User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat Apr 27, 2013 3:21 pm

According to Flight Global, the US Marines now have an 8 plane training squadron in action.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...glin-afb-marines-fly-first-f-.html

the same old news is: it was noted elsewhere that the computer programing completion may slip further out.

the question remains will these 8 aircraft still be operational when the programming is finally installed, or will they be in the desert? Further will the pilots being trained still be in the service at that point? If not, what is the point in training them?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:03 pm

Despite the ridiculous costs, in my mind it seems the F35 is now a foregone conclusion.

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):

the question remains will these 8 aircraft still be operational when the programming is finally installed, or will they be in the desert?

Seems like the early F16As got used for quite a while before being retired off.

If it's just software being upgraded then chances are good it will happen.

If that software requires a bunch of computer upgrades to run, at some point they won't bother.

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):
Further will the pilots being trained still be in the service at that point?

Surely some will be.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:55 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):

If it's just software being upgraded then chances are good it will happen.

It's software. Even number blocks are pure software upgrades, odd number blocks are more extensive and are akin to a commercial C check as they involve structural work.

The USMC intends on IOC in July 2015, per the latest comments from the Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):

Surely some will be.

And some will be the instructors training other F-35 pilots.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:23 pm

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):
what is the point in training them?

That's a great point. Someone should ask the Marines if all the pilots now flying the F-35 are contractually obligated to stay on beyond 2019 and for how long beyond 2019. That is the only way it would make sense to train pilots now - and even that's a stretch because the same pilots could just as easily wait a few more years to start training.

I don't know about the B version, but the A and C versions only require 3 training flights to qualify on the F-35.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:06 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
That's a great point. Someone should ask the Marines if all the pilots now flying the F-35 are contractually obligated to stay on beyond 2019 and for how long beyond 2019. That is the only way it would make sense to train pilots now - and even that's a stretch because the same pilots could just as easily wait a few more years to start training.

This is likely more along the lines of starting to write "the book" on the plane, operating it, and maintaining it. Also developing a pool of instructors.
 
User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:35 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
the A and C versions only require 3 training flights to qualify on the F-35.

I hope:
1) that's with some prior flying training in another comparable aircraft
2) that's after all the computer code is written and installed freeing the pilot forget the plane operation and go looking for something to shoot at.
3) the tail hook is working

Pointguy.. I'm being sarcastic..
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:39 am

All this to and fro about the F-35.

It may have some great features, yet to be demonstrated, and it may have some real drawbacks (my personal belief), but also yet to be demonstrated or documented. Many in the mil-av community are dubious about this thing. But it's likely too big to stop for the USA. The same is not true for others, i.e., Oz buying more SHs.

The only image I can conjure up is something swirling the bowl after you flush. Definitely something will come out the other end of the pipe. But not necessarily what you thought it would be.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:42 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
yet to be demonstrated
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
yet to be demonstrated or documented
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
But not necessarily what you thought it would be.

How can you say C after you say A and B?
 
seachaz
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:35 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:07 am

Whats the 'good news' here? What's the cost overrun on this program now? Is it more then the amount the FAA faced with sequestration cuts? And whats the latest betting line in Vegas for the C model's redesigned tail-hook actually working this summer?
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lo...mises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:31 am

Quoting seachaz (Reply 8):
Whats the 'good news' here? What's the cost overrun on this program now?
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov...013/04%20April/Bogdan_04-24-13.pdf

Quote:
Concurrency costs were originally estimated to be roughly 5%-8% of recurring flyaway costs. Over the past year, the F-35 program has worked with Lockheed Martin to refine the estimate of concurrency costs based on actual F-35 discrete data results from qualification events. As a result of this approach, our concurrency estimate has decreased to 3%-5% of recurring flyaway costs
Quote:
As in any complex development program there are challenges, but I believe the enhanced capability of the F-35 will provide the backbone of the US combat air superiority for generations to come. The technological capabilities of the aircraft are sound. The program’s management is rising to the challenges of managing this complex system with discipline, transparency and accountability. Our progress continues at a slow but steady pace. I intend on completing this program within the budget and schedule I have been given. I ask that you hold me, my team, our stakeholders and contractors accountable over the coming months and years to ensure that we develop and deliver the warfighting capability this country needs.
Quoting seachaz (Reply 8):
And whats the latest betting line in Vegas for the C model's redesigned tail-hook actually working this summer?
Quote:
A Critical Design Review was completed in February 2013 on a redesigned arresting hook system and modeling and simulation involving the redesigned hook showed a marked improvement in performance. Ground test of this newly redesigned hook is scheduled at Lakehurst, NJ in the 4th Quarter of 2013, followed by aircraft carrier qualifications in 3rd Quarter of 2014. Although work remains to be done, I am confident this new hook will meet our needs.


Those are the words from F-35 program chief Gen Bogdan as of April 24, 2013 on those topics to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
 
seachaz
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:35 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:55 am

"Specifically, the total cost of the four contracts for 63 planes was $12.28 billion — 10.9 percent more than the amount awarded under the original contracts. The government's share of the total overrun is about $756 million under the sharing incentive provisions included in the contracts, with Lockheed presumably footing the rest of the bill."

http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...-racked-up-12-billion-in-cost.html

"The FAA had no choice but to cut $637 million as its share of $85 billion in automatic, government-wide spending cuts that must be achieved by the end of the federal budget year on Sept. 30."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...ll-operation-19057144#.UXzjKrWsh8E
 
User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:40 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
Those are the words

Thanks for the quote.. however the good general speaks in terms of percentages without accompanying numbers, so it is hard to tell just what a 3%-5% really means. But then most legislators are too dumb to look deeper.

on the tail hook, it is interesting that with a sense of urgency to correct the fault, and resume carrier trials, it will take over two years to correct and retrofit. This not a criticism of the plane, but one of the manufacturer. This part of the overrun costs should not be split with the government.
 
seachaz
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:35 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:41 pm

The tail hook problem to me is one that should never have happened - its not new technology, its not even a new approach to an existing problem. Now there will be direct costs for the redesign but what about the added cost for the delays in testing other carrier specific systems at sea.

Anyway hope they get it all figured out and Lockheed is left footing a major portion of the bill. Still would love to see the C in full carrier ops, current air wings getting a bit stale looking with so many hornets and the C is best looking of the 3 variants to boot IMO.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:23 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 11):
on the tail hook, it is interesting that with a sense of urgency to correct the fault, and resume carrier trials, it will take over two years to correct and retrofit. This not a criticism of the plane, but one of the manufacturer. This part of the overrun costs should not be split with the government.

Well, the tail hook was supposed to be carrier trialed this year, but due to sequestration, this got pushed out. So in this case, the government is to blame for this.

Quoting seachaz (Reply 12):
The tail hook problem to me is one that should never have happened - its not new technology, its not even a new approach to an existing problem.

However, how the tail hook behaves when it tries to catch the cable is unique for every aircraft. Here's a quick history on tail hook design up to and including the F-35:
http://thanlont.blogspot.ca/2011/12/...ef-history-of-tailhook-design.html
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:09 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 7):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
yet to be demonstrated
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
yet to be demonstrated or documented
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
But not necessarily what you thought it would be.

How can you say C after you say A and B?

Quite easily. Apparently you do not grasp what "yet to be demonstrated" means.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:41 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
Concurrency costs were originally estimated to be roughly 5%-8% of recurring flyaway costs. Over the past year, the F-35 program has worked with Lockheed Martin to refine the estimate of concurrency costs based on actual F-35 discrete data results from qualification events. As a result of this approach, our concurrency estimate has decreased to 3%-5% of recurring flyaway costs

Hmm, my college professors would never let me get away with comparing percentages of unstated quantities...

Quoting kanban (Reply 11):
Thanks for the quote.. however the good general speaks in terms of percentages without accompanying numbers, so it is hard to tell just what a 3%-5% really means

  
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:00 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
Hmm, my college professors would never let me get away with comparing percentages of unstated quantities...

you didn't happen to learn from Dr. Deming at Geo Washington did you?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Thu May 09, 2013 3:12 am

Eglin AFB received it's first Block 2A aircraft:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...es-its-first-block-2a-f-35-385643/

Quote:
Eglin AFB receives its first Block 2A F-35

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

The US Air Force's 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB, Florida, received its first Block 2A configuration Lockheed Martin F-35A on 6 May. Another similarly configured aircraft is scheduled to arrive at the base later in the month.

This aircraft called, AF-25, is equipped with an initial version of the Block 2A configuration, but Eglin AFB will receive aircraft with a more advanced version of the software package later in the year, says Lt Col Lee Kloos, commander of the wing's 58th Fighter Squadron.

The squadron will receive the last of its 24 primary authorized aircraft and two backup aircraft by February 2014. Around that same time, the unit will start helping prepare the USAF's second training unit at Luke AFB, Arizona, which is expected to start receiving F-35As in January 2014, gear up to start training operations.

More at the link above.

Block 2A activates a number of features on the F-35 including:
- DAS sensors fully activated (instead of only half the sensors being activated)
- Enhanced data link systems activated
- Weather radar mode
- Enhanced training modes activated
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Mon May 13, 2013 4:21 am

USAF maintenance staff working on the F-35 are reporting good news regarding the durability and maintainability of the F-35's coatings:

More at the link below:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...aintain-than-on-older-jets-385731/

Quote:
US Air Force maintenance troops working on the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin AFB, Florida, say the stealth coatings on the new fifth-generation type are proving easier to work on than those on earlier low-observable (LO) platforms.

Maintaining the LO coatings on the new aircraft marks "a significant improvement", says Senior Master Sgt Eric Wheeler, a maintainer assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing at the base. "Typically, [it] has not caused us a whole lot of downtime on this jet."

As maintenance personnel have become used to working on the F-35, the process has also become a lot easier. "We started off with an engine run being a huge event for us, [and progressed] to flying a four-turn-four," Wheeler says, referring in the latter case to a situation where a four-ship formation of aircraft can return from a sortie and be swiftly prepared to take off again.

