Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 28th Sep 2013, 07:27
  #3381 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,488
Italy, Norway Jets Part of $3.4B F-35 Deal

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin a $3.4 billion contract for 35 F-35 joint strike fighters, a contract that includes the first aircraft orders for Italy and Norway.

The deal is the DoD’s seventh production order for the stealth jets, which have experienced numerous issues throughout their development.

Four jets are for the US Navy, six for the Marine Corps and 19 for the Air Force. Italy’s first three and Norway’s first two conventional F-35A jets are part of the deal, which also includes one short-takeoff and vertical-landing F-35B model for the UK.

All deliveries are expected by October 2016.
ORAC is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 07:45
  #3382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
F-35 LRIP 6 & 7 Contracts Finalised

UPDATE 1-Pentagon finalizes $7.8 bln in F-35 contracts with Lockheed 27 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"(Reuters) - The Pentagon on Friday said it had finalized two contracts with Lockheed Martin Corp valued at $7.8 billion for 71 more F-35 fighter jets, citing what it called significant reductions in the cost of the new radar-evading warplane.

The U.S. Defense Department said it signed a $4.4 billion contract for a sixth batch of 36 F-35 aircraft, with the average cost of the planes down 2.5 percent from the previous deal. All but $743 million of that amount had already been awarded to the company under a preliminary contract.

The two sides also signed a $3.4 billion contract for 35 aircraft in a seventh batch, which reflected a 6 percent drop in the average price from the fifth group, it said in a statement.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office said the cost of each F-35 conventional takeoff A-model jet would drop to $98 million in the seventh batch of jets, excluding the engine, from $103 million in the sixth lot. It marks the first time the price of the jet will have dipped below $100 million.

The U.S. government buys the engines directly from Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, under a separate contract....

...The Pentagon said the price of the B-model that Lockheed is building for the Marine Corps, would drop to $104 million in the seventh group from $109 million in the sixth. It said the cost of the C-model variant, which will be able to land and take off from aircraft carriers, would drop to $116 million a jet from $120 million in the sixth lot.

The contracts also reduce the government's exposure to cost overruns, according to the Pentagon's statement, with Lockheed agreeing to cover any cost overruns. The government and Lockheed would share returns on a 20-80 split basis if costs come in below target, it said.

The two sides will share equally the costs of all known retrofits needed for the aircraft, while any newly discovered changes could result in higher contract costs, the Pentagon said."
UPDATE 1-Pentagon finalizes $7.8 bln in F-35 contracts with Lockheed | Reuters

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 28th Sep 2013 at 07:52. Reason: Left out some ...
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 07:55
  #3383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Some good news, there, and a bit of a step forward. A serious question here, does anyone know what the price of the complete aircraft will be from the latest batch, including the engine, etc? Clearly, there are many different ways to calculate unit cost as, for example, one could include all the required support equipment, the famous helmet, infrastructure and the like - many are one-time costs or difficult to ascribe to one airframe. I'm just wondering about the complete aircraft.

Any ideas?

Last edited by Courtney Mil; 28th Sep 2013 at 07:56.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 08:10
  #3384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 505
The two sides will share equally the costs of all known retrofits needed for the aircraft, while any newly discovered changes could result in higher contract costs, the Pentagon said."
Like the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
This could potentially be a problem with so many issues unresolved and so many things left to test.

As for those who wonder what the engines costs.
Pratt, DoD Reach Agreement on F-35 Engine Lot | Defense News | defensenews.com
About 25-30 million a piece on average ,a bit more for the B version, a bit less for the A+C.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 08:14
  #3385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 62
Posts: 371
CM a good question, that I do not know the answer to, we have to remember that .ist if not all of these aircraft will need major work done on them to bring them up to "as advertised" performance, the downside of concurrency. So there is the cost of the plane now and the future cost of bringing it up to final specification...
PhilipG is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 09:12
  #3386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
From memory the aussies are allowing $5m to bring lrip6 to 3f, so under $10m would probably cover it

as to price the SAR gives an easy, accurate enough price

Last edited by JSFfan; 28th Sep 2013 at 09:15.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 12:34
  #3387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Squaring contracts with budgets or the SAR is a head-scratcher. In addition to the main contracts that get the headlines, LMT and PW get a lot of smaller production contracts. The SAR and P-40s are closer to the bottom line.

