US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Osprey and CH53K are meant for two different mission sets. both however are under development. The Osprey is meant for high speed longer range lighter weight operations It' founding was the Result of the Iranian Revolution, In particular the Seizing of the US Embassy, and the Failure of Desert one. The mission set intended is actually the same type of event as the Bengazi attack, A US Embassy under attack needing rapid Response. It replaces the Marine Corps CH 46 Sea Knight. A Medium Lift Helicopter.
CH53K was created to facilitate Heavy lift.
Although Some Argue that 53K would be better suited for the mission set. But I don't see it that way. V22 Seats 22 troops seated 32 on the floor, CH53K 37 Troop bench 55 full load two to one right? but Osprey is twice the speed.

Click to expand...

I agree that CH-53K is down in politics congressional areas and districts are in the interest of manufacturers so like for example V-22 can get the funding while CH-53K can't but they are going to wait till V-22 production runs dry then start the CH-53K start up

V-22 can operate from a flat top and currently no platform can lift as much from sea, yes other helos can lift more than V-22 but from a Wasp Class or Osumi Class's for example? It's the job for V-22

Plus the speed and range of V-22 can out do any helo, you will see that usually when they deploy V-22 so is a KC tanker becuase with one refueling they can reach like 700 miles

Also the climb rate of V-22 is good it's build materials is good fibre glass can take battle damage

One study estimated that the helo losses in Iraq would have been <50% of the V-22 was used from the start and I know Singapore is looking hard at this platform too

So V-22 has turned a corner in my opinion it's also secured export from Israel and Japan orders are 6+6+17= 29 units

Fox News said:

A Russian warplane made several close-range passes by an American warship in the Black Sea over the weekend, in what the Pentagon is calling a "provocative" move amid escalating tensions in the region.

The jet, a Russian Su-24, made numerous low-altitude passes on Saturday over the USS Donald Cook, a guided-missile Navy destroyer in the western Black Sea, the Pentagon confirmed.

According to officials, the jet made a total of 12 passes over the course of 90 minutes. It did not once respond to multiple contacts and warnings from the USS Donald Cook, despite the fact that the U.S. Navy ship was able to reach the cockpit directly.

The Pentagon says that the jet had no visible missiles attached to its wings and that the incident ended without any exchange of fire.

"This provocative and unprofessional Russian action is inconsistent with international protocols and previous agreements of a professional interaction between our militaries," Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said.

The low altitude of the jet varied at times from "virtual sea level to several thousand feet," Warren said. The jet did not "buzz" the Cook, but "flew too close," he said.

A second Russian Su-24 was in the area the entire time, but did not make any similarly provocative maneuvers.

The Pentagon says there has been no official communication with the Russians since the incident, and that a formal protest has not yet been filed.

It's not unusual for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Black Sea. The Donald Cook moved into the region last week for what the Navy called "routine operations," though the deployment is seen mostly as a symbolic response to tensions along the Ukrainian-Russian border.

The jet encounter further escalates those tensions as pro-Russian protesters seize or block government buildings in eastern Ukraine. U.S. officials have accused Moscow of fueling the unrest, as was alleged in the Crimean Peninsula last month.

Click to expand...

The House bill names four frigates for sale to Taiwan: Carr, which is in storage after being decommissioned in March 2013, and the Taylor, Gary and Elrod, all scheduled for inactivation in 2015.

Two frigates are proposed for transfer by grant to Thailand: the Rentz, scheduled to be decommissioned in May, and the Vandegrift, to leave service in 2015.

Two more ships — Curts, decommissioned in February 2013, and McClusky, to be decommissioned in 2015 — are listed for transfer by grant to Mexico.

Click to expand...

A Reset

Posted on InsideDefense.com: April 15, 2014

The Marine Corps will retain 2,500 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles -- more than twice the number of trucks it had planned to keep last year -- due to be removed from Afghanistan, a top service official said.

Lt. Gen. William Faulkner, deputy commandant for installations and logistics, told InsideDefense.com on April 15 that over the next three to four months the service will decide how many of the 2,500 vehicles to reset.

Faulkner said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos directed his office to look at the future security environment and retain the number of vehicles that will give Marines "operational flexibility."

The service made the decision to keep more MRAPs based on classified scenarios. "It's not just a roll of the dice," Faulkner said.

The MRAPs will either be put in long term-storage, used in training or placed aboard prepositioned ships, Faulkner said. "We have a sense of urgency because of [overseas contingency operations] monies . . . and we want to do it quickly because we know that the glide slope [to use wartime funding] is going down pretty quickly," he said.

Marine Corps spokesman Manny Pacheco wrote in an April 15 email that MRAPs are being reset under an inspect and repair only as necessary (IROAN) program, making it difficult for the service to calculate the average cost. However, Pacheco added, based on early analyses the service is estimating about $250,000 to $300,000 cost per vehicle.

The "actual reset/IROAN cost is dependent on vehicle condition and not on total quantity of vehicles reset," Pacheco continued.

Delivery of submarine North Dakota delayed to Navy
Apr. 16, 2014 - 07:41PM |

By Christopher P. Cavas
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Military Technology
WASHINGTON — Problems with a parts supplier and the need to modify certain design features led the Navy to announce Wednesday that the commissioning of the new nuclear-powered attack submarine North Dakota won’t take place at the end of May as scheduled.

“This decision is based on the need for additional design and certification work required on the submarine's redesigned bow and material issues with vendor-assembled and delivered components,” the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said in a statement.

The delay is a blow to the Virginia-class submarine program, which has built a reputation not only for on-time performance, but for delivering ships in advance of the contracted delivery date.

The submarines are built jointly by General Dynamics Electric Boat in Quonset, R.I., and Groton, Conn., and by Huntington Ingalls Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va. Each company builds certain components of every submarine — essentially a 50-50 split — and the yards alternate in assembling, launching and completing the subs. The North Dakota, launched last September, is being completed by Electric Boat.

Both shipbuilders declined to answer specific questions about the problems on the North Dakota, deferring to the Navy.

Although the North Dakota’s contracted delivery date is in August, EB was aiming at a mid-May delivery. Cutting weeks or months off the building time usually results in major cost savings to the Navy and a bonus to the shipbuilder.

Completion of the North Dakota is significant. Although the ship is the 11th Virginia-class sub, she is the first of the Block III variant, with a redesigned bow section featuring two Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) and a reconfigured sonar sphere containing a Large Aperture Bow array. The innovative VPTs are able to store and launch a variety of weapons or vehicles, and the configuration does away with 12 fixed tubes able to handle only a limited weapon selection.

It is not clear if the VPTs or the sonar system are affected by the vendor issues.

NAVSEA would not identify the vendor, although sources said it was a subcontractor to Newport News.

“The Navy is withholding the company’s name until the investigation is complete,” said Lt. Kurt Larson, a NAVSEA spokesman. “The vendor in question provided components to other Virginia-class ships, though not in the same degree as North Dakota,” he added. “Components delivered to now in-service ships passed initial testing and the Navy has not experienced any issue with them to date.”

Larson said a routine inspection of assembled components on the North Dakota turned up problems with the supplier’s quality control, and subsequent inspections revealed further issues. As a result, “a prudent review of all components from this vendor” is being carried out. The work is extensive.

“There are 63 components the Navy is currently investigating aboard the North Dakota,” Larson said. “These components include stern planes and rudder rams, retractable bow plane cylinders, hydraulic accumulators, high-pressure air-charging manifolds, torpedo tube interlocks and shaft/link assemblies, weapons, shipping and handling mechanisms, and other miscellaneous parts.”

Inspection of these parts and systems does not mean problems have been found with them, Larson cautioned.

“To ensure the safety of its crews and ships the Navy will ensure the components from this vendor meet specifications,” he said.

Larson could not provide a date for when the issues came to light, nor comment on projected costs.

“The issue is still under investigation, so it’s premature to discuss costs,” he said.

Sources said problems with the vendor have been fixed, although it is not clear if the vendor remains under contract. With only a limited number of suppliers qualified to build parts for the submarine program, options may be hard to come by, sources said.

The Navy also may be thinking about making design changes to the VPT installation, although details are not clear. The new bow was designed by Electric Boat, which also makes the weapon tubes.

The sub had been scheduled to leave Groton April 14 to begin Alpha sea trials, also known as builder’s sea trials. Now, the vessel is expected to have to be drydocked to enable its systems to be inspected. No new dates have been set, although neither the Navy nor the shipbuilders expect the delays to take too long.

