Well you have to prove that a production aircraft cant be more expensive than a test aircraftI don't have to prove a negative.It's all your speculation and you have no support for it.
F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked
- Thread starter djpav
- Start date
Grand Danois
Entertainer
You are aware the the earth is not flat?Well you have to prove that a production aircraft cant be more expensive than a test aircraft
Well, you could google up what it cost to build the Gripen test aircrafts - are they more or less expensive than production variants? Or the EF...
I wouldn't think the Gripen Demo is cheaper than the "B" it was modified from.
The whole production program is set up to do so, but its difficult to prove a negative. I guess you will have to wait for production orders when the aircraft is being produced at a much higher rate. However, with every American fighter aircraft to date, a larger buy meant lower prices per aircraft. One would assume this would continue. But if you have information that suggests otherwise, maybe you should produce it....Well you have to prove that a production aircraft cant be more expensive than a test aircraft
The US has every intention to order over 2000 aircraft. With the 30 the US is buying during FY2010, it willl take over sixty six years to build the low ball number of 2000.
Logically, it stands to reason when the production rate increases there will be an economy of scale as well. I am not going to attempt to describe the economic term: economy of scale. I will say those who prefer to buy F-22s use economy of scale to lower the price of their aircraft. I can't imagine the same would not happen with the F-35.
the road runner
Active Member
I totally agree on this point.
As larger numbers of aircraft are ordered and production ramps up,the cost will be reduced.
As the Post is titled is the F-35 Doomed i would have to say NO!
The reasons for..
*test aircraft in all 3 versions are at variouse stages in testing
*low rate production aircraft are starting to show the Aircrafts capability.
*Partner nations are starting to place initial orders.
*Non partner nations are starting to take notice of the JSF,ie Israel and Japan.......
*pilots are already flying the Sims,getting use to there new wonder bird.
Reasons Against.....
*cost for JSF(still to be determend)
*time for JSF to be in service.
One article i did come across was how Israel wants to become a Partner in the JSF
Israel wants production role in F-35 fighter | Israel | Jerusalem Post
I recall Japan being offered a place in the JSF consortium,but Japan refused as they wanted to try and get the F-22.
Israel....i am assuming(Brain block) were offered a place in JSF???,but did not accept?
I am under the Impression that Partner nations would frown on Israel/Japan(any country) enter the JSF program at this stage in the project?
And rightly so,they missed the boat.........
Comment please
regards...
Last edited:
Any F-35 delivered starting in 2012 is at least Block 3. This includes all of the above save the 6 internal AAMs as that is scheduled for block 5.
The latest unclassified link to FY 2010..... Notice with increased production the price has fallen even with these few aircraft being bought. We aren't anywhere near full production and won't be for several years. Read the several charts. Click on each chart to increase their reading size.
The F-35 and the USAF fy2010 budget ELP Defens(c)e Blog
The F-35 and the USAF fy2010 budget ELP Defens(c)e Blog
Look at the numbers:
wpn sys unit cost:
2008 appr $235M
2009 appr $226M
2010 appr $235M
No trend there.
Rather, the US has every intention to buy as many planes as the budget allows.
I refer to the UK, where, I think it's called the defense commity, some parlamentarien commity overseeing the MoD, were unable to get a straight answer on the number of F35 required: It was, quote, "depending on the price of the airplane".
Grand Danois
Entertainer
UFC would be a better descriptor than WSC at this stage. Too many ancillery items, not reated to the production cost of the jet.
Weapons don't really reflect the price of an aircraft. There will always be weapons systems and weapons prices each and every year never mind the aircraft make or model....long after the production run is finished....
Its similar to computer software, always updating software.... Systems software is also always being updated as well, for new peripherals....
Better look at the UFC. With these small numbers per fiscal year show, the UFC price has fallen considerably and will in the future....
Plus this isn't a new graph table either. These tables have been around for years. Yes, the numbers change a bit from year to year, but the big picture has always been the same.... To suggest otherwise is a mark of being stupid.....
