By: Sintra
- 8th January 2010 at 17:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
look, now i am confused
if you go to page 24 of your link, it shows a unit cost of $78 mill for year 2007
it seems that the flyaway isnt the final price as we all have seemed to understand flyaway to be
to me flyaway is everything needed and the final price paid, that doesnt seem to be the case
Jack
The DOD uses something like nine diferent types of "Unit Cost" to describe military acquisition costs. Its a bloody confusion, and you are not the first and wont be the last to be confused with that accountant mess (i am).
Did you ever see the "Yes, Prime Minister" show?
I´ll bet that the DOD definition of costs was made by some joker that inspired himself by the figure of Sir Humphrey Appleby!
The correct definition of "Unit Flyaway cost" is this one.
Definition of Unit Flyaway
The standard definition of aircraft unit flyaway cost is found in the DOD Financial Management Regulations.5 Standard unit flyaway cost elementsCost Used by DODinclude the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments;engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including productiontooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurementappropriations); divided by the procurement quantity. Flyaway cost doesnot include research and development, support equipment, trainingequipment, technical data, or spares.
Cheers
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 8th January 2010 at 17:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jack
The DOD uses something like nine diferent types of "Unit Cost" to describe military acquisition costs. Its a bloody confusion, and you are not the first and wont be the last to be confused with that accountant mess (i am).
Did you ever see the "Yes, Prime Minister" show?
I´ll bet that the DOD definition of costs was made by some joker that inspired himself by the figure of Sir Humphrey Appleby!
The correct definition of "Unit Flyaway cost" is this one.
Cheers
LOL, i'm starting to get a headache
i might just go back to the basics, we didnt buy the plane off LM, we brought the plane off the usn who kindly gave us 24 spots of their run
we pay the same price as the usn does, what ever that is :confused:
By: Loke
- 8th January 2010 at 17:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
THis was linked already, but how do we interpret it?
Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates has directed the military to delay the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 program, cutting planned purchases by 10 aircraft in fiscal 2011 and a total of 122 through 2015, according to a budget document.
More than $2.8 billion that was budgeted earlier to buy the military’s next-generation fighter would instead be used to continue its development.
The delay is a setback for both Gates and Lockheed.
The defense secretary said last year he wanted to accelerate jet purchases to complete the military’s most expensive weapons program sooner and possibly save money.
For Lockheed, the world’s largest defense contractor, accelerated purchases would be more profitable because a program’s production phase brings in more revenue than research and development. In addition, the Bethesda, Maryland-based company faces negotiations that may require it to absorb a share of cost overruns during what will likely be an extended development phase. The company now absorbs no overrun costs.
Along with the delay in Lockheed’s program, Gates is calling for spending a total of $2.4 billion in 2011 and 2012 to buy 26 F/A-18E/F planes that are capable of jamming enemy radar. Those aircraft are produced by Boeing Co., the second-largest defense contractor.
Navy officials warned that if the F-35 program slipped, they’d press for more F-18s to mitigate a “fighter gap” caused by their aging, carrier-based jets.
.....
First highlighted item: Does this mean that the R&D budget just increased by 2.8 billion USD?
Second highlighted item: If LM has to cover cost overruns, then -- well I guess they need to somehow get those money back... I think I know how that will happen...
Third hightlighted item: If more SH is ordered, that could cut back number of F-35s sold; which could influence the price.
To summarize: This seems to be a program that is in a critical stage, and a lot of things can change between here and the final product with a final price. I also note that the committees that have critizised LM for over-optimistic plans both in terms of costs and timelines are now being listened to by Gates, in spite of LM trying to tell him that everything is fine and dandy.
What surprises me is that some people on this forum do not seem to acknowledge that there are some "stuff" going on here, that is rather significant. Adding 2.8 billion US to the development program at this stage seems a significant event to me.
Face it: F-35 is delayed and will cost more. Nobody on this forum (neither cola, pcfem or spudmanwp) has any idea how big the delays will be or how much the thing will cost in the end.
Let's wait and see. My guess is that the final outcome will be somewhere inbetween what the F-35 fanboys (who seems to claim that the price will not change no matter what) and the naysayers who claim that it will be horribly terribly expensive and a complete disaster.
I think it will be more expensive than what LM has been trying to tell us; However I am more worried about the operating costs, this could become a real issue, over at f-16.net a person actually working on F-22 maintanance has expressed frustration and also express doubts if F-35 stealth will be really that much cheaper to maintain that F-22 stealth... He reminds us that LM made the same promises when F-22 was developed.
By: Cola1973
- 8th January 2010 at 17:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Loke, I'm not trying to establish JSF's final price (I don't know how much it will cost), but I'm trying to explain the relationship among JSF consortium members, since pfcem came with the idea that partners will be exempt of development costs??!!
Development alone was ~$45b in 2004! I said ~$50b today, but now it seems considerably higher and so will be the final price for partners.
By: swerve
- 8th January 2010 at 17:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...it seems that the flyaway isnt the final price as we all have seemed to understand flyaway to be to me flyaway is everything needed and the final price paid, ...
'Flyaway' usually means the aircraft only, with no ancillary equipment, weapons, training, support, etc.
