Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 369

Thread: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,287
    The Joint Program Office (JPO) estimates that continued development of the F-35 to deal with evolving threats and changing warfighting environments will cost the U.S. government more than $1 billion a year between 2018 and 2024.

    The figure came to light during testimony from Vice Admiral Mathias Winter to the U.S. House Armed Services Committee on 7 March.

    In total, JPO estimates that continuous capability development and delivery (C2D2) of the F-35 will cost $16.4 billion over that seven year time period, with some $11 billion going toward development and $5.4 billion toward procurement.
    Read more: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...on-ann-446565/

    How does this compare to other fighter jet programs at this stage? Of course having 3 different versions and a lot of concurrency costs are costly, but still this is quite a large number?

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,287
    Efforts to integrate the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) with the Navy’s other internal logistics systems is thwarted by developer Lockheed Martin’s insistence that the software code is proprietary, said Vice Admiral Paul Grosklags in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Programs on 6 March.
    Read more: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...istics-446566/

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,262
    Procurement is inclused: parts, systems, subcontractors. All in all it doesn't sound off the margin for such a large project (tri-versions as you stated and very high Number of airframe).

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,983
    By far not all airframes will be upgraded.. Same as with the F-16..

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    How does this compare to other fighter jet programs at this stage? Of course having 3 different versions and a lot of concurrency costs are costly, but still this is quite a large number?
    The cost is over 7 years, spread between the US, and partner nations. Similarly, the procurement cost of this is for procuring these for quite a large fleet (assuming that they want to retrofit the entire fleet and not just break it into production for future aircraft and upgrade delivered aircraft over a longer time-span as is more likely to happen). Within the US services, the cost is spread since it is a DOD program funded by the USAF and DON. All broken down, for the US RDT&E contribution this comes to about $1 Billion of development a year over the life of the phase which is quite typical imo for the cost of FOM for such a large DOD wide program, and represents roughly 1% of the total annual USDOD RDT&E outlay.

    The final numbers are going to be released in June and will likely be lower as the PEO stated, probably because not 100% of the 3F fleet will be brought up to block 4 standards over this time frame (7 years) and even otherwise they are likely to not bring up the training fleet to that standard for quite a while. until it becomes cost prohibitive to keep on sustaining TR2 hardware which will probably be in the 2030s. Admiral Winter was also quick to point out that roughly 50% of the block 4 changes can be incorporated w/o switching over to TR3 so that could also be a strategy for non combat coded units during this period (cost estimate covers 7 years that the phase is expected/budgeted to last).

    As a JPO head, his job/role is to provide the 3 US services, and foreign partners with cost estimates of the overall cost to bring the fleet to the new standard. He does not have a say in how each one of those services chooses to invest its resources so the final spend will most definitely be different as each service is in charge of its own procurement budget and will pick and choose how many aircraft to retrofit and based on what schedule. Same with international partners. What is likely to remain stable from a cost estimate is concerned is the RDT&E budget provided they don't cut capability or defer it to a future block in order to lower that top-line.

    I would also not call this concurrency since this is not the baseline version but follow-on modernization. The program's baseline requirements were with block 3F and concurrency, as used by the program, refers to concurrent production and development, not concurrent production and follow on modernization, something that the program would continue to do over its lifetime.

    Another thing that Admiral Winter was quick to point out was that the F-35's development cost estimates always include all program elements that in previous programs, were recorder separately. For example, Aircraft hardware, software, mission-planning hardware and software, sustainment equipment (ALIS), Mission data files (sustaining the EW squadron operating out of Eglin) etc (all in 8 elements) are all rolled into one single cost estimate. On the F-16 and F-15 enterprises this was/is not the case. This was one of the things his predecessor kept pointing out as well when claiming that he is not in charge of just one MDAP (Major Defense Acquisition Program) but multiple. This is true..if ALIS were to be carved out of the JSF program and made a stand along program, it would meet the requirements for being classified as an MDAP by itself.

    Similarly, when the independent Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office was asked to do a true apples to apples O&M cost comparison between an F-16C and F-35A, they had to add quite a bit of cost to the F-16C which was not being, as per the current reporting protocol, captured as part of the F-16's CPFH but similar elements were being recorded in the F-35's CPFH data.

