The combination of missed schedules, technical problems and, most importantly, reports of skyrocketing costs gained the F-35 a lot of unwanted attention and the perception that it's a deeply troubled program.
That's not the case, say Lockheed Martin officials, who insist that the cascade of reports about problems and soaring costs is at best exaggerated and often wrong.
"These things get blown out of proportion," Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's F-35 vice president of business development, said in an interview.
The cost issue, in particular, is a sore spot for Lockheed officials, who have winced repeatedly in recent weeks over government cost estimates that could undermine political support for the F-35.
Defense Department number crunchers, in a recent report to Congress, said the 2,457 jets that the U.S. government plans to buy will cost an average of $97.1 million each, or $133.6 million including inflation. And both of those numbers, the report says, are optimistic -- the next, better estimate could exceed $150 million per aircraft.
That's baloney, O'Bryan said. "We feel that, dealing with actuals [production data] and costs, we know how much each jet is going to cost."
And how much is that? Well, it depends.
A document that Lockheed provided to friends, allies and the Star-Telegram says the F-35A model, the cheapest and simplest version, will on average cost about $60 million each in today's dollars. That would make the Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 (680 planes) $80 million to $85 million each on average, based on the Pentagon estimates.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/23 ... -cost.html
LM vs U.S. Government who will win ? I wouldn't take what LM says too seriously their marketing department is in overdrive. We will see the numbers once the fighters start rolling in.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june10/defense_04-21.html
Interesting video here.