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 8th January 2010 at 18:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'Flyaway' usually means the aircraft only, with no ancillary equipment, weapons, training, support, etc.
i'm giving up trying to work it out, i've got a headach and my nose is bleeding, whats the symtoms of a stroke ? LOL
it seems the total unit cost for 2010 unit price is $118 mill and the flyaway price is 55 mil, the unit price seems to change depending on how many are built etc and the flyaway is reasonably stable
By: redreidy
- 8th January 2010 at 20:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
we use the lightning pods on our hornets, the sh irst in the center fuel tank is for carrier landings and to free up a pilon
i would have to google to see whether we are going to use a pod or go with the tank
as per the usn, the sh block 11 has twice the capability as a block 1 and 3 times the capability of a 18c+
im only a pleb but i'd rate the rafale close to a sh block 1 with its current radar etc
as soon as france can put decent radar and weapons on the rafale, it will give it much more capability, dont you think,
if it gets brazil and uae, in 5 years time it will be a totally different plane, heck it may even be more capable that a sh
I don’t no where you got these idea from! ok the SH has a AESA radar and a wider range of weapons, but the rafale from everything I have read beats the SH hands down in terms of performance with greater range, rate of climb and thrust to weight ratio and will almost certainly be the more agile! and with a AESA radar lurking over the horizon in what world is the super hornet a better plane?
New
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem
- 8th January 2010 at 22:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Either there having more problems than you can believe or there is some kind of time warp/alternate reality issues interfering with LM's excellent track record such as the on time and on budget F-22 which has been flying 750 aircraft for the past decade:confused:
Someone is avoiding the issues.
Cheers
And just how does having missed the first flight date in Oct 2005 support the BS of FURTHER 2-2.5 years of delays & cost overruns?
***
That is not trolling.
It is merely stating facts inconvienient to the rose tinted spectacle brigade.
It isn't inconvenient at all. NOBODY is claiming that the program has not experienced delays. BUT having experienced delays in the past DOE NOT mean FUTHER 2-2.5 years of delays are inevitable.
***
And has every single development milestone since then been extended?:rolleyes:.
Which in no way indicates that future milestones will be a FURTHER 2-2.5 years extended.
Is it 1/3 the price of an F-22:eek:
When was it ever supposed to? It IS curently tracking to end up close to 1/2 the flyaway cost of the F-22 & LESS than that of a Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafare or F/A-18E/F.
The JSF is in quite a bit of trouble, it gets very wearisome to keep hearing LM's rosy outlook taken as gospel and repeated ad nauseam despite the facts. Look at LM share price drop, the big money is not confident, do you wonder why that is?
The JSF IS NOT in trouble, it gets very wearisome to keep hearing ingoranus naysayers made up BS of 2-2.5 years of FURTHER delays repeated ad nauseam despite the facts.
If the leaked delays are confirmed it does have an impact on costs and the in service dates which are supposed to be only ~18 months away and they can't fly powerpoint presentations.
LM HAS CONFIRMED DELAYS! Delays of ~6 months, NOT 2-2.5 years. AND has explaind the causes of previous delays, how said causes have been addressed & how much better things are going AND IMPROVING.
Of the 19 development airframes, 13 have been delivered to ground testing or the flight line and the remaining six are in final assembly. The last of them, AF-4, came out of the mate fixture in late November. “We’ve seen one-third reductions in span time and hours per aircraft over development and traveled work is down 90%,” Crowley says. “But it took longer to turn the corner than we allowed for.”
One of the biggest contributors to the improvement, he says, is the “unwinding” of the wing mate overlap—uncompleted assembly work traveling with the wing to the mate fixture and resulting from late delivery of systems following a wing redesign. With the first five LRIP aircraft now in mate, Crowley says Lockheed Martin is seeing ship-over-ship improvements. Learning curve percentages are in the mid-70s, he says, meaning improvements of 20-30%, compared with the 90s early in development. “We’ve reduced aircraft cost 50% over the first four LRIP lots. That’s a great curve.”
I guess if you believe the LM's test schedule you'll believe LM's price estimates, that was the point I was trying to make and mentioning LM's past record as 'proof' its all going well is frankly ridiculous!.
LRIP contracts have been BELOW projections. :)
There are other estimates of LM current JSF performance the JET report is one, the truth lies somewhere in between LM and JET, but my money and the big money is tilted far towards the JET report end.
LOL.
My bet is there is some big JSF changes in the pipeline, so hold on, strap yourself in and enjoy the show.
Cheers
John
What 'big changes'? You mean like essentially reverting BACK to the pre-accellerated procurement schedule?
***
It sure DOES show that the program is having more issues than LM and some forum warriors want you to believe.
No it doesn't. All it shows is that Gates is bowing to political pressure to 'play it safe' & assume JETs 'worst case' 2 years of FURTHER delays are likely.
As for your claim of unit production costs: Yeah, awesome. Never mind that they achieved that by being severly late. Had they been forced to be on schedule with their LRIP lots, the cost would have been never near that. And you end up paying the increased costs those delays incurred. LM definitely deserves a pat on the back for that.
What ARE you babbling about? In fact the delays have been CAUSED in some part to pressure to meet milestones, causing airframes to be delivered (to the next stage) incomplete which in turn then took MORE time to finish later.
Also, for all your harping on about intellectual honesty you go about comparing fighters prices from different currency zones without considering PPP adjustment to derive their respective costs again. Where's your much desired intellectual honesty in that?
Nonsense.
Anyone still defending the way the JSF program is being run, and the leeway and sloth LM has been awarded, after another delay and cost increase as expected in the next budget as being just fine and claiming that everything is all dandy, deserves the title of "Black Knight".
Sorry but even LM & its supporters know full well & admit to delays & cost increases that have occured BUT the reality that the program is currently (& has been for some time now) trending BETTER, not worse (& worse is what would have to be the case for FURTHER 2-2.5 years of delays & cost overruns).
***
...hahahaha...Kid, get a brain...