    Last edited by bring_it_on; 8th March 2018 at 13:09.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    Block 3F

    The F-35 is prepared to enter combat if required. The delivery of Block 3F improves warfighting capability with enhanced sensors and targeting, improved data links, improved threat countermeasures, and enhanced weapons capability to include air-to-air missiles, air-to-ground munitions, and weapons employment throughout the full aircraft flight envelope. Initial Block 3F software was delivered with later LRIP Lot 9 F-35A aircraft starting in August 2017 and included Block 3F Mission Systems capabilities required to conduct all critical mission threads including: Strategic Attack, Close Air Support, Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, and Air Superiority. Block 3F capabilities are in the fleet today and will continue to be delivered with LRIP Lot 10 F-35 aircraft. Since the initial Fleet Release of Block 3F software in August 2017 the F-35 JPO, in close coordination with U.S. Services and International Partners, has addressed critical Deficiency Reports (DRs) in order to deliver mission systems improvements and maximize F-35 mission effectiveness for LRIP Lot 10 Block 3F aircraft.

    The latest Block 3F software has demonstrated the capability maturity and stability to complete all required Missions Systems test points and address critical DRs as directed by the Services via the F-35 Configuration Steering Board. In addition, the Program is taking the necessary Airworthiness and Weapons Certification steps to enable full combat capability with Block 3F hardware, software, and weapons carriage with LRIP Lot 10 F-35 aircraft delivered during 2018.

    The Program continues to deliver Block 3F capability for the F-35A and is on track to deliver Block 3F capabilities to the F-35B and F-35C later this year in May (BF-63) and July (CF-34), respectively. This capability delivery will support fleet operational needs, deployments, and entry into formal Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) in fall 2018.



    On IOT&E

    With warfighting capability delivered, it is essential to prove the effectiveness of the F-35 through thorough test and evaluation. There are forty seven Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) test readiness criteria that must be met before formally beginning IOT&E. Examples of readiness criteria include: aircraft and weapons envelope certification, verified and validated Block 3F mission data file production, and the number of aircraft in a Block 3F configuration.

    Formal IOT&E is currently expected to begin during the late third quarter of 2018. To help mitigate delays in Program development, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), in coordination with the operational test agencies, agreed to permit the execution of select “Pre-IOT&E” activities prior to satisfying all forty-seven readiness criteria. Pre-IOT&E activities are occurring in two increments in early 2018.In January and February of this year, six F-35s (two of each variant) deployed to Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska for the first increment of Pre-IOT&E activities. The six F-35s conducted cold weather testing in sub-zero degree (Fahrenheit) temperatures and assessed the F-35 air vehicle system’s effectiveness, suitability, and mission capability during alert launches. PreIOT&E Increment Two is expected to begin mid-2018 and will evaluate the F-35 in tactical missions such as Close Air Support (CAS), Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR), Aerial Reconnaissance (Recce), and Forward Air Controller (Airborne) (FAC-A).

    These tests will include weapons delivery effectiveness evaluations. They will also include assessments of F-35B and F-35C variants in shipboard operations. Formal IOT&E includes Defensive Counter Air missions and combined mission scenarios executed by two 4-ships of F-35s to achieve realistic complexity, threat densities, and schedule-range-cost efficiencies.



    On Block 4 (C2D2)

    With recent progress and goals in mind, the development of F-35 warfighting capability does not end with the delivery of Block 3F software. Rather, it is the foundation upon which continuous enhancements and improvements will be made to increase capabilities that make the F-35 more lethal and survivable.

    To ensure the F-35 remains a relevant, capable warfighting platform, the Block 4 capability set was approved by the U.S. Services and Partner nations, and formally endorsed by the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee during spring 2017. With Block 4 requirements defined, the JPO determined that legacy linear development and delivery approaches could not deliver the required capability on the necessary timeline at available funding levels.

    The F-35 program is taking a new approach to deliver post-SDD capabilities in order to provide the warfighters F-35 weapon system modernizations, enhancements, and improvements faster and more frequently. Under this new capability delivery paradigm, software sustainment and modernization will no longer be two separate efforts. C2D2 is a strategy that allows support and enhancements to fielded capabilities while also delivering advanced capabilities. This effort reflects a shift to a more agile process that enables the F-35 enterprise to incrementally develop, integrate, test, and deliver the Block 4 capability set on an operationally-relevant timeline.

