F-35 News

[Penguin]

A Turquia investiu USD 200mi em um programa que até agora custou USD 48bi.
Benefícios ela terá. Mas evidentemente limites também haverão. Mesmo adquirindo 100 unidades.

[sapao]

Com certeza, mas para o F-35 ja li que colocaram barreiras para Israel e Japão; sem comentar a recusa em vender o F-22.
Acho que eles são muito reticentes com a tecnologia STEALTH, não sei o porque, mas sei que com certeza estão abrindo brecha para a concorrencia...

[Carlos Lima]

Com certeza, mas para o F-35 ja li que colocaram barreiras para Israel e Japão; sem comentar a recusa em vender o F-22.
Acho que eles são muito reticentes com a tecnologia STEALTH, não sei o porque, mas sei que com certeza estão abrindo brecha para a concorrencia...

Existe mais no F-35 do que somente o Stealth... em teoria caso o F-35 venha realmente se tornar algo próximo do que o planejado inicialmente a parte toda de fusão de sensores em conjunto com o Stealth e como a coisa toda funciona(ria) com certa harmonia é que todo mundo quer botar a mão.

Mas esse sou eu

[]s
CB_Lima

[Penguin]

John McCain Says Cost Overruns on Texas-Built Fighter Jet “An Absolute Disgrace” (excerpt)


(Source: MySanAntonio blog; posted March 6, 2011)



Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is an angry guy these days. Last year, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate told Arizona voters that it was time to “finish the dang fence” on the Mexican border. Today, he used even more colorful language to describe a Texas-made military product.

“The F-35, the next generation fighter (jet), I mean it is a disgrace,” he said of the Army’s Joint Strike Fighter being built by Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth.

“It is an absolute disgrace, the cost overruns,” McCain said this morning at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, “It’s been now something like 18 months behind schedule and already double the original cost. You just cannot sustain such behavior in these days of economic hard times.”

McCain said he is “incredibly frustrated and angry” at Army procurement procedures. He cited a study that found the Army wastes an average of $3.4 billion a year on projects that come to nothing.

“They screw up a contract beyond belief,” McCain told reporters. “We decide not to buy the product and yet we’re still paying for the product. “Where else in America is that kind of deal available? I mean it’s nuts.”

Despite the anger, he said he is “reluctant to cut defense spending” until Congress learns more about the financial commitment to U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as unstable nations in North Africa and the Middle East.

But whatever the bottom line for the defense budget, McCain had a clear message for the Pentagon about projects like the Texas-made fighter: “They’re going to have to clean up this procurement act.” (end of excerpt)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

[AlbertoRJ]

F-35 programme investigates $442 billion operations bill

Understanding the drivers behind a projected $442 billion bill to operate and sustain the US-owned Lockheed Martin F-35 fleet is the focus of a sweeping new review.
Applying the same rigour as the year-long technical baseline review, which led to a restructuring of development and early production plans, the F-35 joint programme will completed a detailed design review of the stealth fighter's logistics requirements, says Vice Adm David Venlet, F-35 programme executive officer.
"The [armed] services see these estimates and it makes their knees weak going forward, as it does anybody's," Venlet told reporters in a press conference on 21 April.
A key target is reducing the $442 billion estimate at Fiscal 2002 inflation values for F-35 operations and sustainment costs. That cost projection was produced in late 2009 by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), which was then led by Venlet.
The NAVAIR study estimates that the F-35 will cost $30,700 per hour to fly, a 40% increase compared to $18,900 per hour for the F/A-18A-D and AV-8B.
Venlet said all previous studies on F-35 operations and sustainment costs have suffered from not having "actual" values derived from operational aircraft.
"Frankly, we're in that same condition today," Venlet says.
The first low-rate initial production version of the F-35 is "on the threshold" of delivery to the US Air Force's training base at Eglin AFB, Florida, Venlet says.
In the meantime, the programme office can still use estimating models to analyse and illuminate the causes of the F-35's higher operating and sustainment costs, he says.
Venlet emphasized that the operations and sustainment review does not mean the programme is "walking away" from Lockheed's performance-based logistics system.
But programme officials willreview the "balance of organic support in US depots with industry support", Venlet says.
The programme also will consider the cost of the F-35's existing basing structure, as the number of bases drives costs associated with simulators and maintenance infrastructure, he says.
Similar to the TBR, the new cost review will illuminate choices the services can make to lower the cost of operating and sustaining the F-35, Venlet says.
"We see that [cost] estimate," Venlet says. "We know that' s not the right number. We don't know what the right number is."
Meanwhile, Lockheed has delivered the company's initial proposal for the fifth lot of low-rate initial production, which will set the price on 35 new jets, Venlet says. The submittal starts a potentially months-long negotiating process.
At the same time, the programme also is renegotiating the development contract, which is now billions over cost. A key issue in the pricing talks will be restructuring Lockheed's incentive plan.
Last year, the programme office withheld $614 million in incentive payments to Lockheed. Instead, the programme set five goals in 2010 with $7 million bonus payments attached to each goal. The F-35 achieved one of the five goals, which involved completing first flight of the CF-1 carrier variant.
About 60% of the $614 million withheld last year will be offered as incentive payments to Lockheed over the next few years, with the remainder in negotiation for restructuring, Venlet says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... tions.html

[alex]

$18,900 per hour for the F/A-18A-D and AV-8B.

Pelo visto serão as rainhas dos hangares da FAB... se esta compra-los.

[Sterrius]

30mil a hora de vôo é caro até pros EUA.

Isso tb me leva a pensar o tempo de reparo dessa aeronave pra cada hora de voo. O do f22 é proibitivo tb.

