backtop


Print 14 comment(s) - last by Mushookees .. on Jun 9 at 2:02 AM

All programs covered in the annual selected acquisitions report state under their spending caps

The Pentagon and military leaders in the U.S. have been under intense pressure concerning the F-35 Lightning II program and how far over budget it has climbed over the years. With the past history of cost overruns, the Pentagon is now letting everyone know that costs for the program fell by $4.5 billion last year.

This is the first time in the F-35 Lightning II program that estimators have lowered the projected cost of the Pentagon's most expensive acquisition program. The annual Pentagon selected acquisitions report, which was published Thursday, is currently projecting the cost to develop and procure the F-35 Lightning II at a little more than $391 billion.

The F-35 Lightning II is one of 78 acquisition programs that was covered in the selected acquisitions report. It's worth noting that the F-35 Lightning II wasn't the only program able to stay under the spending cap covered in the program. The Pentagon undersecretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics, Frank Kendall noted that this was the "first time in my memory" that no program covered in the SAR went over the federal spending cap.

 

The F-35 Lightning II is broken down into two sub programs by the report including Lockheed Martin's portion of building the actual aircraft and Pratt & Whitney, the engine builder. $4.9 billion in savings actually came from Lockheed Martin, while Pratt & Whitney actually saw a cost increase of roughly $442 million due to development and procurement of the engines.
 
Currently, total flyaway costs the F-35A are $76.8 million with the Navy carrier-based version costing $88.7 million. The Marine Corps version, the F-35B, saw costs decline the most to $103.6 million per unit.

The entire F-35 Lightning II fleet had been grounded earlier this year when a crack was discovered in an engine component on one fighter. The aircraft were cleared to fly again in March.

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


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

Couldn't let it go?
By tpb3470 on 5/24/2013 8:40:59 AM , Rating: 0
The program had a good development year, but you had to get the dig in about the grounding. **No mention that the grounding was for safety and the crack was found on one engine that was tested at or beyond its design limits. You should consider a different field to blog about, as you are so biased. It makes you look small.




RE: Couldn't let it go?
By Amiga500 on 5/24/2013 11:56:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The program had a good development year


Hows that 2011 IOC looking?

Still slated for, at earliest, 2015.

Which would be tolerable... if the damn thing was worth waiting for.


RE: Couldn't let it go?
By FaaR on 5/24/2013 11:57:37 AM , Rating: 1
Point out one lie or falsehood in the article. You can't.

What about the truth scares or offends you? Small people are those who can't accept the truth, but need to hear only the things that please them.


RE: Couldn't let it go?
By what? on 5/25/2013 3:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
Falsehoods?

Cost of F35 plummeted??? Air Force says program cost is $394 billion so a $4.5 billion reduction is approx 1%.

Most knowledgeable sources put the F35 program cost in the $1 trillion+.

Falsehood is that the program costs going down $4.5 billion (if even true) constitutes costs "plummeting".

Most neutral observers would count that "reduction" in the barely noticeable noise category.


RE: Couldn't let it go?
By JPForums on 5/28/2013 10:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
The recent grounding due to a crack in the engine of one of the jets is true. However, the way it was presented, without all of the facts, gave the false impression that the crack was due to yet another design flaw rather than a side effect of abuse (repeatedly pushing the engine beyond is design specifications). Though to be fair, there are plenty of legitimate design flaws Shane could have written about, but didn't.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














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