“We still expect to deliver the ship ahead of the August contract delivery date,” EB spokesman Bob Hamilton said.

Here’s the full NAVSEA statement released by the Navy April 16:

By Team Submarine Public Affairs

WASHINGTON — The PCU [pre-commissioning unit] North Dakota (SSN 784) commissioning will be postponed, the Navy announced April 16.

This decision is based on the need for additional design and certification work required on the submarine's redesigned bow and material issues with vendor-assembled and delivered components. As the Navy works with all vested parties to certify the quality and safety of the submarine and toward taking delivery of the boat, it will determine a new commissioning date. The Navy is committed to ensuring the safety of its crews and ships. High quality standards for submarine components are an important part of the overall effort to ensure safety.

The lessons learned from North Dakota are already being applied to all Block III submarines.

Team Submarine oversees the submarine force's research, development, acquisition, maintenance and life cycle support.

Click to expand...

US military aviation programmes face $14.2B hit in long-term budget
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLEWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 18 hours ago
Aircraft and aerial munition suppliers face a $14.2 billion hit over the next five years if the US Congress does not repeal mandatory budget cuts known as sequestration, warns a new report issued on 15 April by the Department of Defense (DOD).

The report, entitled Estimated Impacts of Sequestration Level Funding, details how the automatic budget cuts enacted by Congress two years ago will target 16 aviation and munition programmes in development or production.

In absolute terms, the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme is expected to absorb the biggest fiscal hit. Sequestration cuts 17 fighters – including 15 F-35As and two F-35Cs – and $1.72 billion from the five-year budget plan, but that represents only 3.7% of programme’s $45.4 billion budget over the same period.

By comparison, the adaptive engine technology demonstration – aimed at developing a more fuel efficient supersonic jet engine – faces a $1.49 billion budget cut if sequestration is not repealed, andthat number could be devastating. It erases a $1 billion funding addition unveiled by the Obama Administration two months ago.

But the impact of sequestration crosses all aircraft and aerial weapons domains, including helicopters, airlifters, tankers and reconnaissance aircraft.

The cuts come on top of proposals in the Fiscal 2015 budget request to divest the Bell Helicopter OH-58D, Fairchild Republic A-10A/C and Lockheed Martin U-2S fleets, which have already prompted heated objections from some lawmakers.

Further sequestration cuts, if enacted, also would divest the Boeing KC-10 and Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Block 40 fleets.
Rotorcraft programmes are also a major target of the cuts, with six programmes accounting for $4.6 billion of the $14.2 billion cuts directed at the military’s aviation buget.

The US Army aviation community faces nearly $2.9 billion in additional cuts spread across three major programmes – Sikorsky UH-60M, Boeing AH-64D remanufacture and the Airbus UH-72A fleets. The US Marine Corps’ CH-53K programme, meanwhile, would be reduced by $1.04 billion.

After slashing eight Boeing P-8As from the Fiscal 2015 budget request, the navy could cut another six aircraft estimated to cost a combined $1.02 billion, according to the DOD report. Likewise, the US Air Force would reduce the procurement budget for the KC-46A tanker – one of the service’s three top spending priorities – by $1.14 billion and five of the 69 aircraft in the five-year budget plan.

The DOD report does not mention any impact on the USAF’s plans to develop a long-range strike bomber over the same period.

Click to expand...

DoD quietly expanding AFRICOM missions
Apr. 16, 2014 - 10:00AM |
0 Comments

A
A
26th MEU MRF Djibouti Parachute Operations
Marines jump out of an MV-22B Osprey while conducting parachute operations over Djibouti last year. At least 5,000 U.S. troops are operating on the African continent. (Sgt. Christopher Q. Stone/Marine Corps)

By Andrew Tilghman
Staff writer
FILED UNDER
News
Just five years ago, the Pentagon considered Africa such a strategic backwater that the global map of combatant commands carved the massive continent into two chunks and placed most of it under control of the chief of U.S. European Command in Belgium.

Yet since the 2008 creation of U.S. Africa Command, the military has conducted a quiet buildup there and today has at least 5,000 troops operating on the ground across the continent.

AFRICOM’s focus is the vast regions surrounding the Sahara desert, the Maghreb to the north and the Sahel to the south. Much of it is essentially ungoverned and has become a sanctuary for some of the most virulent strains of today’s radical Islamic movements.

Many of those groups have sent weapons and manpower into the 3-year-old Syrian civil war, temporarily diverting their attention away from Africa. But the governments in the region are bracing for a potential surge in violence if and when the Syrian conflict winds down.

“A significant number [of insurgents] throughout the region have headed to Syria, and not many have come back yet. ... All the governments are concerned about that, because they’ll come back ... with experience and better trained from the jihadis’ perspective,” Army Gen. David Rodriguez, chief of U.S. Africa Command, told reporters at the Pentagon on April 8.

Those threats in the region have helped transform the U.S. military’s Camp Lemonnier along the East African coast of Djibouti from a ramshackle outpost of a few hundred troops a decade ago into a hub of operations for AFRICOM and home to several thousand U.S. troops. And beyond the gates of Lemonnier, “throughout the rest of the area, there are small pockets of temporarily placed organizations and people,” Rodriguez said.

Those troops are providing support and conducting direct operations against the al-Shabaab militant group based in Somalia, which experts say is among the most sophisticated extremist groups to emerge in Africa in recent years. Al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for last November’s attack on a shopping mall in an affluent section of Nairobi, Kenya.

Rodriguez said those efforts, coordinating with several African militaries, have successfully diminished the groups’ reach and limited its outright control over cities and rural regions.

Camp Lemonnier also reportedly conducts extensive drone operations, which provide key intelligence about extremist activities in the region, as well as direct strikes like one in late January targeting an al-Shabaab leader.

In early April, the Pentagon announced the expansion of the Marine Corps task force at Moron Air Base in southern Spain, which primarily focuses on supporting AFRICOM. That air-ground task force will grow from 600 to 775 personnel, defense officials said.

The Marines in Spain will help improve the U.S. military’s response time for crises in the western part of Africa.

“We are looking hard at trying to improve our posture in West Africa, which is really the toughest challenge for security,” Rodriquez said.

Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos recently said he would like to see some Marines based permanently along the West African coastline in the Gulf of Guinea.

“This is where we hope to be,” Amos told hundreds of officers at the annual Sea Air Space Exposition in Maryland on April 7.

The U.S. conducted operations in western Africa last year in a French-led mission against extremists who, aligned with local desert tribesmen, ousted the democratically elected president of Mali. Over several months, the U.S. provided the French military with airlift, air refueling and intelligence along with a small team of U.S. personnel on the ground.

Low-profile and often classified special operations missions dominate the current AFRICOM strategy, including some direct counterterrorism missions and also training missions with local security forces.

“They’re a big part,” Rodriguez said of the special operations teams. “The small teams and the right places that have a tailored approach to what our partners need most. And the foreign internal defense and the training of small units is at the head of that list.”

Click to expand...

Flying soon

Sikorsky clears CH-53K structures for first flight
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLEWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 21:29 15 Apr 2014
Sikorsky has cleared the structural integrity of the CH-53K heavylift helicopter meets standards for first flight later this year.

The static test article (STA) was subjected to a round of proof loading tests, in which the US Marine Corps’ future airframe is loaded 115% over maximum design loads.

The tests are an encouraging indicator for the US military’s largest helicopter with a maximum take-off weight of 39,900kg (88,000lb), a 20% increase over the CH-53E Super Stallion it replaces.

Of six proof loading test conditions completed in 2013 and earlier this year, four were required before the CH-53K can attempt a first flight in the fourth quarter, according to Sikorsky.

The tests analysed loads on the tail rotor pylon at high and low speeds, the landing gear at ground impact and the full airframe at maximum rotor power, Sikorsky says.

Sikorsky also has completed ultimate load testing on two conditions, in which the main rotors are overloaded by 150% compared to design loads.

The event comes only weeks before the aircraft is scheduled to be rolled-out in a ceremony at the company’s West Palm Beach, Florida, assembly line and flight test centre.

The USMC plans to buy 200 CH-53Ks to replace a fleet of smaller and aging CH-53Es, filling a key role in the service’s heavylift strategy.

Although sharing the same designation and exterior design, the CH-53K is a substantially new aircraft, with a new rotor system, engine, transmission, cabin and tail rotor.

The USMC launched the development programme in 2005 with plans to enter service in 2015. But programme delays have pushed the initial operational capability milestone to 2018, even as the USMC has increased the programme from 156 to 200 helicopters.

Click to expand...

On Future F-35 Base(s):

Posted on InsideDefense.com: April 16, 2014

The Air Force has yet to settle on a time line for basing F-35A aircraft in the Pacific theater, according to a service spokeswoman, but a congressional delegation with a keen interest in the service's decision expects an announcement in the next several months.

Basing decisions are lengthy processes when conducted in the United States, necessitating environmental impact statements and public comment periods, but they can take even longer when they involve foreign countries. The debate over which Pacific location to send operational Joint Strike Fighters covers both of those possibilities, with sites in Alaska, Japan, South Korea and Guam being considered.

The Air Force's first two operational F-35 flying units will be stationed in the continental United States -- an active-duty unit at Hill Air Force Base, UT, and an Air National Guard unit in Burlington, VT. But the service has long maintained its next operational site, and its first outside CONUS, will be in the Pacific region.

Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in a statement that the service has conducted site surveys at each candidate base in the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) area of responsibility, yet she declined to name all of those bases or say how many candidate bases exist because of "host nation sensitivities." She also said a time line for selecting preferred host sites has not been determined.

Stefanek did confirm that Eielson Air Force Base and Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, both in Alaska, are candidate sites, a detail she said she was able to share because the service has more freedom to discuss American bases than overseas locations.

Heather Handyside, a spokeswoman for Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, provided additional information. In an email, she said the Air Force is considering five candidate bases, three of which will be chosen for more extensive evaluations around May or June. No bases on American territory are being considered other than the two in Alaska, putting the state in a strong position and mobilizing its members of Congress to advocate for the F-35.

The decision to investigate Eielson AFB and JB Elmendorf-Richardson is hardly surprising, although Eielson AFB is more likely to receive F-35s than its neighbor. PACAF chief Gen. Herbert Carlisle said last year that the basing process was to make major progress in early 2014, and that Eielson AFB offered the service a number of advantages that no other Pacific base, either in Alaska or overseas, could provide. Asked at the time to guess at which bases would be seriously evaluated as potential JSF locations, Carlisle named Eielson AFB, Misawa and Kadena Air Bases in Japan, and Osan Air Base in Korea.

JB Elmendorf-Richardson already hosts F-22 Raptors, making it unlikely the base would also be selected to host Joint Strike Fighters. Both Alaska bases also have expansive airspace available for flight training, which South Korea, Japan and Guam do not. Moreover, the Air Force has been engaged in a long battle with Congress to be permitted to move an F-16 squadron from Eielson AFB to the joint base, and sending F-35s to the former location may allow the F-16 transfer to go forward.

According to Stefanek, "Site survey teams assessed each location against operational and training requirements, potential impacts to existing missions, housing, infrastructure, and manpower. The teams also developed cost estimates to bed down the F-35A at each location. The next step is to select preferred and reasonable alternatives."

If one of the Alaska sites is chosen as the Air Force's preferred alternative, the service would launch its traditional and environmental impact statement process, through which it must solicit input from local communities about the environmental effects of basing aircraft in the region. The preferred alternative is almost never discarded in favor of other locations, technically known as "reasonable alternatives," and the final basing decision is left to the Air Force secretary.

If the service chooses an overseas base as its preferred alternative, the environmental process will be different, take longer, and be run by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Stefanek said.

"If the alternatives are in another country, the Air Force will make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense who will make a decision after close consultation with the host nation and [the head of U.S. Pacific Command]," Stefanek wrote.

The timing of the basing process is significant because of the Air Force's self-imposed deadline for declaring initial operational capability on the F-35. The service expects to achieve IOC by the end of calendar year 2016 using a software configuration, Block 2B, with limited sensor and weapons capabilities. If a Pacific base is not yet operational by then, the Air Force would be consciously declaring IOC on aircraft deemed minimally warfighting-capable, and those jets cleared to deploy into conflict zones would all be based domestically.

Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Natasha Waggoner said in an April 15 email that Air Force IOC only requires 12 to 24 operational aircraft at Hill AFB in Utah and is not tied to Pacific basing plans.

F-35As are based today at a number of locations around the United States, most prominently Eglin Air Force Base, FL, for training and Edwards Air Force Base, CA, for developmental testing.

Last month saw the eighth Whidbey Island Naval Air Station electronic attack squadron complete its transition from the EA-6B Prowler to the EA-18G Growler.

The VAQ-129 Vikings, which has piloted Prowlers since the 1970s, conducted a final flyover last month to commemorate the transition.

Of the 14 electronic attack squadrons on base, six more are slated to complete the transition over the next three years, according to Mike Welding, NAS Whidbey public affairs officer.

NAS Whidbey is the only base where Growlers are stationed.

Three more squadrons are slated to make the transition this year, the VAQ-133 Wizards, the VAQ-209 Star Warriors and the VAQ-140 Patriots.

The VAQ-131 Lancers and the VAQ-142 Gray Wolves are scheduled to transition in 2015, with the final squadron, the VAQ-134 Garudas, making the transition in 2016.

Some Prowlers will continue to be stationed at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in North Carolina after the Navy completes its transition in 2016.

Meanwhile, Friday saw the issue of the last Pratt & Whitney J52 engine, used on both the Prowlers and the A-6 Intruders, which were retired in the 1990s.

Click to expand...

The last USN request for 22 EA-18G is for replace USMC EA-6B.

The NAvy has it's Jammers but they only Cover the Navy Carriers. The USMC and the USAF have older systems. The Marines Prowler based EA6B+ variants and the USAF's limited number of F16CJ/DJ's. These Frames are aging and not planed to remain far beyond the 2020 time frame. The best option I see should be for the Marines and Air Force to Joint a Jammer based on F35. The starting point In my opinion would be the Multi mission pod of the F35. It's not used for the USAF F35A but is on the F35B of the USMC and F35C of the USN.

Nice, but only for EW mission ?
I think according to its form would be positioned on the sides of the fuselage as the CFTs on the F-15.

Possible with only one pilot perform EW missions ? yet the number of operators had was reduced from 3 for EA-6B to one for EA-18G.

The Most Expensive Military Project So Far

Posted on InsideDefense.com: April 17, 2014

The latest Selected Acquisition Report for the Joint Strike Fighter program shows marginal cost growth for F-35 procurement and reductions in cost estimates for life-cycle sustainment, lowering the total projected cost by 2 percent over last year's data -- but still estimating a price tag of $921 billion in fiscal year 2012 dollars.

FY-12 dollar figures are used because the F-35 program was re-baselined in that year. In total, and using figures determined both by the JSF joint program office and the Pentagon's cost assessment and program evaluation (CAPE) office, F-35 acquisition, operations and sustainment cost estimates fell from $936.4 billion in 2012 to $921.3 billion in 2013. If adjusted for inflation over the 50-year life of the program, acquisition costs are estimated at $399 billion, sustainment either $917 billion or $1 trillion depending on two available projections, and total program cost comes to either $1.3 trillion or $1.4 trillion.

The estimate in the 2013 SAR is higher than what JSF Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan has said he expected; the general in recent months stated a cost projection of around $850 billion. Bogdan told reporters at an April 17 media roundtable on the SAR estimates that the difference is largely due to changes in inflation indicators.

Guesses at the inflation rate have a huge impact on long-term cost estimates because the F-35 SAR projects sustainment costs out five decades, to 2065.

Breaking down those total figures in greater detail, the Defense Department now expects F-35 acquisition -- including research and development, procurement and military construction -- to cost around $323 billion in FY-12 dollars, or $399 billion in then-year dollars. Research, development, test and evaluation funding remained steady and construction cost estimates fell slightly, but the program reported a $4.5 billion price increase in procurement estimates, again in FY-12 dollars.

Bogdan attributed that increase almost entirely to decisions by JSF operators to delay or defer some aircraft purchases, which raises the cost of all other airplanes bought in the short term -- thus increasing total program cost. Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney are the prime contractors for the jet and engine, respectively, and BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman are Lockheed's two primary subcontractors on the aircraft.

"The two primary drivers that caused that procurement dollar amount to go up were labor rates for our prime contractors and for their major subs -- so I'm talking about Lockheed, Pratt, BAE and Northrop Grumman -- and the fact that the services and some of the partners moved the buy of their airplanes out to the right," Bogdan said. "When you do that, the curve for the cost of the airplane doesn't come down as fast as it would have. That's reflected in the total procurement cost."

Bogdan also expressed displeasure with Pratt & Whitney for cost increases in the company's production of F135 engines. Those increases are at least partly due to the company's spreading overhead costs among a shrinking amount of military programs, which has concentrated more cost on the F-35 motor, he said, stressing that the slower growth rate in aircraft buys is similarly felt in engine procurement.

The SAR projects expenses only for aircraft slated to be bought for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. But because of the integrated, joint-service, international partner and foreign military sale nature of the program, decisions by one buyer to change procurement quantities and time lines affects all other buyers. Bogdan and his staff have estimated that recent decisions by the Navy, Turkey, Italy and others to reduce near-term procurement will raise the cost of all other aircraft by around 3 percent, although orders from Japan and Israel are helping offset that somewhat. He added that this cost estimate does not factor in the aircraft South Korea or other nations might purchase.

According to a SAR fact sheet provided by the program office, the average cost of an Air Force conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A over the life of the program is now expected to be $105 million if the service buys its total planned quantity of 1,763 aircraft. That figure, known as a unit recurring flyaway cost, covers only procurement and not developmental expenses. It does take into account the more expensive aircraft bought early in the program and the less costly jets that air forces around the world will buy over the next 25 years or so. The $105 million figure is a weighted average, with more weight given to the cost point at which the most aircraft will be acquired -- a point the program has yet to reach.

The F-35A, which will make up the bulk of the global JSF fleet, will be flown by the Air Force, most international partners and all of the foreign military sales customers that have committed to buy the jet so far.

According to the fact sheet, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the Marine Corps' short-takeoff-vertical landing F-35B is pegged at $127.8 million at the programmed quantity of 340 aircraft. The Navy is looking at a flyaway price tag of $116.4 million.

Each of those figures increase if development and military construction costs are factored in. Including those costs, and measured in then-year dollars, the program projects an average acquisition unit price tag of $162 million. That statistic is not broken down among the three F-35 variants.

O&S Cost Debate

The larger share of the SAR's cost projection for the F-35 program is in operations and sustainment rather than acquisition, and there remains a disagreement between the program office and CAPE about the size of that figure. The fact sheet shows that, in FY-12 terms, CAPE believes sustainment will cost about $598 billion, while the program projects $541 billion. Adjusted for inflation over the life of the program, CAPE's number remains slightly above $1 trillion, and Bogdan's office's is $917 billion. Both are lower than CAPE's previous estimate of $1.1 trillion.

Until those estimates are reconciled, the differences are meaningful. The JSF program's $921.3 billion total cost estimate is made up of the base-year acquisition cost projection that is common to both estimates -- $323 billion -- and CAPE's sustainment estimate, $598 billion. Had Bogdan's preferred sustainment figure been applied, the SAR would list the F-35's total program cost at $864 billion instead. Adjusting all of those figures for inflation, the CAPE cost estimate would be $1.41 trillion, and the program office estimate, $1.31 trillion

The general listed four factors contributing to that discrepancy of about $100 billion, and each involve different statistical measurement approaches. According to Bogdan, CAPE and the program office track depot-level maintenance costs differently; CAPE compiles the sum of the cost of every individual piece of work done at the depot, whereas the program office takes into account the aircraft users' attempts at efficiencies, including multiple modifications in a single depot induction. Second, the two cost estimates use different fuel-burn rates for the Air Force. Bogdan suggested CAPE's fuel-burn factor is based on accurate historical data, not on current Air Force strategic thinking about F-35 employment.

Third, CAPE chose to measure expected reliability and maintainability trends based on last year's report by the Pentagon director of operational test and evaluation. That report was put together when the JSF fleet had flown about 8,500 hours. The fleet has now surpassed 15,000 flying hours, giving the program office more up-to-date statistics than what CAPE was able to use at the time it had to submit its cost projection to DOD leaders.

The fourth difference will be critical in the future, although it remains a rough estimate today: the mix of contractor and organic personnel involved in F-35 sustainment. Bogdan and F-35 Director of Logistics Todd Mellon said CAPE used the program's traditional placeholder figure of 80 percent contractor and 20 percent organic sustainment, whereas the program now intends to shift more work to government personnel.

"That's reflected in our number, not reflected in their number," Bogdan said about the contractor-organic blend -- though is is applicable to all of the distinctions between CAPE and the joint program office. "At some point in time, we will come to agreement in the future on what that mix should be, and then we'll go forward."