[Penguin]

Lockheed’s F-35 Operating Costs May Reach $1 Trillion, U.S. Congress Told (excerpt)


(Source: Bloomberg news; published April 21, 2011)


(See note at bottom -- Ed.)

It may cost as much as $1 trillion to operate the military’s fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 aircraft for several decades, according to a preliminary Pentagon estimate sent to Congress.

The figure is 9.3 percent more than the $915 billion estimate by the Defense Department in its 2009 Selected Acquisition Report to Congress.

The long-term cost estimate, which includes inflation, was submitted to Congress on April 15 in a report obtained by Bloomberg News. It assumes 8,000 hours of flying time for each of the 2,443 aircraft over a 30-year period. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have their own variations of the aircraft, with the last in the fleet to be produced in 2035.

The estimate was calculated by the Pentagon’s independent cost analysis group based on models using historical data from other fighters, David Van Buren, Air Force service acquisition executive, said in an interview today.

“We are taking the challenge” posed by the $1 trillion estimate and “saying we’ve got to drive this down fast,” said Van Buren, who oversees F-35 management. “Do we drive down it down based on reliability projections? Do we drive it down based on technologies that we developed for the F-35” that reflect lessons learned from the F-22, he said?

Older Aircraft

For example, the latest estimate assumes that F-35 components will break more frequently than older aircraft, he said. The Pentagon is trying to develop “a more refined number,” he said.

The $1 trillion estimate is in addition to an estimated $382 billion in development and production costs.

The long-term maintenance estimates were projected based on costs incurred to support the military’s fleet of F-16s, F/A- 18s, and AV-8B Harrier jets, the Pentagon said in its report

Almost all government, analyst and media attention on the Pentagon’s biggest program has focused on cost growth and technical issues in the $54 billion systems-engineering phase.

The Pentagon’s top weapons official, without citing figures, said yesterday that the military must start focusing on controlling the long-range costs. (end of excerpt)


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Adm. Venlet’s press conference has sparked a number of very different news reports, and neither DoD nor the JSF office have made a transcript available.
Apparently, no-one really knows whether the F-35’s estimated operating costs over its 35-year lifespan are $442 billion (see story below), $443 billion, (see note 2 below) $760 billion (see note 1 below), or $1 billion (see above story).

1) In its March 2009 report on the JSF, the GAO stated that "The total expected investment is now more than $1 trillion -- more than $300 billion to acquire 2,456 aircraft and $760 billion in life cycle operation and support costs." Thus, the 1 trillion dollar figure now quoted to Congress, if true, represents a 33% increase in estimated operating costs in barely more than one year, while of course acquisition costs are also up to $382 billion.

2) Reuters reported from the same press conference that “Operating and maintenance costs had been estimated at around $443 billion, a figure [Adm. Venlet] said had made service chiefs' "knees weak." The overall cost of the program would likely rise somewhat beyond the current projected cost of $382 billion given delays in production of test planes, but he gave no further details, Reuters concluded.

-- On a related issue, Air Force Times reported Venlet as saying that “the government cannot allow the company to be driven out of business by absorbing huge additional costs indefinitely, and as such, contracts for LRIP-5 could be adjusted to ensure the company has an acceptable margin.” This pretty much negates any effect of the much-publicized decision to shift the F-35 program to fixed-price contracts, and opens the door to the cost-plus excesses of the past.)

[knigh7]

$18,900 per hour for the F/A-18A-D and AV-8B.

Pelo visto serão as rainhas dos hangares da FAB... se esta compra-los.

Essa equiparacão na matéria entre o custo da hora voo entre o Hornet e o AV-8B (versão do Harrier) está equivocada.
No Reino Unido, o Harrier é a aeronave mais cara de operar, custando 37 mil Libras/ hora, 70% mais caro que o Typhoon. E há fundamento para o Harrier e a versão dele (AV-8B) ser bem cara, por causa pela falta de economia de escala e modo de operacão. O Hornet não tem nada disso. Aliás, outras fontes indicam um valor mais baixo de operacão, como a T&D, num. 116, de USD11,6 mil.

[Carlos Mathias]

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR),

Bem, esse pessoal é deles lá.

A DefesaNet, com toda a boa vontade, eu acredito que saiba menos que eles, da marinha americana.
Ou não?

[Junker]

Isso aí é ainda sobre aquela matéria do "The DEW Line" de janeiro de 2010?



viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9445&p=4982415#p4982415

E a hora de voo do Typhoon era de £85.000,00 segundo o correspondente de defesa do "The Sunday Times" (que deve ser o Godoy deles ). Pode estar certo ou errado:

The Brazilian two-seater Tucano can fly from airstrips and loiter for six and a half hours over the battlefield without refuelling, although it cannot refuel in mid-air. It can carry 1.5 tonnes and uses only £500 of fuel an hour. The Eurofighter Typhoon costs nearly £85,000 an hour to fly. The trainer version is in service with the RAF.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 997720.ece

[Carlos Mathias]

Pode ser que os caras computem tudo envolvido na parada, desde desenvolvimento, até papel higiênico, sei lá...

Mas eu achei muito alta essa hora do F-18 e do EF.

[AlbertoRJ]

A hora do F-35 eu acho realista, ao menos para os primeiros anos.

[]'s

[sapao]

Basta dividir 1 trilhão por 30 anos, se a sua calculadora tiver capacidade de aceitar tantos numeros...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-2 ... llion.html

[Penguin]

De acordo com o GAO o custo anual de operação histórico de uma caça varia entre 3% e 6% do seu custo de aquisição.