F-35 Purchase

[Guest Derek L]

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

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!

Commonality? One operates like a conventional fighter, one land vertically and one lands on an aircraft carrier……

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.

So you’re traveling back to 2010?

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".

Are you new to this discussion, or are you subbing for Waldo?

$ 95.16 million x 65= ?

I just love fun with numbers.....

[Guest Derek L]

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

Japan’s F-35 Sticker Shock

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?

More fun with numbers and a Japanese blogger?

$163 million x 42= ?

[waldo]

Commonality? One operates like a conventional fighter, one land vertically and one lands on an aircraft carrier……

yes - commonality... between variants. The very commonality the U.S. Air Force touts as a means for the program to... presumably... keep overall costs down. Apparently, your simplistic naive understanding would have us believe the respective variants share... didly! But like I said, you chide anyone/everyone for daring to reference anything but the -A variant... it's clearly a tactic you believe will distract from the real focus on the fail within JSFail, hey?

So you’re traveling back to 2010?

hardly... this is me challenging you to explain the radical drop in a single years cost... 2010 versus 2011. Of course, per your norm, you'll deflect/distract to avoid actually addressing and answering that challenge - just like to you, over and over again. It's what you do, it's what you're about! Here, read it again... maybe this time you'll have the balls to answer instead of continuing to act the clown, hey?

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"

.

Are you new to this discussion, or are you subbing for Waldo?

$ 95.16 million x 65= ?

I just love fun with numbers.....

wait! What's this... are you now going with $95.16 Million per plane? Does that mean we'll no longer have you touting the Harper Conservative nonsense number... is that the last we'll see you trotting that out? Like I said, like I'll continue to say - you're too easy, way too easy!

DND= $75 million per F-35A

Pentagon =~$78 million per F-35A

[waldo]

More fun with numbers and a Japanese blogger?

$163 million x 42= ?

I just might take the time to throw together a post that details the many... many... many... reference links and quotes you have drawn from your grab-bag of "military war-hawk" blogs. It just might be the only thing to finally shut your yap any time critical comment comes your way - sourced from blogs!

in any case, I note this is but yet another of your distracting avoidance posts - one that sees you blustering and ignoring the actual comments/numbers drawn from the U.S. Department of Defense, one of the principal Japanese newspapers, the "The Mainichi Shimbun"... as well as Reuters!

[Guest Derek L]

yes - commonality... between variants. The very commonality the U.S. Air Force touts as a means for the program to... presumably... keep overall costs down. Apparently, your simplistic naive understanding would have us believe the respective variants share... didly! But like I said, you chide anyone/everyone for daring to reference anything but the -A variant... it's clearly a tactic you believe will distract from the real focus on the fail within JSFail, hey?

hardly... this is me challenging you to explain the radical drop in a single years cost... 2010 versus 2011. Of course, per your norm, you'll deflect/distract to avoid actually addressing and answering that challenge - just like to you, over and over again. It's what you do, it's what you're about! Here, read it again... maybe this time you'll have the balls to answer instead of continuing to act the clown, hey?

wait! What's this... are you now going with $95.16 Million per plane? Does that mean we'll no longer have you touting the Harper Conservative nonsense number... is that the last we'll see you trotting that out? Like I said, like I'll continue to say - you're too easy, way too easy!

Do they share estimated costs specific to each variant?

[Guest Derek L]

I just might take the time to throw together a post that details the many... many... many... reference links and quotes you have drawn from your grab-bag of "military war-hawk" blogs. It just might be the only thing to finally shut your yap any time critical comment comes your way - sourced from blogs!

in any case, I note this is but yet another of your distracting avoidance posts - one that sees you blustering and ignoring the actual comments/numbers drawn from the U.S. Department of Defense, one of the principal Japanese newspapers, the "The Mainichi Shimbun"... as well as Reuters!

Fill your boots!!

[waldo]

Do they share estimated costs specific to each variant?

an idiotic statement

[waldo]

Fill your boots!!

like I said, it might be the only thing to get you to quit whining whenever someone posts something critical originating from a blog entry/source. In any case, I have your earlier reply ready bookmarked... ready to pull the trigger next time you quote from one of your... your... favoured blogs. Cause, like... you're the only guy around here... apparently... that can link to/quote from blogs, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

an idiotic statement

Are there not separate costs for the conventional, short take off and carrier versions of the F-35?

[Guest Derek L]

like I said, it might be the only thing to get you to quit whining whenever someone posts something critical originating from a blog entry/source. In any case, I have your earlier reply ready bookmarked... ready to pull the trigger next time you quote from one of your... your... favoured blogs. Cause, like... you're the only guy around here... apparently... that can link to/quote from blogs, hey?

And what blog’s have I used to reference or convey information pertaining to the F-35? I fully admit to linking to press releases/news reports from MSM, various militaries and the manufactures of the F-35, but I don’t rely on outsiders opinions relating to a program that they have no access to……..

[waldo]

per the previously linked (recently released) Pentagon F-35 SAR:

cost per piano-flying hour for the F-35-A... in "BY2012" dollars (i.e., current 2012 dollars): a whopping, fantabulous, wait for it... wait for it... $32,500 per hour

pending your update/correction, for now, I'll go with the F-35 @ $32,500 per hour // F/A-18 @ $18,900 per hour. Wow! Quite the difference, hey? But again, the point being you don't seem to have an actual comment on the Pentagon figure of $32,500 an hour for the F-35! Apparently, to you... whatever it costs... it costs, right?

anything for you to actually avoid acknowledging the $32,500 cost per flying hour for the JSFail F-35-A, hey?

I suppose you can’t see the difference between operating a Canadian Hornet from a land base versus a US Hornet or Harrier from an aircraft carrier?

what's your number? Put it up. Put up your per hour flying cost for the F/A-18 Hornet... as compared to the $32,500 per piano-flying hour for the JSFail F-35-A. What's your number?

and maybe... just maybe... you might actually offer comment on the $32,500 per hour cost for the F-35-A. Something more than your standard, "freedom isn't free" BS, hey?

Conservative MP, Laurie 'Fighter Jet' Hawn... provides the number MLW member 'Derek L' refuses to provide:

Conservative MP Hawn estimates CF-18 costs $12,000 less per flying hour than F-35 fighter jet --- Conservative MP Laurie, who has been deeply involved with the $25-billion F-35 stealth fighter jet project, says the cost of operating Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets is $12,000 less per flying hour for each plane than the current forecast costs for maintaining and operating the sophisticated F-35s.

Mr. Hawn told The Hill Timeson Thursday, in an interview after Question Period, that the

CF-18 operating costs are roughly $19,000 per flying hour

.

yes, my earlier referenced numbers... now confirmed by Conservative MP, Laurie 'Fighter Jet' Hawn:

pending your update/correction, for now, I'll go with the

F-35 @ $32,500 per hour // F/A-18 @ $18,900 per hour.

Wow! Quite the difference, hey? But again, the point being you don't seem to have an actual comment on the Pentagon figure of $32,500 an hour for the F-35! Apparently, to you... whatever it costs... it costs, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

...yes, my earlier referenced numbers... now confirmed by Conservative MP, Laurie 'Fighter Jet' Hawn:

This discussion continues the theatre of the absurd...

Starts out with the usual American data and references in the absence of any Canadian benchmarks:

A U.S. Department of Defense report to Congress last March estimated the F-35A, the Air Force version of the F-35 that Canada would acquire, will cost $32,000 per flying hour for each aircraft to maintain, sustain and operate, 42 per cent more than the $22,000 per hour cost of maintaining and operating U.S. Air Force F-16s.

..and then we find out why:

A senior National Defence official involved in the F-35 project recently told the Public Accounts Committee the new stealth aircraft, with pioneer computer systems that require 24 million lines of code, would cost more to operate than the CF-18, but did not elaborate. At a later committee meeting,

Defence officials were asked what the CF-18 hourly operating and flying costs were, but told the committee they did not have them at hand.

So just like the Canadian identity, the cost of flying a potential CF-35 is defined in terms of U.S. Air Force F-16s and projected costs of U.S. Air Force F-35s, not the actual cost of flying CF-188's. You can't make this stuff up!

[waldo]

zing! And another piece of the overall procurement projections... bites the dust:

May 16, 2012 --- USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

The US Air Force has concluded that the short take-off vertical landing Lockheed Martin F-35B model aircraft cannot generate enough sorties to meet its needs; therefore the service

will not consider replacing the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog close air support jet with that variant

.

[bush_cheney2004]

zing! And another piece of the overall procurement projections... bites the dust:

May 16, 2012 --- USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

Remarkably irrelevant (again), as Canada has no intention of procuring F-35B's and has never operated A-10 Warthogs. But the theatre must continue...so on with the next American act! Please pass the popcorn.

[DogOnPorch]

Two very different machines. One is a low tech dedicated ground attack/tank killer with a GAU-8/A while the other is a multirole aircraft with a GAU-12/U. No kidding the A-10 wins out in ground attack. I hear the ol' B-52 can out-bomb the F-35 nine ways to Sunday. But the idea is to ultimately save the air force/navy/marines $$$ by reducing the number of dedicated models.

Did you know that it costs about $100k US to fire a 10 sec burst from either gun? Guess we'd better never fire any of ours least we blow the budget.

Edited May 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

zing! And another piece of the overall procurement projections... bites the dust:

May 16, 2012 --- USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

But the idea is to ultimately save the air force/navy/marines $$$ by reducing the number of dedicated models.

but... this latest procurement down-size is not reducing the number of dedicated models... the U.S. Marines are still heavily invested in pursuing the F-35-B variant. For whatever reasons, the U.S. Air Force has deemed the F-35-B variant an unsuitable alternative to replace its A-10s... as interesting is the challenge coming forward from B variant proponents stating a decision based on "sortie numbers" is unwarranted... a 'smokescreen' by the USAF to divest itself of any association to the B variant.

by the by... have you heard - the Ruskies will be at RimPac 2012... with a destroyer even! Does this mean you will be lowering your Cold War shield... just a bit?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Did you know that it costs about $100k US to fire a 10 sec burst from either gun? Guess we'd better never fire any of ours least we blow the budget.

Better not tell them that one 155mm Excalibur GPS-guided round costs Canada about $85,000 each.

[Guest Derek L]

anything for you to actually avoid acknowledging the $32,500 cost per flying hour for the JSFail F-35-A, hey?

Conservative MP, Laurie 'Fighter Jet' Hawn... provides the number MLW member 'Derek L' refuses to provide:

Conservative MP Hawn estimates CF-18 costs $12,000 less per flying hour than F-35 fighter jet --- Conservative MP Laurie, who has been deeply involved with the $25-billion F-35 stealth fighter jet project, says the cost of operating Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets is $12,000 less per flying hour for each plane than the current forecast costs for maintaining and operating the sophisticated F-35s.

yes, my earlier referenced numbers... now confirmed by Conservative MP, Laurie 'Fighter Jet' Hawn:

Goody, more fun with numbers…….

The cost of operating three CF-18 squadrons, of 24 aircraft, for one hour is =?

The cost of operating two F-35 squadrons, of 24 aircraft, for one hour is = ?

As per the link:

Mr. Hawn dismissed the F-35 operating cost forecast as “all guess.”

“Do we know exactly what the F-35 is going to cost? No, it’s probably going to cost more per flying hour than the F-18, but we’re going to have a smaller fleet, I’m not sure how many flying hours we’re going to fly per year, probably less,” Mr. Hawn said.

“Those numbers on the F-35 are estimates, and that’s the fallacy, they’re trying to determine a lifecycle cost out to 30, 40 years. There’s no idea, what’s the cost of fuel, what’s the cost of diesel, what missions are we going to do, where are we going to wind up fighting. We have no clue,” he said.

[Guest Derek L]

but... this latest procurement down-size is not reducing the number of dedicated models... the U.S. Marines are still heavily invested in pursuing the F-35-B variant. For whatever reasons, the U.S. Air Force has deemed the F-35-B variant an unsuitable alternative to replace its A-10s... as interesting is the challenge coming forward from B variant proponents stating a decision based on "sortie numbers" is unwarranted... a 'smokescreen' by the USAF to divest itself of any association to the B variant.

by the by... have you heard - the Ruskies will be at RimPac 2012... with a destroyer even! Does this mean you will be lowering your Cold War shield... just a bit?

How many "B" versions did the USAF intend to purchase prior to this revelation?

A more apt comparison is how many sorties can the “B” carry out contrasted with the Harrier, and the bring back weight of each aircraft when conducting either a vertical landing or a rolling landing.

Let’s not let facts get in the way of your masterpiece theatre....

[waldo]

uhhh... learn how to use quote tags, hey!

Conservative MP, Laurie 'Fighter Jet' Hawn: Do we know exactly what the F-35 is going to cost? No.

that's right... we're using the U.S. Pentagon's estimate number per its latest F-35 SAR - $32,500 per 'flying piano' hour of flight for the F-35-A variant. But hey now... just what have the Harper Conservatives been basing their (wildly incorrect) cost estimates for the F-35... if, as Laurie 'Fighter Jet' Hawn states, "we don't know exactly what the F-35 is going to cost"? Didn't seem to hold Harper Conservatives back any, hey?

[waldo]

Let’s not let facts get in the way of your masterpiece theatre....

the facts? As stated: the USAF has deemed the F-35-B variant unsuitable for it's previously stated A-10 replacement intent. As I factually stated, "another piece of the overall procurement projections... bites the dust".

[waldo]

same ole, same ole... now entering week 5 of the Lockheed Martin Machinists strike! Oh my... that's got to sting on the production line, hey?

Lockheed Machinists on Strike for Health Care and Pensions

[Guest Derek L]

uhhh... learn how to use quote tags, hey!

that's right... we're using the U.S. Pentagon's estimate number per its latest F-35 SAR - $32,500 per 'flying piano' hour of flight for the F-35-A variant. But hey now... just what have the Harper Conservatives been basing their (wildly incorrect) cost estimates for the F-35... if, as Laurie 'Fighter Jet' Hawn states, "we don't know exactly what the F-35 is going to cost"? Didn't seem to hold Harper Conservatives back any, hey?

As stated by myself and others prior, the sunk costs estimated (10 billion for 20 years) are based off the current prices of operating the Hornet fleet, and mirror said estimate regardless of aircraft type we operated. (Fuel cost, salaries, base operating cost etc)

[Guest Derek L]

the facts? As stated: the USAF has deemed the F-35-B variant unsuitable for it's previously stated A-10 replacement intent. As I factually stated, "another piece of the overall procurement projections... bites the dust".

The USAF never intended to operate the "B" version, as they never operated the Harrier......

[waldo]

As stated by myself and others prior, the sunk costs estimated (10 billion for 20 years) are based off the current prices of operating the Hornet fleet, and mirror said estimate regardless of aircraft type we operated. (Fuel cost, salaries, base operating cost etc)

you're part way there... for starters, push that on up to the actual 36 year life-cycle estimate number and adjust for the additional estimated costs for the F-35 @ $32,500 per hour versus the F/A-18 @ $18,900 per hour.