Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111718192021222324 LastLast
Results 601 to 630 of 713

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #601
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Impressive!
    Indeed.. that must have cost at least $10-15 mil..
    Last edited by MSphere; 16th March 2017 at 16:46.

  2. #602
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Indeed.. that must have cost at least $10-15 mil..
    You should note that the respective former service chiefs are advocating for an open and fair competition and not for the continuation of the F-35 sole source acquisition.

  3. #603
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    I disagree that there are surplus legacy hornets available. There aren't, if there were the Marines would be actively trying to source them for parts.
    The intent would be to source probably RAAF aircraft as they are retired. There are enough RAAF Hornets with time remaining, even in 2020 when they would start to become available, that it is a viable proposition. It would introduce a subfleet but better than an entirely new fleet in the form of the SH.

  4. #604
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    I believe Boeing's SH deal with Kuwait also involves some sort of Hornet buy back, although I could be mistaken.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  5. #605
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    You should note that the respective former service chiefs are advocating for an open and fair competition and not for the continuation of the F-35 sole source acquisition.
    Open and fair and MSphere in the same sentence?
    Not possible.

  6. #606
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    You should note that the respective former service chiefs are advocating for an open and fair competition and not for the continuation of the F-35 sole source acquisition.
    Exactly

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    You should note that the respective former service chiefs are advocating for an open and fair competition and not for the continuation of the F-35 sole source acquisition.
    Ah, suddenly you are all in for an open and fair competition.. but when the F-35 was selected as a sole source, you did not say a beep. freakin hypocrites..

  8. #608
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,533
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Ah, suddenly you are all in for an open and fair competition.. but when the F-35 was selected as a sole source, you did not say a beep. freakin hypocrites..
    Course not, cause it is not needed.
    The F-35 being ultima bad@ss number one and all..

    And those whom do not buy it.. they are idiots. I is just fair and square.
    Thanks

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Ah, suddenly you are all in for an open and fair competition.. but when the F-35 was selected as a sole source, you did not say a beep. freakin hypocrites..
    They joined a program and were part of the group of nations in terms of the developmental program. A status that interestingly they paid to retain even as their current administration moved to award a non competitive sole source contract to Boeing. They have absolutely no obligation to stay on as partners and could very easily get out of the program, hold a competition (beyond the SH 'stop gap') and ask LMA to bid just like everyone else using new offsets.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 17th March 2017 at 18:09.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  10. #610
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Ah, suddenly you are all in for an open and fair competition.. but when the F-35 was selected as a sole source, you did not say a beep. freakin hypocrites..
    Ha not quite, a new government which campaigned on the promise of holding an open and fair competition (while claiming to exclude the F-35 in said competition) and then essentially backing away from that is hypocritical. Even more so when they continue to pay their dues to the F-35 industrial program.

    No one has issues with the Canadians holding a new competition, a new government is allowed to question the decisions of the previous. What is the most amusing is the political decision to acquire an interim capability which goes against the advice from the Canadian Department of Defence (before the Government silenced it) and against the former service chiefs as already quoted. So instead of heeding the advice of authoritative and informed experts the Liberal Government is simply playing politics with the defence of Canada...

  11. #611
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,352
    Numbers (exact ones) out today for the RN/RAF (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...ee-to-five.pdf)

    Readers Digest:
    Development, acquisition, training and initial suport for five years, plus 48 airframes for 9,132 billion pounds.

    Not too bad
    Cheers

  12. #612
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Numbers (exact ones) out today for the RN/RAF (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...ee-to-five.pdf)

    Readers Digest:
    Development, acquisition, training and initial suport for five years, plus 48 airframes for 9,132 billion pounds.

    Not too bad
    Cheers
    Thanks. Is the strategic facility contracted for in October of 2016 part of their MILCON (RAF Marham) cost? If you take out the R&D share, given UKs Tier 1 partner status and the benefits that entail, and the MILCON and sustainment costs it does not look bad at all given that they are going for what is likely to be (long term) the most expensive variant to procure.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2017 at 02:11.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #613
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Thanks. Is the strategic facility contracted for in October of 2016 part of their MILCON (RAF Marham) cost? If you take out the R&D share, given UKs Tier 1 partner status and the benefits that entail, and the MILCON and sustainment costs it does not look bad at all given that they are going for what is likely to be (long term) the most expensive variant to procure.
    That's just ~$236 Million per plane with only 5 years support. Cheapish.
    Last edited by Nicolas10; 18th March 2017 at 07:45.

  14. #614
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    That's just ~$236 Million per plane with only 5 years support. Cheapish.
    Yes, cheapish. Especially compared to the Rafale deals which don't include dev costs.

  15. #615
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    That's just ~$236 Million per plane with only 5 years support. Cheapish.
    So how do comparable deals look when you factor in offsets and other non acquisition costs? How much did the IAF pay for its 36 Rafales?

    THIS suggests a Euro 7.9 Billion deal for 36 aircraft, India specific changes, weapons, offsets and support. If you take out weapons, you get a $214 Million unit cost with 30% offsets back to India (and a support deal). The UK here is going in for the F-35B which comes in at a premium over the F-35A which is the most abundant of the three variants. One can also look at their offsets and see that what they get in return for their Tier-1 status is significantly better than what India is getting with their 30% offset (article linked in my earlier post).
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2017 at 11:51.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  16. #616
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Yes, cheapish. Especially compared to the Rafale deals which don't include dev costs.
    develop or sustain?

  17. #617
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    develop or sustain?
    You likely know this, but India only paid for India specific changes to the configuration of the Rafale. They weren't partnered with France and Dassault in developing the aircraft. The UK spent around $2 Billion dollars to support the RDT&E phase of the program and as a result became a tier-1 partner with all the benefits that entails to its industry both during the SDD phase and beyond. That has no comparison in a 30 or 50% offset by value deal. Moving on, the audited figures include that RDT&E contribution, contribution of training and test services in the US, procurement of 48 supersonic STOVL aircraft, their initial support and infrastructure to support them back home - at a cost not very different from what the Indian side is paying for their Rafales.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  18. #618
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    You likely know this, but India only paid for India specific changes to the configuration of the Rafale. They weren't partnered with France and Dassault in developing the aircraft. The UK spent around $2 Billion dollars to support the RDT&E phase of the program and as a result became a tier-1 partner with all the benefits that entails to its industry both during the SDD phase and beyond. That has no comparison in a 30 or 50% offset by value deal. Moving on, the audited figures include that RDT&E contribution, contribution of training and test services in the US, procurement of 48 supersonic STOVL aircraft, their initial support and infrastructure to support them back home - at a cost not very different from what the Indian side is paying for their Rafales.
    I purposedly did not jump into that cost affair . It is just the "compared to the Rafale". What was he referring to?

  19. #619
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    I purposedly did not jump into that cost affair . It is just the "compared to the Rafale". What was he referring to?
    It was a querulous comment to pointedly respond to Nic's. Obviously you can read the NAO report on SDD and follow on dev costs included in the U.K. procurement.

    It is ironic considering the recent row over assumed costs presented the last few pages.

  20. #620
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    It was a querulous comment to pointedly respond to Nic's. Obviously you can read the NAO report on SDD and follow on dev costs included in the U.K. procurement.

    It is ironic considering the recent row over assumed costs presented the last few pages.
    Check the article involved : it is clearly written into that "cost perimeter" can be dispcussed.

  21. #621
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    It was a querulous comment to pointedly respond to Nic's. Obviously you can read the NAO report on SDD and follow on dev costs included in the U.K. procurement.

    It is ironic considering the recent row over assumed costs presented the last few pages.
    Although I expect the auditors in the UK to have a little bit of accounting and budgeting background nothing like putting something out there an then clarifying and editing on the fly based on inputs received on forums . I see that half-assery lacking in the NAOs work...
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2017 at 15:30.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  22. #622
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Although I expect the auditors in the UK to have a little bit of accounting and budgeting background nothing like putting something out there an then clarifying and editing on the fly based on inputs received on forums . I see that half-assery lacking in the NAOs work...
    About budgeting background, LRIP 11 modification was budgeted INSIDE the LRIP7 contract N0001912C0004. No more, no less.