This was hinted by other articles that the F-35's stealth coatings were considerably more durable and easier to maintain compared to previous generation of stealthly aircraft, with more of the internals being easier to access:
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-...-for-21st-century-combat-aviation/
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Thu May 16, 2013 5:09 am

We also have a video of the intentional departure and recovery in high angle of attack testing up on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA

Notice the tail slide in the first 15 seconds of the video.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...-35a-departure-testing-at-edw.html
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat May 18, 2013 3:47 am

First non-test pilot to conduct an aerial refueling in the F-35:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/asd_05_17_2013_p03-01-579864.xml

The pilots seem to like the F-35 behind a tanker due to the different handling characteristics:

Quote:
Kloos says the F-35 is a stable refueling platform. Behind the tanker, handling qualities of the Lockheed Martin F-16 are “like driving a bumpy gravel road, while in the F-35 it’s a smooth, paved highway.”

The view is echoed by Tech Sgt. William Joe Parker, boom operator in the 336t Air Refueling Sqn Boeing KC-135 for the first refueling mission at the Eglin ITC. “He just parked the aircraft behind ours.”

The F-35’s flight-control laws change when the refueling-receptacle doors are opened, making it easier for the pilot to make small corrections, a technique similar to that used in the F-16.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat May 18, 2013 7:27 am

Further cuts in F-35 procurement:

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/1...s-air-guard-modernization-at-risk/

By Sydney K. Freedberg Jr. a defense writer, and thus highly knowledgeable and connected.

“I don’t have the exact number yet,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Edward Bolton said Tuesday, but to pay the bill for sequestration, the service might have to cut its fiscal 2013 procurements by “two, three, four, maybe even five F-35s.”
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Tue May 21, 2013 4:41 pm

The USAF is expected to advance the data they declare IOC with F-35 to 2016, according to two sources in a recent news article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...bre94j0v0-20130520,0,6064960.story

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday.

The Air Force's decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said a final decision had not been made and declined to comment further. A spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office declined to comment.

The decision reflects the military's desire to start using the new warplanes, which are already rolling off the assembly line at Lockheed's sprawling Fort Worth, Texas, plant, even as military officials continue to test the plane.

"This decision gets that (U.S.) fifth-generation capability out on the front lines that much sooner," said one of the sources familiar with the Air Force's plans. "It also sends a message about confidence in the program to Congress and the international partners."

Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said accelerating operational use of the new warplane would allow the Air Force to learn more about the F-35's integrated battle management system.

"This is not just about replacing aging F-15's or F-16's; it is about changing the order of battle and truly embracing a integrated form of warfare where the F-35 manages the targeting and directs supporting fire at the same time as providing more precise aim points," Wynne told Reuters in an email.

The Air Force, Marines and Navy must report to Congress by June 1 on their target dates for initial operational capability, or IOC, which marks the point when the services have enough planes on hand to go to war if needed. Actual deployments usually lag IOC dates by about a year.

The sources said the services would send Congress a list of target or "objective" dates for declaring initial operational capability and a list of "threshold" dates, or deadlines.

The Marines Corps is sticking to its plan to begin early operational use in mid-2015 of its F-35B jets, which can take off and land like a helicopter. It will be the first of the three U.S. military services to start using the jets.

More at the link.
 
User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Tue May 21, 2013 6:01 pm

We have a vertical take off and landing video
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th.../f-35b-vertical-takeoff-video.html

however Flight Global notes:
"Anyways, vertical takeoff is a US Marine Corps requirement, however it's only intended from repositioning the jet where a short takeoff is not possible. That's because the F-35B can only do a vertical takeoff while lightly loaded with about 4,500lbs of gas--meaning it wouldn't be carrying a tactically significant payload."

So one wonders why set the plane down in the first place? for a potty break that you have to leave any munitions behind to get off again?
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Wed May 22, 2013 3:50 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 23):
So one wonders why set the plane down in the first place? for a potty break that you have to leave any munitions behind to get off again?

I would imagine any number of emergency situations might have you set down wherever you could. It might also let you relocate from just outside of a hardened shelter at an airbase with a smashed runway to say a nearby road where you could take on fuel and munitions. Or if there was a deck fouling on the big amphibious ships you might be able to set down on another small flight deck until it is clear and then reposition to the amphibious ship.

Really it is just kind of a bonus capability since the thing is designed to be a STOVL aircraft.

I will be more interested to see what the things MTOW with say a 700 foot roll turns out to be.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat May 25, 2013 2:14 am

Good / bad news regarding costs:

http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16035

First good news: F-35 aircraft program costs are dropping, primarily due to decreases in the prime contractor and subcontractor labor rates. Total aircraft program costs are now down by almost $5 billion dollars right now:

Quote:
F-35 Aircraft – Subprogram costs decreased -$4,942.4 million (-1.5 percent) from $331,855.2 million to $326,912.8 million, due primarily to decreases in the prime contractor and subcontractor labor rates (-$7,853.3 million) and revised airframe and subcontractor estimates that incorporate the latest actual costs from early Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots (-$1,121.3 million). There were additional decreases to correct cost allocations between the aircraft and engine subprograms that were established in the December 2011 SAR (-$981.0 million), lower estimates of required risk for initial spares (-$698.3 million), other support reductions due to maturation of the technical baseline and further definition of customer requirements and Service beddown plans (-$1,032.9 million). These decreases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (+$7,016.4 million).

