Omakase

Amazon Search
«  
  »

Unit Recurring Flyaway

By lex, on May 16th, 2011

In which a former fighter pilot and current acquisition specialist gets schooled on fighter acquisition by a paratrooper. Of love.

Bonus: Blogfight!

Share
May 16th, 2011 | Tags: , | Category: Military

26 comments to Unit Recurring Flyaway

  • BigFred
    May 16, 2011 at 9:57 am

    “The” Paratrooper of love!

  • Mike Kozlowski
    May 16, 2011 at 10:22 am

    …I’d like to suggest that A) Blackfive’s numbers are probably the most accurate since he took everything into account and the services/gummmit won’t, because B) once you consider that this is a program that started in the late 1980s and didn’t put airplanes on the ramp/deck for about twenty-four years, it’s unlikely that anyone will ever know the true unit cost.

    Mike

  • F4Jock
    May 16, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    For a guy that jumps out of perfectly operating aircraft he tends to make some sense of the governments accounting practices.

    Don’t forget all the development costs get burdened on each unit, so with more units the costs appear to go down but the total outlay goes up.

    Sort of mute point since it is currently the only game going in town to replace the aging F-18, F-16, AV-8B, and A-10.

    • Paul L. Quandt
      May 16, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      F4Jock:

      As a former C-141 crew chief, I can tell you that there ain’t no such thing as a “perfectly” operating aircraft. Not. a. single. one. Your statement is one that legs (pardon me while I spit) make to cover up their embarrassment for not being Airborne.

      Otherwise, a good post.

      Paul

      • F4Jock
        May 16, 2011 at 1:33 pm

        Paul,

        Yes, I know ALL the systems do not work all the time and why there is a Minimum Equipment List (MEL), but I was implying no pressing or urgent need to leave the aircraft. Sort of the old jokes of what falls out of the sky…bird do do and fools. I never had to punch out of an aircraft but came very close on a few occasions. Just never wanted to find out until all other options ran out along with lady luck!

        • Paul L. Quandt
          May 16, 2011 at 1:37 pm

          F4Jock:

          So, did you go through the USAF survival school at Stead or Fairchild?

          Paul

          • F4Jock
            May 17, 2011 at 8:28 am

            Paul,

            I went through Navy SERE at Warner Springs CA in 66′.

            Never got to fly the F-110A version.

        • Quartermaster
          May 16, 2011 at 4:27 pm

          Any aircraft whose engines are producing power and can maintain straight and level flight, is a perfectly operating AC for the purpose of this type of argument.

          To want to jump from a perfectly operating AC is an act of insanity.

          • Mongo
            May 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm

            To want to jump from a perfectly operating AC is an act of insanity.

            Mebbe. No surer way I know of, though, to get yer boyz atinglin’.

          • Justthisguy
            May 16, 2011 at 11:56 pm

            I did that eleven times. Of course I was young, and dumb,and etc.

            I would not voluntarily do so again, but I did learn some useful things in case I have to do it involuntarily. The PLF, fer instance: It can help one survive without injury from jumping off of a roof, say.

            If, God forbid, I have to jump out of an airplane while wearing a parachute, I have already been instructed in how to do it right. (Look for, and at, the ripcord handle.)

  • ELP
    May 16, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    WIth no R&D accounted for, the USAF in the FY2012 budget paid $106.756 million for the special roll-away price for the jet without an engine. Add the engine and you are now up to $120.541 million. Then there is another $2.411 million just for engineering change orders. So for FY2012, the F-35A costs the USAF $122.952 million to get it out the door with no spares and support equipment. (Source: USAF FY2012 budget). LM sales forces tells the foreign joint strike fighter partner nations that they don’t pay for U.S. R&D. Great. Neither does the USAF in the aircraft procurement section of the budget. Not much of the jet is tested out in a go-to-war setup so no one knows the cost yet. Consider this: Low Rate Initial Production Lot 5 (LRIP-5) is only going to be 35 jets. In 2009 LRIP-5 was briefed as 61 jets. In 2003 it was briefed as 120 jets. Where is this quantity and learning curve we hear about? Answer, it does not exist as the design is still unstable.
    Stating that the U.S. Government will order 2400 some F-35s is only a plan. Just like we wer told that 750 F-22s would be ordered. That was a plan. We all know how that turned out.

  • BigFred
    May 16, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    Do you know what numbers the OSD(AT&L) Dr. Carter and his band of merry men use to evaluate programs? PAUC/APUC. The Paratrooper of Love nailed this.

  • Quartermaster
    May 16, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Given what is on the horizon, it is unlikely we will see a full buy of F-35 anymore than we saw a full buy of F-22. The F-22 actually makes more sense too.

    • Mongo
      May 16, 2011 at 5:27 pm

      QM, I dare say we’ve not seen a full buy of anything since Vietnam. I know for a fact the F-14 got short hauled, and doubt any of the other teen series jets saw a full projected production run. Have any of the C series trash haulers? SSN-21 got chopped to 3 boats, which had to run those production costs sky high.

      As long as Congress is allowed to force DoD to renege on its contractual obligations without significant penalty, they’ll keep posting pie in the sky future numbers that beguile Contractors into posting unrealistic URF pricing. There are times when I think Congress/DoD should be made to pay R&D costs up front, as much to ensure against whimsical cancellation as to promote/ensure actual deliverables.

      • Phalanx08
        May 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm

        Mr. Mongo,
        I believe the C-17 is close to the originally planned buy of 240. Were it me, I’d keep buying the things as the C-5′s can’t last forever.

      • Curtis
        May 17, 2011 at 6:07 am

        srsly? 100% party ruled Congress could not pass a budget by a straight vote and opted for CR.

      • Leland
        May 17, 2011 at 2:43 pm

        F-16s have had a good production run.

  • Mongo
    May 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    I’m durn sure glad someone has a grip on cost differentiation, because it sure helped lower my ignoramus factor a tad. I wonder now if that’s why, when I said a B-2 cost was $2.2B, someone replied that it never approached that point. Was what I saw TOC versus their $.8B-$1B URF? Now I’m left to wonder.

    A good secondary discussion fell out of B5′s re. Marine TacAir, and why it was necessary to have it. Or not. I’ve always believed in having organic assets available to the Marine Corps mission. It’s saves having to decide who’s on top. A good presentation of information from McQ re. -C for shipboard to EAF transitions, and battlefront capability. I question a couple of points made, not as a dispute, but more as an observation. I’ll have to go back and throw in my piece.

  • Joe in N Calif
    May 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    An aside – Here is one we surely get our moneys worth from. A C-130 on deck?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk&feature=player_embedded#at=144

  • jackjack
    May 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    ELP, it’s good talking an LRIP price and using it to suggest how dear the f-35 is, isnt it
    can I suggest you use the LRIP1 instead, then you can tell us how the f-35 cost a wopping $262m

    It’s going to be just as accurate as when we are in 2016 looking back at your 2012 $123m Lrip4 price

  • Jeff Weimer
    May 16, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    BTW Lex, we’re still praying for you and yours.

    Thanks for coming back; don’t ever forget what’s truly important.

  • Justthisguy
    May 16, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    I hesitate to show my name at Blackfive. Those infantry people are entirely too dangerously normal for my taste. I will say this for Matty, though; he has put up with my ragging on him about his bad taste in recreation destinations.

    The Northern parts of Florida really are better.

  • ELP
    May 17, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Will the program be around in 2016?
eXTReMe Tracker

View My Stats