There's something you need to know about the Selected Acquisition Reports. I'll admit that this is a big assumption on my part, but I'm going to assume you don't know about "Rebaselining".
What is "Rebaselining", you may be asking?
It's a statistical deception in which the "Baseline Year" of a given multi-year program is moved forward from the year the program actually began. Expenses incurred thus far on the SARs are only listed from the "Baseline Year" forward.
So guess what happens when you move the "Baseline Year" forward from the year that funding for a project actually began? *All funding from that year backward is no longer tracked*, that's what!
Since the subject matter of your blog thread is the F-35, let's look at Baseline Years and the costs incurred since then, shall we?
As you can see in the latest-published SAR, from December 2011, the F-35 Program costs $276.483 Billion, but the Baseline Year is listed as 2012; http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SST-2011-12.pdf
What does that mean? Why, it means that this is how much was (or is to be) spent on the F-35 from THAT YEAR FORWARD!
There's no way the F-35 Program could possibly have cost so little as $276.483 Billion, even if you added the cost of the F135 engine back into it. So, to find out how much was *actually* spent on it, go back through the SARs, one at a time, until you see the Baseline Year roll backward.
As it happens, that occurs in the *very next* published SAR, for December 2010. It lists a Program Cost of $379.392 Billion; http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SST-2010-12.pdf
(I'll continue this below --- it's another long one)
Now note the new Baseline Year of 2002 --- the F-35 project began YEARS before that, so let's back-up to the last SAR from before it was Re-Baselined to 2002.
That would be the , which has a Baseline Year of 1994 (which is as far back as we can go, because that's when the JSF/F-35 Program *actually began*), and you see $1.279 Billion; http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SARST0901.pdf
Finally, we come to the fun part --- simple addition!
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is what the F-35 has cost the US taxpayer SO FAR.
Divide $657.145 Billion by 2443 airframes, and you have a Unit Cost of $269.99 Million --- each! And that's only if you assume that the Project Cost doesn't exceed $1 TRILLION by 2020 (it will), or that only 2000 airframes will be built (it's more likely than 2443). In that happens, we're looking at a $500 Billion *Fighter*, enough money that cancelling one squadron's worth will buy an extra Ford class Aircraft Carrier.
And what do we have to show for over $650 Billion and 18 years of R&D invested in ONE program?
- A test program only 20% complete, for an aircraft that already costs 300% more to fly than what it was to replace; http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon
- A "tri-service" fighter managed primarily by the USAF, with 3 variants that only have a 30% commonality of parts (and only single-seat versions), and a testing program designed to explore only 17% of all flight characteristics; http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2878
- Only 21% of THAT much testing has even been completed yet; http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/540021.html
- A ground attack aircraft that just dropped a bomb for the very first time --- ever --- and it wasn't until four months ago in August 2012; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186474/Bombs-away-Jinxed-F-35-fighter-passes-weapons-test--target-costs-spiralled-300m.html
A carrier aircraft that wasn't tested for arrestor cable landings until over a decade of development had passed, and failed the test --- EIGHT TIMES in a row; http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/132029/lockheed-tries-f_35c-damage-control.html
A VSTOL variant that still doesn't work correctly, after more than TEN YEARS of R&D; http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-problems-on-their-way-to-being-fixed-372074/
And yet, it *still* isn't big or expensive enough a program to secure Locheed-Martin blue collar jobs; http://www.pogo.org/straus-military-reform-project/20120807-more-gaffs-in-the-lockheed-et.html
2 comments:
There's something you need to know about the Selected Acquisition Reports. I'll admit that this is a big assumption on my part, but I'm going to assume you don't know about "Rebaselining".
What is "Rebaselining", you may be asking?
It's a statistical deception in which the "Baseline Year" of a given multi-year program is moved forward from the year the program actually began. Expenses incurred thus far on the SARs are only listed from the "Baseline Year" forward.
So guess what happens when you move the "Baseline Year" forward from the year that funding for a project actually began? *All funding from that year backward is no longer tracked*, that's what!
Since the subject matter of your blog thread is the F-35, let's look at Baseline Years and the costs incurred since then, shall we?
As you can see in the latest-published SAR, from December 2011, the F-35 Program costs $276.483 Billion, but the Baseline Year is listed as 2012;
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SST-2011-12.pdf
What does that mean? Why, it means that this is how much was (or is to be) spent on the F-35 from THAT YEAR FORWARD!
There's no way the F-35 Program could possibly have cost so little as $276.483 Billion, even if you added the cost of the F135 engine back into it. So, to find out how much was *actually* spent on it, go back through the SARs, one at a time, until you see the Baseline Year roll backward.
As it happens, that occurs in the *very next* published SAR, for December 2010. It lists a Program Cost of $379.392 Billion;
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SST-2010-12.pdf
(I'll continue this below --- it's another long one)
(Continued from above)
Now note the new Baseline Year of 2002 --- the F-35 project began YEARS before that, so let's back-up to the last SAR from before it was Re-Baselined to 2002.
That would be the , which has a Baseline Year of 1994 (which is as far back as we can go, because that's when the JSF/F-35 Program *actually began*), and you see $1.279 Billion;
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SARST0901.pdf
Finally, we come to the fun part --- simple addition!
276.483 Billion + $379.392 Billion + $1.279 Billion = $657.145 Billion.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is what the F-35 has cost the US taxpayer SO FAR.
Divide $657.145 Billion by 2443 airframes, and you have a Unit Cost of $269.99 Million --- each! And that's only if you assume that the Project Cost doesn't exceed $1 TRILLION by 2020 (it will), or that only 2000 airframes will be built (it's more likely than 2443). In that happens, we're looking at a $500 Billion *Fighter*, enough money that cancelling one squadron's worth will buy an extra Ford class Aircraft Carrier.
And what do we have to show for over $650 Billion and 18 years of R&D invested in ONE program?
- A test program only 20% complete, for an aircraft that already costs 300% more to fly than what it was to replace;
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon
- A "tri-service" fighter managed primarily by the USAF, with 3 variants that only have a 30% commonality of parts (and only single-seat versions), and a testing program designed to explore only 17% of all flight characteristics;
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2878
- Only 21% of THAT much testing has even been completed yet;
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/540021.html
- A ground attack aircraft that just dropped a bomb for the very first time --- ever --- and it wasn't until four months ago in August 2012;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186474/Bombs-away-Jinxed-F-35-fighter-passes-weapons-test--target-costs-spiralled-300m.html
A carrier aircraft that wasn't tested for arrestor cable landings until over a decade of development had passed, and failed the test --- EIGHT TIMES in a row;
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/132029/lockheed-tries-f_35c-damage-control.html
A VSTOL variant that still doesn't work correctly, after more than TEN YEARS of R&D;
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-problems-on-their-way-to-being-fixed-372074/
And yet, it *still* isn't big or expensive enough a program to secure Locheed-Martin blue collar jobs;
http://www.pogo.org/straus-military-reform-project/20120807-more-gaffs-in-the-lockheed-et.html
Post a Comment