It also depends on international customers showing up in numbers and buying a lot of early aircraft before IOT&E and IOC.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 14:55
  #3388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
That's because there is more than the plane in the contacts, the SAR has the URF NRF and total unit price.
GAO uses the SAR for their pricing in the annual reports. It is the standard used.
That clown Sweetman likes to use issued contacts and forward budgets to cause confusion by dividing the total by tails built, it doesn't work this way, but it is entertaining

Last edited by JSFfan; 28th Sep 2013 at 15:04.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 15:48
  #3389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Some hope CM.

dividing the total by tails built, it doesn't work this way,
Now why would YOU think that isn't a good thing?

Last edited by glad rag; 28th Sep 2013 at 15:51.
glad rag is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 19:06
  #3390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
did you miss this bit?
"That's because there is more than the plane in the contacts, the SAR has the URF NRF and total unit price.
GAO uses the SAR for their pricing in the annual reports. It is the standard used."
JSFfan is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 21:14
  #3391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
JSFfan, I'm puzzled with you acquisition comprehension.
URF, NRF and total unit price (?), are used for micro analyzis of the manufacturing cost behavior and since GAO advises DoD, it's perfectly normal for them to use that metric.
However, that doesn't abolish taxpayer from paying the rest (WS, APUC, PAUC, LCC and total ownership cost), which is much more important then 'URF' or 'NRF' because it denotes the actual amount of money the government needs to pay if they want to see the aircraft on their tarmac.

Last edited by NITRO104; 28th Sep 2013 at 21:17.
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2013, 23:36
  #3392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
NITRO104, the SAR takes it to PAUC,
what is skewing the numbers for the taxpayer on contracts and budgets is that a lot of long term costs are paid at the LRIP stage and if you divide that price between the LRIP tails. It gives a false price. There is a lot of stuff that needs to be divided between all the tails built, some 2,000+

As to lifetime cost, the good news that Sweetman won't tell you is that the lifetime costs have been reduced by 40% from 1.1 Trillion to some 800 billion

I bet you are happy about that

Last edited by JSFfan; 28th Sep 2013 at 23:38.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 00:01
  #3393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
I just had a look at the single paragraph description of the LM contract from the dov and even by that, it seems those saying they are concerned about it haven't read it, It gave a couple of one off costs
JSFfan is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 08:35
  #3394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by JSFfan
what is skewing the numbers for the taxpayer on contracts and budgets is that a lot of long term costs are paid at the LRIP stage and if you divide that price between the LRIP tails. It gives a false price. There is a lot of stuff that needs to be divided between all the tails built, some 2,000+
Can you give a particular example?
NITRO104, the SAR takes it to PAUC,
Indeed, so why claiming URF and NRF and total flyaway being 'standard'?
As to lifetime cost, the good news that Sweetman won't tell you is that the lifetime costs have been reduced by 40% from 1.1 Trillion to some 800 billion
He doesn't need to, if the rest of the media already covered the issue.
What's your point?

Last edited by NITRO104; 29th Sep 2013 at 08:40.
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 08:57
  #3395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
did you miss #3396 ?
there are examples given in what has been limited released

I said SAR was the standard GAO used

my point was that sweetman would cut off his hand before he typed something positive about the f-35
JSFfan is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 09:17
  #3396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
did you miss #3396 ?
I didn't miss it but I didn't understand it, so care to explain in a non-illiterate way where exactly are those figures skewed?
A single example with links to actual articles will suffice.

Last edited by NITRO104; 29th Sep 2013 at 09:23.
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 09:30
  #3397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
fair enough, dov was meant to be Gov
Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, September 27, 2013
JSFfan is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 09:46
  #3398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
JSFfan, I asked for Sweetman's article where he skews the figures.

On the other hand here's a dissection of JSF's program average WS costs over the past 6 years;
FY09 - $90m
FY10 - no estim.
FY11 - $95.6m
FY12 - $102.5m
FY13 - $120.4m
FY14 - $120.8m
(Air Force Financial Management & Comptroller - Budget)
It was only in FY14 when Gen.Bogdan arrived, that things got more or less under control.

So how about that and your permanent trumpeting about program being on track?
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 11:47
  #3399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
An Archive of BS

16 Nov 2011 to 11 Apr 2012: Blogs ARCHIVE

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip 03 Apr 2012 Bill Sweetman

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 29th Sep 2013 at 11:53.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 12:12
  #3400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
JSFfan, my figures show JSF WS yearly cost increase of 5-7% on top of a 2% yearly inflation for the 5 years prior to Bogdan's arrival.
With a constant inflation rate, it's absolutely irrelevant in what year dollars it has been expressed because the relative difference adjusted by inflation always remains the same, so yes, it'd help if you knew what you're talking about.

Are you saying that each and every Sweetman's 'figures skewing' article is broken and so you can't link a SINGLE example?
NITRO104 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.