    Objectives of C2D2 include a six-month enhancement and improvement software delivery cycle and a twelve-month interval for modernization. The approach includes a sequence of two capability drops aligned with a cycle of Technology Insertions. Technology Insertions leverage rapid commercial off-the-shelf computer upgrades to keep pace with technology and minimize obsolescence while solving diminishing manufacturing source issues. Maintaining hardware currency provides the flexibility to quickly develop and implement changes to meet the evolving threat. On a longer range cycle, as industry moves to a next generation of computing architecture, F-35 C2D2 will plan a Technology Refresh (TR) to capture the next higher level of computing capacity.

    While such a change is involved and complex, these upgrades are essential to the viability of the F-35 throughout its full lifecycle. Based on experience from the F-22, an eight-to-ten year span between Technology Refresh events will maintain viable warfighting capability throughout each cycle. TR-3 is planned for implementation as soon as possible, but not later than LRIP Lot 15, with an objective of accelerating into LRIP Lot 14.
    http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS...M-20180307.pdf
    http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS...J-20180307.pdf
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F-35 Availability.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	69.9 KB 
ID:	259326   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C2D2 TR.JPG 
Views:	64 
Size:	37.1 KB 
ID:	259327  
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,909
    By far not all airframes will be upgraded..
    That is not accurate. As I have well documented, all Block 3F upgrade kits are either already included in previous budget years or are part of the FY2019 budget. These kits are already contracted, have started to arrive at the depots, and 7 F-35s have already been upgraded as of Q12018. Per the FY2019 budget doc, these updates will be completed by Fy2020.'ish.

    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 8th March 2018 at 17:08.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    I think he was referring to block 4 and not 3F. It will take a few years before we arrive on a stable schedule for block 4 upgraded for each US service and international partner. For the sake of providing an estimate to Congress the JPO assumes that these US and partner aircraft will be brought up to the block 4 schedule within the seven year period which is probably unlikely to happen and will be influenced by budgetary events that are outside of the FYDP. But his and the JPOs job is to provide an estimate and execute on the R&D program and break these upgrades into production at the desired interval (Lot 14/15 for TR3 for example). How, how much, and when these upgrades are procured for retrofit on existing fleets is not for him to decide.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 8th March 2018 at 19:50.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    Donovan: Air Force riding out F-35 uncertainty before upping its buy-rate


    Donovan said the service is working with the joint program office to determine how many of its older jets it will retrofit. Ideally, the service would maintain a common configuration between operational and training jets so pilots learn to fly on the same aircraft they will eventually be operating in the field.

    "If we don't do that, what we're doing is we're transferring the training load over onto the combat units," he said. "It takes time to get a guy up to speed on the new type of airplane that he hasn't quite seen before. . . . So that's the real concern. But we have to balance that with available resources as well."

    Beyond retrofit concerns, there is also some uncertainty around the timing of initial operational test and evaluation and the possibility that discoveries could stretch testing past the JPO's current estimated end date of May 2019.

    "There are unknowns because we always find something in IOT&E," he said.

    Donovan said that as the program moves through IOT&E, the Air Force will consider increasing its buy-rate, but for now, the service is waiting for the uncertainty to pass.

    "I think you'll see that we'll be interested in increasing our annual buy rate, but we want to buy down this risk and uncertainty," he said.
    DOD: FY-21 is earliest chance to begin bundling U.S. F-35 orders


    The Defense Department is considering options to bundle U.S. orders for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter into multiyear contracts with Lockheed Martin as soon as fiscal year 2021, potentiality consolidating annual purchases of about $11 billion for nearly 100 aircraft into mega-deals that would provide industrial base stability and notionally yield savings compared to yearly contracts.

    Vice Adm. Mat Winter, F-35 Joint Program Office director, told reporters he "is looking at and assessing the usage of what we call traditional multiyear procurement authority starting in [production] Lot 15 and beyond." The Defense Department plans to seek $11 billion in FY-21 to buy 98 aircraft as part of the 15th production run, according to the FY-18 budget request.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,364
    FY-21before any increase in Lot proccurments..

    Do i smell further cost rise due to further delays on testing on F-35 program.
    Thanks

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    FY-21before any increase in Lot proccurments..
    I am afraid you are mistaken or don't know how to put in context what you read in that post/article. The USAF's acquisition strategy of sticking to its current number is priced into the program's current cost as they presented this in last year's SAR. Having said that, the USAF only asks for a set amount within its budget. What they get is a totally different amount and so far the Congress has been constantly adding to the number they have requested.

    The F-35's cost is tied to the number of aircraft projected to be built as it transitions from the last few Low Rate production lots to Full Rate lots. Those numbers are largely fixed. What the article is trying to get at, and you would have picked this up had you paid attention to this and the previous thread over the last year or so, is that the USAF is keeping its F-35 acquisition steady despite of a pretty significant increase in their budget. Last year's SAR, posted here by me and others when it came out last year, reflects the USAF's acquisition strategy. That has not changed and the currently negotiated contracts, and future cost reduction targets price that in already.

    Their argument is that, ramping up to 60 and beyond a year post TR3 would allow them to save the costly hardware upgrades that accompany Block-4 and the money saved would allow them to buy additional aircraft. They have also said, quite recently, that this request reflects their limits within the budget but they'd be happy to take more aircraft if the Congress were to add them during its appropriations process. Services are known to do these sort of things when they know programs have congressional support.


    In its FY18 SAR (Dec,2016) the AF put in for 204 F-35As between FY19 and FY22 buy-years (4 budgets). In their FY-19 budget request, the AF sticks to this very number. They are still buying 4 dozen F-35As a year in Low Rate Initial Production.

    The AF did slightly change its acquisition strategy last year by moving the date for their buy rate to reach 60/year from FY21 to FY23, reducing their 5 year buy (request) by a grand total of 12 aircraft. However, most of those aircraft will be recovered by the Congress adding aircraft in FY17, 18 and 19 (and possibly/likely beyond). They'll end up being in the + relative to their request over that period.

    Do also note that the "Lot Production" you are referring to will hit triple digits next year and will climb to 140 aircraft soon thereafter. That's plenty aggressive production pace for them to chip away at the cost, and the AF buying 6 extra aircraft a year, two years sooner wouldn't really impact that all that much especially when that number is the request number and not what is authorized by Congress which always changes these plans.

    ------

    Photo credit - Chris Heal..
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 9th March 2018 at 19:38.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,262
    By mentioning 2021 for a multi/year buy they are also putting the emphasis on the secured perspective for LM. I would guess that this could ease their yearly contract negotiation (did they reach an agreement already?).

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    I don't think this is a negotiating tactic (but it very well could be). Logically speaking, they have to begin talking about a multi year agreement so that they can negotiate one when they have the right authorizations to do so. Given that they are likely negotiating LRIP-11 and 12 concurrently (trying to wrap up 11 and ramp up work on 12) LRIP-15 is just likely one cycle away..
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,364
    Because the U.S. share of development costs amounts to $7.2 billion, the United States could be left with a bill of about about $1 billion a year over that seven year period before procurement costs are factored in. Winter said that is “on par for post-development” costs for an upgrade program of this size.
    “That estimate will most likely come down, most likely,” he told reporters after the hearing. “But I don’t guarantee anything.”
    But i do understand the Congressional additional aircraft buy. That is not my point here. We are talking about FY-21 here. And that is directly linked to those present and future upgrade/modernization plans of F-35 program.
    Those plans do run side-by-side with any Future Lot buy.

    You said it yourself, there is not unlimited pockets for F-35 program.
    Hense my call on further cost rise or perhaps a better term, unrealistic cost prospects on F-35.

    You can call the different budgets from Lots buy, Additional Congress buy, or modernization cost three totally different things.. but they ALL adds up the a profound insane costly F-35 program.
    Last edited by haavarla; 9th March 2018 at 20:24.
    Thanks

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    But i do understand the Congressional additional aircraft buy. That is not my point here. We are talking about FY-21 here. And that is directly linked to those present and future upgrade/modernization plans of F-35 program.
    Those plans do run side-by-side with any Future Lot buy.
    You are trying to connect two totally unrelated things. Let me try to break it down for you. In FY21 (i.e. late 2020) they may decide to kick of Multi-Year Procurement. MYP does not add more aircraft but is a contracting mechanism whereby you negotiate and sign contracts for multiple lots at the same time and as a result can negotiate for economies of scale. At the moment they are negotiating and buying the F-35, a year at a time.

