backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by FauxNews.. on May 23 at 8:33 PM


F-22 upgrade is over budget and behind schedule

F-35 operating costs will reach $1T
Officials think management will get the operating costs of the F-35 down

Any time the USAF or other branches of the armed service need a replacement for an aging aircraft, the cost of the development and maintenance are a huge budgetary issue for the military and lawmakers in Washington. Two of the most expensive weapons programs in the last several decades have been the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II.

The F-22 is due for an incremental upgrade to its hardware and software that some officials say is already behind on delivery and over its cost projections. The update in question is called Increment 3.2.

Air Force procurement Chief David Van Buren told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The Increment 3.2 that we're currently working on for the F-22 for our war-fighting customer is taking too long to implement. We are working with the company [Lockheed Martin] to try to speed that up and make it more affordable."

The cause of the delay in delivery stems from the programming language used called Ada. The Ada language was once a DoD standard, but the use of the language has waned in the last 15 years. Analyst Loren Thompson from the Lexington Institute said, "It tends to impede quick upgrades to the system to which it is the base software." Thompson also said, "The affordability of any upgrade becomes debatable when you purchase a relatively small number of upgrades."

The new upgrade is being applied to the 187 Raptors built by Lockheed, two of which have been lost to accidents. The upgrade will allow the F-22 to carry the AIM-9x infrared-guided air-to-air missile and the AIM 120D medium-range Air-to-Air missile and attack up to eight different targets with the 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs. Lockheed is looking for ways to reduce the cost of the upgrade right now.

The F-35 program is also again the center of focus on costs. This time lawmakers and military commanders are looking at the long-term costs of maintaining and operating the F-35 fleet. The Pentagon has estimated that the cost to operate the F-35 fighters through 2065 will be more than $1 trillion.

Procurement Chief Ashton Carter said, "Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft has doubled in real terms. That's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. That's unacceptable. That's unaffordable."

However, he noted that the massive $1 trillion number can’t be taken at face value because management steps over the life of the aircraft will bring costs down. Carter said, "I truly believe that we can manage out a substantial number of the production and sustainment costs."

There has been technology sharing between the F-22 and the F-35 with some stealth coatings developed for the F-35 being applied to the older F-22 aircraft. The F-35 fleet was grounded in March when an in-flight failure of the generator aboard a test aircraft occurred.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Iaiken on 5/20/2011 11:38:15 AM , Rating: 1
One trillion dollars equals:

33 million college educations
21 million low income houses
9,000 miles of high speed rail (including the trains)
200 comprehensive metropolitan subway systems
1/14th of the current national debt

But what the hey, you can't use a low income house to stomp the crap out of a 3rd world nation, can you?


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By ebakke on 5/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By FaaR on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By ebakke on 5/21/2011 12:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
I never said college educations aren't important. I just don't believe it's something the federal government should be spending any money on. If you want to go to college, great. If I want to go to college, great. Neither of us should be forced to subsidize the other. And if the subsidy is going to happen, the right place for it is at the state not with the feds.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By SPOOFE on 5/21/2011 10:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
The gov't subsidy on college educations has resulted in the degrees themselves losing their value. There is a shortage of skilled labor in this country, and too many students getting a degree just to wind up doing unrelated office work. It's a self-defeating promise. If there weren't so much government money, schools themselves would be less influenced by the wiles of external politics, and especially national politics; class sizes would be smaller and composed of greater percentages of really passionate students, which would only improve the individual's quality of education.

Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to go to college, more power to them. A degree can be an incredibly useful tool. I just worry that if everyone has a hammer, the whole country will grind to a halt the second we need a wrench.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By TSS on 5/20/2011 12:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
It won't be 1 trillion. It'll be 3.

I sincerely doubt that number has been corrected for inflation - future inflation. What cost you 100 bucks in 2000, will cost you 125 bucks in 2010.

So what costs $100 in 2010, will cost $343.32 in 2065, applying 25% inflation per decade. If their saying the program's costs are $1 trillion in 2010 money, then it'll be $3,43 trillion in 2065 money. So the actual amount of money spent will be somewhere in between.

And people say Inflation is no big deal. You do realise that something that costs $100 bucks in 2010 cost only $8.03 back in 1800? Reversed, something that cost $100 in 1800 cost $1265.30 in 2010, and will cost around $4344 in 2065.

