F-35: GAO says at least $122 million per copy

[FUEL]

The GAO report (https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf) on the F-35 program that came out this month is hitting more headlines as people start doing some simple math. $300 billion (The GAO total cost figure that they think is more realistic) divided by the expected total buy of 2,458 aircraft comes out to around $122 million per copy.

A Defense Acquisition Board meets today to give it the go ahead for low rate initial production 2. Should we be surprised if they give a pause until the program office recalculates its projected cost with more up to date and realistic numbers like the GAO report recommends? And would the following affect their decision?

- Cost per flight hour exceeds that of the F-16 (I would assume that means current cost per hour)

- Compare $122 million per F-35 to $138 million per F-22 right now at (USAF FY 2009 budget estimates: https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/do...080204-081.pdf) That is at incremental cost and to be fair to the F-35 program the average cost for the projected buy of 183 F-22s averages to $338 million per copy. On the other hand, the $135 million per F-22 could drop significantly with a larger buy.

Thinking realistically...

- From what I see the program is planning on the AF buying 1,763

- The USAF operates around 1,315 F-16s and 350 A-10s (1,665 total). Not taking into account the F-15E and any F-117s, since they don't have large argument for F-35 replacement, and dropping 223 A-10s from that number since deciding to modernize them, that leaves just 1,442 F-35 as replacements (322 less) for the AF

- Furthermore, do we have a strong argument for a 1:1 buy, especially with the CSAF saying it "will be so much more capable than the F-16"? The 1997 QDR dropped the F-22 buy from 442 to 341 due to the "more capable" reasoning. However, going ahead with the 1:1 ratio buy, but dropping the AF buy to 1,442, that makes a total F-35 buy to $140 million per copy [$300 billion divided by 2,136 F-35s, (takes into account 322 less AF)]

So just looking at a readjusted and very realistic AF buy, while not even touching the other service's buys and expecting a 1:1 AF buy... the cost is just over the current cost of an F-22. Am I looking at this from the wrong perspective?

Sources

GAO F-35 March 2008 report

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf

Making the Best of the Fighter Force, by: John A. Tirpak

https://www.afa.org/magazine/march2007/0307force.asp

CSBA's US Fighter Modernization Plans: Near Term Choices

https://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Pu...ter_Moderni.pdf

Edited March 27, 2008 by thehix

[Guest Fogo]

Well I sure can't give a comment yet without doing the reading for myself. However, in my current MBA class I am doing some research on AF spending in light of current modernization issues (F22, F35, the tanker etc).

You've given me a lot to look at and digest... I'll have to add my .02 sometime down the road.

[Guest Joe]

The F-35 is not a good alternative to the A-10.

Edit: I know that's not the point of your thread, so sorry.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Joe

[FallingOsh]

Furthermore, do we have a strong argument for a 1:1 buy, especially with the CSAF saying it "will be so much more capable than the F-16"? The 1997 QDR dropped the F-22 buy from 442 to 341 due to the "more capable" reasoning

I hate that argument. 341 F-22s cannot replace the entire fleet of over 700 C models regardless of its capability. I worked with a guy in college who was the biggest bouncer you've ever seen. I saw him carry three guys down a flight of stairs and throw them out by himself. As big as he was, he couldn't watch every room at the same time. It's a lame analogy, but it gets my point across. Maybe a 1:1 buy isnt completely necessary but there is no way to convince me a 1:2 buy will cover our asses.

[Guest thefranchise]

if they crash with the same frequency as 16s they better buy a few extra

[FUEL]

Definitely agreed with you on the 1:1, just trying to show the perspective of the people that will be supplying (congress, who take into account QDR) not those that request. Even so, I assumed a 1:1 for the aircraft that replacement was still justified.

[Guest rapier01]

Never volunteer to cut your forces. People will assume you can actually cut deeper... the best strategy is to insist on the full purchase and argue that you actually need more. That usually gives whoever is allocating the budget numbers at the OMB and Pentagon somignthing to think about.

[Whitman]

if they crash with the same frequency as 16s they better buy a few extra

No kidding. Why the F-35 only has 1 engine, I don't understand. The F-16 has double the Class A rate of any other fighter. I wonder why? At $122M per copy, cost obviously isn't the reason and it should have two engines.

[StoleIt]

No kidding. Why the F-35 only has 1 engine, I don't understand. The F-16 has double the Class A rate of any other fighter. I wonder why? At $122M per copy, cost obviously isn't the reason and it should have two engines.

I'd venture to bet the VSTOL capability or what not the -35C has would be a bitch of an engineering problem to make with two engines. Just a thought.