Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 137

Thread: Reality of F-35 production cost

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,989
    Dang, I leave for a week and you all have so much fun without me

    We all know that one of the main drivers of increased production costs over the last few years is that they keep cutting the numbers from each year. If they would leave the numbers alone, the costs will stabilize.

    What cannot be denied is that in EVERY LRIP buy so far, the final cost (2 years after FY Authorization) has always been lower than what was estimated at the time the F-35s were authorized.

    Just to set the stage, the latest FY2011 budget shows that the USAF will need much less than 12 billion to hit the 80 airframes per month.

    Take a look at the projected FY2015 (the last LRIP Cycle Year). It calls for 70 F-35As for a TOTAL procurement cost, including spares, of $7.4 billion. Extrapolate that to 80 airframes and it totals $8.47 billion (add %14.29 to go from 70 to 80). Even for LRIP prices this is well below $12 billion.

    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pfcem View Post
    LowObservable,

    Did you even bother to read the rest of the article?

    I thought not.
    I did, so? one can argue "logically" that bananas grow on the moon... it still won't make it a reality. When you work for a company that has billions involved, you don't come out and say publically "my boss screwed this up and will cost you more and more as time goes by".

    If he managed to get a Ph.D it doesn't prove his competence, but only that he knows how to present facts logically to support his POV. You can get a Ph.D with any sort of thesis and the difference between you getting it or not will depend on your argumentation, not the reality or truthfulness of the thesis you defend.

    Finally, you get experts from the pentagon, DoD, independant, more or less everybody who looks a bit into the facts that says: this thing is way over budget and way late.. the only ones to say "it's fine, almost not late and not that much over budget (for some "even under budget" in the end) strangely happen to be more often than not (actually almost exclusively, on LM-s payroll.. if you can't see what that means, nobody on this board can help you...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Offshore New England, Cpace-ship Earth
    Posts
    271
    Good points Spud as always. Hey can you put up the Feb07 estimate as well, for comparison sake just to match the FY11 estimate doc? I don't have it on this pc. That would be helpful for this discussion.

    Another thing on which you hit the nail on the head, was that as buy orders are reduced, costs will go up. Therein lies part of the inherent fundamental flaw. I.e., a centrally planned and pre-conceived program such as this MUST by definition be assumed to have extreme procurement numbers inevitably reduced.

    Therefore, if a Program cannot per definition be affordable all of a sudden, once inevitable procurement reduces, then we can't complain if it doesn't seem sustainable. We didn't calculate the plan well enough from the start if it's simply not able to be sustainable or justified cost-value and risk wise.

    But total procurement appropriation costs will ultimately cause said large pre-conceived orders to be reduced too, yes, thus most-likely further increasing prices. (Unless we start seeing a quasi-nationalization of LM taking place soon).

    Case in point, re: those pre-conceived completely flawed FY15 Unit Procurement Costs (UPC) of $105m/ea... seriously (do you belive those?), even if USAF gets a blank check for procurement in FY15 those will NOT be priced anywhere close to $105m. Especially if block IV F-35A units.

    FY12 UPC will be much higher UPC as well, even with 23 jets ordered.
    Last edited by geogen; 25th April 2010 at 08:11.
    - The Super Falcon has not yet conceded defeat -

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In the back-seat
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by pfcem View Post
    suflanker45,

    Read the two articles I posted to start the thread...
    I did and they are total BS. Its a snow job trying to convince everyone that the F-35 program is suddenly underbudget a mere two months after admiting the program was overbudget and behind schedule.

    Oh...guys your forgetting something else that's very important....one word......inflation.
    Last edited by suflanker45; 25th April 2010 at 09:39.
    American Caesar
    I'm just a warmongering kind of guy.
    Evil neocon. :diablo:


  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Offshore New England, Cpace-ship Earth
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by suflanker45 View Post
    I did and they are total BS. Its a snow job trying to convince everyone that the F-35 program is suddenly underbudget a mere two months after admiting the program was overbudget and behind schedule.

    Oh...guys your forgetting something else that's very important....one word......inflation.
    Well, maybe only some of us guys are forgetting that In fairness, Spud does take that into account - just we disagree on the premium figure in the equation prior to inflation added

    My base assessment for argument sake - for those who don't know me - is roughly $150m UPC (in 2010 dollars) starting around FY15 (supposed 70 jets). Conservative imho. Now add inflation. x 70. Hence, the required year over year $12+ billion appropriated budget for USAF F-35A procurement alone (@ projected 80 jets via FRP). Unfortunately not going to happen, especially when much $ is going to have to extend life and modernize Legacy now - 'staying the course' (a probable reason for at least one LRIP jet cut in FY12 and then likely more reductions by FY13, for a few reasons). Well intentioned but Single-dimensional strategic forecasting syndrome, sadly.

