Cost estimate for F-35 to soar, Pentagon says

[Zachstar]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/06/2094443/cost-estimate-for-f-35-to-soar.html

Based on figures in the document, the average cost of one F-35 -- $62 million when the program was launched in 2002 -- could rise to $115.5 million, not counting inflation, by the time all 2,457 planes that the U.S. plans to buy are built.
Including inflation, the government now expects each F-35 to cost an average of $133.6 million. But even that figure could swell to more than $150 million when revised estimates are completed in June.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/06/2094443/cost-estimate-for-f-35-to-soar.html#ixzz0kXlutmKi



Lovely just fraking lovely! Hell the only reason this will be accepted is because the F-35 IS the last manned fighter and replaced a boatload of other aircraft.

[XabbaRus]

You really think it will be the last manned fighter?

I know you love your robot stuff but still think you are wrong on this.

[Zachstar]

You really think it will be the last manned fighter?

I know you love your robot stuff but still think you are wrong on this.

Nobody in their right mind will consider another manned fighter when the F-22 and F-35 replace most of the craft in service and are expected to last well until the 2030s (And by then likely just made unmanned)

The B-52 is still flying and there is talk about making it unmanned.

Now I do expect other aircraft will be manned for a bit but generally you don't want to have to refuel from an unmanned tanker and tankers will never go places where the crew is in serious risk. But these monstrous manned fighters are going the way of the dino.

[Platapus]

Do we really need a fleet of F-35s at upwards to 150,000,000 a pop?

A single weapon platform that costs over 1/10 of a Billion Dollars and does not float?

$150,000,000 and it can be shot down by a lucky hit from WWII vintage AAA or even a bird?

That's a lot for a single fighter/multimillion aircraft that can fall out of the sky.

That's five F-16Fs

I think there comes a point when cramming every type of capability on to one product starts to get too expensive and complex.

[Platapus]

You really think it will be the last manned fighter?

I know you love your robot stuff but still think you are wrong on this.


As long as there is an Air Force Academy, we will have manned fighters. How else are academy grads gonna get laid? :up:

[Skybird]

1. Of course costs for this program go up and well beyond the estimations. Have you really expected anything different? the low numbers are only given as long as they want to sell the contract. Once they got it, they milk it.

2. And yes, I too think this is the last major manned fighter program. Maybe they experiment with variations and updates for existing fighters, cloning some models from them on the basis of already exiosting designs. But a new program from scratch?

I read THE AIR FORCE TODAY TRAINS MORE DRONE PILOTS THAN FIGHTER PILOTS. ;)

Also, point 1.

[Freiwillige]

I think upgrading existing technology should keep us competitive in the global market while keeping relative costs down.

Take the F-15 for example..What would happen if we added the engines and radar of the F-22 and threw in the forward canards and thrust vectoring?

Competitive at the very least!

Sure build some F-22's just to keep that edge while maintaining and upgrading what we know already works for 90% of all situations.

[Bubblehead1980]

I have some former military pilots in my family, some Naval Aviators, Some Air Force.An uncle by marriage flew F-14's(a real fighter) and F/A-18's While he likes the F-35 he strongly disapproves of the single engine for them which due to the the NAVY's propensity to operate over water, makes since to have two engines, why most Navy jets like F-4, F-14, F/A-18 have had two engines, safety.As far as upgrading the F-15's etc, well their airframes are old and need to be retired so better to get a new fleet of planes.Defense is expensive but a justified expense and cutting corners only weakens our ability to defend ourselves and project power worldwide.We would have more money if we did not have so many damn entitlments already and it seems they are set on growing them more.I just don't want us to end up in the UK's situation.

[Buddahaid]

Challenge. Name one post WW2 military aircraft that stayed on budget? I can't think of one, or find any information on the topic.

[Freiwillige]

Funny I had an Uncle that flew F-14's in the 80's. Did you know that for every hour that bird flew it took 80 maintenance hours!!! Great aircraft but a bit labor intensive to say the least which is why they were fazed out early.:stare:

In comparison the F-18E takes 12-16 maintenance hours per flight hour.


And as far as F-15 airframes I believe some of the later ones have quite a bit of life left on them as they are to remain in service at least another 15+ years.

And interestingly enough there was a concept proposed to the navy to buy Su-27\33 airframes and load them with American engines, avionics, weapons systems and radars! The cost was incredibly low compared to home built aircraft and a deal was even on the table with the Russians before the pentagon pulled it.

I am just saying that defense budgets are out of control much like Washington's budgets.

Time to make the market competitive again.

Oh you cannot build it for what we agreed on? Fine cancel the contract we will be looking elsewhere.

[Buddahaid]

Well to be fair things are way more complicated than they used to be when there were several independent companies, as well as in-house shops like NAF. Still, after the design choice and finalization there seems to be cost overruns, and the first orders are often at inflated prices to make the venture profitable. This is because they know the order can be cut at any time on short notice.

[Zachstar]

I think upgrading existing technology should keep us competitive in the global market while keeping relative costs down.

Take the F-15 for example..What would happen if we added the engines and radar of the F-22 and threw in the forward canards and thrust vectoring?

Competitive at the very least!

Sure build some F-22's just to keep that edge while maintaining and upgrading what we know already works for 90% of all situations.

That is very likely to happen in my opinion. For instance the need for laser platforms for large scale operations will likely see modifications of a good chunk of old craft. Hell maybe even the F-117 will come back out. Tho most will likely be made unmanned in the process.

BTW Bubblehead, cutting corners weakens us? Do you have ANY idea of how big our defense budget is compared with the rest of the world? A nice F-35 isn't going to be doing jack squat against a fleet of radar equipped missile drones. Its made to blast tanks and terrorists. The F-22 will fare far better but its cost will discourage its use to bust the drones. But the F-22 cant do jack crap about terrorists nor tanks. China lacks night fighters Russia is broke and Canada seems to be on good terms with us :D

That quip about entitlement programs isn't flying neither. Many people in tough financial situations usually disapprove of the absurd defense budget. That line is a nogo in politics. If a politician said "Less medicare more F-35s" he would be quickly voted out.

[tater]

Still, entitlements are more than 2/3 the budget. Of the remaining discretionary 1/3, only half is defense. So defense is 1/6 the total.

That was before the current admin, too, it's on a far worse track now entitlement wise.

I'd rather my huge tax bill get spent on STUFF rather than handing money over to deadbeats to buy meth, etc.

[Platapus]

Oh you cannot build it for what we agreed on? Fine cancel the contract we will be looking elsewhere.

it is not that easy. That sort of Firm-Fixed-Price can only work if there is an existing static design. Make me 10 F-16Fs for $30,000,000 a piece.

The problem is when the government wants innovation and the ability to change specifications during development. From the Contractor's standpoint, this is risk and risk needs to be mitigated.

Let's assume the government wants the contractor to assume all program risks via a FFP contract

1. It will be hard to find a contractor willing to take that risk
2. If a contractor is willing to take on that risk, they will have a very high price to mitigate some of the risks

The traditional solution is for the government to assume some of the risks. This is why we have Cost Plus and Time and Materials types of contracts. In these contract venues, the contractor can afford to bid lower, with the reassurance that if (when) the government makes changes, the costs of these changes will be paid for by the customer.

The problem with CP and T&M contracts is that they are prone to abuse by both the contractor and the government (It is the governmental abuse that discourages contractors from entering in to FFP contracts)

So you idea of "here is the price" can only work if there is a static specification which is not, unfortunately, how the government like to run its weapon procurement programs.

As for canceling the contract? There are complications. It took the US government 17 years to win the A-12 case and they still have not gotten their money.

