tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post3855340414791138782..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: F-35 Cost AnalysisComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16403422621768038062013-06-15T13:37:19.551-07:002013-06-15T13:37:19.551-07:00The bulk of software costs are developmental, whic...The bulk of software costs are developmental, which has nothing to do with concurrency. These developmental costs would occure regardless of concurrency.<br /><br />When it comes time to do the actual software upgrade to the jet, the cost is minimal. On the issue of upgrade cost, the recent budget docs put the cost to upgrade a pre Block-3F F-35 and bring it up to IOC 3F standards is only $4 mil. Yes, I know this does not address "concurrency issues" and only talks about hardware & software upgrades.<br /><br />Those $200 mil projections I will have to look into, but seem way out of whack as it would be cheaper to park the LRIP jet and buy two FRP F-35s instead.<br /><br />On the hook, did you miss the interviews where it was stated that the 3 out of 8 failures were due to pilot error, ie he missed the wire completely? Did you also notice that the 8 tests were done with the new hook but still had the old damper? Or that there was only one wire involved?<br /><br />As far as the Proceedings goes, pointing to a pay-to-read article is not the way to convince anyone...SpudmanWPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808856347047254385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33459866688440910942013-06-15T12:52:10.049-07:002013-06-15T12:52:10.049-07:00"The point is completely true. If you went to..."The point is completely true. If you went to pick up a new car you ordered because your existing car was broken and were told that the car wouldn't be ready for three more years you'd have three more years of repairs, rentals, or other interim transportation costs to pay that you wouldn't have if the new car had been ready on time."<br /><br />However you would have three years of more use out of your new car before it needed to be replaced at the end.<br />Its not good, but its not that bad, ok it is, but theres a silver lining.TrTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24149808815670790142013-06-15T06:45:45.937-07:002013-06-15T06:45:45.937-07:00SpudmanWP, it's great that concurrency costs a...SpudmanWP, it's great that concurrency costs are coming down, however, we're still paying for concurrency. Setting aside the issue of inflation, it costs more to buy an aircraft and then retrofit changes than to wait and buy the corrected aircraft. Retrofitting costs more than production. That's a simple fact. Whether we buy a $10 plane with a combat helmet or buy a $9 plane without a helmet and then pay $1 later to get the helmet, the final plane costs the same. If LRIP costs seem lower it's because it's for an incomplete aircraft!<br /><br />I respectfully disagree (or misunderstand) with your comment about software costs. I work with large industrial projects and software always makes up 50% or more of the total cost and is always the largest chunk of time.<br /><br />I agree that we're not reading the same reports. The 2012 DOT&E report states that the hook test failed 3 of 8 landings and that inordinate stresses have been discovered on the upper portion of the assembly. The Jun '13 Proceedings, p.56, has an article which describes the hook improvements as inadequate. What reports have you seen that document a fully functional hook?<br /><br />You understand that the current LRIP airframes are not combat capable, right?<br /><br />Setting all the above aside, what do you think of the author's documentation of $200M+ costs per plane?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-65371209596189866872013-06-14T22:22:20.012-07:002013-06-14T22:22:20.012-07:00LM and P&W are taking more and more of the ris...LM and P&W are taking more and more of the risks for concurrency costs so raising the LRIP rates is of very little cost risk for the DoD. Starting in LRIP 5, LM will assume 50% of the Pre-start Concurrency.<br /><br />Overall the Concurrency projections look a lot better than they did last year. Here is the May 2013 <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/05-2013,%20Concurrency%20report%20on%20F35.pdf" rel="nofollow">report to Congress</a>.<br /><br />Software plays very little in the cost projections for concurrency as it takes just a few hours and little or no hardware to change. Same goes for the helmet.<br /><br />The biggest concurrency risk is structural and those days are behind the program for the most part. IIRC all three versions have gone through 1 lifetime of stress tests and are working on the second.<br /><br /><br />Have you been reading the same reports I have?? Because the new hook has been performing wonderfully as has the new helmet. As far as combat software goes, 2B goes into testing this year.<br /><br />Remember that without concurrency they would have had to extend the life of every F-16/15/18/ etc for 10+ years assuming they would not start production until after SDD.