The bad news: engine program costs are up by almost half a billion dollars, due to revised escalation indices, and correction of cost allocations between the aircraft and engine subprograms:

Quote:
F-35 Engine – Subprogram costs increased $442.1 million (+0.7 percent) from $63,856.6 million to $64,298.7 million, due primarily to revised escalation indices (+$1,301.3 million), correction of cost allocations between the aircraft and engine subprograms (+$981.0 million), and a lower near-term ramp that extended completion from FY 2029 to FY 2032 (+$230.7 million). These increases were partially offset by revised estimates to incorporate the latest actual costs from early LRIP lots (-$848.8 million), outyear offsets of new escalation indices (-$865.2 million), and lower estimates of required risk for initial spares (-$362.9 million).
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri May 31, 2013 9:41 pm

IOC dates have been announced by the USAF, USMC, and USN:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...13/05/f-35-ioc-dates-revealed.html

Quote:
The Pentagon is revealing the initial operational capability (IOC) dates for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in a new report to the US Congress delivered on 31 May, as required by law.

The USAF's date is in 2016, with a squadron of 12-24 F-35A's with enough trained personnel for combat operations:

Quote:

The US Air Force, the largest US Department of Defense (DOD) customer for the tri-service jet, will declare its F-35A variant operational in 2016. "If the F-35 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Version 7 executes according to plan, Air Force F-35A IOC criteria could be met between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold)," the report says.

The USMC's date is 2015, with a squadron of between 10 and 16 F-35B's with enough trained personnel for deployment with a Marine Air Ground Task Force:

Quote:

The Marines will declare IOC when the first squadron of between 10 and 16 aircraft is trained and ready "to conduct CAS, offensive and defensive counter air, air Interdiction, assault support escort, and armed reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities". The USMC also requires the jet's Autonomic Logistic Information System V2 software to declare IOC. Like the USAF, the Marines require Block 3F for their future needs, the report says.

The USN's date is between 2018 and 2019, with a squadron of 10 F-35C's:

Quote:

The US Navy however is holding firm on requiring the full Block 3F configuration for its F-35C IOC date. "If the F-35 IMS Version 7 executes according to plan, Navy F-35C IOC criteria could be met between August 2018 (Objective) and February 2019 (Threshold)," the report reads.

The report to Congress is below:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144894824/F-35-IOC-Joint-Report-FINAL-1-pdf
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:39 pm

We have a live fire missile test!

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/8980388948_25c54f92a8_o.jpg

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35a-completes-first-in-flight-missile-launch
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:08 am

Concurency costs have dropped by $500 million dollars according to the Pentagon:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...st-f-35s-drops-by-500-million.html

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/847...rop_In_F_35_Retrofits#.UbLrKpywU3A

Quote:
The estimate on upgrades for the first five contracts of 90 aircraft has dropped to about $1.2 billion from $1.7 billion, the U.S official said in a new report to Congress on “concurrency.” That’s the system under which the fighters are being built even as they’re still in development.
Quote:
The projected cost to retrofit the 32 aircraft in the fifth production contract -- the latest signed -- has dropped to $320 million from the $450 million the Pentagon estimated last year, in an example cited in the report.

The estimate is good news to Lockheed because the company must pay an increasing share of costs for upgrading planes beginning with the fifth contract.

The drop in concurrency costs follow a 1.1 percent decline reported last month that reduces the program’s total projected cost to $391.2 billion to develop and build 2,443 jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:50 am

We have a F-35C used for the heavyweight tow tests:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_news_item.html?item_id=1073
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/news/2013_News_Web_F35C_13P00240_004_1269967624_1137.jpg

It's 4 2000lb GBU-31 JDAM's on the external pylons.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:36 am

Why they using external pylons? It pretty much negates the whole "stealth" selling point. What a bloated pig, USMC, USAF and other countries should just buy harriers.



They don't know what they are doing.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:04 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 30):
Why they using external pylons? It pretty much negates the whole "stealth" selling point. What a bloated pig, USMC, USAF and other countries should just buy harriers.

It's a "heavyweight ground tow test". The F-35 can certainly carry external ordnance (which obviously impacts stealth), and it can't carry 8000lbs internally. Presumably you still need to test that configuration, even if it isn’t stealthy. Besides, stealth is probably not that important during a tow.
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:46 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 30):
Why they using external pylons? It pretty much negates the whole "stealth" selling point. What a bloated pig, USMC, USAF and other countries should just buy harriers.

well for one, because it is a test. For another, the F35 is designed to use external stores in a permissive environment to increase capacity. In a permissive environment the F35 can carry a significantly larger amount of ordinance by using external stores. Internal capacity is up to 2 1K bomb loads (including JSOW/JSOW-ER) plus AA missiles. By using external stores, the F35 can carry upwards of 12,000 pounds into battle. Designing a fighter plane that couldn't use external stores would be an actual issue.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:41 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 30):
Why they using external pylons? It pretty much negates the whole "stealth" selling point. What a bloated pig, USMC, USAF and other countries should just buy harriers.



They don't know what they are doing.


You know exactly why they are using pylons that negates stealth and your comment was just a troll effort.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:09 pm

Where is that facepalm smiley when you need it. All three of you apparently missed the sarcasm.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:37 pm

Quoting spink (Reply 32):
Internal capacity is up to 2 1K bomb loads (including JSOW/JSOW-ER) plus AA missiles.

Just to be clear, internal load is 2 * 2K + 2 * AIM-120 for F-35A & C and 2 * 1K + 2 * AIM-120 for F-35B.

Quoting spink (Reply 32):
By using external stores, the F35 can carry upwards of 12,000 pounds into battle.

Combining external and internal it is closer to 18K. Pylons 3 & 9 are rated for 5K so could carry the GBU-28 if the integration work was done. I don't think a dual 2K JDAM rack exists for pylon 3 & 9 though so as you say in practise the jet is limited to 12K consisting of 6 * 2K JDAMS plus AAMs.
 
ssteve
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:02 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 34):
Where is that facepalm smiley when you need it. All three of you apparently missed the sarcasm.

I missed it, too. It could easily have been said in earnest by someone. Just because you and the 3 others think it's a self-evidently risible statement, doesn't make it clear you were being sarcastic.

Same goes for the Canada troll in the Great Lakes thread. People who later claim they were trying to be funny need to work on not coming across as sowing discord. All it takes is another few words, or yes, a smiley if you're lazy.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:18 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 35):
Combining external and internal it is closer to 18K. Pylons 3 & 9 are rated for 5K so could carry the GBU-28 if the integration work was done. I don't think a dual 2K JDAM rack exists for pylon 3 & 9 though so as you say in practise the jet is limited to 12K consisting of 6 * 2K JDAMS plus AAMs.

And even then, you still have 17k remaining in the MTOW for a F-35C for fuel. That's almost a full tank for a F-35. In other words, a heavily loaded F-35 maxed out on weapons will go very far on internal gas.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:14 am

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/al...ther-pricing-dodges/#ixzz2VFqhiLWj

Time Magazine has done a lot of research. They explain it very well. Read yourselves;

The Pentagon, in an unusual move, broke the program into two pieces – airframe and engine – beginning in 2011. If you want a fighter with an engine, add $21.8 million for the base-year PAUC and $26.2 million for the then-year PAUC. That makes the actual Program Acquisition Unit Cost for each F-35 (with an engine) $130.0 million in obsolete 2012 dollars or $159.2 million in actual appropriations, past, present and future.

........................

To predict a labor market being $7.9 billion lower than that predicted just one year ago suggests that such estimates can be produced on demand by simply tweaking a computer model, rather than exercising caution in anticipating the ultimate cost of a program that has already proven extremely problematic and subject to more increases than decreases.

In addition to having this optimistic bias toward the future, the SAR also exercises a dubious view of the past. It assumes $1.1 billion in savings based on “revised airframe and subcontractor estimates that incorporate the latest actual costs from early Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots.” However, specific contract data and empirical annual cost data, which we’ll tackle later, show those LRIP lots have been increasing in cost, not decreasing. An article at defense-aerospace.com cogently explains some of these issues.

.............................

So there you have it: PAUCs based on unachievable production numbers, APUCs derived from learning curves that never happen, URFs that assume that purchasers want to buy airplanes they cannot operate, prices translated into obsolete dollars, convenient declarations of savings to be realized 25 years from now, predictions proclaimed to be as reliable as a coin flip.

These and other dodges add up to a snake pit of misinformation about what an F-35 costs—past, present and future.


Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/al...ther-pricing-dodges/#ixzz2W9lkrOtk
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:29 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
Time Magazine has done a lot of research. They explain it very well. Read yourselves;

Read who wrote the article. It's Winslow Wheeler. Not the most objective person to write the article. Wheeler has been the lead bagman for the anti-defense crowd since before he lost his cushy Congressional staff gig. His argumentation and tactics are well known...and very predictable.

He's pretty much anti-defence spending. And his articles reflect that, not only here, but through his other articles at POGO. His articles target pretty much EVERY single defence procurement project, calling each system a waste, be it F-22, whatever.

[Edited 2013-06-13 22:32:49]
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:57 am

PB, why do you make stuff up here on A.net?
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:33 am

http://digital.vpr.net/post/f-16-architect-calls-f-35-combat-turkey

Another interesting take. I suggest listening to the audio
 
Ozair
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:55 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 40):
PB, why do you make stuff up here on A.net?

Wheeler is an outspoken critic of not only the F-35 but a lot of new development systems Tommy, no two ways about it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
http://digital.vpr.net/post/f-16-architect-calls-f-35-combat-turkey

Another interesting take. I suggest listening to the audio

Sprey's views on the F-35 are well known. Sprey is part of the fighter mafia who are known for the following,

In retrospect, the group's greatest contribution was the promotion of E-M as a basis for evaluating and designing aircraft for air combat maneuvering.[1] At a time when the US military was seemingly obsessed with technological solutions, the Fighter Mafia acted as the opposite extreme from which a more balanced approach to fighter design would emerge. However, this can be seen as ultimately a defeat of the Fighter Mafia and its ideals. While this balanced approach would result in the highly successful F-15, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F, it did so at the betrayal of the Fighter Mafia's campaign for the US military to adopt a single-role, low-tech fighter in large numbers.