YOU are the one who needs to get a brain.
Who cares if they are payed separately, on not. Both (and more) bills still need to be payed.
THOSE PAYING THE BILLS CARE. Because...Development costs are payed by those involded in development. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system.
Now, let's take AUS for example here. As a partner AUS contributes with $150m in the JSF program development phase, worth ~$50b.
This is about 0.3% of the development worth and therefore AUS F35s will cost flyaway price+program price-0.3%.
Now, if this by some miracle doesn't happen and US choose out of altruistic reasons to exempt AUS from paying development price, then someone else needs to pay the difference and that will be US taxpayers, no less.
Do you think this will happen? :D
But CONTRARY TO YOUR BS, Australia's contribution to developement is NOT tacked on to its procurement cost - IT IS PAYING ITS DEVELOPEMENT CORTIBUTION SEPARATELY. Nations who will procure the F-35 but were not part of its developement wont pay developement cost - DEVLOPMENT COSTS ARE BEING PAYED BY THE EIGHT MEMBER NATIONS.
***
Indeed the sheer ignorance of the fanboy brigade is astonishing. And woe those "naysayers" doubt LMs claims on schedule and cost, those wicked witches have to be burned for not "believing". And if just another delay is evident and the naysayers were once again confirmed in their anticipation, the ignorant fanboy trolls just adapt to the new reality and propose the next new revised schedule who becomes the gospel truth until the next delay being officially announced. Yeah yeah but everything is just fine and on track and LM "delivers", yes it does but when and at what price?
Loke, I'm not trying to establish JSF's final price (I don't know how much it will cost), but I'm trying to explain the relationship among JSF consortium members, since pfcem came with the idea that partners will be exempt of development costs??!!
Development alone was ~$45b in 2004! I said ~$50b today, but now it seems considerably higher and so will be the final price for partners.
Quite the opposite. I HAVE POSTED MANY TIMES THAT THE EIGHT PARTNER NATIONS ARE PAYING DEVELOPEMENT COSTS!
But ignoranuses like you want people to believe that NOBODY is paying any development costs yet & that they will be tacked on to the flyaway cost FOR EVERYONE WHO EVER BUYS IT.
THINK ABOUT IT! Are those buying F-16s today paying for the 1970's developement costs?
By: Sintra
- 8th January 2010 at 23:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When was it ever supposed to? It IS curently tracking to end up close to 1/2 the flyaway cost of the F-22 & LESS than that of a Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafare or F/A-18E/F.
Less than the 54.669 million US$ 2009 Recurrent Fly Away Cost of the Super Hornet?!
By: Cola1973
- 8th January 2010 at 23:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...ROFLMAO...What a pile of mental garbage...:D...again.
THOSE PAYING THE BILLS CARE. Because...Development costs are payed by those involded in development. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system.
What does this sentence even mean? LOL
...Australia's contribution to developement is NOT tacked on to its procurement cost - IT IS PAYING ITS DEVELOPEMENT CORTIBUTION SEPARATELY.
LOL who cares if it's separately or under the same bill, since it needs to be payed at the end of the day.
(I mean first and second quote...I don't know what to say. You have the same degree of control like F35 at 55° alpha :D)
Nations who will procure the F-35 but were not part of its developement wont pay developement cost - DEVLOPMENT COSTS ARE BEING PAYED BY THE EIGHT MEMBER NATIONS.
So, tomorrow (10.1.2010.) Island wants to buy F35, but isn't a JSF consortium member and JSF consortium will sell it for flyway price then??? Hahahahahaha...
I mean, pfcem FFS, read what you post. This is growing tiring, as you keep throwing ample amounts of rubbish my way, which I am supposed to sort out and answer then??
Quite the opposite. I HAVE POSTED MANY TIMES THAT THE EIGHT PARTNER NATIONS ARE PAYING DEVELOPEMENT COSTS!
Really? How come then you permanently come here with JSF's flyaway prices?
But ignoranuses like you want people to believe that NOBODY is paying any development costs yet & that they will be tacked on to the flyaway cost FOR EVERYONE WHO EVER BUYS IT.
I don't get it, what's wrong with you?? Are you even American? Examine your English a bit...
LOL, someone help, please! I've been explaining this for the nth time today and I'm wondering am I talking to the wall or what?
THINK ABOUT IT! Are those buying F-16s today paying for the 1970's developement costs?
Pfcem, do you have any idea how is amortization calculated??
Anyway, I'd expect F16 got amortized after 40 years of production. You didn't?
US even give them for free...:D
Intelligent analogy pfcem, as always.
AND PCFEM, FFS LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLYWAY, PROGRAM AND LIFTIME COSTS!
New
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem
- 9th January 2010 at 05:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Less than the 54.669 million US$ 2009 Recurrent Fly Away Cost of the Super Hornet?!
12 Total Flyaway
26,315,218.774 / 389 = $67.65 million
02,289,464.932 / 037 = $61.87 million
01,417,297.313 / 023 = $61.62 million
00,663,412.169 / 009 = $73.71 million
Get a calculator.
And as I have said before something just does not 'jive' with these flyaway costs being so comparatively low compared to the weapons systems cost at this point in the F/A-18E/F program.
***
What does this sentence even mean? LOL
Exactly what is says. Is english like a 3rd language for you are something?
LOL who cares if it's separately or under the same bill, since it needs to be payed at the end of the day.
NO THEY ARE NOT UNDER THE SAME BILL. They are SEPARATE bills payed SEPARATELY.
So, tomorrow (10.1.2010.) Island wants to buy F35, but isn't a JSF consortium member and JSF consortium will sell it for flyway price then??? Hahahahahaha...
Flyaway + the usual foreign sales charges by the USG... And those chages DO NOT include developement costs.
I mean, pfcem FFS, read what you post. This is growing tiring, as you keep throwing ample amounts of rubbish my way, which I am supposed to sort out and answer then??
YOU are the one throwing ample amounts of rubbish, not me. Note that I am not the only one to TRY & explain this particular point to you.
Really? How come then you permanently come here with JSF's flyaway prices?
Yes really.
I am simple comparring apples to apples. Flyaway is a common price quoted for other aircraft so it is only fair when comparing the F-35 to use ITS flyaway price as well. AND flyaway price is the price payed by customers for the 'flyaway' aircraft.
I don't get it, what's wrong with you?? Are you even American? Examine your English a bit...
LOL, someone help, please! I've been explaining this for the nth time today and I'm wondering am I talking to the wall or what?
And I have corrected you for the nth time. You have made it clear you probably never will get it.
Pfcem, do you have any idea how is amortization calculated??
Anyway, I'd expect F16 got amortized after 40 years of production. You didn't?
US even give them for free...:D
Intelligent analogy pfcem, as always.
Do YOU even know what amortization is?
AND PCFEM, FFS LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLYWAY, PROGRAM AND LIFTIME COSTS!
I have made it abundantly clear that flyaway, program & lifetime cost are different. AND STATED MANY TIMES THAT TO BE FAIR/HONEST YOU MUST COMPARE THE SAME COSTS (whether it be flyaway, weapons systems, program, lifetime or what ever you chose to use).
By: Jwcook
- 9th January 2010 at 09:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."
In totally unrelated news to the JSF program the UK will cut its harrier squadrons with some redundancies expected.
There are three RAF squadrons and two Navy , one will defiantly go with another possible ~40%, cuts and the UK Ministry of Defence is at least £6 billion short of the amount needed to fund its 10-year equipment program.
So what's the effect on future UK JSF purchases considering the JSF is what replaces the Harrier in the UK coupled with the ministry's funding difficulty?..
Well none at all! if you truly really believe and have faith that the full allocation will be bought despite not having squadrons to fly them or indeed any pilots... I see at least two squadrons of flying pigs coming right up!!
And how is the US tracking financially? :) lets just say that unlimited spending isn't their first priority.
So to recap - FEWER ORDERS, LATER DELIVERY, MORE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED, MORE COSTS, and still not a fraction into testing!!!
Wow would someone please let me know when the bad news arrives!!!.:) or am I missing any tiny clues to a program in trouble (Death spiral)?
I fully expect some rosy reply.. what will it be? a Burbage type "we have it all in hand this time, so please ignore the last four c0ckups!" or a more mosaic approach were unquantifiable unrelated factoids are strung together to give a somewhat rosy impression? I'm quivering with anticipation.
It makes me think of the captain of a ship hit by a torpedo in mid Atlantic in 1943 asking his first mate where the nearest land was and the reply that they were only 2 miles from solid ground (unfortunately that the solid ground was 2 miles straight down), Hmmmm your not related to the first mate are you PFCEM?:D
By: Cola1973
- 9th January 2010 at 09:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
NO THEY ARE NOT UNDER THE SAME BILL. They are SEPARATE bills payed SEPARATELY.
BUT ARE PAYED EITHER WAY, SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT? If are payed later, they can only be more expensive, so the best bet is that will be payed together with flyaway bills.
Flyaway + the usual foreign sales charges by the USG... And those chages DO NOT include developement costs.
You don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about, do you?
Yes really. I am simple...
How true...
...comparring apples to apples. Flyaway is a common price quoted for other aircraft so it is only fair when comparing the F-35 to use ITS flyaway price as well.
No pfcem, what you are doing though is being stupid, again. It doesn't matter what you think the flyaway price is, but what it really is.
What you permanently do though is waving your baby F35's flyaway price from 2025, since the program is enormously expensive and you're trying to make it look more affordable than it actually is.
The fact is, again, Rafale costs $82.3m (~$130-140m), EF $81.8m (~$120-150m), but F35 $172m-197m - page 33 (~$XXXm) of a flyaway price (program price within brackets), which is actually more expensive than F22 and the projections for the 2010 still put F35 more expensive than F22. F35's flyaway price is higher than Rafale's or EF's program price.
AND flyaway price is the price payed by customers for the 'flyaway' aircraft.
LOL...get a brain and learn what flyaway cost is before returning to this board.
Hmmmm your not related to the first mate are you PFCEM?:D
By: Sintra
- 9th January 2010 at 13:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
12 Total Flyaway
26,315,218.774 / 389 = $67.65 million
02,289,464.932 / 037 = $61.87 million
01,417,297.313 / 023 = $61.62 million
00,663,412.169 / 009 = $73.71 million
Get a calculator.
And as I have said before something just does not 'jive' with these flyaway costs being so comparatively low compared to the weapons systems cost at this point in the F/A-18E/F program.
pfcem
I was discussing the unit recurring fly away cost, and i think that those 58 million US$ for the F-35A are without ancilary equipment...
By: swerve
- 9th January 2010 at 17:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In 2007. AUS payed ~$5b for 24 F18F + op. costs over 10 years. That's ~$210m per plane..
That isn't what Australia paid the Yanks. It includes a forecast of the money which will be spent in Australia on operating the aircraft, including costs which would be incurred whatever aircraft was bought, e.g. hangarage, wages, etc. The purchase contract was for about $2.4bn (US).