McDonnell Douglas v. U.S., 07-5111, -5131, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

[Zachstar]

Lockmart has the taxpayer over a barrel. The US isn't going to cancel the F-35 at this point because of what has been spent and that there is nothing on the table for another manned fighter design.

It's just a case of having to suck it up and live with it. Perhaps punish them tho with a bit of a cut in orders you can bet your butt that they will lose quite a few international orders who were concerned even with the old price.

[tater]

We need to keep SOME warplanes under production at all times, IMO. Preferably from multiple companies.

Again, I'm happy to see cool stuff like planes bought with my tax dollars. Heck, order more and take every penny out of welfare and entitlements to buy them.

[Zachstar]

We need to keep SOME warplanes under production at all times, IMO. Preferably from multiple companies.

Again, I'm happy to see cool stuff like planes bought with my tax dollars. Heck, order more and take every penny out of welfare and entitlements to buy them.

Which is why you arent in congress...

People want better schools not more fancy planes.

[Freiwillige]

I vote planes, Not one penny for able bodied welfare! No work...no pay. Now if the government spent that money creating jobs for these dead beats we wouldn't have an issue and they wouldn't be dead beats.

[tater]

Which is why you arent in congress...

People want better schools not more fancy planes.

People who don't pay taxes, presumably (which is almost 50% of the "taxpayers").

BTW, schools are not built with federal tax dollars, so that's a non-argument.

Pick some other, wasteful federal spending you'd prefer.

How about handouts to banks to reward them for being incompetent instead of letting them fail as they should?

[Platapus]

People who don't pay taxes, presumably (which is almost 50% of the "taxpayers").

That is incorrect. 43% of the citizens have no federal tax liability. That is not the same as not paying federal taxes.

BTW, schools are not built with federal tax dollars, so that's a non-argument.

Research the NCEF which is the clearing house for federal funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to be used to help states build schools

How about handouts to banks to reward them for being incompetent instead of letting them fail as they should?

Which banks have received a handout? Under TARP the banks borrowed money which needed to be paid back. I have not heard of any program where banks were given money.

[tater]

Income tax, sorry.

I just signed my tax forms. I'm a little touchy on the subject ;)

Anyone who pays less that their family's share (per capita share of the budget times family members) isn't even paying their fair share. Right now I think it's 12k per person, including payroll taxes, so any family of 4 with a total federal tax liability under 48k is not pulling their weight.

I forgot about the massive pork bill WRT schools, you are right there. Historically not true though.

TARP? Any support of toxic assets (not what TARP is actually being used for, however) is screwy. Bad investment? Let your CDS department sell you a bill of goods? Guess you should start jumping out windows, IMHO. Not get sweetheart loans. Can the ma and pa businesses in the other thread get such loans when THEY miscalculate in business? Didn't think so.

[TLAM Strike]

As long as there is an Air Force Academy, we will have manned fighters. How else are academy grads gonna get laid? :up:
If they can build a robot to fight they can build a robot to... do something else that begins with "f"... :O:

[Bubblehead1980]

[QUOTE=Freiwillige;1352877]Funny I had an Uncle that flew F-14's in the 80's. Did you know that for every hour that bird flew it took 80 maintenance hours!!! Great aircraft but a bit labor intensive to say the least which is why they were fazed out early.:stare:

Really? any idea what squadron(s) he was with? Uncle has some cool memorabilla in the guest house/manspace in his backyard, some cool videos and pics form his flying days, he retired about 4 years ago but still regularly flew.The Tomcat's maintenance load was high, he has talked about it but can tell he never minded because it was a great plane.

[Castout]

I wonder what the name they would pick for this jet?

It was the Fighting Falcon for the F-16, the Hornet for the F-18 and the Raptor for the F-22

Umm I KNOW!!!

F-35 Delayed Fighter

Much more suiting than Joint strike fighter.

I still think the F-16 looks better


:rotfl2:

[TLAM Strike]

I wonder what the name they would pick for this jet?