The group's uncompromising disdain of and campaign against advanced weapons, radars, ECM, and multi-role designs, what they characterized as "gold-plating", would prove erroneous. For example, the Fighter Mafia argued that the ground attack mission should be handled by more appropriate, dedicated aircraft such as the A-10, which has had an outstanding record in that area[1] and that the addition of more electronics to F-16 caused its weight to rise to the point where it lost its edge in dogfighting, the mission for which it had been designed.[6] The vision of the group would have seen the US build thousands of dedicated short-ranged, low-tech, fighter-only aircraft to counter Soviet air power on a numerical superiority basis, a plan that was never endorsed by the USAF or the USN.[4] Instead, the success of US military aircraft has shown that the same technology would protect aircraft from missiles in an increasingly sensor-saturated battlefield, and would enable the multi-mission capabilities of modern aircraft. And while the US aircraft has engaged in few air-to-air encounters since Vietnam, the trend continues to show that missiles and in particular increasingly mature long-range missiles are the primary weapon on choice in modern combat, a trend that started as far back as the Vietnam War but continues to be downplayed by the Fighter Mafia.[4][7][8]

Although Sprey often portrays himself as a "principle designer" of the F-16, the actual plane that entered service included the long-range missiles, sensors and multi-role capability that he continues to criticize today.[4] Interestingly, the Fighter Mafia can be considered presently active, as Sprey has become an often-cited critic of the F-35, including using comparisons of the accident rates of the early F-16 design that most strongly felt his design influence to argue that the F-35 ought to be equally unsafe.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

So would you trade in the F-15, F-16 and F-18 in all their variants because Sprey thinks they're "gold plated"......
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:46 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 42):
So would you trade in the F-15, F-16 and F-18 in all their variants because Sprey thinks they're "gold plated"......

Read or listen to what he says about the F-16 today and the follow up designs to the F-16. Besides, the Soviet Union is long gone and was a different point in history than today.

Why don't you and PB actually address the issues mentioned regarding the F-35 in the two articles I linked, rather than personally attacking those who bring those issues up? Address the issues, otherwise you have nothing to say about the F-35. Personal attacks are useless, especially by the F-35 mafia here.

[Edited 2013-06-14 10:59:41]
 
bigjku
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:55 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
Why don't you and PB actually address the issues mentioned by the two articles I linked, rather than personally attacking those who criticize the F-35 and trying to discredit them? Address the issues, otherwise you have nothing to say about the F-35.

Setting aside the issue of the man for a bit I think the article you linked to is not really telling anyone much. Those different cost factors are present for all major military programs. The "Alphabet Soup" he is critical of are really just different price numbers designed to assist with different types of decisions. He takes the view that it is deceptive but that is far from the truth.

All of the different cost factors are important depending on what you are trying to decide to do and they are not unique to the F-35 at all. They are also not easy to find on a lot of other programs as they are hidden for commercial reasons in process not as subject to examination as the F-35 has been.

The complaining about accounting terms is just kind of silly on his part.

To a degree once R&D is finished the PUAC is somewhat irrelevant in the decision on how many to buy. If you presume that you are going to buy and need X number of fighters the relevant comparison cost is either URF or APUC. For the United States, once the F-35 is in operation, the comparison is basically this.

F-35 URF/APUC vs Alternative URF/APUC (or if you want something new then you would compare it to the PUAC for a prospective new fighter).

So if the URF for the F-35 is really what Wheeler says it is then (using F-35 vs F-18E) we are looking at this in 2012 dollars (which is the way to look at it because inflation will impact the F-35 and other US built aircraft equally).

F-35A ($76.8 million URF/$104.8 million APUC) vs F-18E ($80.4 million APUC)

See below for the F-18 APUC number I am using but it is important to note that the F-18E cost includes no military construction of any kind because the USN is ordering them and has already built the bases for its existing F-18's and F-18E's is already had prior to that buy so it would be higher for the USAF.

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistic...0-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf

If you are the USAF looking at the comparative cost of the two aircraft the URF is an appropriate metric to use. At this point in the decision cycle using the PAUC is not really appropriate. You could make an accounting argument for including the basing modifications necessary for the F-35 (though the F-18E would also have its own demands for the USAF since they don't operate the type) and any difference in the cost of spares and the like. But these are going to be marginal differences really.

What will distort the PAUC is the R&D cost. And yes, this is an important metric for the overall cost effectiveness of the program. But, and I can't stress this enough, the R&D money in sunk cost. It is gone. And it is not coming back. You don't and should not make purchase decisions on that. If the government wants to start an inquiry and start stringing people up from street lights for the R&D cost of the thing then more power to them. But it has almost no relevance to making a purchase decision in 2012, let alone in 2015-2025.

The relevant decision for the USAF going forward is the marginal cost of adding F-35's to its fleet vs adding something else. For that a cost somewhere between URF (which is a then year look at cost effectiveness really) and APUC (which is a whole program look at it) are the relevant metrics. And there the F-35 honestly does not do poorly at all and the numbers are right there in Wheelers story to show it.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:07 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
Read or listen to what he says about the F-16 today and the follow up designs to the F-16. Besides, the Soviet Union is long gone and was a different point in history than today.

Actually, Sprey was not the designer of the F-16. According to Jacob Neufeld, who interviewed Sprey in 1971, Pierre Sprey was a weapons system analyst on the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense staff. By Sprey's own account, Sprey was a self-proclaimed expert with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of. At most, Sprey participated in the development of the initial REQUIREMENTS.

BTW: This is called a “fallacious appeal to authority”, a logical fallacy. The only way any arguements from both Sprey and Wheeler can be taken as the truth is if the following happens:

X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.

