Complete the program. At least we have something to fly while we figure who we were planning on flying them against. And start saving for the next plane. The $500 million dollar replacement.

Nonsense, I know full well the importance of testing & evaluation. I have made NO indication whatsoever that it is not important. I am simply pointing out that the ‘IOC slip’ is due to a POLICY CHANGE, we are still ordering & recieving F-35s each & every year and there ACTUAL physical staus will be the same whether the USAF stayed with the previous 2013 IOC or delays IOC.

What was covered up from Congress? Congress has access to information on the program you can only dream of seeing.

You are the one that does’t get it. Your assumption is that SDD/EMD is unnecessary. We can just build airplanes on the hope they they will work with no testing, no OT&E program… We can even go to war with none of this testing completed. Name one example of this approach actually working.

We don’t need 300+ mistake jets that have to be torn down and rebuilt to have any use. The most likely outcome for those jets is that they will be too hard to retrofit with all the fixes from SDD and they will park them at Davis-Monthan or use them to practice putting out fires etc. Mark my words, when EMD testing is completed (if that ever happens), the JPO will simply say that it is cheaper to buy new F-35s than to fix the mistake birds.

You don’t get it. The IOC change DOES NOT mean we will not be getting F-35s until then, they are still being procured & delivered reguardless of id IOC is 2013 or 2016. If the F-35A is needed to go to war in 2014 the 50+ operational we have then would do so IOC declared or not.

Deliveries are being made prior to testing being completed because we NEED thes new aircraft BEFORE testing is completed. And just what makes you think they will all be ‘mistake jets’? Not to mention the sooner & more aircraft you procure the sooner the cost goes down.

It is a projection based on fictional delays & cost increases THAT HAVE NOT HAPPENED YET & in fact unlikely to happen.

LRIP lot costs have been BELOW projections. At the rate the LRIP cost has been dropping the LRIP per unit average is going to be close to $112 million. And that is less than 20% of the planned total production run, the OTHER 80+% will be <$100 million each.

An get this, from the previous procurements schedule MORE F-35 were to have been procured in FY2012 than in FY2007-2011 COMBINED (118 vs 112)! And even that only 1/2 the full rate production of 230 each year.

That ‘notations-on-the-cost-of-the-f-35-and-other-aircraft-24627′ is complete hogwash. New Block 50/52 F-16s cost ~$45 million. Comparing the cost of fighters built in the 1960s-1990’s to the cost of fighters today is disingenuous at best — you COULD NOT build a F-4 of F-16 today for the same inflation adjusted cost as when they were built.

Janes 19 DEC 06: First Flight Report
Brigadier General Charles Davis, the executive officer for the air force’s F-35 Program Office, said the successful first flight provides important evidence that the programme’s aggressive deadlines and concurrent testing and production schedules can be achieved.
“It really proves the programme can step through a lot of the milestones we have planned over the next couple of years,” Gen Davis said…
Gen Davis, however, said the programme is on track and he is working with Lockheed Martin to secure a contract for six conventional and six short take-off and landing variants in 2008.
“We understand risks for schedules and we don’t see anything as a significant challenge,” said Gen Davis.

Donch’a know that what’s good for Lockheed Martin shareholders is good for America? I mean, first you get to charge the taxpayer 100+ million dollars a pop for a whole bunch of spiffy-looking things that look like combat airplanes, and then later you get to charge’em another $5 –to who knows how many more– millions apiece to actually make them work.. .sort’of . Just like all those warehoused JASSM’s but even more profitable!

It’s the LM American Way.

JL

Gee, a novel concept (policy?) like completing testing before you send a new aircraft to war causes a delay in IOC. Sounds like a PROGRAM DELAY to me.

Why are all of these deliveries being made before testing is completed? Oh yes 300+ useless hanger queen mistake jets to fix after development testing is completed. That should keep the depot’s busy. These mistake jets are really part of the EMD and are being made to make the unit cost seem better than they really will be.

http://www.defencetalk.com/notations-on-the-cost-…

1. A stupefying amount of money for a plane that was supposed to cost half of the now projected $112 each.
2. A stupefying amount of money for a plane with inferior baseline performance to existing 4.5 generation fighters (flying now).

Any questions?

Yes, the F-22 was projected to reach a flyaway unit cost of ~$120 million (vs the $140 million average for 60 lot 7–9) had it continued to be procured [FY2008 dollars]. Even if the USAF had been allowed to procure the 381 minimum it needs that is still ~1/8 the number of F-35s to be procured AND at a production rate less than 1/10 that of the F-35 full rate production rate.

But again, the F-35 is get LESS EXPENSIVE, not more expensive. Just watch in amazement as the ACTUAL PROCUREMTN COST steadly decreases & drops BELOW $100 million even before full rate prodution is reached.

I never said the F-35 would be more expensive, im just saying if the price goes to what this said it should i would rather have the 22. do i believe it will get to what this article says no, if its lower then 100 mil. thats great, but IF it does go over 100 mil in full rate production it makes it less worth it.

Quite the opposite, I very much AM a student of history (including recent). That is why I recognize that all the media report are MISREPORTING reality, that the program is not doing anywhere near as badly as being reported. YOU should read the actual testimonies instead of the misleading medea reports.

I wager that the IOC will be declared EARLIER than 2016. The ‘projection’ of a 2016 IOC is based on delays which HAVE NOT HAPPENED & in fact are unlikley to happen to the degree projected becasue contrary to what the naysayers want people to believe SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS has been made making the projections of future delays at the same pace as the last two year NOT based on the current reality.

Thanks for demonstrating how you have no clue what you are talking about. The recent ‘IOC slip’ is due to a POLICY CHANGE! Deliveries have not been, are not & will not be delayed 36 months or even 12 months for that matter. The ‘difference’ now is that the USAF & USN have decided not to declare IOC until testing & evaluation is completed.

Just wait a few months for the remaining test aircraft to be delivered & watch/listen in awe (or disbelief) as the number of clopleted test flight increases at a rate I am sure you will find impossible.

The F-22 would also become cheaper with each and every lot also so thats a non-point. Im not saying to walk away from the JSF right now im just saying if these prices become true i would rather have the more capable fighter in my force. As you said the prices are just projections, if LM’s are right then i have no problem with it, but if the larger numbers are right it would make more sense to just buy the better aircraft that is at least already in service.

You are obviously not a student of history — even recent history.

Take a look at the testimony of Michael Sullivan of the GAO.

The F-35A JSF was supposed to be at IOC by 2010.

IOC is not slated for 2016.

Fifth grade arithmetic shows the JSF Program, from a planning perspective, is not SIX YEARS behind schedule.

Any takers on a wager that this will slip even further out to, say, EIGHT YEARS or TEN YEARS or further?

During FY09, the test team accumulated only 12 test fl ights
with BF-2 and four fl ight test sorties for aircraft BF-1 for
a total of 16 test fl ights of the approximately 5,000 total
planned for SDD. The approved master schedule called for
168 test fl ights, including the completion of the fi rst vertical
landing, before the end of the fi scal year. Completion of
the fi rst vertical landing has slipped from mid-2009 to
January 2010.

In the last year, schedule pressure became manifest in
software deliveries and fl ight testing. Program plans
extended the end of fl ight test for blocks 0.5, 1, 2, and 3
each by 12 months.

The mission capability of the LRIP systems is unclear.
Additionally, the Services and operational test agencies
need to better understand when and how performance
of LRIP deliveries is verifi ed and reported. Given the
developing lag in verifi cation and test execution, closing
on the capabilities planned for the fi rst three (of eight)
LRIP lots by the planned delivery dates is high risk.”

and on and on…