Cost estimate for F-35 to soar, Pentagon says

[Zachstar]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04...5-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...#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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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.