As both Sprey and Wheeler are not legitimate experts, nor does the consensus of subject-matter experts agree with Sprey and Wheeler, any quote or argument from them are fallacious arguments.

FYI: Do you know who was the list of sponsors for Sprey's talk in Burlington, Vermont that was mentioned in the article you listed to? This is the list below:
http://www.vtiso.blogspot.ca/2013/05...bomber-in-burlington-citizens.html

Quote:
*Sponsors*: Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry), Peace and Justice Center, USAction, Vermont Workers Center, Save Our Skies, Stop the F-35 Coalition, Veterans for Peace, Burlington Quakers, CPOC, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, PAX Christi, Vermont Progressive Party, International Socialist Organization, 350.org

I'm not going to say in a nutshell who these people are, but draw your own conclusions.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):

Why don't you and PB actually address the issues mentioned regarding the F-35 in the two articles I linked, rather than personally attacking those who bring those issues up? Address the issues, otherwise you have nothing to say about the F-35. Personal attacks are useless, especially by the F-35 mafia here.

Because Wheeler and Sprey both have agendas, which is revealed upon closer examination. It is important to realise this when someone comes out and is billed as being an expert on a subject.

Both Wheeler and Sprey (as members of POGO) know how to play the media; they will make some sort of sound bite, which would be dropped fairly quickly and something else concerning whatever project is in their sights will be targeted as a ‘failure’, ‘mistake’ or ‘criminally negligent’ decision/design feature/performance characteristic, perhaps from the same report, or from one to come later. This is because POGO et al are acutely aware that an extended exchange or dialog with anyone who disagrees with them will expose the misdirection they (POGO et al) endeavor to sustain. POGO and Wheeler go for the sound bite to plant negativity into the public’s consciousness knowing that the general public’s attention span is short.

By the time anyone dives deep into a POGO/Wheeler claim and does any in-depth analysis into their claims and realises that their claims are totally out of left field, the public has moved on to other circuses. Such ‘Hit and Run’ tactics, along with their careful cultivation of media enablers, allow POGO/Wheeler relief from ever having their methods, biases and motives undergo serious public scrutiny. This is classic guerrilla warfare of the information domain.

Also, FYI, both Sprey and Wheeler did a hachet job on the F-22 a few years back. This is the article:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/07/13/stop-the-f-22-now/

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
All of the different cost factors are important depending on what you are trying to decide to do and they are not unique to the F-35 at all. They are also not easy to find on a lot of other programs as they are hidden for commercial reasons in process not as subject to examination as the F-35 has been.

In a simple graphic from someone else, this is what each cost factors represents:
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/9260f8a5.jpg

[Edited 2013-06-14 12:19:30]
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:44 pm

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
The "Alphabet Soup" he is critical of are really just different price numbers designed to assist with different types of decisions. He takes the view that it is deceptive but that is far from the truth.

He explains the soup. He is not critical of the soup itself. What he is critical of, is how the numbers, in the case of the F-35, are jigged so the soup numbers appear better. That's fraud IMHO. And I can offer another example he hasn't.

The difference in operating cost between the F-16 and F-35 has shrunk in the latest SAR? WHY? Not due to the F-35 operating costs, no. But because the F-16 costs have been inflated beyond the real world numbers. They know what the numbers are very very well, but have inflated them.

Supposedly to include costs of some things the F-16 does not have and that the F-35 does. So they pretend the F-16 has self diagnostics a la F-35 for instance and pretend these are F-16 costs. However, the F-156 costs are what they are, period. You can't do a "if the F-16 had this, it would cost more to operate..." Anyway, this is actually funny to me, because such diagnostic features are supposed to reduce operating costs, not increase them. There is so much twisted effort in the F-35 program by so many involved, that it's fraudulent. Some people should start being prosecuted and go to jail, IMHO.

Maybe we should do the reverse too and say if the F-35 could pull 9 sustained Gs like the F-16 can, or could accelerate like the F-16 - that would cost additional for the F-35. But these are all accounting gimmicks, in an attempt to make the F-35 look better from all angles. But it is fraud. The F-16 and the F-35 are different planes and the cost a certain amount to operate. Inflating one to make the other look better is fraud.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
The complaining about accounting terms is just kind of silly on his part.

How much this will actually cost is meaningless and silly? Not to me.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
Also, FYI, both Sprey and Wheeler did a hachet job on the F-22 a few years back
PB, please stop the personal attacks on anyone who criticizes your pet plane and address the issues raised. You yourself have been caught making stuff up here, so best you re-establish your credibility by addressing the issues with verifiable and credible sources. Thank you.

[Edited 2013-06-14 12:49:54]
 
User avatar
kanban
Topic Author
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:34 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
As both Sprey and Wheeler are not legitimate experts, nor does the consensus of subject-matter experts agree with Sprey and Wheeler, any quote or argument from them are fallacious arguments.

Many people have opinions, the ones we agree with that have some background we call experts, those we disagree with regardless of background we question their legitimacy, bias, purpose, manhood, what ever..

Rather than denigrate people and their opinions, just say you disagree with their opinions, otherwise it looks like you protest too much. One thing I've learned is the louder one rants and negates the other person's opinions, the less secure he is in the his own position.

