US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

anzha said:

That's up by $100M next year (assuming that passes). Then another $100M (at least) in FY22. Plus additional between here and there, probably. If it's an additional $100M/year, we're looking at another $400M or 4+ F-35s worth of something. I'd bet either some cost growth or more prototyping/demonstrations.

I'd heard a couple rumors what happened at Tyndall AFB shook up things and added urgency, but $400M doesn't look like a lot of an acceleration, tbh. If it had been another $2B between now and peak, then I'd say we'd see the PCA far, far faster.

Click to expand...

to me, the level of funding of that PCA is comically low (of course assuming I wouldn't know if some funds were blackened) once compared to

March 2012
(approved
baseline)

of

about fifty-five billion for F-35 development:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"$55.2" in the last column of Table 1 at p. 5 (10 of 57 in PDF)

Jura said:

to me, the level of funding of that PCA is comically low (of course assuming I wouldn't know if some funds were blackened) once compared to

March 2012
(approved
baseline)

of

about fifty-five billion for F-35 development:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"$55.2" in the last column of Table 1 at p. 5 (10 of 57 in PDF)

Click to expand...

That's 55 Billion at the end. Not the beginning people always make this mistake. A development program isn't like buying a candy bar at a convenient store. The price is paid out over the development cycle and then acquisition.
Because the program is still fairly early in cycle it's not at a high accumulation yet.
The trillion dollar quote for F35 is the same way that's not paid today that's paid like your credit card bill. The longer it goes the more is actually paid in with interest. Or A recent quote by Castro Ortiz about the Pentagon being able to pay for a 8trillion dollar health care program. What she was referencing was a report that there was 8 trillion dollars in accounting errors but that was spread out since the Kennedy administration. It's a hundred million here a hundred million there pretty soon it's real money.

Jura said:

to me, the level of funding of that PCA is comically low (of course assuming I wouldn't know if some funds were blackened) once compared to])

Click to expand...

The F-35 program shouldn't be held up as an exemplar of a program except to say about how badly it was run. To be sure, it was successful, but it was ridiculous about how expensive it was to develop and how poorly it was run. It's an exemplar of what /not/ to do. We reran the F-111 idea 30 years later and...found out why that stopped being a joint aircraft. Additionally, the label might say 'F-35' but as others have pointed out, it's really the F-35, F-36 and F-37 each with their own very different requirements that complicated development. Going international made it pretty ugly, too: true, you got more people to pay, but you also got a lot more complicated to manufacture and run the program. Finally, the F-35 program is of the same generation of program management and decisions the LCS, Zumwalts and Ford class were.

The B-21 and NGAD programs are being run radically differently by the Rapid Capabilities Office with budget in mind and a fixed set of requirements. If you think the B-21 is under funded, then you'll definitely think the NGAD is.

We'll see if they pull it off.

NGAD is Navy,
PCA is Airforce. As of yet the two do not seem to be more than parallel in some directions. The USN and USAF have different end games.
Navy wants a F/A-XX a fighter capable of operations off a Ford class Carrier deck with F/A18 E-F payloads and all the sixth gen goodies. It may be called Air Dominance but is more aimed to carrier defence and intercept with strike capabilities.
The Airforce wants more than a Super airsuperiority fighter at least that's how it seems to me. Based on the statements that PCA is more than one platform. That makes me think Fighter, UCAV and supports. Facing reality against China and Russia as Peer tier a fighter alone will not be enough. The supports that allow the fighters to operate are the Achilles tendon. Take down the Tankers and AEW and it flips on the floor in death throws. That means a larger package price.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

NGAD is Navy, PCA is Airforce.

Click to expand...

Politely, but strongly: No, it's not.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1547/page-995#post-522545

NGAD is the blanket project name: Next Generation Air Dominance. PCA was a component of that. There's more to it: some have stated there's a Penetrating Electronic Attack piece, frex. And the Arsenal Plane may be included. However, the centerpiece is the PCA.

The DTIC had the budget stuff online here, but that seems to have gone away:



The Navy's line item is called the Next Generation Fighter and sometimes called the FA-XX.

As I noted before, the Navy had only requested $5M in FY19 for that NGF/FA-XX. The Navy is not moving forward very quickly with their next gen fighter. They are about to start swallowing the 35Cs. Whether they like it or not.

Ok, they changed everything to be apps instead of www. twits.

From the doc itself:

Next Generation Air Dominance enables future execution of Air Force air superiority doctrine within the Air Superiority core mission area, as directed in Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum (JROCM) 043-13 and by the CSAF approved Air Superiority 2030 Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team (AS2030 ECCT) Flight Plan.

Click to expand...

anzha said:

The F-35 program shouldn't be held up as an exemplar of a program except to say about how badly it was run.

Click to expand...

the byproduct of a search I've done in relation to another post in this thread:

at page 13 of 26 in (the header CSR-10), quote,

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated that the JSF’s joint approach “avoids the three parallel development programs for service-unique aircraft
that would have otherwise been necessary, saving at least $15 billion.” [superscript 29]

unquote; [superscript 29] is
"Letter from Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen to Rep. Jerry Lewis, June 22, 2000.
Transcript made available by Inside the Airforce. June 23, 2000"

anzha said:

To be sure, it was successful,

Click to expand...

not sure of that;

bu the way how do you measure the success of the F-35 program?

anzha said:

but it was ridiculous about how expensive it was to develop and how poorly it was run. It's an exemplar of what /not/ to do. We reran the F-111 idea 30 years later and...found out why that stopped being a joint aircraft. Additionally, the label might say 'F-35' but as others have pointed out, it's really the F-35, F-36 and F-37 each with their own very different requirements that complicated development. Going international made it pretty ugly, too: true, you got more people to pay, but you also got a lot more complicated to manufacture and run the program. Finally, the F-35 program is of the same generation of program management and decisions the LCS, Zumwalts and Ford class were.

The B-21 and NGAD programs are being run radically differently by the Rapid Capabilities Office with budget in mind and a fixed set of requirements. If you think the B-21 is under funded, then you'll definitely think the NGAD is.

We'll see if they pull it off.

Click to expand...

as I said Yesterday at 9:15 AM, I think the funding of 6Gen is insignificant

TerraN_EmpirE said:

That's 55 Billion at the end. Not the beginning people always make this mistake. A development program isn't like buying a candy bar at a convenient store. The price is paid out over the development cycle and then acquisition.

Click to expand...

I admit I should've checked the timeline, but didn't until now:


(source, which LOL you may dispute, is )

ballparking:
4.4b 2006 (the year of the first flight of an F-35)
4.2 2005
4.2 2004
3.5 2003
1.5 2002
_________
17.8 so far, thought it'd been more earlier (1994-2001), but appears to be about 2b only

so? so:

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Because the program is still fairly early in cycle it's not at a high accumulation yet.

Click to expand...

the rest of your post though:

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The trillion dollar quote for F35 is the same way that's not paid today that's paid like your credit card bill. The longer it goes the more is actually paid in with interest. Or A recent quote by Castro Ortiz about the Pentagon being able to pay for a 8trillion dollar health care program. What she was referencing was a report that there was 8 trillion dollars in accounting errors but that was spread out since the Kennedy administration. It's a hundred million here a hundred million there pretty soon it's real money.

Click to expand...

sounds like a rant to me LOL I don't even know (and don't care) who's the individual you mentioned

Jura said:

17.8 so far, thought it'd been more earlier (1994-2001), but appears to be about 2b only

Click to expand...

2 billion per year or 2 billion over 7 years? Because that is where we are now with sixth gen.
Pre flight pre prototype.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

2 billion per year or 2 billion over 7 years?

Click to expand...

about 2b in total in the whole 1994-2001 period

in other words, less than five percent of the total development cost

I wrongly thought it'd been more

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Because that is where we are now with sixth gen.
Pre flight pre prototype.

Click to expand...

yeah


LOL what's the new avatar
?