By: Spitfire9
- 9th January 2010 at 17:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The fact is, again, Rafale costs $82.3m (~$130-140m), EF $81.8m (~$120-150m), but F35 $172m-197m - page 33 (~$XXXm) of a flyaway price (program price within brackets), which is actually more expensive than F22 and the projections for the 2010 still put F35 more expensive than F22. F35's flyaway price is higher than Rafale's or EF's program price.
One problem identified some time ago is that if an export customer orders F-35's for delivery say in 2015, the price will be much higher than if those were supplied in 2020. With program delays and a reluctance by buyers to purchase at early LRIP prices if they can avoid it by letting others buy the aircraft from early production batches, the point at which prices will fall keeps shifting to the right.
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 9th January 2010 at 18:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
gee only 5 or so years of squabling to go before the f-35 enters a stable sell price through high production of about 100m average for the 3 of them, total paid in today dollars
this is better than a soap opera
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 9th January 2010 at 18:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In totally unrelated news to the JSF program the UK will cut its harrier squadrons with some redundancies expected.
There are three RAF squadrons and two Navy , one will defiantly go with another possible ~40%, cuts and the UK Ministry of Defence is at least £6 billion short of the amount needed to fund its 10-year equipment program.
So what's the effect on future UK JSF purchases considering the JSF is what replaces the Harrier in the UK coupled with the ministry's funding difficulty?..
Well none at all! if you truly really believe and have faith that the full allocation will be bought despite not having squadrons to fly them or indeed any pilots... I see at least two squadrons of flying pigs coming right up!!
And how is the US tracking financially? :) lets just say that unlimited spending isn't their first priority.
So to recap - FEWER ORDERS, LATER DELIVERY, MORE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED, MORE COSTS, and still not a fraction into testing!!!
Wow would someone please let me know when the bad news arrives!!!.:) or am I missing any tiny clues to a program in trouble (Death spiral)?
I fully expect some rosy reply.. what will it be? a Burbage type "we have it all in hand this time, so please ignore the last four c0ckups!" or a more mosaic approach were unquantifiable unrelated factoids are strung together to give a somewhat rosy impression? I'm quivering with anticipation.
It makes me think of the captain of a ship hit by a torpedo in mid Atlantic in 1943 asking his first mate where the nearest land was and the reply that they were only 2 miles from solid ground (unfortunately that the solid ground was 2 miles straight down), Hmmmm your not related to the first mate are you PFCEM?:D
By: Cola1973
- 9th January 2010 at 19:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That isn't what Australia paid the Yanks. It includes a forecast of the money which will be spent in Australia on operating the aircraft, including costs which would be incurred whatever aircraft was bought, e.g. hangarage, wages, etc. The purchase contract was for about $2.4bn (US).
How does that what you wrote, differ from what I wrote? :confused:
Anyway, the question was whether AUS payed flyaway (~$55m) or program price per F18F they bought.
With ~$93m per plane, I think it's pretty obvious AUS payed program price and that's was my point.
One problem identified some time ago is that if an export customer orders F-35's for delivery say in 2015, the price will be much higher than if those were supplied in 2020. With program delays and a reluctance by buyers to purchase at early LRIP prices if they can avoid it by letting others buy the aircraft from early production batches, the point at which prices will fall keeps shifting to the right.
That doesn't go only for F35, but for every other plane or car, bus, train, motorcycle, or boat.
So, once F35 will cost $65m, EF and Rafale will cost $30m. Even F22's value will fall to $20m and eventually to $0, someday.
The thing is in time frame and if one wants to observe price behavior, it must be done in same time frame.
So, the point is, VW Golf (European car) costs ~€3500 to get out of assembly line (flyaway price). However, you won't see it in any auto-salon for less than ~€15000 (program price). I'm not aware if manufacturers give life time costs for cars these days, thought but if they do it's the same thing as with aircraft...
********************* Here's a document that describes differences between different types of given prices and I'd recommend reading it.
*********************
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 9th January 2010 at 19:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How does that what you wrote, differ from what I wrote? :confused:
Anyway, the question was whether AUS payed flyaway (~$55m) or program price per F18F they bought.
With ~$93m per plane, I think it's pretty obvious AUS payed program price and that's was my point.
*********************
well this is my link, where is your's ?
i think before the engine contract was a subcontract from boeing
McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $1,319,574,240 not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-04-C-0014) for the procurement of 24 F/A-18Fs and Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) for the Government of Australia under the Foreign Military Sales Program . Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (28.7 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (25 percent); Goleta, Calif. (8.6 percent); Clearwater, Fla. (2.3 percent); Greenlawn, N.Y. (2.1 percent); Burnsville, Minn. (2.1 percent); Johnson City, N.Y. (2.1 percent); Brooklyn Heights, Ohio (2 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (2 percent); Grand Rapids, Mich. (2 percent); South Bend, Ind. (2 percent); Mesa, Ariz. (1.8 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (1.8 percent); and at various locations across the United States (17.5 percent), and is expected to be completed in July 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
not to exceed instead of firm fixed, heck we may even get some change, i luv it when our friends are nice to us i wonder how much less that the $54.982 mil per plane it will be ?
this is the full contract that navy had and split our 24 out of, these numbers are too big for me, can you check and make sure we pai9d the same as the usn
McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded an $8,562,099,934 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for the multi-year procurement of F/A-18E/F airframes. This Multi-Year II (MYP II) contract will cover the procurement of 210 F/A-18E/F aircraft over a 5-year period. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (60 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (40 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-04-C-0014).
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 8th January 2010 at 17:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jack
The DOD uses something like nine diferent types of "Unit Cost" to describe military acquisition costs. Its a bloody confusion, and you are not the first and wont be the last to be confused with that accountant mess (i am).
Did you ever see the "Yes, Prime Minister" show?
I´ll bet that the DOD definition of costs was made by some joker that inspired himself by the figure of Sir Humphrey Appleby!
The correct definition of "Unit Flyaway cost" is this one.
Cheers
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 8th January 2010 at 17:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LOL, i'm starting to get a headache
i might just go back to the basics, we didnt buy the plane off LM, we brought the plane off the usn who kindly gave us 24 spots of their run
we pay the same price as the usn does, what ever that is :confused:
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 8th January 2010 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
THis was linked already, but how do we interpret it?
First highlighted item: Does this mean that the R&D budget just increased by 2.8 billion USD?
Second highlighted item: If LM has to cover cost overruns, then -- well I guess they need to somehow get those money back... I think I know how that will happen...
Third hightlighted item: If more SH is ordered, that could cut back number of F-35s sold; which could influence the price.
To summarize: This seems to be a program that is in a critical stage, and a lot of things can change between here and the final product with a final price. I also note that the committees that have critizised LM for over-optimistic plans both in terms of costs and timelines are now being listened to by Gates, in spite of LM trying to tell him that everything is fine and dandy.
What surprises me is that some people on this forum do not seem to acknowledge that there are some "stuff" going on here, that is rather significant. Adding 2.8 billion US to the development program at this stage seems a significant event to me.
Face it: F-35 is delayed and will cost more. Nobody on this forum (neither cola, pcfem or spudmanwp) has any idea how big the delays will be or how much the thing will cost in the end.
Let's wait and see. My guess is that the final outcome will be somewhere inbetween what the F-35 fanboys (who seems to claim that the price will not change no matter what) and the naysayers who claim that it will be horribly terribly expensive and a complete disaster.
I think it will be more expensive than what LM has been trying to tell us; However I am more worried about the operating costs, this could become a real issue, over at f-16.net a person actually working on F-22 maintanance has expressed frustration and also express doubts if F-35 stealth will be really that much cheaper to maintain that F-22 stealth... He reminds us that LM made the same promises when F-22 was developed.
Posts: 1,206
By: Cola1973 - 8th January 2010 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Loke, I'm not trying to establish JSF's final price (I don't know how much it will cost), but I'm trying to explain the relationship among JSF consortium members, since pfcem came with the idea that partners will be exempt of development costs??!!
Development alone was ~$45b in 2004! I said ~$50b today, but now it seems considerably higher and so will be the final price for partners.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 8th January 2010 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'Flyaway' usually means the aircraft only, with no ancillary equipment, weapons, training, support, etc.
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 8th January 2010 at 18:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i'm giving up trying to work it out, i've got a headach and my nose is bleeding, whats the symtoms of a stroke ? LOL
it seems the total unit cost for 2010 unit price is $118 mill and the flyaway price is 55 mil, the unit price seems to change depending on how many are built etc and the flyaway is reasonably stable
page 22 and 23 of this link
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf
Posts: 241
By: redreidy - 8th January 2010 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don’t no where you got these idea from! ok the SH has a AESA radar and a wider range of weapons, but the rafale from everything I have read beats the SH hands down in terms of performance with greater range, rate of climb and thrust to weight ratio and will almost certainly be the more agile! and with a AESA radar lurking over the horizon in what world is the super hornet a better plane?
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 8th January 2010 at 22:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And just how does having missed the first flight date in Oct 2005 support the BS of FURTHER 2-2.5 years of delays & cost overruns?
***
It isn't inconvenient at all. NOBODY is claiming that the program has not experienced delays. BUT having experienced delays in the past DOE NOT mean FUTHER 2-2.5 years of delays are inevitable.
***
Which in no way indicates that future milestones will be a FURTHER 2-2.5 years extended.
When was it ever supposed to? It IS curently tracking to end up close to 1/2 the flyaway cost of the F-22 & LESS than that of a Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafare or F/A-18E/F.
The JSF IS NOT in trouble, it gets very wearisome to keep hearing ingoranus naysayers made up BS of 2-2.5 years of FURTHER delays repeated ad nauseam despite the facts.
LM HAS CONFIRMED DELAYS! Delays of ~6 months, NOT 2-2.5 years. AND has explaind the causes of previous delays, how said causes have been addressed & how much better things are going AND IMPROVING.
For those who ignor/forget...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JSF121409.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Eyes%20More%20Cautious%20JSF%20Test%20Plan
Aircraft AF-1, the first production-representative conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, entered final assembly a year ago only 88% complete, with more than 250 parts missing and over 1,000 hr. of traveled work. By comparison, AF-2 entered final assembly 98% complete, 35 parts short and with 250 hr. of traveled work. “The improving trend began after the first four aircraft,” he says.
Of the 19 development airframes, 13 have been delivered to ground testing or the flight line and the remaining six are in final assembly. The last of them, AF-4, came out of the mate fixture in late November. “We’ve seen one-third reductions in span time and hours per aircraft over development and traveled work is down 90%,” Crowley says. “But it took longer to turn the corner than we allowed for.”
One of the biggest contributors to the improvement, he says, is the “unwinding” of the wing mate overlap—uncompleted assembly work traveling with the wing to the mate fixture and resulting from late delivery of systems following a wing redesign. With the first five LRIP aircraft now in mate, Crowley says Lockheed Martin is seeing ship-over-ship improvements. Learning curve percentages are in the mid-70s, he says, meaning improvements of 20-30%, compared with the 90s early in development. “We’ve reduced aircraft cost 50% over the first four LRIP lots. That’s a great curve.”
LRIP contracts have been BELOW projections. :)
LOL.
What 'big changes'? You mean like essentially reverting BACK to the pre-accellerated procurement schedule?
***
No it doesn't. All it shows is that Gates is bowing to political pressure to 'play it safe' & assume JETs 'worst case' 2 years of FURTHER delays are likely.
What ARE you babbling about? In fact the delays have been CAUSED in some part to pressure to meet milestones, causing airframes to be delivered (to the next stage) incomplete which in turn then took MORE time to finish later.
Nonsense.
Again...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JSF121409.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Eyes%20More%20Cautious%20JSF%20Test%20Plan
Sorry but even LM & its supporters know full well & admit to delays & cost increases that have occured BUT the reality that the program is currently (& has been for some time now) trending BETTER, not worse (& worse is what would have to be the case for FURTHER 2-2.5 years of delays & cost overruns).
***
YOU are the one who needs to get a brain.
THOSE PAYING THE BILLS CARE. Because...Development costs are payed by those involded in development. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system.
But CONTRARY TO YOUR BS, Australia's contribution to developement is NOT tacked on to its procurement cost - IT IS PAYING ITS DEVELOPEMENT CORTIBUTION SEPARATELY. Nations who will procure the F-35 but were not part of its developement wont pay developement cost - DEVLOPMENT COSTS ARE BEING PAYED BY THE EIGHT MEMBER NATIONS.
***
Again...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JSF121409.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Eyes%20More%20Cautious%20JSF%20Test%20Plan
***
Quite the opposite. I HAVE POSTED MANY TIMES THAT THE EIGHT PARTNER NATIONS ARE PAYING DEVELOPEMENT COSTS!
But ignoranuses like you want people to believe that NOBODY is paying any development costs yet & that they will be tacked on to the flyaway cost FOR EVERYONE WHO EVER BUYS IT.
THINK ABOUT IT! Are those buying F-16s today paying for the 1970's developement costs?
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 8th January 2010 at 23:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Less than the 54.669 million US$ 2009 Recurrent Fly Away Cost of the Super Hornet?!
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf (page 23)
Get a life...
Posts: 1,206
By: Cola1973 - 8th January 2010 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...ROFLMAO...What a pile of mental garbage...:D...again.
What does this sentence even mean? LOL
LOL who cares if it's separately or under the same bill, since it needs to be payed at the end of the day.
(I mean first and second quote...I don't know what to say. You have the same degree of control like F35 at 55° alpha :D)
So, tomorrow (10.1.2010.) Island wants to buy F35, but isn't a JSF consortium member and JSF consortium will sell it for flyway price then??? Hahahahahaha...
I mean, pfcem FFS, read what you post. This is growing tiring, as you keep throwing ample amounts of rubbish my way, which I am supposed to sort out and answer then??
Really? How come then you permanently come here with JSF's flyaway prices?
I don't get it, what's wrong with you?? Are you even American? Examine your English a bit...
LOL, someone help, please! I've been explaining this for the nth time today and I'm wondering am I talking to the wall or what?
Pfcem, do you have any idea how is amortization calculated??
Anyway, I'd expect F16 got amortized after 40 years of production. You didn't?
US even give them for free...:D
Intelligent analogy pfcem, as always.
AND PCFEM, FFS LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLYWAY, PROGRAM AND LIFTIME COSTS!
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 9th January 2010 at 05:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
12 Total Flyaway
26,315,218.774 / 389 = $67.65 million
02,289,464.932 / 037 = $61.87 million
01,417,297.313 / 023 = $61.62 million
00,663,412.169 / 009 = $73.71 million
Get a calculator.
And as I have said before something just does not 'jive' with these flyaway costs being so comparatively low compared to the weapons systems cost at this point in the F/A-18E/F program.
***
Exactly what is says. Is english like a 3rd language for you are something?
NO THEY ARE NOT UNDER THE SAME BILL. They are SEPARATE bills payed SEPARATELY.
Flyaway + the usual foreign sales charges by the USG... And those chages DO NOT include developement costs.
YOU are the one throwing ample amounts of rubbish, not me. Note that I am not the only one to TRY & explain this particular point to you.
Yes really.
I am simple comparring apples to apples. Flyaway is a common price quoted for other aircraft so it is only fair when comparing the F-35 to use ITS flyaway price as well. AND flyaway price is the price payed by customers for the 'flyaway' aircraft.
And I have corrected you for the nth time. You have made it clear you probably never will get it.
Do YOU even know what amortization is?
I have made it abundantly clear that flyaway, program & lifetime cost are different. AND STATED MANY TIMES THAT TO BE FAIR/HONEST YOU MUST COMPARE THE SAME COSTS (whether it be flyaway, weapons systems, program, lifetime or what ever you chose to use).
Posts: 1,067
By: Jwcook - 9th January 2010 at 09:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In totally unrelated news to the JSF program the UK will cut its harrier squadrons with some redundancies expected.
There are three RAF squadrons and two Navy , one will defiantly go with another possible ~40%, cuts and the UK Ministry of Defence is at least £6 billion short of the amount needed to fund its 10-year equipment program.
So what's the effect on future UK JSF purchases considering the JSF is what replaces the Harrier in the UK coupled with the ministry's funding difficulty?..
Well none at all! if you truly really believe and have faith that the full allocation will be bought despite not having squadrons to fly them or indeed any pilots... I see at least two squadrons of flying pigs coming right up!!
And how is the US tracking financially? :) lets just say that unlimited spending isn't their first priority.
So to recap - FEWER ORDERS, LATER DELIVERY, MORE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED, MORE COSTS, and still not a fraction into testing!!!
Wow would someone please let me know when the bad news arrives!!!.:) or am I missing any tiny clues to a program in trouble (Death spiral)?
I fully expect some rosy reply.. what will it be? a Burbage type "we have it all in hand this time, so please ignore the last four c0ckups!" or a more mosaic approach were unquantifiable unrelated factoids are strung together to give a somewhat rosy impression? I'm quivering with anticipation.
It makes me think of the captain of a ship hit by a torpedo in mid Atlantic in 1943 asking his first mate where the nearest land was and the reply that they were only 2 miles from solid ground (unfortunately that the solid ground was 2 miles straight down), Hmmmm your not related to the first mate are you PFCEM?:D
Cheers
Posts: 1,206
By: Cola1973 - 9th January 2010 at 09:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BUT ARE PAYED EITHER WAY, SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT? If are payed later, they can only be more expensive, so the best bet is that will be payed together with flyaway bills.
You don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about, do you?
How true...
No pfcem, what you are doing though is being stupid, again. It doesn't matter what you think the flyaway price is, but what it really is.
What you permanently do though is waving your baby F35's flyaway price from 2025, since the program is enormously expensive and you're trying to make it look more affordable than it actually is.
The fact is, again, Rafale costs $82.3m (~$130-140m), EF $81.8m (~$120-150m), but F35 $172m-197m - page 33 (~$XXXm) of a flyaway price (program price within brackets), which is actually more expensive than F22 and the projections for the 2010 still put F35 more expensive than F22. F35's flyaway price is higher than Rafale's or EF's program price.
LOL...get a brain and learn what flyaway cost is before returning to this board.
LOL pfcem is his 3rd retarded nephew. :D
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 9th January 2010 at 13:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
pfcem
I was discussing the unit recurring fly away cost, and i think that those 58 million US$ for the F-35A are without ancilary equipment...
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 9th January 2010 at 17:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That isn't what Australia paid the Yanks. It includes a forecast of the money which will be spent in Australia on operating the aircraft, including costs which would be incurred whatever aircraft was bought, e.g. hangarage, wages, etc. The purchase contract was for about $2.4bn (US).
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 9th January 2010 at 17:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One problem identified some time ago is that if an export customer orders F-35's for delivery say in 2015, the price will be much higher than if those were supplied in 2020. With program delays and a reluctance by buyers to purchase at early LRIP prices if they can avoid it by letting others buy the aircraft from early production batches, the point at which prices will fall keeps shifting to the right.
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 9th January 2010 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
gee only 5 or so years of squabling to go before the f-35 enters a stable sell price through high production of about 100m average for the 3 of them, total paid in today dollars
this is better than a soap opera
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 9th January 2010 at 18:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
they are probably cutting back on pilots becase the f-35 will be optionally-manned, dam they are gunna be cheap to fly, UK has ordered 3 f-35b to play with
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/08/15/208488/lockheed-martin-reveals-plans-for-unmanned-f-35-jsf-among-other-new-uav.html
Posts: 1,206
By: Cola1973 - 9th January 2010 at 19:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How does that what you wrote, differ from what I wrote? :confused:
Anyway, the question was whether AUS payed flyaway (~$55m) or program price per F18F they bought.
With ~$93m per plane, I think it's pretty obvious AUS payed program price and that's was my point.
That doesn't go only for F35, but for every other plane or car, bus, train, motorcycle, or boat.
So, once F35 will cost $65m, EF and Rafale will cost $30m. Even F22's value will fall to $20m and eventually to $0, someday.
The thing is in time frame and if one wants to observe price behavior, it must be done in same time frame.
So, the point is, VW Golf (European car) costs ~€3500 to get out of assembly line (flyaway price). However, you won't see it in any auto-salon for less than ~€15000 (program price). I'm not aware if manufacturers give life time costs for cars these days, thought but if they do it's the same thing as with aircraft...
*********************
Here's a document that describes differences between different types of given prices and I'd recommend reading it.
*********************
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 9th January 2010 at 19:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well this is my link, where is your's ?
i think before the engine contract was a subcontract from boeing
http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=3613
McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $1,319,574,240 not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-04-C-0014) for the procurement of 24 F/A-18Fs and Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) for the Government of Australia under the Foreign Military Sales Program . Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (28.7 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (25 percent); Goleta, Calif. (8.6 percent); Clearwater, Fla. (2.3 percent); Greenlawn, N.Y. (2.1 percent); Burnsville, Minn. (2.1 percent); Johnson City, N.Y. (2.1 percent); Brooklyn Heights, Ohio (2 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (2 percent); Grand Rapids, Mich. (2 percent); South Bend, Ind. (2 percent); Mesa, Ariz. (1.8 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (1.8 percent); and at various locations across the United States (17.5 percent), and is expected to be completed in July 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
not to exceed instead of firm fixed, heck we may even get some change, i luv it when our friends are nice to us
i wonder how much less that the $54.982 mil per plane it will be ?
this is the full contract that navy had and split our 24 out of, these numbers are too big for me, can you check and make sure we pai9d the same as the usn
McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded an $8,562,099,934 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for the multi-year procurement of F/A-18E/F airframes. This Multi-Year II (MYP II) contract will cover the procurement of 210 F/A-18E/F aircraft over a 5-year period. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (60 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (40 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-04-C-0014).