Beware the GIGO factor...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
As discussed in a previous post, in the case of the F-35 replacement of the F-16, this problem is evident. The F-35 is 11 - 13 times more expensive than the F-16 but does not provide 11 - 13 times more combat capability...
You're comparing two aircraft of vastly different age, production status, capabilities and design parameters and for the older one you're using the cost of a stripped variant after years of production.
A far more apt comparison would of the the F-16IN recently offered to India (but beat out thus far by the Dassault Rafale). That variant of the F-16 is perhaps the most capable and it still won't quite match the F-35 in many respects. Flyaway costs run about $111M for the F-16IN versus $197M for the F35A. That's a factor of only 1:1.7 -- call it two times more cost and then ask the question on combat capability...
How emptor was my caveat...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
The US does not operate the F-16IN so it is not useful in measuring US combat power.
Nowhere did I imply that it was operated by us; that isn't the issue; combat capability or your combat 'power' are nominal owner independent issues, as is price. The issue at hand is your use of inappropriate and thus potentially invalid costs in comparing the costs of an F-16 of Block 30/32 or below with an F-35. Machts nichts to me, really, it's your study and I was simply pointing out a potential pitfall... :wry:
Quote:
But I would like to note that this is an excellent example of inflating prices far along in the platform's history...
Is it price fixing or is it much added -- and more expensive -- capability? The F-16IN AN/APG 80 AESA Radar for example offers many improvements in capability and thus combat power (and some USAF F-15s C/Es are being retrofitted with a similar set as likely will be some F-16s) but it is an order of magnitude more expensive than the older mechanically scanned sets. Built in IRST (which the USAF used to foolishly reject), Current EW systems and helmet mounted cueing all available in the F-16IN are not only items designed into the F-35 but also far more expensive than the Boyd / Spinney / Wheeler beloved f-16A. Those gentlemen not withstanding, the USAF and most other purchasers of the F-16 have opted for far more capability than the A-model possessed. You get what you pay for. And one must pay for what one gets...
Quote:
William Hartung's
book provides an excellent overview of Lockheed Martin's practices in this regard; and I think it's a fair representation of the acquisition process as a whole.
We can disagree on that last item and I'll again point out that the Congress really like things the way they are; i.e. LM couldn't do what they're rightly or wrongly accused of without the assent -- even encouragement -- of Congress. Allow me to say that your choice of 'believable' sources is, er, interesting and they certainly generally are supportive of your views :rolleyes:
S'okay. Your study, your choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
These are all primary sources so I doubt the substance of your objections about my sources. My conclusions are based on the numbers provided by these sources.
I'm sure you do doubt, no surprise there. However, after listening to, reading and watching all those you cite and / or their predecessors, cohorts, sycophants and fellow travelers as a highly interested and even involved party for a great many years, I'm far more comfortable with my assessment of their questionable overall credibility on the matters at hand.
Even OPM. As a former DAC and Civil Service retiree as well as a military retiree, they. IMO, are probably the most credible source you cite and they are far from being error or bias free. They, like most of the others, have to agree (or strongly disagree, individually and incumbent administration political party dependent) with each current administration no matter what they believe or think
Question everything, not just things that annoy you. Agendas abound... :wry: