particularly focusing in on 2010 & 2011... showing the previous 2010 $109 APUC cost you touted (in BY2012 dollars) - here:

since you refuse to accept the more relevant TY dollars (i.e., "then-year" dollars - adjusted for inflation over the duration of the program), let's run with your "having fun with numbers" BY2012 ((i.e., "current 2012" dollars). What's your explanation on how, in a single year from 2010-to-2011, the APUC cost can go from $109 Million per jet to $91 Million per jet? What's the "magic" behind your, "having fun with numbers", hey? Perhaps I can help with a post reference you probably just glazed right over: reduce procurement quantities by shifting them out... watch that queue forming up!!! Yes, Derek L, your magic with numbers realized, in part, by shifting procurement numbers out.

yes, there appears to be some real creative/inventive number dicing/slicing going on, all around. The way numbers have been "managed/reduced" (reduced!!!) is by having the JSF program reduce procurement quantities through 2017 by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. Quite clearly the U.S. Congress' emphatic "no mo money" hit home... forcing a push-out of costs to later years; albeit an additional driver was the reality of having to retrofit ongoing problem related design changes into production aircraft. So... easy peasey... just reduce how many are being made. But wait! Talk about a queue forming up. Let's see how JSF partner countries make out against the U.S. Airforce/Navy/Marines "when (if!)" ultimate production does finally ramp-up... uhhh... if it does!

The latest U.S. GAO report states, "the JSF program continues to experience cost growth and delays, projected annual funding needs are unprecedented, averaging more than $13 billion a year through 2035"

.

let's make sure we provide the appropriate perspective for the, "playing with numbers", charade you're now running with, hey? These quoted, “unit recurring flyaway costs” (URFC), don't include, "additional items such as ancillary equipment (e.g. fuel tanks, weapon pylons, targeting pods), training and support equipment, tech data, publications, contractor services, initial spares, and facility construction". Now, you were also presented with breakout costs associated to the latest Pentagon F-35 SAR, that you've now chosen to, "play with numbers"... of course, you outright dismissed them... dismissed these costs; the costs that detail target U.S. Air Force planned expenditures for the URFC for the F-35-A:

2016 – $93.38 Million
2017 – $91.43 Million
2018 – $83.13 Million
2019 – $83.95 Million
2020 – $87.36 Million
2021 – $95.16 Million
2022 – $87.14 Million
2023 – $88.08 Million

and, again, these are BY2012 dollars not TY dollars... as U.S. Air Force targets, they assume on the current procurement numbers (albeit, now staggered out), they assume no numbers will drop by any of the U.S. military branches, or JSF partner countries. Of course we know this won't occur since the U.S. Navy has all but abandoned JSFail, right Derek L? They also assume on actual progress through the next years of the JSFail program... the program that has shown nothing over the past decade, other than, "over budget, overdue, and over-hyped".

[waldo]

You care to take a crack at the Japanese F-35 deal for 42 aircraft, with lifetime support, for 10 billion?

possible sale... no contractual obligation/commitments at this time. As MLW member 'punked' highlighted, the Japanese have given formal notice that they will bail if the schedule continues to slip or costs continue to increase. Notwithstanding, as stated, Lockheed Martin is desperate for good news... to the point of offering an incentive to shift manufacturing to Japan.

about that "bait and switch" game (attempted to be ) played on the Japanese!

Japan’s F-35 Sticker Shock

There are two possible scenarios. One, that the cost of the plane has doubled in a year, from $75 million to $161 million. In that scenario, a mere $77 million for support costs (more than the original cost of the plane) proportionally does not seem unreasonable (Never mind the doubling of cost.) The other scenario is that the plane still costs $75 million and the support cost is $163 million per plane. In other words, the service contract costs more than twice as much as the product.

A reasonable person can look at Japan’s procurement of the F-35 and conclude that a “bait and switch“, as we say in America, has occurred. The Mainichi article makes it clear that even the buyer thought that the price was going to be far, far less than the final estimate.

And this isn’t likely the end of the costs. Remember that Japan was promised the privilege of being able to do final assembly and checkout of the F-35 — the lamest and least beneficial to Japan’s aerospace industry of the three production proposals by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE. Notice there’s no mention of the construction of that facility in Japan. Who is going to pay for that?

The F-35: taking over defense budgets one country at a time.

now, the above linked article includes the following, "gem of gems"... the master quote source reference, played out year upon year by Harper Conservatives and proponents. By the by, I do believe the ever dropping projected procurement count is now around 2200... correct me if I'm wrong, hey MLW member 'Derek L'... for now we won't include the U.S. Navy bailing on the program, all rightee?

Lockheed has said the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A variant can be delivered for an average unit cost of about $75 million, although that number assumes the USA and eight partner countries order more than 3,100 jets during the next 25 years