F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Received 66 Likes
on
53 Posts
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
UPDATE 1-Pentagon finalizes $7.8 bln in F-35 contracts with Lockheed | Reuters
"(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."
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."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 28th Sep 2013 at 07:52. Reason: Left out some ...
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?
Any ideas?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 28th Sep 2013 at 07:56.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
as to price the SAR gives an easy, accurate enough price
Last edited by JSFfan; 28th Sep 2013 at 09:15.
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.
It also depends on international customers showing up in numbers and buying a lot of early aircraft before IOT&E and IOC.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some hope CM.
Now why would YOU think that isn't a good thing?
dividing the total by tails built, it doesn't work this way,
Last edited by glad rag; 28th Sep 2013 at 15:51.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
"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."
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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+
NITRO104, the SAR takes it to PAUC,
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
What's your point?
Last edited by NITRO104; 29th Sep 2013 at 08:40.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did you miss #3396 ?
A single example with links to actual articles will suffice.
Last edited by NITRO104; 29th Sep 2013 at 09:23.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gave up following the story of this shocking waste of human resources quite some time ago, but JSF, as the expert here can you tell me the current situation
re: f35 unit cost v f22 unit cost?
ta very much
re: f35 unit cost v f22 unit cost?
ta very much
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fair enough, dov was meant to be Gov
Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, September 27, 2013
Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, September 27, 2013
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Received 66 Likes
on
53 Posts
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
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.