It's funny how two of you can not put down the battle...

there are only a couple things here
A) the program is expensive
B) some of the attributes have not been realized
C) no planes have crashed
D) any deployment in fighting configuration is years away
E) it will probably be superseded with a new design within 10-15 years (although that design's production will be 20 years out).
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:00 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):

It's funny how two of you can not put down the battle...

The waste and corruption and selfish self serving going on within this program, at the expense of other needy government expenditures, is not funny to me. This is not a battle for me against other A.netters. There is nothing to discuss with people who make stuff up. I just ask they stop making stuff up and stop making personal attacks and just stick to the F-35 issues if they want to discuss the F-35. Is that too much to ask?

I think the saying is true: "If the good people do nothing, bad things will happen."

In this vein, if we don't stop the military contractors from totally infesting our government, we will look more like a Banana Republic than a 1st world country. I love Bananas though.

The F-35 program and the many top people who run it, are the poster child of this endemic issue. The scope of wrong information said even under oath over such a long period in the F-35 program, is breathtaking to me. And the more they push the envelope of misrepresentations without consequences, the more they will push the envelope, etc...When will these people be stopped and held accountable for all the wrong stuff they've said under oath over the years?

The cover up job is almost worse than the problem itself. That is the confirmation of malfeasance.

This is not funny stuff, it's scary stuff and a sad state of affairs.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Good News / Same Old News

Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:25 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
He explains the soup. He is not critical of the soup itself.

Actually, he is. From your article from Time:

Quote:
PAUCs based on unachievable production numbers, APUCs derived from learning curves that never happen, URFs that assume that purchasers want to buy airplanes they cannot operate, prices translated into obsolete dollars, convenient declarations of savings to be realized 25 years from now, predictions proclaimed to be as reliable as a coin flip.

If the most authoritative document on F-35 unit costs has serious flaws, what data can objective observers rely on? Fortunately, the Pentagon comptroller%u2019s shop publishes a more reliable annual series of reports that provides more accurate insight on what an F-35 actually costs.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
The difference in operating cost between the F-16 and F-35 has shrunk in the latest SAR? WHY? Not due to the F-35 operating costs, no. But because the F-16 costs have been inflated beyond the real world numbers. They know what the numbers are very very well, but have inflated them.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
Maybe we should do the reverse too and say if the F-35 could pull 9 sustained Gs like the F-16 can, or could accelerate like the F-16 - that would cost additional for the F-35. But these are all accounting gimmicks, in an attempt to make the F-35 look better from all angles. But it is fraud. The F-16 and the F-35 are different planes and the cost a certain amount to operate. Inflating one to make the other look better is fraud.

The issue is that there are multiple ways to calculate CPFH because there are multiple cost elements that may be included or excluded in the aggregation. Therefore, one CPFH cannot be directly compared to another unless you are aware of how one did the calculation, or both costs were done using the same methodology. Some of the clues about what is and is not included can determined by cross checking the figures.

CPFH cost estimates are not unlike the calculations of "unit costs." Depending on whether we're using a URF, an APUC or a PAUC, one can quote exceptionally different numbers for 'unit cost' that are greatly different, but all are technically correct. Each 'cost' is valid for a certain comparison at a certain time and should not be used out of context or without understanding of the calculations involved. Each cost means something to the person who developed the costing methodology as it is used for their comparison purposes.

In short, CPFH should be taken with a grain of salt (a rather large one at that) because the numbers can be made to look anyway you want. Even ignoring we're talking past and future costs in different times (while you can normalize Year$, you can't truly estimate the effect of upgrades needed to meet emerging mission requirements, vanishing vendors or just part obsolescence) ,there's still the fact that unless the two systems are going to be operated in exactly the same way ALL comparisons are irrelevant. I can for example, fly less hours to meet mission requirements but I still have to do all the maintenance I need to do, Result: my $/FH goes up, but my O&S costs goes down because I'm using less fuel.

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):

Many people have opinions, the ones we agree with that have some background we call experts, those we disagree with regardless of background we question their legitimacy, bias, purpose, manhood, what ever..

However, I will note that Sprey has been wrong (severely wrong) since March 1991 (and even then, before that). Sprey and POGO been flat out wrong on F-15, the M1 Abrams tank, AGM-65, E-3, cruise missiles, Next Generation Bomber, A-10, B-1 and B-2 Bombers, Ballistic Missile Defense, Black Hawk Helicopter, C-130J, MRAP's, Patriot missile, Predator UAV, Stryker IFV, the list goes on.

When an expert is repeatedly wrong in his field of expertise he is no longer a credible expert.

You need to understand that POGO in particular (of which Wheeler and Sprey are associated with) are funded by progressive-liberal groups and individuals, and POGO in particular has for over 30 years, has fought against crucial weapon programs (such as the ones listed above) and for deep, draconian, crippling defense cuts. In fact, the founder of POGO, Dina Rasor, is an overt pacifist who said publicly "I find weapons repulsive" back in 1981:
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0114/011458.html

I will furthermore note that POGO was originally founded to oppose the M1 Abrams tank, which it deemed "wasteful" and "unneeded", even though it was absolutely needed and has, since its introduction, proven itself superbly in conventional and irregular conflicts alike.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arluna and 10 guests