Amazing isn't it? And that's just with 2,5% per year inflation. Of 2000-2010, 7 years averaged above that and 4 below, 2 of which after the crisis. Juli 2008 saw an annualized rate of 5,6%!

Pretty soon you won't be able to afford to stomp anything.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By HrilL on 5/20/2011 1:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
thanks for making me feel better about making 46k a year. Sure at one time it was actually a good wage but now days in my town I am so poor. =( FML


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By tim851 on 5/20/2011 3:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do realise that something that costs $100 bucks in 2010 cost only $8.03 back in 1800?


Yes, but in 1800 somebody making 12.000 dollars per year was an insanely rich person. Inflation doesn't make things more expensive, it devaluates money, because more money is printed.
That's how people's incomes are steadily increasing but their wealth isn't.

And so yes, in 2065, it will cost more money, but the federal government will have more money to spend because people are paying more money in taxes.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By interstitial on 5/20/2011 7:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
12 US dollars in 1800 would be worth a little over 150 dollars now, adjusted for inflation.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By JMC2000 on 5/21/2011 10:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, you know he/she meant 12,000 with a comma.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By ZmaxDP on 5/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Solandri on 5/20/2011 5:11:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One trillion dollars equals:

33 million college educations
21 million low income houses
9,000 miles of high speed rail (including the trains)
200 comprehensive metropolitan subway systems
1/14th of the current national debt

Not that I think the F35 program is cheap nor worth it, but the $1 trillion figure is for operating costs from 2011 to 2065. This seems to be something of a favorite tactic among people wanting to dismiss a program as too costly - take it's cost over an arbitrarily large number of years, and use that figure to emphasize how expensive it is.

For a proper comparison, here are similar operating costs for the programs you outlined from 2011-2065 (simply multiplying the 2011 costs by 55 years):
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_gs.php

State grants and subsidies (subcategory of 506, I can't find the entry for federal grants): $18.5b/yr * 55 years = $1.02 trillion

I can't find a solo entry for federal grants and scholarships. However, this article says Obama planned to increase Pell Grants to almost $35 billion in 2011.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/30/nation/la-...
$35b/yr * 55 years = $1.93 trillion

Housing Assistance (604): $69.4b/yr * 55 years = $3.82 trillion

Rail assistance (401, high speed and regular): $3.2b/yr * 55 years = $0.18 trillion
(There seems to be no single line item for subways)

Average annual deficit over the last 10 years: $788.6b/yr * 55 years = $43.37 trillion (so $1 trillion would actually only cover 1/43rd the debt accrued in the same time period)

And just for yucks, Medicare (571): $494.3 billion * 55 years = $27.19 trillion


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By FaaR on 5/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By inperfectdarkness on 5/20/2011 8:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
not getting it at all, are you?

the military is an INSURANCE policy. it's as simple as that. if you don't want to fund the military, thats' fine. i'll also assume that you don't have insurance on your car, your house, your life, or any of a myriad of other things.

unfortunately for your feeble logic; your "military insurance policy" works substantially different from other types of insurance. skimping on insurance is dangerous. spend enough; and it's a virtual guarantee it won't ever be in desperate need. don't spend enough, and you might as well not have spent anything at all.

i'll also point out that your assertion that the USA is only vulnerable to attack from canada and mexico is distinctly a 19th century strategic sentiment. perhaps if andrew jackson was still president, your argument would have some validity.

FAIL.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Skywalker123 on 5/20/2011 10:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeh, we're insurance poor, cause we buy more "insurance" than anyone else.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By inperfectdarkness on 5/21/2011 2:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
as a function of GDP...yes, but not by much. we're not even in the top 10 of countries by defense spending as a function of GDP.

when you factor in the fact that we indigenously research, develop, manufacture and produce all of these weapons systems...that figure starts to make a LOT more sense.

i guess though that 1% of the population defending the other 99% is too much for you.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Skywalker123 on 5/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By JW.C on 5/21/2011 6:26:05 PM , Rating: 3
Thats because they've never been on the business end of an AK.


RE: haha this is so ridiculous
By Skywalker123 on 5/21/11, Rating: 0
By Divide Overflow on 5/21/2011 2:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
Mexico is and has been actively invading the US for quite some time now. If this is news to you, it's no wonder the rest of your comments are complete tripe.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki