Pentagon Meeting Held on F-35's Future

[unhappycamper]

Pentagon Meeting Held on F-35's Future
March 28, 2008
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Senior Pentagon officials met March 27 to review progress on Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program with an eye on whether to approve production of the next 12 aircraft.

The defense acquisition board, convened by top Pentagon weapons buyer John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, comes as the F-35 program -- the largest, most costly U.S. weapons program -- is attracting increased scrutiny because of development problems and rising costs.

The acquisition meetings are formal steps during key stages in the weapons-buying process, when senior officials review progress on meeting technical goals, schedules and the budget.

A spokeswoman in the Pentagon said that the meeting was held and that she expected no formal announcement. Typically, Young and his predecessors may take days to review data presented at the meeting before making any decisions.

The Pentagon's F-35 procurement office and the contractor team headed by Lockheed are seeking Young's go-ahead to ramp up production on 12 aircraft for the Air Force and Marines.


Rest of article at: http://www.military.com/news/article/pentagon-meeting-held-on-f35s-future.html?col=1186032310810



uhc comment: At $239,000,000 a pop, these guys are talking about 12 aircraft for $2,856,000,000.

[frogcycle]

1. it disgusts me no end

that the MIC has created such a corrupt, incestuous arrangement that such fantastic engineering marvels cost so much and are plagued with defects

the fact is that we could have fleets of planes, MRAPs, etc. at reasonable cost, and the manufacture of same, along with more mundane stuff like tankers, transports, etc. could be good business. But greed and avarice have plagued the whole DoD/Prime Contractor arena forever, and it is a wonder we ever get anything done.

As analogy, contrast the lean and mean Apollo program with the bloated, ill-defined-mission of the Space Station program. Contrast the Manhattan Project with the "Star Wars" debacles. Too many people look at the designing and building of military equipment as a way to get rich instead of as a way to build and maintain the best peacekeeping force in the world.

Ah, Ike was so, so prescient.

[Sinistrous]

2. Your use of $239 million in your computation is not correct.

The $239 million includes a distribution of a whole range of start-up costs over a relatively small number of aircraft. Many of these start-up costs are sunk costs that are not re-incurred with the production of each additional aircraft.

For a reasonably understandable explanation of aircraft costing, go here

Sinistrous

[BearSquirrel2]

3. Are you saying they'll get cheaper???

Are you saying they'll get cheaper as we go along. Do we get a 10% price break for every additional 20 we buy or something?

I seem to recall that F-15s used to cost $20 million. Now it's analog 30 years later costs 10 times as much. I don't like the inflation. Especially considering that the computing power for the avionics SHOULD have gotten a lot cheaper.

I also understand the the military PAYS the contractor to actually do the design work. It's not all built into the price. There is NO WAY the fabrication on these jets cost $200,000.

[Sinistrous]

5. No. Not really.

Look at it this way: Each aircraft will not increase the cost of the total program by $239 milliion. Once an aircraft is in production, the research, development, computer programming, tooling, modifications to the assembly facilities, etc. are done and paid for. The costs for those items do contribute to the total cost of the program, but they do not increase with each plane that rolls off the line.

The incremental cost of each aircraft is the amount of money that it takes to bring all the parts together, assemble them, and roll the plane out the door. I have no idea what this cost is for the F-35, but I do know that it is less than $239 million.

In fact, if you look in the article you cited in the OP, the total program cost for a 2400 plane fleet is currently estimated to be $300 Billion. If you divide that $300 billion by the 2400 airplanes, you get a unit cost of $125 million. So the flyaway cost is even less than that.

To make this even more fun, the $300 billion is the acquisition cost not the life cycle cost, which includes spare parts, fuel, maintenace, etc., etc., etc.

Hope this makes some sense to you. I am sensitive to things like this because in an earlier incarnation, I was a cost analyst.

Sinistrous

[flamin lib]

4. Hmmm, At an empty weight of 22,500 pounds that works out to

$663 an ounce. Before the dollar decline we could build them out of solid gold. Gold was $665/oz mid 2007, 'bout $960 now.