geogenSpud,
IMHO UPC comparisons are fair characterization of the F-35s ongoing state of efficiency and sustainability regardless of what is causing the UPC to go up from earlier estimations.
If estimates were off on how much initial spares would cost, well, that still needs to be factored in as to the cost efficiency of the program thus far. Likewise, if higher levels of ‘adv. proc.’ funds are necessary in order to support the going fighter as viable, then that too needs to be factored into the whole fighter ‘efficiency’ equation.
Please note also, I’m simply countering the claims that ‘Revised cost estimates on LRIP 1,2 & 3 have all come down, compared to Feb07 estimates’.
With regards to UPC, that is not true.
With regards to Lot 3’s URF (as a sub-cost line of the UPC), that is not true.
With regards to Lot 1 & 2’s Flyaway Unit Cost (as a sub-cost line of the UPC), that is not true.
In all those ‘final cost’ and ‘sub-cost’ examples stated above, revised cost estimates have in fact increased from the original Feb07 estimates, I’m sorry.
Moreover, as noted the current estimate for FY11’s Lot 5 ‘Flyaway Unit Cost’ (as a production sub-set of the final UPC price) is roughly $30m higher than the UFC estimate from Feb07.
Now going beyond the various ‘upward’ revised Costs of Lot 1,2,3 estimates… whether a new pricing scheme can significantly change Lot 4’s UFC/UPC, as well as FY11’s ‘Flyaway Unit Costs’, etc, compared to the current estimates will have to be seen – agreed.
geogenI’m sorry but what is noted is a revised Feb10 estimate for FY11’s FLYAWAY UNIT COST which is about $30 million per copy Higher than the Feb07 estimate advertises.
Regarding URF increases…
Feb08 estimate for FY09’s URF = $149.87 million.
Feb10 revised estimate for FY09’s URF = $160.25 million. + $10.35 million Increase per copy Unit Recurring Flyaway.
geogenThe fact is that the actual cost of the 1st three LRIP lots… is below even 2007 projections
No.
Feb07 estimate of Lots 1&2 Procurement = $2,110.2 million
Feb10 revised estimate of Lots 1&2 Procurement = $2,247.06 million.
That’s $136.86 million higher in estimated Procurement than the original 07 estimate. This is equates to $17.1 million higher Unit procurement Cost than the estimate from Feb07. Can’t really get more clear than that.
FY10 and FY11 UPC willl end up being revised higher in the end, compared to the original Feb07/Feb08 estimates as well.
So to answer your question, that is the contradiction of the statements as my last post noted.
geogenem745 –
I’m curious how you would rate F-16XL’s cranked-delta concept in terms of aspect vs sweep = subsonice lift vs supersonice wave drag. and whatever you could add. Thanks in advance.
geogenNobody has been saying costs have been or are or will be going down from originally projected
(emphasis mine)
I’m going to have to beg to differ.
The reason I jumped into this thread initially was only due to the following statement quoted below which was made at the bottom of the opening post:
…there is no reason to believe the recent Pentagon numbers when the actual cost of the 1st three LRIP lots… is below even 2007 projections
imho this single viewpoint epitomizes the tantamount issue of misunderstanding JSF price history.
Another statement expressed which only caught my attention and direct challenge, continuing this line of debate (with high respect and care for the author and the author’s knowledge, despite our disagreements on points):
What cannot be denied is that in EVERY LRIP buy so far, the final cost (2 years after FY Authorization) has always been lower than what was estimated at the time the F-35s were authorized.
So I hope you can see from whereby my attention was caught at such conflicting statements and challenges made. (And FWIW, I’m personally not critical of the F-35s potential performance or capabilities. I’m not in that camp and that’s not my position). Regards.
geogenDR. Thompson:
“…so there is no obvious reason why costs would be rising rapidly.”
Think again..
The obvious reason sir, is that the program dictates dreamland, low-ball estimated price quotes going forward (in order to justify the entire Program’s existence in the first place). Thus, anyone estimating anything NOT perceived as cheap and affordable, as that of an F-16, would no longer be working in the esimates department!!
So therefore… when actual non-recurring, ancillary or initial spare costs do become higher than estimated 2-3 yrs earlier, or become more expensive than assumed 3-4 yrs from now… it is obvious why! You simply cannot guarantee, control or assume such ‘non-URF’ numbers 5 and 10 yrs out into the future! And therefore… when actual schedules slip and Govt/USAF order FEWER units than dreamed up 5 yrs earlier, surprise surprise… our crystal ball does not bat .1000!
This is why revised Net costs, weapon system costs and UPC costs have come in higher, per Feb10 revisions, than were projected in the Feb07/08 marketing estimates. This is why actual unit order numbers – both domestic and FMS – come in differently than were assumed or as precisely marketed years ago.
geogenpfcem,
I’m sorry but please try to use official numbers and figures when making your positions so people can more easily track your logic train and reasoning. Saying this or that as your opinion really doesn’t amount to much of a worthwhile debate or discussion.
Although I accept your comments and see you acknowledge that current F-35 cost estimates are being revised to the increasingly more expensive per copy vs the official Feb07/08 estimates. I’m sorry if I misunderstood your position thinking you supported the camp of thought: e.g., ‘official estimates are now coming in less than were originally estimated’. (You see, some have been stating that F-35 revised costs are coming down from original estimates, that’s all I was challenging – albeit an important point when assessing future FY procurements). So thanks for noting that for the record and recognizing they’re going up – it does indeed add to ones enjoyment of the discussion.
As for ‘underestimated’ FY11’s estimate on future FY15’s $106m per copy UPC – that will go ballistic, that’s just the point. Why? Once again, the estimates of PAST year procurements are being revised to the up side, more than expected. But future looking estimates are still flawed – yes, based on the same flaws on which 08’s estimates were based. Likewise, the revised upside correction won’t be made until probably Feb12 or 2013 (with total program restructure).
FY12’s UPC in fact will be revised to the upside at the latest by Feb11. (Unless a price fixing scheme is achieved prematurely, pre-SDD completion).
FY15? Best case scenario – say about 40 F-35A units afforded @ $150m (TYDollars), given a stable economic environment (independent of likely reduced Procurement budgets).. Respects.
geogenpfcem –
Thanks for reply.. but sir, please follow here:
As shown in above cost quotes, the “Revised estimates” of late are in fact showing a trend Upwards compared to the original estimates from Feb07/Feb08, which is being the issue brought up here.
That was the precise discussion – whether or not the original ‘estimates’ were off or accurate. They (Feb07/08 Procurement estimates) are clearly shown to be revised as higher today, I’m sorry. The estimates are unfortunately trending higher than previously expected (from original estimates).
Of course the UPC price itself is reducing for the most part year to year, but the issue of course is whether the original estimates are being revised up or down today – they are showing to be revised significantly up. Note the compared Budget estimates as listed in above posts.
And yes… due to these miscalculated original ‘estimates’, one can reasonably make the case that FY15 UPC estimates of $106million per copy x 70 jets being expected as of today are also critically flawed and are hence likely going to see correction.
So absolutely the so far flawed estimates therefore justify an immediate time out, via the ‘stay the course’ acquisition process, and future estimates deserve careful examination by US Congress ASAP.
(Please note my motive is solely for a tacair recap bubble soft landing and not a plausible cataclysmic burst via risky, stay the course).
geogenActually there are some additional increased costs trending, other than higher than expected initial spares required.
Feb07’s estimate for FY09’s ‘Net cost’ = $207.5m per copy.
Feb09’s revised estimate for FY09 Net Cost = $212.7m per copy. A $5.2 million net cost line increase.
Now you can say that oh, there was one less unit ordered which accounted for higher costs but c’mon that’s part of the reality. Costs are by default going up due to miscalculated estimates and schedules all around – as to which they will continue. So we really can’t spin that as an excuse. A trending increase is an increase no matter what the unexpected reasons.
An even more blatant ‘Net Cost’ increase please note, is Feb07 estimate for FY10’s Net Cost. (prior to advanced procurement or initial spares added)..
Feb07 estimate for FY10 jets = $175.2 million per copy! Feb08 est puts it @ $173.6 million.
Feb10 estimate for FY10 jets?? $207.7 million per copy!! That’s… $32.5m – $34 million per copy INCREASE from Feb07/08 original estimates for the FY10 Net Cost!
I’m sorry but the trends to Procure, whether in Net Cost, Weapon sys, or Total Unit procurement are trending up signficantly, and will only continue to as more orders are reduced regardless of reasons.
FY15 Unit Procurement Cost (UPC) estimated for $105million each?!? No way. Flag raised. Time out.
Congress must understand and comprehend the consequences of these fundamentally flawed, (arguably dangerous however well-intentioned) miscalculated estimates and expectations. That’s my position and believe me, I seriously wish I were wrong and USAF were procuring ahead of schedule and according to requirements. (probably even more than most JSF supporters).
geogenGood discussion all.
Just put me down for a tailless delta F-16X with LO-aspect radome, LO inlet, 3-D vectoring and possible canards.
geogenLMAO, Aspis – very fine NG advert. Well done, bless your soul.
And guys… let’s please not pump Turk, Greek, BG historical tension going forward as our justifications for future Tacair acquisition prospects. That is not only counter-productive and unjust for humanity’s and regional sake, but is entering into questionable motives when proposing particular defense acquisitions?
Respects to region and yeah, even for increased future joint-DACT training exercises and definitely increased cross-sector relations.
geogenSpud –
Thanks for detailed reply. And thanks for data on how lot #1 (2 F-35A) UFC cost came in ‘Greater’ than the ‘Net Cost’ line. I can understand that. An inconsequential data point to the issue..
Now where the data points are relevant to this F-35A Procurement price INCREASE issue, is via Weapon System Cost increase, as well as the total Procurement Cost (broken down to UPC) increase.
Spudman, please my friend, are you claiming here and now that the total Procurement bill for each F-35A thus far, as billed to the USAF and taxpayer is LOWER than estimated in Feb07? Please answer that and step up and make an honest, open disclosure as to how you stand on this issue of Procurement costs either going up or down vis-a-vis original estimates!
Once again… it’s NOT the production cost which is simply billed to the USAF, it’s the full Unit Procurement Cost which is the relevant price billed to USAF and which is at issue here only – that which determines how affordable each years Procurement capability is!
That is: it’s not a write off if the fighter acquisition Program in question demands higher non-recurring costs or higher Support costs, or higher initial spare costs per annual budget than originally estimated! It has to be calculated in and made part of the full evaluation and assessment!
There’s a reason why defense Appropriations list it as a “Procurement” budget and NOT “Production” budget. Please try to discern the two and how it relates to how costs have trended thus far. (including Feb07 Procurement estimates for FY10 aircraft orders vs the revised HIGHER estimates today). Respects.
geogenInteresting summarization, thanks. One asks for an elucidation and… well, someone will eventually come along with something for the layman to wrap head around.. Appreciate the insight.
geogenSpud –
I should have just made a viewable graphic from the start for simplicity sake, lol. (I’ve included one below).
But first off, I think we can both agree to throw FY07 (Feb06) estimates out the window as they were totally off all projections, including the airframes scheduled as you noted. So all estimate comparisons I shall use begin w/ Feb07 estimate. Secondly, I’m sorry but URF is truly irrelevant as USAF hast to pay for (write the check for) the Procurement Cost, not just the URF. Thirdly, I concede the ‘Cost’ line point you made, as I was mis-construing that due to misinterpreting all estimates for initial 2 jets as specifying ‘UFC’ cost as greater than the net ‘Cost’ line which doesn’t make sense? Another typo?
But basically, the graphic below was chopped together to more easily clarify the cost differences. (comparing only lots 1 & 2, generated from Feb07 and Feb10 estimates comparing those combined 8 jets only in 3 separate price listings: ‘Cost’, ‘Weapon sys’, and ‘Procurement Cost’).
Finally, one MUST examine the Feb07’s estimate for FY10’s ‘Weapon sys’ and ‘Procurement cost’ and compare with revised Feb10’s estimates for FY10! LM basically said; ‘Sorry USAF, we can’t give you 12 for that price range, we’ll give you 10 only!’ I’m sorry Spud, but this Estimate ‘Increase’ therefore, when compared to Feb07 estimate for FY10 buys, MUST be further accepted as fact that Procurement prices have indeed been increasing to date! It doesn’t get any clearer than this! Regards –
geogenThanks for docs, Spud.
OK, I for one make my errors and miscalculations like the rest of us – you’ve caught me a few times there I recall – but in response to this precise kind of statement, e.g.
“What cannot be denied is that in EVERY LRIP buy so far, the final cost (2 years after FY Authorization) has always been lower than what was estimated at the time the F-35s were authorized.”
…Based on the Feb07 (FY08) doc provided, we can in retrospect assess this true pricing data:
UPC estimated in Feb07 for combined FY07/FY08 (8 F-35A units total): $263.7m In Feb10 this revised UPC estimate for same 8 units = about $280m and change? Increase of about $15m+ per unit compared to Feb07’s estimate for same a/c. Would you concur?
Feb07 estimate for Unit Flyaway Cost (same 8 a/c): $210.9m vs revised Feb10 estimate of $229.6m (for same 8 a/c). Increase of about $18.5m per unit Would you concur?
Feb07 estimate for these 8 units ‘URF’: $222m vs Feb10 revised URF for same 8 units: $220.9 URF. Feb07 URF estimates for these 8 a/c came in about $1m Less per unit compared to revised Feb10. Would you concur?
So in just that example, my crunching would reflect an indeed $1m per a/c savings for URF price from Feb07’s estimate vs revised Feb10’s estimate…
While The Unit Flyaway Cost and the actual full price paid to procure the aircraft (UPC) came in revised higher in Feb10 compared to original estimates?
Could we therefore concur on that rough level of actual cost-increase vs cost-reduction data when continuing this aspect of discussion?
(p.s. If I goofed the math, then yeah I will make it up to you, no worries, lol). Regards-
Sign In