When people quote a ten year old price for a product and expect no inflation whatsoever when they buy the product fifteen years later, its being a bit dishonest or very foolish. No one ever expected a FY 2000 price to be the same for FY2010.... or FY2015....
We are talking with the US thirty aircraft this fiscal year, not ten million large screen television sets or pcs. There is a large difference in economy in scale....
Last edited:
benithisrael
Banned Member
The f-22 has been capped. If not the f-35 which aircraft is the looking at.
fighter aircraft costs have been skyrocketing. The Us or Europe can't make aircraft by outsourcing chinese parts or indian software. Their best method would be to commonise their fleet. F-35a, b, c, reduce operational costs by as much as 80%. The Us ain't got no money for separate programs either. This aircraft replaces more than twice the aircraft replaced by the super hornet. This is the final phase of consolidation, after which the Us would go 6th generation un-manned. In simple english, this grand industrial , military and economics coup by Us is not junk at all.
fighter aircraft costs have been skyrocketing. The Us or Europe can't make aircraft by outsourcing chinese parts or indian software. Their best method would be to commonise their fleet. F-35a, b, c, reduce operational costs by as much as 80%. The Us ain't got no money for separate programs either. This aircraft replaces more than twice the aircraft replaced by the super hornet. This is the final phase of consolidation, after which the Us would go 6th generation un-manned. In simple english, this grand industrial , military and economics coup by Us is not junk at all.
Try doing some research. Here is what the UFC has been doing:
the road runner
Active Member
Wow thats a great Graph SpudmanWP. Should be refered to as EXHIBIT A
The Evidence showing how the JSF has dropped in price over the past few years should be proof enough.From 2007 the JSF(A model) was $212 million now in 2010 its down to $133 million.Thats a $80(approx) million saving in 3 years.
By 2015 if the JSF follows the same savings made over time they may cost $60-$80 million US.
All speculation on my behalf,but time will tell......
Regards
perhaps if you typed the correct numbers ?
wpn
2008 appr $235M
2009 appr $226M
2010 appr $192m
and it seems the trend will continue
wpn
2011 appr $137m
2012 appr $107m
2013 appr $100m
As long as most of the nations order the aircraft as planned early in the production program, the price will continue to drop as planned. Of course, there aren't any firm numbers, and most likely won't be any firm numbers with all of these nations involved. If these nations wish to cut their planned orders, I am sure Lockheed Martin and most nations would prefer they dropped later orders when the production line is in full swing than cutting orders when the production line is still building up....
For example, Australia may or may not buy the 76th through 100th aircraft. Israel, Japan, South Korea, and possibly other nations could fill in at a later date....
Wow!
A lot of heat for posting 3 numbers and saying that there ain't no trend.
Jack412
You are using an older budget (the year before). It's interesting in it self how the forecasted price can bloat from 192M to 235M in just a year. That's a 22% jump. Now when you are 22% off the fist year of prediction I wonder how much you are off in consecutive years.... In other words, the forecasted price is meaningless - they don't know.
The graf by sprudman
Maybe I am misreading your numbers, Though again if you look at the may 09' numbers you get a very different estimate. FAC at FY 2010 is estimated by Feb 08' to be at some 158M, in may 09' that is seamingly revised to 188M.
But all this is meaningless, not only because the numbers themselves underline that budget estimates are off by 10s of procent from one year to the other, but also because, as far as I can see, by "fly away cost", they mean something like "marginal cost", not "total average cost".
With all due respect, I think that the conceptual difference between MC and TAC is the cause of much of the confusion in the last posts.
Somebody raised the question of weapon system cost and fly away cost.
I don't know which is the interesting one - as a rule, I think it's prudent always to quote the "highest figure", because that's the figure the responsible civil servants and politicians will use when the national audit tries to place the blame for the budget overruns (one is tempted to say the anticipated budget overruns).
A lot of heat for posting 3 numbers and saying that there ain't no trend.