    Criitc's easy, art is difficult. YES there was an error on quoted price (LRIP6 numbers instead of 7, and not precised engines out). Better correct it when it is underlined no? If authors were paid, or if on paid for the site (free and advertisement free) one could require perfection (although considering some articles in paid press...). It is not the case. The 12% differencd you quoted did not impair the validity of the article overall.
    Last edited by halloweene; 18th March 2017 at 16:45.

  23. #623
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    About budgeting background, LRIP 11 modification was budgeted INSIDE the LRIP7 contract N0001912C0004. No more, no less.
    Right, and what is the point of repeating this? Is this an atypical contracting mechanism within the DOD Acquisition system? Do you claim it to be, if so based on how much experience within the US DOD acquisition system? As I said earlier find out whether this is an appropriate contracting vehicle or not..for that you would either have to rapidly acquire familiarity and experience with the US DOD acquisition practices, or find someone that has. The absurdity was that the author took something known to be for LRIP-11 (it said as much in the description) and added it up in LRIP-7 unit cost just because that was the contracting vehicle used. Most reasonable folks imo would only have one explanation for why this was done.

    Criitc's easy, art is difficult. YES there was an error on quoted price (LRIP6 numbers instead of 7, and not precised engines out).
    Art? What art? Sorry to repeat this but this was a half a$$ed job at trying to find something out and later falling back on excuses, admitting mistakes and asking questions on forums about the data being reported in the report itself. Lets not try to pass it off as some sort of professionally done analysis done by a reputable organization that has done reporting based on sources and exchange of data with those in the know or those that actually signed the contracts. I wouldn't expect most folks to know details (unless they live in these sort of acquisition data) but most would reach out to those that do, and get an official on the record position when it comes to stuff they don't know.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2017 at 17:03.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  24. #624
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Right, and what is the point of repeating this? Is this an atypical contracting mechanism within the DOD Acquisition system? Do you claim it to be, if so based on how much experience within the US DOD acquisition system? As I said earlier find out whether this is an appropriate contracting vehicle or not..for that you would either have to rapidly acquire familiarity and experience with the US DOD acquisition practices, or find someone that has. The absurdity was that the author took something known to be for LRIP-11 (it said as much in the description) and added it up in LRIP-7 unit cost just because that was the contracting vehicle used.



    Art? What art? Sorry to repeat this but this was a half a$$ed job at trying to find something out and later falling back on excuses, admitting mistakes and asking questions on forums about the data being reported in the report itself. Lets not try to pass it off as some sort of professionally done analysis done by a reputable organization that has done reporting based on sources and exchange of data with those in the know or those that actually signed the contracts. I wouldn't expect most folks to know details (unless they live in these sort of acquisition data) but most would reach out to those that do, and get an official on the record position when it comes to stuff they don't know.
    Atypical or not was not the point. The article was not a cost analysis (and it is mentioned inside), but sumed every cent spent under LRIP7 umbrella. µYou know what? I'd bet that JPO will NOT compute that into LRIP11 costs. I admited ONE mistake (and only one) and as i'm responsible it is my bad. So? Never saw larger mistakes in many articles of reknown journos? Exchange with those in the now? Had some questions (particularly about engines upgrades). Never answered...

  25. #625
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    You know what? I'd bet that JPO will NOT compute that into LRIP11 costs.
    See this is the problem. You accuse the JPO of something you have absolutely no proof that you offer to back that up. Did you hear back from them? If so did you ask someone in the US to file a FOIA request to get details? No..most of this was not done but I guess its much easy to google stuff up and make accusations while at the same time claiming some sort of neutrality as far as research is concerned.

    I am personally aware of at least one editor of a major aerospace and defense publication who plans to file a FOIA request for LRIP-10 contract break-down (JPO reported cost figures) once all the formalities are completed. Probably a lot of others have too. But that is someone who has years of credibility and dedicates a lot of time and effort in actually understanding stuff and reaching out to those that may know more than him.

