Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Did we get an undercover price increase on the F-35?


via FedBiz.
Lockheed Martin Corp. landed another $852.3 million for the F-35 program by way of a contract modification for special tooling and test equipment that will support aircraft purchases from the Navy, Air Force and international partners.
The award will assist Lockheed in upcoming production of the next lot of F-35 Lightning II aircraft. The Department of Defense reportedly signed an agreement in principle earlier this month for initial production of lots 6 and 7, which includes 71 aircraft.
The special tooling and test equipment purchases will support production of the first 36 U.S. and partner nation aircraft in lot 6, which kick off by mid-2014. The modification is "critical to preserving the current F-35 delivery schedules and meeting future production rates," according to the DOD announcement.
I read this today and my jaw hit the floor.

Just last week we heard about some of the draconian cuts that were coming our way if sequestration continued.  I've read articles from "think tanks" saying that personnel exemptions being put on the Pentagon by the White House was the BIGGEST defense related failure of this administration.

We heard from the President saying that unless the Congress acted to kill sequestration that Veterans Benefits and Retirees Tricare could be affected.

Now I read that Lockheed Martin is suddenly getting another 850 plus million dollars for tooling and test equipment for lot 6 production?

I'm used to the Pentagon playing games.  The fact that portions of Lockheed Martin engages in a bit of skullduggery isn't shocking (it hasn't reached missiles or ground vehicles yet...hopefully those guys can hold the line).  But this roll out of contracts all to cover the production of the same number of aircraft is odd.

And on the surface it looks like a lie.

If you include these costs with the price of the airplanes that were announced, then any cost reduction just evaporated.  I don't have the numbers to crunch but it seems like if everything is factored we got an undercover price increase on the latest batch of planes.

I'll wait patiently to hear the latest reasons why I'm so off base with this line of thinking but something smells to high heaven on this.

10 comments :

  1. This is covered under the Advanced Procurement section of LRIP6 for all three services. There have been 7 contracts awarded in relation to LRIP6. It is just a piece of the pie that had not been awarded before.

    It is completely normal and historically evident to have multiple LRIPx contracts awarded as the LRIP progresses through it’s production.

    Try Google Search and use these terms (after the = sign) to see how many contracts were awarded for each LRIP.
    LRIP8 (2 contracts) = "N00019-13-C-0008" site:defense.gov
    ….LRIP8 Israel (1 contract) = "N00019-13-C-0013" site:defense.gov
    ….LRIP8 Japan (1 contract) = "N00019-13-C-0014" site:defense.gov
    LRIP7 (3 contracts) = "N00019-12-C-0004" site:defense.gov
    LRIP6 (9 contracts) = "N00019-11-C-0083" site:defense.gov
    LRIP5 (13 contracts) = "N00019-10-C-0002" site:defense.gov
    LRIP4 (14 contracts) = "N00019-09-C-0010" site:defense.gov

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seems to me more like releasing bad information in carefully coordinated spaces of time to minimize political damage regarding the price. I guess that is a normal practice for LM though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. not a problem. if its normal, its normal. i found it strange that they would announce additional contract information after the lead up, chest thumping about a lower price etc....

    it still makes me wonder if we have good visibility or ever will on the real cost of this airplane and how much its costing the services.

    the NAVAIR is chilled the fuck out, sitting back cool as shit laughing at the Air Force, Marines and allies. consider this. only the Navy and Marine Corps are customers for the F-35C.

    the Marine Corps really doesn't want the C and neither does the Navy. how big is the line on the C being killed as a token to the budget Gods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the NAVAIR is chilled the fuck out, sitting back cool as shit laughing at the Air Force, Marines and allies. consider this. only the Navy and Marine Corps are customers for the F-35C.

      No one in the Navy is laughing I assure you. and they are not chilling.

      "the Marine Corps really doesn't want the C and neither does the Navy. how big is the line on the C being killed as a token to the budget Gods."

      Zilch. Because all things F-35 are under one big JSF umbrella. again the whole program only works if everyone pulls their weight. The Navy will pull their weight.

      I still don't understand, (and you can get mad about this) Where "Want" comes into it. I remember a time when the USN didn't "want" the Super Hornet over the Tomcat. That was the internet rebellion of the day, right down to the same "we can just upgrade the tomcat into infinity!!" crowd pointing out every reason why the Super Hornet sucked. Then it was the same thing with the JSF being the new kid just a few years later. Now we are hearing about upgrading the Super Hornet into infinity.

      If the F-35C can catch a wire, its in. if it fails in that then there might be some consideration to canceling the C. What the USN is doing with the F-35 that is different from others is that they have newer aircraft, so while the USMC and USAF is desperate to get something not built in the 1970s, the USN can wait until its more developed in combat capabilities.

      Delete
    2. I still blows me away that the Navy is going for a single engine fighter without a gun. I agree, the F-35 needs to go away. Build and sell the A model, maybe, but kill the problematic and bloated B & C models.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the article link right now, but didn't something come out stating major structural flaws in the C? Preventing it from getting it's sea legs?

      Delete
  4. What you will not find, yet, on the Defense.gov site is anything but "advanced procurement" contracts for LRIP6. What the previous announcements have covered concerning “lower prices” (4% for LRIP6 and another 4% for LRIP7) are the “total” costs of the airframe. Once a total cost is agreed to, individual contracts still have to be issued (which is what you are seeing here).

    You will not see a “Total Cost” contract on Defense.gov, just individual contracts.

    LM is still being held to whatever terms they come up with and whatever limits are put in place.

    We are actually quite lucky here in the US when it comes to government accountability. In most countries, the general public has no clue how funds are spent.

    Not to sound flippant, but “Move along, nothing to see here” ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well thats not entirely true. most defense industries are officially (and that is the difference...official and unofficial) subsidized by the government so their is no negotiation. but having said that the UK, Canada, most of western Europe, S. Korea, Singapore, Australia, Japan (basically all the F-35 partners) are all cost conscious.

      i get you when you say nothing to see here, but i'll stand around and gawk a little longer.

      one F-35 would pay for how many Marine Personnel Carriers????

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. “one F-35 would pay for how many Marine Personnel Carriers????”

      I don’t know. You would have to figure out :
      1. How will the reduction affect Economy of Scale (EoS) for production?
      2. How will the reduction affect the EoS when it comes to lifetime parts costs
      3. What will it cost to replace the missing F-35 in capability (buy something else, keep something else flying, etc).

      A better question would be: How many MPCs could be bought by canceling a wasteful government subsidy program like California’s “High Speed Rail” (not!) project. The Feds are due to give California $BILLIONS on a project that will likely never get finished as it is heading to be ruled unlawful as it violates the Proposition that authorized it.

      The HSR project has turned into a true debacle. It is WAY over budget, will take twice as long to go from LA to San Francisco, will not be “High Speed”, and the only way that it will be self-sufficient (a REQUIREMENT of the Proposition) is if everybody that takes a plane switches to the train (which will take up to twice as long to make the trip).

      Cancelling the HSR could pay for the entire MPC program, development and procurement, from just the Federal subsidy that the One promised.

      Delete
    4. Don't forget BISOG funds.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.