Dude, where are you getting these dates? In 2006 the IOC for the USMC was, and still is, 2012.
Here is the SDD schedule from 2001 which was before the SWAT 2-year delay.
Here is 2006’s
And last years (2009)
The USMC IOC is 2012, USAF in 2013, and the USN in 2014. Where did you ever get the idea that ANY other country was to have (as of 2006 per your post) in-service F-35s by 2012?
Wilde, you may be thinking of partner IOC’s as AUS is planned for 2015, and UK, NL, IT, and TU are planned for 2017.
Cola, you clearly have no concept of how the budgetary process works if you think ANYTHING was “voted” on before the introduction of S.3001. The DoD internally approved of the 16 FY2009 F-35s and it was Congress who reduced them, AFTER they has passed BOTH the Senate and the House, in the Conference Committee.
Those snippets from the docs Spudman pasted there look awfully fabricated. All costs remain almost identical and as thus the weapon sys unit cost of course stays the same too. Yet for some completely obscure reason the fly away cost decreased significantly? Looks like “look! we decreased the cost” although they did not.
So according to you there is a conspiracy between LM, NG, BAE, P&W, DoD, USAF, USN, USMC, every member of the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, any number of additional Representatives & Senators, and an unknown number of staffers all trying (without leaking) to hide the true cost of producing the world’s largest fighter procurement contract? Yeah right..
Here are links to the ORIGINAL docs, note the .mil address.
FY2008 http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2008/AirForce/0604800F.pdf
FY2009 http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2009/AirForce/0604800F.pdf
FY2010 http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2010/AirForce/0604800F.pdf
And where are the $117 mill from 2006 in the 2nd snippet? For that money they could have built 2 planes at the boasted on $58 mill each!
Once again, you and other are showing how little they understand about fighter development and acquisition. The $117 in FY2006 were “Advance Procurement Costs”, ie they made payments to manufactures to begin building parts that they will need the the following year’s F-35s, build production lines, etc. The “$58 mill each” has nothing to do with an FY2007 LRIP price. It was an estimated cost of FY2014 jets with the purchase price inflation adjusted to FY2007. Nobody with half a brain expects 1st run LRIP jets (2 in 1st year) to cost the same as later LRIP jets (114 in 2012, 126 in 2013, and 198 in 2014).
And last but not least compare it to the snippet jackjack posted to prove some totally different point (linky). There, in 2008 actually, they had the 2007 fly away cost at $247 mill with no other cost being different.
Just as a reminder, here it is:
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
If you will notice that the LRIP1 jets (FY2007) were originally estimated to be $243, upped to $247 in FY2008, and lowered to $229 in FY2009 after “all the bills” were calculated.
So Spudman’s post doesn’t make any sense at all. Those numbers are contradicting themselves.
Nothing contradicts itself, if you understood the process. All future, current, and one year previous purchases are ESTIMATES of what it will cost. Once two years have gone by, the actual costs are known. In other words, all the bills are in. Here is a good example as it shows “Estimate” for FY2008 and on even though it is for FY2009. Notice that for FY2007, it shows “Actual”.
As I said, looks like someone is trying to fool tax payers or forum readers with made up numbers or screenshots. Doesn’t hide the fact that no cost actually decreased.
The only person being fooled is you and others who drink the APA/ELP Kool-Aid. My screenshots are not fake, as the original links are above. What the FACTS actually show is that the cost to PRODUCE the F-35 is consistently going down, and that LM has come under budget for the first two LRIP cycles. On Feb 1st we will know how well they did on LRIP 3.
Cola, you might need this:
You were so fast to point out a rise in “Flyaway Unit Cost”, you forgot to actually look for a reason. All the following numbers relate to the USAF’s F-35A orders in millions of dollars.
In the FY2009 budget, they reduced the order from 8 to 7 and in the FY2010 budget they reduced the order from 12 to 10. LM cannot be held at fault for quoting a unit price for a certain quantity and then the DoD reduces the order.
Now let’s try to compare apples to apples. Lets compare the first two LRIP years.
The FY2007 F-35s (2) were $243 (FY2008 docs) and ended up $229.6 (FY2010 docs).
The FY2008 F-35s (8) were $200 (FY2008 docs) and ended up $179.8 (FY2010 docs).
Here are the relevant charts.
FY2008
FY2010
If the DoD/Congress would just leave the orders alone then LM would be able to stick to the original forecasted numbers. Sadly, they reduced this years numbers also, so the numbers are screwed again.
is $91 mil for 2013 getting closer ?
There are a couple of reason why that number will not likely reach $91million.
1. DoD as so far cut 4 airframes for the FY2009 (1), FY2010 (2), and FY2011 (1) build years that will cause prices to rise. LM cannot be held responsible for DoD’s choice to cut orders thereby raising prices.
2. Based on recently leaked reports, the FY2012 and FY2013 builds may be cut even further from the 2007 plan.
What cannot be refuted is that the Rec Flyaway Cost (ie naked fighter price) has been dropping significantly every year.
Unfortunately, the projected costs do not show “naked fighter” costs, only “Flyaway unit costs” which includes “non-recurring” costs. These costs include things like payments to keep manufacturers in the program while unit numbers a too low, mfg ramp up costs, etc.
In the FY2010 docs they did not include the future cost predictions due to the impending QDR. When the FY2011 budget numbers come in Feb, we will get a better idea of where the program stands as the future cost predictions should be back in.
F-35s? Don’t worry they’ll have enough flanker variants to blow that fat boy out of the sky :diablo: No need for Pakfa there.
USS
Somebody has been chuggin the APA kool-aid 😉
Sign In