    Good for parity though. Hopefully, that will be a good thing. God speed ~
    Last edited by geogen; 25th April 2010 at 10:19.
    - The Super Falcon has not yet conceded defeat -

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,989
    Here is FY2007 through FY2011

    Original plan for FY2007 through FY2011 was for 79 F-35As. They cut that to 47... a %41 reduction.





    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by drabslab View Post
    How do you know that his comments contain those three words without reading it? :diablo:
    You got me.. I read it.. :diablo: I'd undo it if I could

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by pfcem View Post
    LowObservable,
    Did you even bother to read the rest of the article?
    I thought not.
    The rest of the article is much less interesting than the quotes from you own post #12 in this thread. Let me quote:

    Dr. Thompson is not a paid consultant of LM.
    Yes I have. How about you show either I or Dr. Thompson having been paid by LM...

    Embarassing, right?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Offshore New England, Cpace-ship Earth
    Posts
    271
    Thanks for docs, Spud.

    OK, I for one make my errors and miscalculations like the rest of us - you've caught me a few times there I recall - but in response to this precise kind of statement, e.g.
    "What cannot be denied is that in EVERY LRIP buy so far, the final cost (2 years after FY Authorization) has always been lower than what was estimated at the time the F-35s were authorized."
    ...Based on the Feb07 (FY08) doc provided, we can in retrospect assess this true pricing data:

    UPC estimated in Feb07 for combined FY07/FY08 (8 F-35A units total): $263.7m In Feb10 this revised UPC estimate for same 8 units = about $280m and change? Increase of about $15m+ per unit compared to Feb07's estimate for same a/c. Would you concur?

    Feb07 estimate for Unit Flyaway Cost (same 8 a/c): $210.9m vs revised Feb10 estimate of $229.6m (for same 8 a/c). Increase of about $18.5m per unit Would you concur?

    Feb07 estimate for these 8 units 'URF': $222m vs Feb10 revised URF for same 8 units: $220.9 URF. Feb07 URF estimates for these 8 a/c came in about $1m Less per unit compared to revised Feb10. Would you concur?

    So in just that example, my crunching would reflect an indeed $1m per a/c savings for URF price from Feb07's estimate vs revised Feb10's estimate...

    While The Unit Flyaway Cost and the actual full price paid to procure the aircraft (UPC) came in revised higher in Feb10 compared to original estimates?

    Could we therefore concur on that rough level of actual cost-increase vs cost-reduction data when continuing this aspect of discussion?

    (p.s. If I goofed the math, then yeah I will make it up to you, no worries, lol). Regards-
    Last edited by geogen; 25th April 2010 at 11:52. Reason: reduced the word count
    - The Super Falcon has not yet conceded defeat -

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    I'm well aware of the relevant prices which matter the most here, thank you - e.g., the actual total Unit Procurement Cost which the USAF must be able to afford (or not).
    Sure you do...that is why you call the #1 most important, greatest contributor to total cost (that of the aircraft itself) as irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Please don't play this game saying USAF has to buy the URF price. (and I'm sorry but you are incorrect, the Unit Flyaway Cost as well has gone UP from 2007 estimates)..
    Tell that to the DOD negotiators have asked for a price for LRIP Lot 4 that is lower & who ever it is who has signed the checks for LRIP Lots 1-3 which have been lower.


    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Sir, there will not be year over year $12b appropriations budget solely for USAF's sole F-35A Procurement. This is part of the damaging, one-dimensional and non-strategic-thinking misconception and confusion for making long-term policy decisions. You sound intelligent enough to be making better calculated financial forecasts than this (given the state of affairs going forward), I'm sorry.
    It won't require $12b appropriations budget solely for USAF's F-35A Procurement.


    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    These so-called bean counters are the ones who conceived of the whole 'It will be cheap - so buy' JSF Program and jammed it down and increasingly larger and larger and jucier throat. Now you bash them? Very interesting tactic. The very reason the jet was pumped as being precisely on schedule and highly affordable (along with synergistic industrial opportunities, sure), is the reason the entire Program was even justified and achieved the broad commitments early on. There's just simply too much arrogant history revision going on here and blaming of Industry, etc. when the fundamental business scheme was flawed from inception.
    Because if they hadn't SWAT would not likely have been necessary & we could easily be 2+ years & $6+ billion ahead of where we are today.


    ***


    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    I did, so? one can argue "logically" that bananas grow on the moon... it still won't make it a reality. When you work for a company that has billions involved, you don't come out and say publically "my boss screwed this up and will cost you more and more as time goes by".

    If he managed to get a Ph.D it doesn't prove his competence, but only that he knows how to present facts logically to support his POV. You can get a Ph.D with any sort of thesis and the difference between you getting it or not will depend on your argumentation, not the reality or truthfulness of the thesis you defend.
    I suggest you do some research on Dr. Thompson before making such remarks.


    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    Finally, you get experts from the pentagon, DoD, independant, more or less everybody who looks a bit into the facts that says: this thing is way over budget and way late.. the only ones to say "it's fine, almost not late and not that much over budget (for some "even under budget" in the end) strangely happen to be more often than not (actually almost exclusively, on LM-s payroll.. if you can't see what that means, nobody on this board can help you...
    No, they ignored the facts of the program & made projections based on previous programs.

    Again, the underlining fact (aside from the projections not even made based on the program itself) is that contrary to what has been projected, actual cost of LRIP Lots has thus far (& the cost asked for by DOD negotiators for LRIP Lot 4) are below even 2007 projections much less these latest BS projections & have been tracking much closer to the Program's projections that the DOD's.


    ***


    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Case in point, re: those pre-conceived completely flawed FY15 Unit Procurement Costs (UPC) of $105m/ea... seriously (do you belive those?), even if USAF gets a blank check for procurement in FY15 those will NOT be priced anywhere close to $105m. Especially if block IV F-35A units.
    With the fact that LRIP cost thus far have been below projections it takes some real intellectual dishonesty to think otherwise.


    ***


    Quote Originally Posted by suflanker45 View Post
    I did and they are total BS. Its a snow job trying to convince everyone that the F-35 program is suddenly underbudget a mere two months after admiting the program was overbudget and behind schedule.

    Oh...guys your forgetting something else that's very important....one word......inflation.
    No, it is setting the record straight as to reality.

    Nowhere in either article did Dr. Thompson say the program was underbudget...

    Who is forgetting about inflation?


    ***


    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    The rest of the article is much less interesting than the quotes from you own post #12 in this thread. Let me quote:

    Dr. Thompson is not a paid consultant of LM.
    Yes I have. How about you show either I or Dr. Thompson having been paid by LM...

    Embarassing, right?
    Not at all. Nobody has yet shown that I have received a dime from LM or (as the statements meant) that Dr. Thompson is being/has been paid by LM to spead lies about the F-35 program.


    ***

    geogen,

    Just one comment on your math. You are forgetting then year dollars...

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by pfcem View Post
    I suggest you do some research on Dr. Thompson before making such remarks.
    He did. And found him as paid LM consultant. That is, I guess, all one needs to know..

    It really requires a large portion of intellectual dishonesty in order not to recognize that so far all people bringing good news about the F-35 (Beesley, Thompson..) have mysteriously been found on LM's payroll...

    Quote Originally Posted by pfcem View Post
    Not at all. Nobody has yet shown that I have received a dime from LM or (as the statements meant) that Dr. Thompson is being/has been paid by LM to spead lies about the F-35 program.
    Don't twist it. You have clearly stated that Thompson was not a consultant paid by LM while he himself admitted that he was one. What's here left to argue about?

    And regarding you, I really don't give damn about whether you have ever received a dime from LM. Quite frankly, I really hope that you at least are not embarassing yourself here for free...
    Last edited by MSphere; 26th April 2010 at 00:27.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    He did. And found him as paid LM consultant. That is, I guess, all one needs to know..
    No he did not. If he did he would not have made such BS remarks.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    It really requires a large portion of intellectual dishonesty in order not to recognize that so far all people bringing good news about the F-35 (Beesley, Thompson..) have mysteriously been found on LM's payroll...
    Except that not everyone with good news about the F-35 are on the LM payroll.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Don't twist it. You have clearly stated that Thompson was not a consultant paid by LM while he himself admitted that he was one. What's here left to argue about?
    I am not twisting anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    And regarding you, I really don't give damn about whether you have ever received a dime from LM. Quite frankly, I really hope that you at least are not embarassing yourself here for free...
    I am not the one embarassing myself here nor have I ever been paid anything for anything I have done here (or any other internt forum for that matter).
    Last edited by pfcem; 26th April 2010 at 06:41.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,989
    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Thanks for docs, Spud.

    OK, I for one make my errors and miscalculations like the rest of us - you've caught me a few times there I recall - but in response to this precise kind of statement, e.g.

    ...Based on the Feb07 (FY08) doc provided, we can in retrospect assess this true pricing data:

    UPC estimated in Feb07 for combined FY07/FY08 (8 F-35A units total): $263.7m In Feb10 this revised UPC estimate for same 8 units = about $280m and change? Increase of about $15m+ per unit compared to Feb07's estimate for same a/c. Would you concur?
    Very simple answer, it's a typo and easily proved so. What they did, and they are human after all, is put the LRIP 1 numbers in for the Flyaway Unit Cost and Weapon System Cost instead of averaging LRIP 1 & 2.

    1. Look at the Flyaway Unit cost from the FY2009 budget, it is the exact same $229.600 as shown for the AVERAGE of LRIP 1&2 in the FY2010. A clear carry over and typo.

    2. If you add up all the numbers from the FY2009 budget for LRIP 1&2, the numbers match those on the FY2010 docs... except the Weapon System Unit Cost... another probable carry over and typo from LRIP 1.

    3. The only increase from FY2009 to FY2010 in relation to LRIP 1&2 is a $117.447 million increase in Advance Procurement Cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Feb07 estimate for Unit Flyaway Cost (same 8 a/c): $210.9m vs revised Feb10 estimate of $229.6m (for same 8 a/c). Increase of about $18.5m per unit Would you concur?
    As above, this was a carry over of the LRIP 1 price by itself ans was a typo.

    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Feb07 estimate for these 8 units 'URF': $222m vs Feb10 revised URF for same 8 units: $220.9 URF. Feb07 URF estimates for these 8 a/c came in about $1m Less per unit compared to revised Feb10. Would you concur?
    That "Cost" row is Net P-1 cost, not URF (Unit Recurring Flyaway).

    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    So in just that example, my crunching would reflect an indeed $1m per a/c savings for URF price from Feb07's estimate vs revised Feb10's estimate...

    While The Unit Flyaway Cost and the actual full price paid to procure the aircraft (UPC) came in revised higher in Feb10 compared to original estimates?

    Could we therefore concur on that rough level of actual cost-increase vs cost-reduction data when continuing this aspect of discussion?

    (p.s. If I goofed the math, then yeah I will make it up to you, no worries, lol). Regards-
    Don't worry about the mistakes, it took me a while to see where the USAF had goofed in the carrying over of the numbers.

    Here are the true numbers (Flyaway Unit Cost) for the first two LRIPS.

    Code:
           1st      Final    Cost
    LRIP   Estimate Cost     Difference
    1      243.570  229.600  -13.97
    2      200.100  179.860  -20.24
    btw, I took a quick look at the USN early LRIPs in previous and FY2010 docs and they did not make the same error as the USAF. The USN numbers are the same from year to year.

    The only way to explain this type of error is that they manually put these numbers into PDF form instead of having them computer generated from a database. This is inexcusable.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 26th April 2010 at 06:35.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by pfcem View Post
    No he did not. If he did he would not have made such BS remarks.

    Except that not everyone with good news about the F-35 are on the LM payroll.

    I am not twisting anything.

    I am not the one embarassing myself here nor have I ever been paid anything for anything I have done here (or any other internt forum for that matter).
    You should consider being paid by LM, then. The amount of agitation work you've been doing for them in the last time is really priceless. Where others have quit the boat long ago, you're still proudly carrying the torch...

    I would understand that someone is doing that for money. But that there are people who still want do that for nothing... just amazing....

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Offshore New England, Cpace-ship Earth
    Posts
    271
    Spud -

    I should have just made a viewable graphic from the start for simplicity sake, lol. (I've included one below).

    But first off, I think we can both agree to throw FY07 (Feb06) estimates out the window as they were totally off all projections, including the airframes scheduled as you noted. So all estimate comparisons I shall use begin w/ Feb07 estimate. Secondly, I'm sorry but URF is truly irrelevant as USAF hast to pay for (write the check for) the Procurement Cost, not just the URF. Thirdly, I concede the 'Cost' line point you made, as I was mis-construing that due to misinterpreting all estimates for initial 2 jets as specifying 'UFC' cost as greater than the net 'Cost' line which doesn't make sense? Another typo?

    But basically, the graphic below was chopped together to more easily clarify the cost differences. (comparing only lots 1 & 2, generated from Feb07 and Feb10 estimates comparing those combined 8 jets only in 3 separate price listings: 'Cost', 'Weapon sys', and 'Procurement Cost').

    Finally, one MUST examine the Feb07's estimate for FY10's 'Weapon sys' and 'Procurement cost' and compare with revised Feb10's estimates for FY10! LM basically said; 'Sorry USAF, we can't give you 12 for that price range, we'll give you 10 only!' I'm sorry Spud, but this Estimate 'Increase' therefore, when compared to Feb07 estimate for FY10 buys, MUST be further accepted as fact that Procurement prices have indeed been increasing to date! It doesn't get any clearer than this! Regards -
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    - The Super Falcon has not yet conceded defeat -

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,989
    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    But first off, I think we can both agree to throw FY07 (Feb06) estimates out the window as they were totally off all projections, including the airframes scheduled as you noted.
    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Secondly, I'm sorry but URF is truly irrelevant as USAF hast to pay for (write the check for) the Procurement Cost, not just the URF.
    I was not using URF (Unit Recurring Flyaway, but FUC (Flyaway Unit Cost) which includes non-recurring costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Thirdly, I concede the 'Cost' line point you made, as I was mis-construing that due to misinterpreting all estimates for initial 2 jets as specifying 'UFC' cost as greater than the net 'Cost' line which doesn't make sense? Another typo?
    The "Cost" line is the Net P-1 Cost which takes into account past and future Advance Procurement dollars that are spent. For the first 2 F-35s, $117 mil was allocated the previous year but only $93 mil was allocated in the FY08 budget for FY09. This caused the Cost and UFC to look like an error.

    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    But basically, the graphic below was chopped together to more easily clarify the cost differences. (comparing only lots 1 & 2, generated from Feb07 and Feb10 estimates comparing those combined 8 jets only in 3 separate price listings: 'Cost', 'Weapon sys', and 'Procurement Cost').
    The increases were contained in the "Initial Spares" and "Advance Proc Cost" lines. None of the production costs increased.

    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Finally, one MUST examine the Feb07's estimate for FY10's 'Weapon sys' and 'Procurement cost' and compare with revised Feb10's estimates for FY10! LM basically said; 'Sorry USAF, we can't give you 12 for that price range, we'll give you 10 only!' I'm sorry Spud, but this Estimate 'Increase' therefore, when compared to Feb07 estimate for FY10 buys, MUST be further accepted as fact that Procurement prices have indeed been increasing to date! It doesn't get any clearer than this! Regards -
    That is not how procurement works. LM does not say what it can produce for $X, but the DoD estimates how much it will cost for Y frames. The reduction from 12 to 10 is well documented and happened in Congress as the House and Senate Defense Bills were brought together as a cost cutting measure.

    I do not have the info handy, but I did go into this in detail last year.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Very simple answer, it's a typo and easily proved so. What they did, and they are human after all, is put the LRIP 1 numbers in for the Flyaway Unit Cost and Weapon System Cost instead of averaging LRIP 1 & 2.

    1. Look at the Flyaway Unit cost from the FY2009 budget, it is the exact same $229.600 as shown for the AVERAGE of LRIP 1&2 in the FY2010. A clear carry over and typo.

    2. If you add up all the numbers from the FY2009 budget for LRIP 1&2, the numbers match those on the FY2010 docs... except the Weapon System Unit Cost... another probable carry over and typo from LRIP 1.

    3. The only increase from FY2009 to FY2010 in relation to LRIP 1&2 is a $117.447 million increase in Advance Procurement Cost.



    As above, this was a carry over of the LRIP 1 price by itself ans was a typo.



    That "Cost" row is Net P-1 cost, not URF (Unit Recurring Flyaway).



    Don't worry about the mistakes, it took me a while to see where the USAF had goofed in the carrying over of the numbers.

    Here are the true numbers (Flyaway Unit Cost) for the first two LRIPS.

    Code:
           1st      Final    Cost
    LRIP   Estimate Cost     Difference
    1      243.570  229.600  -13.97
    2      200.100  179.860  -20.24
    btw, I took a quick look at the USN early LRIPs in previous and FY2010 docs and they did not make the same error as the USAF. The USN numbers are the same from year to year.

    The only way to explain this type of error is that they manually put these numbers into PDF form instead of having them computer generated from a database. This is inexcusable.
    Spudman

    I dont think it was a typo at all, look at the "Weapons Syspens Cost" for LRIP 1 & 2 (budget 2011 - 280,883 Million Us$) it´s VASTLY bigger than the same numbers in the previous budget (budget 2010 ((285,847 million $*2)+(235,350 million $ *6))/8= 247,694 million $). And that value wasnt carried from an older document...
    The unit weapons systems cost goes up by 33 million $ and somehow the Fly Away unit cost goes down?!
    It was no typo.

    Cheers

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Spudman

    I dont think it was a typo at all, look at the "Weapons Syspens Cost" for LRIP 1 & 2 (budget 2011 - 280,883 Million Us$) it´s VASTLY bigger than the same numbers in the previous budget (budget 2010 ((285,847 million $*2)+(235,350 million $ *6))/8= 247,694 million $). And that value wasnt carried from an older document...
    The unit weapons systems cost goes up by 33 million $ and somehow the Fly Away unit cost goes down?!
    It was no typo.

    Cheers
    Weapons system cost = flyaway cost + support cost + advanced procurement cost + initial spares cost

    That one category goes down in cost does not prevent any of the other three categories from going up in cost.

    Cost numbers can vary dramatically depending on the assumptions made. Even trying to track cost changes from year-to-year can be futile if non-evident assumptions/groundrules change. Beancounters... I gave up trying to understand their methods long ago for that reason

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Spudman

    I dont think it was a typo at all, look at the "Weapons Syspens Cost" for LRIP 1 & 2 (budget 2011 - 280,883 Million Us$) it´s VASTLY bigger than the same numbers in the previous budget (budget 2010 ((285,847 million $*2)+(235,350 million $ *6))/8= 247,694 million $). And that value wasn't carried from an older document...
    The unit weapons systems cost goes up by 33 million $ and somehow the Fly Away unit cost goes down?!
    It was no typo.

    Cheers
    Let me break this out so you can see the USAF error that was made. Here is a side-by-side graph of FY08, FY10, and FY11 so we can track each line item. I rounded the numbers down to save space. L-1 and L-2 are LRIP-1 and LRIP-2

    Code:
    		2008	2008	2008	2008	2010	2010	2010	2010	2011
    		(L-1)	(L-2)	Total	Avg	(L-1)	(L-2)	Total	Avg	(L&12)
    Cost		477.8	1298.2	1776.0	222.0	478.1	1289.4	1767.5	220.9	1767.5
    Adv Proc Cost	93.7	123.5	217.2	27.1	93.6	122.7	216.3	27.0	333.8
    Wpn Sys Cost	571.5	1421.7	1993.2	249.1	571.7	1412.1	1983.8	248.0	2101.2
    Init Spares	77.0	40.0	117.0	14.6	76.1	69.8	145.8	18.2	145.8
    Tot Proc Cost	648.5	1461.7	2110.2	263.8	647.8	1481.9	2129.6	266.2	2247.1
    Flyaway U Cost	243.6	200.1		211.0	229.6	179.9		192.3	229.6
    Wpn Sys U Cost	285.7	237.0		249.1	285.8	235.4		248.0	280.9
    Things to notice.

    1. Look at the totals for each year in the "Cost" column. They got lower from 2008 to 2011. The "Cost" column is the "Net P-1" cost which is the production, non-recurring equipment, and support costs minus previous year Adv Proc funds.

    2. From FY2010 to FY2011 there was $117.5 million added to LRIP-2's Adv Proc Cost. This increase will change Weapon Systems Cost and Total Proc Cost numbers. This will not change Flyaway Unit Cost (FUC). This increase caused the Weapon Sys Unit Cost to go from $248.0 to $262.65.

    3. From FY2008 to FY2010 there was an increase in $28.8 mil in Initial Spares costs. This increase will change Total Proc Cost numbers. This will not change change Flyaway Unit Cost (FUC) or Weapon Systems Cost.

    4. The FY2011 "Flyaway Unit Cost" is an obvious cut-n-paste error since it is wrong and matches the LRIP-1 numbers down to the nearest $1000. Since the "Cost" numbers did not change, we can use the FY2010 numbers to get an average for LRIP 1&2 which is $192.3 for Flyaway Unit Cost (FUC).

    5. By dividing the FY2011 Weapon System Cost by 8, we can get an Weapon Sys Unit Cost of $262.65 million.

    6. The only thing that increased from FY2008 to FY2011, in relation to LRIP 1&2, was in increase to Initial Spares and Adv Proc Funds. This is why Flyaway Unit Cost (FUC) went down while Weapon Sys Unit Cost went up. Neither of these items changes the Flyaway Unit Cost (FUC).
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Offshore New England, Cpace-ship Earth
    Posts
    271
    Spud -

    Thanks for detailed reply. And thanks for data on how lot #1 (2 F-35A) UFC cost came in 'Greater' than the 'Net Cost' line. I can understand that. An inconsequential data point to the issue..

    Now where the data points are relevant to this F-35A Procurement price INCREASE issue, is via Weapon System Cost increase, as well as the total Procurement Cost (broken down to UPC) increase.

    Spudman, please my friend, are you claiming here and now that the total Procurement bill for each F-35A thus far, as billed to the USAF and taxpayer is LOWER than estimated in Feb07? Please answer that and step up and make an honest, open disclosure as to how you stand on this issue of Procurement costs either going up or down vis-a-vis original estimates!

    Once again... it's NOT the production cost which is simply billed to the USAF, it's the full Unit Procurement Cost which is the relevant price billed to USAF and which is at issue here only - that which determines how affordable each years Procurement capability is!

    That is: it's not a write off if the fighter acquisition Program in question demands higher non-recurring costs or higher Support costs, or higher initial spare costs per annual budget than originally estimated! It has to be calculated in and made part of the full evaluation and assessment!

    There's a reason why defense Appropriations list it as a "Procurement" budget and NOT "Production" budget. Please try to discern the two and how it relates to how costs have trended thus far. (including Feb07 Procurement estimates for FY10 aircraft orders vs the revised HIGHER estimates today). Respects.
    - The Super Falcon has not yet conceded defeat -

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,989
    The only thing that caused the LRIP 1&2 Weapon Sys Cost to rise is an increase in LRIP 2 Adv Proc Funds. This is the equivalent of a payday advance lon at 0% interest. There is no overall increase in the cost of the program due to this as it makes follow-on LRIPs cheaper.

    Neither the non-recurring nor the support costs went up, just Initial Parts and Adv Proc Funds.

    btw, This thread started as a discussion on the "production cost" the F-35, not "procurement" of a F-35.

    Between the drop in the F-35's ordered, inflation, and unknowns in the non-recurring portion of the budget. Has there been an increase, sure. But you also have to admit that the USAF has overestimated the cost of producing the F-35 at the beginning of each LRIP cycle.

    Unfortunately, the DoD does not forecast the details of each LRIP cycle, just the history. It would be nice to see exactly which components (either plane or non-recurring) were the issue.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Offshore New England, Cpace-ship Earth
    Posts
    271
    Actually there are some additional increased costs trending, other than higher than expected initial spares required.

    Feb07's estimate for FY09's 'Net cost' = $207.5m per copy.
    Feb09's revised estimate for FY09 Net Cost = $212.7m per copy. A $5.2 million net cost line increase.

    Now you can say that oh, there was one less unit ordered which accounted for higher costs but c'mon that's part of the reality. Costs are by default going up due to miscalculated estimates and schedules all around - as to which they will continue. So we really can't spin that as an excuse. A trending increase is an increase no matter what the unexpected reasons.

    An even more blatant 'Net Cost' increase please note, is Feb07 estimate for FY10's Net Cost. (prior to advanced procurement or initial spares added)..

    Feb07 estimate for FY10 jets = $175.2 million per copy! Feb08 est puts it @ $173.6 million.
    Feb10 estimate for FY10 jets?? $207.7 million per copy!! That's... $32.5m - $34 million per copy INCREASE from Feb07/08 original estimates for the FY10 Net Cost!

    I'm sorry but the trends to Procure, whether in Net Cost, Weapon sys, or Total Unit procurement are trending up signficantly, and will only continue to as more orders are reduced regardless of reasons.

    FY15 Unit Procurement Cost (UPC) estimated for $105million each?!? No way. Flag raised. Time out.

    Congress must understand and comprehend the consequences of these fundamentally flawed, (arguably dangerous however well-intentioned) miscalculated estimates and expectations. That's my position and believe me, I seriously wish I were wrong and USAF were procuring ahead of schedule and according to requirements. (probably even more than most JSF supporters).
    - The Super Falcon has not yet conceded defeat -

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post

    It really requires a large portion of intellectual dishonesty in order not to recognize that so far all people bringing good news about the F-35 (Beesley, Thompson..) have mysteriously been found on LM's payroll...
    Whose payroll are the folks bringing bad news about the F-35 on though? Has anyone debunked any claims that Beesley has made as been untrue?

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,495
    @wrightwing

    You have a program that basically came out and said we are and will be better at eveything that has gone before and also produce a cheaper product.
    Same said program is now undeniably late and over budget (unless you are off with the fairies a la pfcem).

    Nobody has to be on anybodies payroll to start asking questions as to the validity of the statements initally put out, you just have to be a tax payer.

    However given the undeniable facts re current costs and timeframes those that insist that there are no issues open themselves up to questioning as to their motives.

    Simple as that.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by geogen View Post
    Now you can say that oh, there was one less unit ordered which accounted for higher costs but c'mon that's part of the reality. Costs are by default going up due to miscalculated estimates and schedules all around - as to which they will continue. So we really can't spin that as an excuse. A trending increase is an increase no matter what the unexpected reasons.
    Yes well, this is a constant problem with this Spudman character, here.
    He thinks that it's somehow Congress' fault for allocating too little money for purchasing less units, which results in unit's price increase, when in fact the LM already spent too much money on R&D, for the given FY and therefore can't deliver predetermined number of planes, in the first place...
    Last edited by Cola1973; 27th April 2010 at 13:04.
    Cheers, Cola

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    Whose payroll are the folks bringing bad news about the F-35 on though?
    I dont know but I am not aware of anyone having found Kopp or Sweetman on Boeing payroll. If you do, I will be the first one to dismiss their claims as biased.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    Has anyone debunked any claims that Beesley has made as been untrue?
    No, not directly as for now. But nobody has confirmed these, as well. If we decide to believe the Italians that the F-35 comes closer to F-18 in terms of flight performance, then I would say that it is far away from what Beesley has once claimed. I will gladly sit down and wait for more news from objective sources (non-USAF, non-LM...)
    Last edited by MSphere; 27th April 2010 at 12:22.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by snafu352 View Post
    @wrightwing

    You have a program that basically came out and said we are and will be better at eveything that has gone before and also produce a cheaper product.
    Same said program is now undeniably late and over budget (unless you are off with the fairies a la pfcem).

    Nobody has to be on anybodies payroll to start asking questions as to the validity of the statements initally put out, you just have to be a tax payer.

    However given the undeniable facts re current costs and timeframes those that insist that there are no issues open themselves up to questioning as to their motives.

    Simple as that.
    It's one thing to question costs, but to say that Beesley isn't a reliable source about how the aircraft performs is a bit specious. Additionally when questioning costs, and there are numerous numbers floating around, I don't think that it's necessarily imprudent to ascertain the reliability(whether they be on the low side or high side).

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    I dont know but I am not aware of anyone having found Kopp or Sweetman on Boeing payroll. If you do, I will be the first one to dismiss their claims as biased.
    Well APA certainly had an agenda(upgraded F-111s(and the folks who'd get paid to do that) and F-22s).

    No, not directly as for now. But nobody has confirmed these, as well. If we decide to believe the Italians that the F-35 comes closer to F-18 in terms of flight performance, then I would say that it is far away from what Beesley has once claimed. I will gladly sit down and wait for more news from objective sources (non-USAF, non-LM...)
    So the only unbiased source would be someone that doesn't actually make or operate the aircraft? How does that work exactly?

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,495
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    It's one thing to question costs, but to say that Beesley isn't a reliable source about how the aircraft performs is a bit specious. Additionally when questioning costs, and there are numerous numbers floating around, I don't think that it's necessarily imprudent to ascertain the reliability(whether they be on the low side or high side).
    Not sure any objective observer would say that comments from Beesley are outright lies; however it is worth remembering who pays his mortgage at the end of the day.

    A company that is marketing a product will not come out and say: "it's brilliant as long as you only use it within these parameters," they will merely say "it's brilliant" and leave it at that.

    Thus it is not so much what he may say but what he does not say that is actually of interest.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    Well APA certainly had an agenda(upgraded F-111s(and the folks who'd get paid to do that) and F-22s).
    APA folks wanted the F-22, yes. Still fail to see what economical benefit would it have had for them..

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    So the only unbiased source would be someone that doesn't actually make or operate the aircraft? How does that work exactly?
    Foreign air force pilots operating the F-35 will be the best source. They are not bonded by some agreements on what to say and what not and also stupid nationalistic bias will not be present.

    Even an US pilot could be a good source, but I mean an average John from Montana now, not the chosen few who have access to F-35 at this stage.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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