Jack412
You are using an older budget (the year before). It's interesting in it self how the forecasted price can bloat from 192M to 235M in just a year. That's a 22% jump. Now when you are 22% off the fist year of prediction I wonder how much you are off in consecutive years.... In other words, the forecasted price is meaningless - they don't know.
The graf by sprudman
Maybe I am misreading your numbers, Though again if you look at the may 09' numbers you get a very different estimate. FAC at FY 2010 is estimated by Feb 08' to be at some 158M, in may 09' that is seamingly revised to 188M.
But all this is meaningless, not only because the numbers themselves underline that budget estimates are off by 10s of procent from one year to the other, but also because, as far as I can see, by "fly away cost", they mean something like "marginal cost", not "total average cost".
With all due respect, I think that the conceptual difference between MC and TAC is the cause of much of the confusion in the last posts.
Somebody raised the question of weapon system cost and fly away cost.
I don't know which is the interesting one - as a rule, I think it's prudent always to quote the "highest figure", because that's the figure the responsible civil servants and politicians will use when the national audit tries to place the blame for the budget overruns (one is tempted to say the anticipated budget overruns).
If we look a little bit deep into the weapon system numbers:
I admit that I have a hard time making out the item list, but let's try:
There is:
A "subtotal recurring flyaway" item of 1333M for 10 planes in FY2010
So as far as I can make it out, there is a recurring fly away cost of some 133M per plane.
A "subtotal non-recurring flyaway" item of 550M for 10 planes, or 55M per plane in FY2010 (up from 47M in FY2009).
Then there is a "subtotal surport costs" of 336M in FY2010, or 34M per plane (up from 130M in FY2009, that's up from 22M per plane, that's a 55% increase )
And some other costs.
Ofcourse f.ex. the airframe has decreased from FY09 107M to a measely 87M in FY2010, and that should make the taxpayers happy, was it not that other costs just take to the skies!
Ending up with the the wpn sys cost per plane staying more or less constant - I think btw that that is ammasing, and it's my own unsubstanciated oppinion that such usually happens when the accountants rearranges the budget model in such a way that partial goals (like the fly away cost) seems reached, though some other (spurrious) costs went up, making the totallity of the budget the same as last year, reflecting the intrinsic cost of the project - but partial goals are meet. I do not, ofcourse, know that to be true in this project.
I admit that I have a hard time making out the item list, but let's try:
There is:
A "subtotal recurring flyaway" item of 1333M for 10 planes in FY2010
So as far as I can make it out, there is a recurring fly away cost of some 133M per plane.
A "subtotal non-recurring flyaway" item of 550M for 10 planes, or 55M per plane in FY2010 (up from 47M in FY2009).
Then there is a "subtotal surport costs" of 336M in FY2010, or 34M per plane (up from 130M in FY2009, that's up from 22M per plane, that's a 55% increase )
And some other costs.
Ofcourse f.ex. the airframe has decreased from FY09 107M to a measely 87M in FY2010, and that should make the taxpayers happy, was it not that other costs just take to the skies!
Ending up with the the wpn sys cost per plane staying more or less constant - I think btw that that is ammasing, and it's my own unsubstanciated oppinion that such usually happens when the accountants rearranges the budget model in such a way that partial goals (like the fly away cost) seems reached, though some other (spurrious) costs went up, making the totallity of the budget the same as last year, reflecting the intrinsic cost of the project - but partial goals are meet. I do not, ofcourse, know that to be true in this project.
Last edited:
If you think that 5000-6000 JSF will be builded, I have some stocks in an investment firm, I would like to sell you
Who said 6000 JSF? Either way it does not detract from sea tobys fundamental comment which has been time and time again consistent with what the current consortium members have signed up for:If you think that 5000-6000 JSF will be builded, I have some stocks in an investment firm, I would like to sell you
SeaToby said:
the road runner
Active Member
These nations,would be paying a premium, to purchase the JSF?
I would assume if your not a partner nation at this stage in the JSF project,you will be paying a bit extra for a JSF than a partner nation would?
Regards