Lockheed, Navy dispute JSF delay, cost overrun

[unhappycamper]

GAO study questioned
Lockheed spokesman says F-35 is on schedule

Lockheed, Navy dispute JSF delay, cost overrun
By Chris Amos - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Mar 19, 2008 6:24:47 EDT

Navy and Lockheed Martin spokesmen on Monday disputed the findings of a congressional study critical of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program and said a Defense Department study due to be released next month will provide a more accurate picture of the state of the program.

The Government Accountability Office study released March 11 found that the F-35 was at least $38 billion over budget and could be delayed by more than two years, putting pressure on Navy and Marine Corps officials who had hoped to use the F-35 to replace aging F/A-18 Hornet and AV-6 Harrier inventories with 680 of the Navy’s first fifth generation fighter.

But Lockheed Martin spokesman John Smith said a Defense Department Selected Acquisition Report will provide a more accurate picture of the F-35 program than the GAO study because, he said, the Defense Department study would be more comprehensive and conducted by people who are more familiar with the JSF program.

~snip~

Last week, the Euro rose to a record high, with one Euro worth $1.56, an increase that has caused significant cost increases because most of the foreign components will be built in Europe, which is also where much of the design work for the Lightning II will be done. Knudson was unable to say how much the currency fluctuations increased costs as of Tuesday afternoon, but he did say that program managers have offset currency fluctuations with savings in other design areas and effectively kept prices level within the past year.

Knudson said the Navy Department expects to pay approximately $60 million in 2002 dollars for each of the 680 F-35s it will buy. He said Navy Department officials have not yet decided what portion of the 680 will be carrier-based jets flown by Navy pilots and what portion will be short takeoff and vertical landing models for Marine pilots.

Rest of article at: http://www.navytimes.com/



uhc comment: Uuuum. Throw uhc into the dispute. The Navy may expect to pay $60,000,000 for one of these things, but Lockheed Martin is expecting $239,000,000 for these shiney new toys --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=259&topic_id=7849

[Sweet Pea]

1. That's pretty disingenuous...

using that sort of math.

With that sort of mentality, the first 6 F-16's weren't $50 mil, they were probably more along th elines of $200 million in today's dollars.

Of course the first buy of aircraft will be hugely expensive. That is the same for ANY acquisition program. To highlight this in one program to put in a bad light is rather pissy, I'd say, and pretty ignorant of the OP to state that.

[unhappycamper]

2. Well, if you at posts in this forum, you'll see that I have been digging out costs

For example, the military sez the F-22 costs $120,000,000. (The acquired cost is $355,000,000.) MRAPS? $1,000,000+ each. A Virginia class submarine? $2,5000,000,000 each. The new Littoral Combat Ship? $600,000,000 rather than the $200,000,000 in the original budget. And on and on and on. Toys are expensive.

[Sweet Pea]

3. I'm well aware of the cost increases.

They are indeed getting out of hand across the board, but I still say dumping on a system or acquisition program because the R&D costs, the development costs, the prototype costs, the test and evaluation costs, etc make the first low-rate-initial-production run (LRIP) hugely expensive is really pretty ignorant of how the acquisition process works.