Everyone in the world understands that exhibit P-40 in the FY2009 budget, within your citation (which I mentioned in my original message) is a projection of the cost of the 1,762 USAF F-35As.  Why exactly do you persist in trying to equate that to an actual factual price?  There is no contract that states the cost is $83 million- it's merely a projection by the USAF of what they guess the cost will be based on many factors.

 

The same FY2009 budget shows the USN/USMC aircraft costing $115 million.  This is also a projection.  In any case the USN/USMC are also buying F-35s.   The USAF and USN/USMC within the exact same FY2009 show the projected cost of the F-35 differing by $32 million.  They are probably both incorrect but it's impossible they are both correct.

 

It's also rather instructive to note the date on exhibit P-40, it's Feb 2008.  There has been other cost data, and facts relevant to cost projections, within the public domain the past 14 months.  The projection is out of date.

 

Do you wish to see the projections for prior years by the USAF and graph the cost escalations?

 

In any case you have cited a 14 month old USAF projection for the flyaway cost of 1,763 USAF F-35s.  That is not a factual cost.  To continue to assert this projected cost reflects the actual cost is to lack rationality.  The title of the document is FY2009 Budget Estimates.

 

Finally you might wish to compare the cost estimates from 2 or more of these documents.  Just two years prior the FY2007 document has the F-35 costing $176 million in 07, $140 million in 08, $140 million in 09, $92 million 10, and $86 million in FY2011.  The current document shows that in only TWO years the USAF projected costs for it's F-35s rose from $176 to $248 million in 07, $104 to $200 million in 09, and $86 to $124 in 2011.

 

To assert I'm engaging in "wild speculation" in the face of these actual cost escalations as cited from the USAF Budget Estimates for 07 and 09 while you continue to assert the FY2009 projection is a factual cost is simply irrational.

 

 

No, the cost is 83 MILLION fly away roughly. Of course it will vary a bit more or less. Of course it could rise or fall. In any event you are wildly speculating to support whatever point you are trying to make and I'm sticking to what can be shown.

-DA 

No, the cost is 83 MILLION fly away roughly. Of course it will vary a bit more or less. Of course it could rise or fall. In any event you are wildly speculating to support whatever point you are trying to make and I'm sticking to what can be shown.

-DA 

DA, come on. You know full well that report is useing projections of a FULL 1763 USAF buy going all the way out to 2035. No delays, no changes in orders by the US OR any partner nations, of which NONE have actually commited to buy so much as ONE a/c to date aside from the UK buying 3 test a/c only. The current a/c are in excess of 200 mil and not projected to go below 100 mil a pop till the 2012-13 timeframe even on that report. I read wherre it went up in cost alone from either 2007 to 2008 I think it was by 8.5%, and yet you seem to think that NOW it is all going to be good sailing and only *minor* fluctuations? It has already went from a ~55 Mil dollarf fighter to 83 mil and not even being mass produced and still in early testing and you honestly think that besides minor fluctuactions, that is it given it's already checkered past price history? The world is not simply black and white DA. There's a lot of grey in it and you are not useing pure common sense on this one.

 

Here is a GAO report and what THEY think of that *overly optimistic*  (their words, not mine ) estmate by the USAF and company.

 

link

Everyone in the world understands that exhibit P-40 in the FY2009 budget, within your citation (which I mentioned in my original message) is a projection of the cost of the 1,762 USAF F-35As.  Why exactly do you persist in trying to equate that to an actual factual price?  There is no contract that states the cost is $83 million- it's merely a projection by the USAF of what they guess the cost will be based on many factors.

 

The same FY2009 budget shows the USN/USMC aircraft costing $115 million.  This is also a projection.  In any case the USN/USMC are also buying F-35s.   The USAF and USN/USMC within the exact same FY2009 show the projected cost of the F-35 differing by $32 million.  They are probably both incorrect but it's impossible they are both correct.

 

It's also rather instructive to note the date on exhibit P-40, it's Feb 2008.  There has been other cost data, and facts relevant to cost projections, within the public domain the past 14 months.  The projection is out of date.

 

Do you wish to see the projections for prior years by the USAF and graph the cost escalations?

 

In any case you have cited a 14 month old USAF projection for the flyaway cost of 1,763 USAF F-35s.  That is not a factual cost.  To continue to assert this projected cost reflects the actual cost is to lack rationality.  The title of the document is FY2009 Budget Estimates.

 

Finally you might wish to compare the cost estimates from 2 or more of these documents.  Just two years prior the FY2007 document has the F-35 costing $176 million in 07, $140 million in 08, $140 million in 09, $92 million 10, and $86 million in FY2011.  The current document shows that in only TWO years the USAF projected costs for it's F-35s rose from $176 to $248 million in 07, $104 to $200 million in 09, and $86 to $124 in 2011.

 

To assert I'm engaging in "wild speculation" in the face of these actual cost escalations as cited from the USAF Budget Estimates for 07 and 09 while you continue to assert the FY2009 projection is a factual cost is simply irrational.

 

 

No, the cost is 83 MILLION fly away roughly. Of course it will vary a bit more or less. Of course it could rise or fall. In any event you are wildly speculating to support whatever point you are trying to make and I'm sticking to what can be shown.

-DA 

Feel free to speculate all you want. There is no reason why the USAF isn't going to buy the full 1700+ F-35's plus. When someone else in DoDland suggest otherwise, I'll consider it. Until then, you LB and Beazzz are simply trying to twist the debate into a hypothetical that supports your false conclusions. I'm not interested in discussing that.

-DA 

There is no reason why the USAF isn't going to buy the full 1700+ F-35's plus.

 

 

Im sure someone said the same thing about the F-22 in 1991 when the AF thought they were going to buy 750. Now, unless Congress wishes to purchase more we are left with 187. Before 2035 the actual number of F-35's will change probably 10 times. I wonder if a change in doctrine will have anything to do with that?

The only issue is your statement that the F-35 costs around $83 million dollars.  The only citation you provided in support of your assertion is the FY2009 USAF Budget Estimate.  The cost is radically different in the FY2009 USN Budget Estimate which you did not cite.

 

The cost is shown to raise significantly by comparing the 2007 and 2009 Budgets.  Were we to have this discussion two years ago you would cite the 2007 numbers.  Next year when we have the 2010 USAF numbers and those numbers are shown to be higher than this years might one ask exactly when such numbers cease to become "speculation".

 

You simply can not escape the fact that you have cited a single FY cost projection as "factual" when in reality it is a cost projection; moreover, these numbers rise every single year in the budgets.  It's not "speculation" to point out costs rise every year but rather simply a trend.

 

In any case every number and study I've mentioned is from an official budget document and thus fits your definition of "DoDland".  

 

You asserted the F-35 costs "~80 million".  Prove it.

 

 

REASON. If the REASON for 1700+ F-35s changes just like the REASON for > 187 Raptors did then YES. But then that would be justified as was the F-22 cap. This is not a hard concept to understand. Whats different about 1991 and 2009? Again, REASONS.

 

-DA 

LB,

You can ask all you want. I will never use for any reason another number other than ~80 million as the average fly away unit cost for an F-35A on this website or any other in my estimates until a public statement is made by LM or the USAF saying otherwise. I will allow for the possibility that the cost for the F-35A could potentially grow to ~100 million before being fixed. I think this is reasonable and other than that you are going to have to agree to disagree because my mind cannot and will not be changed on this outside of the reasons I mentioned.

-DA 

You will not allow huh DA? You will allow for cost to possibly grow to 100 mil huh? Its currently at 200mil DA.  You are completely ignoring other factual data presented to you and talking right over it as if it does not even exist because it does not fit your position. You do relaize that the paper you cited is in reality nothing more then a *hypothetical* GUESTMATE as well don't you? How many planes of that 1763 has the USAF ordered to date? How many of the 600+ planes has the USN ordered to date? Even the guestimate you put out clearly shows the cost for the F35 for many years to come is well over 83mil a pop. It will ONLY, even by that report, which is highly criticized by a government office that the people stroking the check pay a LOT of attention to, reach the estimated 83mil figure if ALL 1763 USAF jets are purchased. It is not wild specualtion to assume that over the course of 27 years that may, and likely will change.

That estimate is just that DA, an estimate based on 100% best case scennarios of which for all practical purposes never happens. Aside from the fact this is the single largest modern day aircraft aquasition project in history and common sense, as well as the last 5 years cost growth of the project,  dictates any reasonable person allow and expect for future cost growth for a myriad of possible reasons. None of which is more probable then the fact all that are expected or hoped for may not be ordered and will drive the cost up. The wotld is in a full blown recession DA and to think that all the partner nations are going to jump in this thing head first no looking back is not realistic. For some time now they have all been talking about NOT buying the ealry buy a/c as they are TO expensice as in 200mil a pop expensive!!  Is the US going to piuck up the tab for all they will not buy ? Thought the DoD was in a tight spot financially so how do we do that one?

 

You still are also ignoring the fact NOT ONE nation has actually put pen to paper and commited to buying ONE F35 as of yet. Not one DA. Ya know, you have lectured me several timesa about being open minded and listening to reason. But you are being completely bull headed and acting like an individual reading right from a script. I'm just the rookie here and know it but I have been following the JSF over the last 18-24 months and do have a basic understanding of what has been going on with it. It has CONSTANTLY continued to go up in price and that is not specualtion DA. It's just plain fact. To assume that now all the sudden its done goin up in price when the very agencys such as GAO, who elected officials pay a great deal of attention to, indicate just the opposite of what you insist on saying. How you dismiss the GAO as easily as you do me has to make one wonder just what is going on in your head. You remind of me of those old movies where the gunnie tells the Marine to charge the machine gun cuz he's a Marine and bullets dont hurt him and the Marines says yes sir and promptly charges the machine gun and promptly dies.

 

The USAF put out a report stateing what they hoped for in a perfect world DA. What exactly do you expect them to say? They did exactly what any reasonable person would expect is all. I am sure however that the USAF knows this is not a perfect world and know full well things will go up. It's not specualtion. It's simply a logical conclusion based on all the data avaliable and past experience with the program.

 

Good luck chargin that machine gun DA. ;-)

 

Beazz

 

PS: the guy that told ya to charge it IS wrong DA.  ;-)