It was the Fighting Falcon for the F-16, the Hornet for the F-18 and the Raptor for the F-22

Umm I KNOW!!!

F-35 Delayed Fighter

Much more suiting than Joint strike fighter.

I still think the F-16 looks better


:rotfl2:

:nope:

The name is already decided. F-35 Lightning II in honor of both the US P-38 Lighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning) and the UK English Electric Lighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning)

[PeriscopeDepth]

The F-35 is too big too fail. But at its current cost vector, I don't see more than about 500 being built for US service. Yes, I know that means a massive downsizing of US air power.

PD

[Zachstar]

Depends. Drone production is going way up and with greater variety regardless of the F-35 I think our power is going up, not down.

[Skybird]

Fixed prices will not work, since the argument softening up any political determination to insist on treaties is always thew same: "That will put jobs in danger". It has been a pattern quite often that the defence lobby pushed through a new project, sometimes in quantities that were not needed and that the service, the Air Force, did not even want, and then started to scatter production of components for it over as many federal states as possible - so that any withdrawel from the production contract would effect as many politicians campaigning as possible.

A nation being so unimaginably in debts like the US, and lacking the financial power to maintain it'AS military siperpower status by its own resources, cannot afford such a giant military budget. It then is not only reasonable but a must to start saving costs, and start reducing the military size. If you cannot afford it, then you cannot afford it, and if you need to replace a system in certain quantities, but have to keep an eye on the costs, then the costs-per-piece simply shall not be allowed to get too high.

This F-35 program simply is MADNESS. The costs will reac even igher at the end, and thus the number of units ordered will constantly decrease. Which, like PD already said, will mean a numerical shrink in air power.

Also, the more sophisticated and expensive a single unit and platform is, the more hurting becomes the same numerical loss in war.

Practically all major powers in the Europe of the past 500 years have run into bancrupcty at least once over gallopping defence budgets of theirs. they all thought that military alone could keep up their power, even when they lacked the fiscal or economical power and quality to maintain it. Now the US makes the same mistake.

Drones are the way to go. Last but not least for financial reasons.

[Freiwillige]

[QUOTE=Freiwillige;1352877]Funny I had an Uncle that flew F-14's in the 80's. Did you know that for every hour that bird flew it took 80 maintenance hours!!! Great aircraft but a bit labor intensive to say the least which is why they were fazed out early.:stare:

Really? any idea what squadron(s) he was with? Uncle has some cool memorabilla in the guest house/manspace in his backyard, some cool videos and pics form his flying days, he retired about 4 years ago but still regularly flew.The Tomcat's maintenance load was high, he has talked about it but can tell he never minded because it was a great plane.

VF-33 1982-1986 U.S.S. America:salute:

[bookworm_020]

I can see Australia not using all it's options on the F-35. I can see the purchase of more F-18E's and UAV's. They are not going to accept increasing costs and less aircraft.

[Castout]

:nope:

The name is already decided. F-35 Lightning II in honor of both the US P-38 Lighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning) and the UK English Electric Lighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning)

I see . . .I still like delayed fighter more...:O:

Bleh for defence or for poorer countries just buy more F-16s . . .latest one isn't so bad.

These stealth features are so obviously for trespassing into hostile airspace.
:D


UAE F-16E
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/1/3/1477317.jpg
F-16I cost about US$45 million per unit and some mentioned an F-16E may cost 55 million per unit the cheapest. UAE bought 80 of these at the cost of 6.2 billion so that's about 77.5 million per unit INCLUDING spares and other equipment and training and weapons too probably.

If an F-35 would cost 135 million per unit and add to that another say(at the minimum) 50 million for spares, etc and that would make each unit costing a whopping 185 million...so if you wanted say 40 of these it would cost you US$7.4 billion for a mere two squadron strength.
umm and if you wanted 80 of these that would cost US$15 billion.

and I'm sure we remember the times when a fighter would just cost 16 million each...