<br /><br />The points that I laid out are specifically addressing LONG-TERM issues. I don't know where you think they are short-term in nature.SpudmanWPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808856347047254385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58464001659767702002013-06-14T02:32:59.004-07:002013-06-14T02:32:59.004-07:00SpudmanWP, while all of your points are valid, you...SpudmanWP, while all of your points are valid, you do understand that you're arguing for entering into production of a technologically immature aircraft that, after being produced, will have to undergo significant rework as modifications are implemented to correct design deficiencies? These aren't minor tweaks but structural reworks. Various reports have already identified concurrency costs as a major factor in cost growth and you're suggesting the program do more of that? Further, the aircraft isn't even combat capable, at the moment. For example, the software and helmet required for combat aren't even available. There remain some doubts that the -C version (Navy) will even be feasible due to the arresting hook issue among other problems.<br /><br />Entering LRIP at this point is going to raise final costs 20%-50% due to concurrency while producing a non-operational aircraft.<br /><br />Your points are valid from a short-term accounting perspective but not from a technology, combat, operational, or long-term cost perspective.<br /><br />Are you really willing to accept a 20%-50% cost increase on an already massively over-budget program that has yet to meet its operational specifications?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2024826471105102582013-06-14T00:33:08.630-07:002013-06-14T00:33:08.630-07:00This is one of the reasons why I scream at the IDI...This is one of the reasons why I scream at the IDIOTS who only look at the short-term costs savings of delaying the LRIP ramp up of the build rate while ignoring the long-term costs like:<br /><br />1. The aforementioned increased cost to keep legacy jets in the air. Included in this cost is the additional assets required to help legacy assets do their mission (IFR, ISR, Escorts, Jammers, Decoys, etc).<br /><br />2. Reduction in LRIP buys caused the cost of late LRIP & early FRP jets to go up significantly.<br /><br />3. The rise in LRIP costs have caused many partners to delay their orders, further exacerbating the problem.<br /><br />4. The rise in LRIP costs has cause at least one Partner to restart the evaluation (Canada).<br /><br />5. The rise in LRIP costs may cause our only FMS customer so far to delay orders past the initial buy (Japan).<br /><br />6. The rise in LRIP costs may be the linchpin item that causes LM to loose the South Korean contest.<br /><br />7. Any lost order will cause the lifetime costs of every F-35 to go up since less F-35s means parts cost more.SpudmanWPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808856347047254385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87532987649627899562013-06-13T05:03:36.180-07:002013-06-13T05:03:36.180-07:00The point is completely true. If you went to pick...The point is completely true. If you went to pick up a new car you ordered because your existing car was broken and were told that the car wouldn't be ready for three more years you'd have three more years of repairs, rentals, or other interim transportation costs to pay that you wouldn't have if the new car had been ready on time. Likewise, the Navy is having to buy additional Super Hornets and pay for upgrades to existing aircraft that they hadn't planned on. The delays of the F-35 are costing the Navy in the form of unplanned maintenance and upgrades to cover the gap until the F-35 is ready.<br /><br />The Navy is paying more and more developmental costs for the F-35 that were not planned for and paying for legacy upgrade costs that were not planned for. So, yes, the F-35 does have a "cost of delay" and it's significant.<br /><br />The author is not attempting to include those costs in his numbers. He simply points out that the true cost impact is greater than just the purchase price of the F-35.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37378481324935443692013-06-12T23:09:20.791-07:002013-06-12T23:09:20.791-07:00This comment seem to me false:
-The true cost imp...This comment seem to me false:<br /><br />-The true cost impact of the F-35 program must include the large sums paid to upgrade various legacy aircraft due to the F-35’s excessive delays. Those costs are not accounted for in conventional analysis.<br /><br />If we did this we would be force to make two other changes to F-35 program.<br />1) increase salvage value of F-35 fights as they have less fight hours on them.<br />2)Or lengthen the time the program, at no cost, as you assume the F-35 would be worthless.<br />Either way it becomes an accounting nightmare, so we are better off not playing the front in addition for no function.<br />G LOfnoreply@blogger.com