    Your second point was about the AF "reducing" while this is not what was being said. The AF was asked as to why, despite a 2-year budget deal, they stuck to their numbers that they had revealed in December of 2016. Their answer was that if they increase their F-35 from 48 to 60 earlier, they would have to buy block 3F aircraft and later pay to add hardware to them to bring them up to Block 4. As a result, they have to balance the number of aircraft they have to buy with the cost they have to pay in the 2020s so they intend on reaching that 60 or more in FY23 as the had revealed back in December of 2016. Also note that the difference was that they are now buying 54 aircraft in FY21 instead of 60 they had planned to buy in FY21 in 2015. Similarly, they plan to buy 54 aircraft in FY22 instead of 60 they had planned then. Only in FY23 they see themselves getting to 60 a year. So as a net, they intend to be 12 aircraft short vs where they claimed they'd like to be in their 2015 budget request. But in reality they are quite likely to exceed that number as the Congress has added and will likely keep adding aircraft.

    You said it yourself, there is not unlimited pockets for F-35 program.
    Hense my call on further cost rise or perhaps a better term, unrealistic cost prospects on F-35.
    Current Lot URF stands at $94.5 for the CTOL (USAF) variant. LOT-11, if it holds steady with LRIP-9 --> LRIP-10 reduction could give us a target price of $89 Million URF for the CTOL variant. Remember that their target is to get to $80-85 Million URF by 2020 buy year so should be around that ballpark. The USN's buy rate has been known since December, 2017 when they presented their FY18 SAR.

    You can call the different budgets from Lots buy, Additional Congress buy, or modernization cost three totally different things..
    No they are not 3 totally different things. The congressional adds are included in the same production lots. The USAF cannot order aircraft, and neither can the President of the United States. They share their vision and request via the budget. Congress goes over the budget, makes amendments and authorizes it. Congressional appropriators then fund it after a reconciliation. The role of the executive (POTUS and through the WH the Pentagon and its services) is to develop a budget and to veto the NDAA if what is presented by the Congress is not to his/her liking. What the President or the services ask for is immaterial and what ultimately matters is what the enacted law of the land is (NDAA and what the appropriators appropriate). If the USAF requests 48 F-35As in 2018 and the Congress funds for 52, then the USAF get 52 aircraft from that Lot buy, not 48.

    The F-35 is a multi-service product and will be the backbone of the combined US Tactical strike fighter fleet well into the 2030s and beyond..spending 1% a year (of R&D budget, not total budget) on keeping it modernized seems quite reasonable.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 9th March 2018 at 20:57.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    Hallow, as I requested earlier, please invest a little bit of time and try to add some value to the discussion (OR ELSE, what is even the point of posting?). Or at least, make an attempt at it.

    The US and the International Partners have a need to modernize their aircraft over its entire lifetime. Neither your own technology/capability nor the abilities of your adversaries are static. Based on this need, they have identified a set of requirements which they seek to do in its next iteration, over a 7-year time frame. The requirements have been developed, delivered to the appropriate authorizers and been scrubbed once again based on the regular vetting process that has been set up to help them nail them down further. This has taken them longer than desired because of many reasons, an important one being the change of guard at the OSD and the fact that the defense department's top weapons buyer was not even sworn until last August (hence final clearence will be in June). Based on that, the program has selected these capabilities and is in the process of finalizing the final/definitive cost an schedule targets for the same. Along with the cost of developing these upgrades, the progam has also provided cost-data for retrofitting earlier aircraft to this standard, knowing full well that their job is to only provide an estimate, and not force each customer to do so on their schedule.

    This is how all modern systems are developed i.e. based on first and formost, a modernization/upgrade requirement which has to then allign with cost and schedule. Once you modernize and develop those upgrades in a technical sense (engineer them, test them and evaluate them) you then break those into production and decide how much of your existing fleet needs to be brought up to those standards. This is true of all systems, and will continue to be true unless someone develops something so good that it never needs to be upgraded or enhanced over its lifetime. With the JSF it is more complicated and extensive becaucse the program has to address the needs of three different US customers, and 8 additional foreign partners not all of whom share the same weapons, sensor, software upgrade needs etc.. Additionally, at least one FMS customer has identified user-specific end item development or integration as the program develops its follow on modernization plans. The US may not use the Meteor, but the program has to build it into the FOM because a customer wants it. Same with Spear for the UK, JSM for Norway, and SOMJ for Turkey. The USN may want AARGM which the USAF, or any of the international partners may not end up needing or buying, but likewise the program has to develop, integrate and test this capability. The need for EOTS-NG may only be coming from some of the customers but they still have to design and develop a new sensor, intgerate it and cut it into production.

    As far as the US, I can say that the costs are very reasonable for what they get in return..i.e. they pay roughly 1% of their entire Research Outlay, and get to modernize what will effectively become the bulk of their strike-fighter fleet. The partners (8 of them) too will get a pretty good deal and will contribute roughly 500 Million a year collectively. These upgrades will end up covering sensors, weapons, software, processors, communications, ALIS-upgrades, Simulator upgrades and other classified capabilities based on how much they can fit in given cost and schedule constraints and test equipment and infrastructure availability (the B-21 will be in testing around the same time as well). These data and estimates are for cost-to-complete of all the elements including the block OT&E.

    How much money has France spent on the F3, F3R, and F4 standards for the Rafale for the very tiny fleet they operate? How much is India spending on customizing 36 Rafale's? Same with the USAF's F-22 Units..How much has Increment-3 cost in total (even though it was broken down into bite sized sub-programs) relative to the size of the fleet? Is it reasonable for India to spend €1.7 billion ($2 Billion) on Rafale customization for 3 squadron worth of aircraft, while unreasonable for 8 Nations (JSF partners minus the US) to spend $3.8 Billion on a 7-year developmental effort to modernize the capability of their aircraft?

    Regarding a MYP, this was expected post Milestone C approval and will be the case. There is a reason they are aiming for FY21 as the program is expected to come out of IOT&E in FY19 or by early FY20 at the latest. It would be highly atypical and fiscally irresponsible to not acquire the F-35 via the MYP route given the sheer number of aircraft the DOD is buying. This is how all aircraft or weapon systems are purchased that have their production runs expected to last multiple years. This is how the Navy bought the F-18s for example and how the Air Force purchased its F-16s. Even ships and submarines are purchased via a MYP. In fact, the largest MYP the DOD runs is for the Virginia Class SSN.

    https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/Pages...0-eefaf50f403e
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 11th March 2018 at 11:55.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,909

    Lockheed F-35 Cost Stabilizes at $406 Billion, Pentagon Says

    The Pentagon’s estimated cost to develop and purchase Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet, the costliest U.S. weapons program, has stabilized for now, according to a new report to Congress.

    The total acquisition cost for the advanced fighter is projected at $406.1 billion, virtually unchanged from the $406.5 billion estimated last year, according to the Defense Department’s latest Selected Acquisition Report, which will be sent to Congress this week. The projections were obtained in advance by Bloomberg News.

    Within the total -- which includes research, development and initial support such as spare parts and military construction -- the estimated cost to procure 2,456 U.S. aircraft has ticked down to $345.4 billion from $346.1 billion, or a 0.2 percent decline.

    That’s good news for the F-35, which has wide support in Congress but a past marred by cost overruns. Last year, the annual acquisition report on major weapons estimated that costs would rise about 7 percent to $406.5 billion after several years of declining projections.
    More at the link
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-pentagon-says

    I'll give more details as they are released.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 13th March 2018 at 20:42.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    ^ The article must have been rough on Tony
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    Within the total -- which includes research, development and initial support such as spare parts and military construction -- the estimated cost to procure 2,456 U.S. aircraft has ticked down to $345.4 billion from $346.1 billion, or a 0.2 percent decline.
    That comes to an average of around $158-$165 Million per Unit (CTOL, STOVL and CV) including R&D and MILCON (comparable to PAUC). For comparison, the Super Hornet PAUC was estimated to be around $83 Million in 2000$s. In TY$ this would be probably closer to $90 Million. Keep in mind that the SH was a derivative of the Hornet and thus its R&D cost is not reflective of a clean sheet aircraft, let alone one which is producing 3 variants for 3 distinct applications. It would be interesting to see what 4+ gen. operators in the West end up paying (PAUC) for their operational fleets and what that is as a percentage of their overall defense spending or acquisition budgets. Any one have an accurate number on the total budgeted by France for the Rafale (R&D, Procurement, MILCON etc) or the UK with the Typhoon?

    Last edited by bring_it_on; 15th March 2018 at 13:01.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,921
    I've broken down Dassault Rafale PAUC equivalent several times, searching back on what I've previously posted:

    212 million in 2011 dollars. That obviously does not include RBE2 AESA backfitting, and was based on 286 aircraft produced for France.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    Thanks FBW! We would then need to find out the procurement/acquisition budget for France to see what %age of it the Rafale consumes and likewise for other operators in order to develop a relative comparison on the impact of modern fighter acquisition on total National Security budgets and defense acquisition specificly . Perhaps Halloween or others could chip in but I'll try to see what I can find as well.

    Although I defer to Sintra or others for more recent assessment of Typhoon's PAUC to the UK and other development partners the, link below, from 2011, puts the cost to develop and buy (UK) at around $170 Million/Unit. I'm not sure whether this includes any MILCON.

    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...03/1011755.pdf

    As a reference, the UK had allocated around $12 Billion pounds to procurement (including infrastructure) in 2017.

    A crude way of looking at this is that based on US's FY19 budget outlay, the entire JSF procurement program will require 28 months of procurement funding if the budget were to be exclusively dedicated to buying the 2,456 aircraft. Using the UK and Typhoon as an example, the UK would have spent roughly 20 months of its procurement budget on buying the 160 Typhoons. Of course none of this accounts for budget increase or time-frame. Things look much different when you add R&D to the mix. The program as a whole (RDT&E/Procurement/MILCON) consumes roughly 20 months of US combined R&D and Procurement spending using the same concept. The UK would have spent 23 months worth of R&D and procurement money to develop and buy its Typhoon fleet.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 15th March 2018 at 16:20.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,661
    Any one have an accurate number on the total budgeted by France for the Rafale (R&D, Procurement, MILCON etc) or the UK with the Typhoon?
    Uk Typhoon.

    The most recent official (and exact) numbers available publicly that i am aware are here (choose the "Appendices and project summary sheets (pdf - 1795KB)" and go to page 170): https://www.nao.org.uk/report/major-...-2015-to-2025/

    The "Readers Digest" of it his 18189 million pounds to develop, acquire and upgrade (till P3E), 160 airframes (no sustainment, training, etc).

    Cheers
    Last edited by Sintra; 15th March 2018 at 19:21.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    Thanks Sintra! This comes to roughly $159 Million PAUC (not sure whether this includes any program specific MILCON or facility upgrade). F-35's FY18 SAR had a PAUC of $131.4 Million (Average of A, B and C variants) in 2012 dollars or $164 Million in TY$.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 15th March 2018 at 20:07.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,921
    To be fair, Rafale PAUC comparison suffers from higher Euro compared to the dollar then. Using the 2014 French Senat numbers of ~160 million Euro PAUC equivalent (19.6% VAT). Wouldn’t be surprised if Rafale program acquisition cost was higher than UK Typhoon costs though. Development costs shouldered by one nation, clear upgrade roadmap, and all aircraft (I believe) brought to F3 standard in cost projection. Can only imagine Typhoon development cost if tranche 1 were (or could be) modernized to a tranche 2 or 3.
    Last edited by FBW; 15th March 2018 at 20:13.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    F-35 Lightning II, USS Wasp (LHD 1), Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4208382.jpg 
Views:	748 
Size:	187.0 KB 
ID:	259438   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4213720.jpg 
Views:	748 
Size:	587.0 KB 
ID:	259439   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4208397.jpg 
Views:	758 
Size:	678.6 KB 
ID:	259440   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4208403.jpg 
Views:	762 
Size:	449.4 KB 
ID:	259441  
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,645
    I've broken down Dassault Rafale PAUC equivalent several times, searching back on what I've previously posted:

    212 million in 2011 dollars. That obviously does not include RBE2 AESA backfitting, and was based on 286 aircraft produced for France.
    That included everything within F3. F3R and future F4 are not included in original program.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,921
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    That included everything within F3. F3R and future F4 are not included in original program.
    No, not according to the report. F3 standard. If you have documentation to support information to the contrary please share. And not “somebody in the know told me”, because the estimate made at the time was clear what was included.

    Even the production slowdown was estimated to add over a billion Euro to program costs since those estimates, now we have a production increase for the next few years. You want to guess how these changes to production rate will impact program costs?
    Last edited by FBW; 18th March 2018 at 21:51.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Near my dog:)
    Posts
    404
    Anybody knows which existing amphibious assault ship platforms (LHD, LHA, LPH...) the F-35B could use?

    I don't mean here on using a flight deck only, but rather ships' elevators and hangars.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,909
    IIRC the F-35B is only headed to the LHD/LHA.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,645
    No, not according to the report. F3 standard
    I think someone got lost in translation. Could you link that report please?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 7 guests)

  1. bring_it_on,
  2. Gyllis1,
  3. OooShiny

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