Then again 15 billion for a 4 squadron super intruder fighter jets is not so bad for a wealthy nation especially when they could give the message 'we can bomb your palace(or your motorcade) without you knowing what hit you'.

[Bubblehead1980]

[QUOTE=Bubblehead1980;1353118]

VF-33 1982-1986 U.S.S. America:salute:

Cool, Uncle was with VF-31 (and others but that is only one i remember off top of my head) I remember he was an instructor for a while as well with replacement squadron do not remember the number but it was called the reapers or something along that line.Retired as a CAG which from what he told me was a fun assignment. I was working on my pilot's license but sidetracked by college and work, will get it when i have time someday, would kill to take an F-14 up:arrgh!:

[Happy Times]

I can recommend a good book to read concerning this spiralling price escalation and commitments, i think many here have read it but for those that havent yet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Greatpowers.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers

[Zachstar]

The F-35 is not meant for deep stealth missions. Its meant to replace the F-16 mainly and be able to go a little deeper into enemy lines or operate in environments like Iraq or Afghanistan. Most of the time anyway it will be carrying external stores.

However the cost is starting to rapidly exceed the worth for those types of missions. Nations are going to want to buy more F-16s for the price of one F-35.

[Platapus]

Quantity has a quality of its own

[TLAM Strike]

Quantity has a quality of its own
^Stalin

"Better is the enemy of good enough"
-Admiral Sergey Georgiyevich Gorshkov

[UnderseaLcpl]

Quantity has a quality of its own
^ Rosie O'Donnel

[TLAM Strike]

Same difference.... :O:

[Zachstar]

^Stalin

"Better is the enemy of good enough"
-Admiral Sergey Georgiyevich Gorshkov

More IL-2s kicked more ass!

But the F-35 cant do the job of 3 F-16s in most situations and in a situation of flat out conventional warfare there wouldn't be enough of em to warrant serious strikes anyway. Like the F-22 the orders will be cut. Those that are built will spend the next few decades being converted into laser craft anyway.

[TLAM Strike]

The F-35 is not meant for deep stealth missions. Its meant to replace the F-16 mainly and be able to go a little deeper into enemy lines or operate in environments like Iraq or Afghanistan. Most of the time anyway it will be carrying external stores.

However the cost is starting to rapidly exceed the worth for those types of missions. Nations are going to want to buy more F-16s for the price of one F-35.

Well just how far behind the FEBA are F-35s expected to strike? M30 GPS rockets can hit out to 30 miles and the MGM-140 can hit out to 180 miles from its launcher. If its more than a few hundred miles let the TACTOM handle it and not put a pilot in danger. In one strike how many targets could one TACTOM equipped SSGN hit? How many could a F-35 equipped CVN hit? All we need is someway of rearming a sub's VLS at sea and carriers might be put out of business. Now if they need to hit really deep in enemy territory this (http://defensetech.org/2010/04/12/gates-says-u-s-has-conventionally-armed-icbms/) is a serous possibility, lets seem them intercept that!

F-35s are overkill in Iraq or Afghanistan! More drones, gunships and THESE (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/05/af-needs-coin-plane-rand/#axzz0kWuHPMeZ) are what we need over there.

[Stealth Hunter]

Why don't we just go back to the old days, when fighting in the air took real skill and mettle...

http://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archive/1a/images/Fok_EIII_Wintgens.jpg
http://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archive/1w/images/Fok.V.VII.werke.nr.1919.jpg
http://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archive/image9/FBA.Type.H.jpg
http://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archive/1a/images/luftkampf_E.jpg
http://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archive/BR/Staaken.R.VI.1916.jpg
http://www.earlyaeroplanes.com/archive/1a/images/zepvgo1_cockpit.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/LZ_104.jpg

We managed to kill each other just fine back then. Surely we can still do it with these things now.:)