    I admited ONE mistake (and only one) and as i'm responsible it is my bad. So? Never saw larger mistakes in many articles of reknown journos? Exchange with those in the now? Had some questions (particularly about engines upgrades). Never answered...
    There is irony in the fact that an article that attempts to do a deep dive on the program cost, concluding the *obvious* (that there are various reported program cost data), itself gets cost data wrong..and not some hard to find, hard to compute data..but something one can simply dig up by spending 5 minutes on google. It was also quite amusing that once pointed the author went back and changed the data but replaced it with yet another faulty figure.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2017 at 17:23.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  26. #626
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    See this is the problem. You accuse the JPO of something you have absolutely no proof that you offer to back that up. Did you hear back from them? If so did you ask someone in the US to file a FOIA request to get details? No..most of this was not done but I guess its much easy to google stuff up and make accusations while at the same time claiming some sort of neutrality as far as research is concerned. I am personally aware of at least one editor of a major aerospace and defense publication who plans to file a FOIA request for LRIP-10 contract break-down (JPO reported cost figures) once all the formalities are completed. Probably a lot of others have too.



    There is irony in the fact that an article that attempts to do a deep dive on the program cost, concluding the *obvious* (that there are various reported program cost data), itself gets cost data wrong..and not some hard to find, hard to compute data..but something one can simply dig up by spending 5 minutes on google. It was also quite amusing that once pointed the author went back and changed the data but replaced it with yet another faulty figure.
    There isn't any data wrong. Interpretation can be surely not the data. And the faulty figure was not faulty. exactly from the link you gave (and from which first figures were extracted) + cost of an engine added (17 million dollars, average cost from engine contract LRIP7). So you can disregard the calculation of changed data, not the data themselves. The author is not in cause, I am responsible and take the blame from firstly announced advertised costs. The whole idea was to show the difference between the costs advertised to public tax payers nad the effectively paid money (and that only, mentioned in the article). Cost analysis would come further. Now I am not US, so i cannot fill a FOIA request (i damn do not know what it is).

    Check all forumers loudly claiming that F-35 is cheaper than Rafale for example, citing JPO costs on one hand, and Rafale export contracts on the other... Never saw you telling them hey you cant compare apples and "oranges". Wondering why.

  27. #627
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    There isn't any data wrong. Interpretation can be surely not the data.
    It's always the latter that counts. Data without much understanding is not worth much, its what you infer from it that counts. In this case it wasn't even a highly subjective matter..the damn description said that it was in relation to LRIP-11 and that they probably used an existing contracting vehicle..that is why I asked you run down whether this was a typical practice in the acquisition world which would be my guess..but I haven't been involved in this aspect for years now.

    And the faulty figure was not faulty.
    I don't know what to make of this sentence.

    exactly from the link you gave (and from which first figures were extracted) + cost of an engine added (17 million dollars, average cost from engine contract LRIP7).
    Those who have even a remote understanding of the program would not make this mistake of simply assuming what you just did there. I pointed this out to you earlier. Version 1 only used Lockheed contract unit pricing and that too not for the Lot in question. When this was pointed out, you claimed that the 'author' must have used LRIP-6 data instead. If that were the case it would have still been wrong even if one were to only look at LRIP-6 Lockheed contract unit pricing. When this was pointed out, you must have reached out and had the author make a correction but again factually wrong information as put up.

    You cannot divide engine contract by the number of engines as the propulsion portion prices vary per unit by the three versions. Other perhaps more experienced journalists have looked into this and ended up simply reaching out to the contracting authority or the JPO and asking them the unit price by lot for the F-35A with engine and were provided this. They may have done this for the B and C as well (regardless the JPO has provided that information for subsequent lots to journalists when asked) but published only the A variant costs because that applies to the should cost targets set forth a few years ago.

    Check all forumers loudly claiming that F-35 is cheaper than Rafale for example, citing JPO costs on one hand, and Rafale export contracts on the other...
    Could you point me to an article claiming that to be the case? Anyone can write whatever they want on a forum..If that is the standard or benchmark then I agree this article is worthy of a Pulitzer.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2017 at 17:38.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  28. #628
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  29. #629
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Numbers (exact ones) out today for the RN/RAF (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...ee-to-five.pdf)

    Readers Digest:
    Development, acquisition, training and initial suport for five years, plus 48 airframes for 9,132 billion pounds.

    Not too bad
    Cheers
    not too bad? have you looked at oportunity cost . the money spent on F35 will add capability in post 2020 timeframe and in mean time uk standing as military power will go down and this will have very negative impact on rest of economics. there is professor at king college he put it this in his tweets.

  30. #630
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    Nice catch.. looks like the ATK AARGM-ER has a larger diameter motor.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES