F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
Worse. F-111's being escorted by F/A-18A/B's with no refuellers since 2007 or so...
The F-111's were replaced with Supers from 2009 and completely in December 2010 when IOC was declared. FOC for the Supers is due this December...
We can now go further into contested airspace than we've ever been able to do before. The range of F-111 makes no difference to that.
The key point about range, especially when considering future capability with F-35 is contested...
There has been a lot of myths created by using high/slow to get max range, when in combat the f-111 was used low/fast
what is funny is that back in 1984 Dr Kopp said of the f-111
"TFX F-111A Specification Performance Maximum speed - SL1.2 Mach - at altitude 2.5 Mach
2.2 Mach Cruise speed (at altitude)
2.2 Mach Combat radius 800 nm 800 nm (540 nm)
Dash radius 210 nm 30 nm (200 nm)
needless to say the USA was still unhappy with the dash radius
F-111 Profile
what is funny is that back in 1984 Dr Kopp said of the f-111
"TFX F-111A Specification Performance Maximum speed - SL1.2 Mach - at altitude 2.5 Mach
2.2 Mach Cruise speed (at altitude)
2.2 Mach Combat radius 800 nm 800 nm (540 nm)
Dash radius 210 nm 30 nm (200 nm)
needless to say the USA was still unhappy with the dash radius
F-111 Profile
Beatmaster
New Member
Lol you kidding me so you are saying that the JSF will cost 71 -73 mil as per?
That would be amazing, considering that a F-16 cost 100 mil.
No offense the US and Dutch government " Reken Kamer or Finance calculations" have made a calculation and if the JSF where to be sold right now (Just for the sake of the argument we will assume thats its ready) then the JSF would cost over 298 Million euro(Bruto) per plane, and that does not include the prize per air hour and maintenance.
Another thing is that the first test bird sold to the Netherlands costed 98 million Euro, the second one is 190 million euro.
Just saying.
And this comes from the US and Netherlands government webpage itself.....so if you wish to challenge that be my guest lol
Anyway the calculation has been done over 2011 and 2012....and that SAR report has been the middle point of the EU debate as it was wishfull thinking specially after the release by the US government who wrote each individual partner that the JSF will increase another 20% .....
link
Personally i would agree to the statement that a JSF bird would cost around 120 million (Taking the average of the current estimates) but saying that it would cost: $71-73m is just laughable i mean ...nevermind no comment
Also in regards to the nations that are having problems with the JSF program, check the latest news: NOS Nieuws
Beatmaster, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink, as I said, the 2011 SAR $71-73m is FRP URF 2012 yr$ and I'm not going into LRIP and FRP or URF and APUC pricing, or even that partners and FMS don't pay for SDD increases as you seem to believe, believe what you wish to, I'm finished
Beatmaster
New Member
Buddy do not take this the wrong way, but if you challenge a poster there on the forum, then np but if a person proves you wrong, then its at least nice to say that you where wrong.
But sticking your head in the sand will not work.
The sources i provided are accurate and your report is not simple as.
End of discussion
Kind Regards Beatmaster
the road runner
Active Member
That would go against what Tom Burbage said for what Australia is paying on average for JSF.
Aust looking at average $US70m per JSF
100 million is not what a F-16 costs,please.
he's not kidding
the price has been quoted consistently by the RAAF head of the prev and present JSF Project Team to govt - and as recently as 2 months ago.
on another note, show some courtesy to others when responding as you're skating on thin ice with sarcasm injected into your tone
From the link you quoted:
"Defense analyst Loren Thompson said three quarters of the cost increases on the F-35 program were linked to government changes in the scope of the program, and the way it was estimating costs.
For instance, he said, the Pentagon initially planned to station the plane at 33 bases, but later changed the number to 49. It initially calculated operating costs over 30 years, but then chose a longer timeframe of 50 years, he said.
"The program costs appear to be rising much faster than they actually are because the government keeps changing how it calculates things," Thompson said."
it'd help if you read the entire article - the numbers they're tossing around are costs projected in 2012 dollars. Stand that on it's head and shoot back in time and tell folks that the £15m jets they were buying in 1982 are actually averaging £90m and you'd have an idea where that sits.
The numbers being bounced around in there are accounting shuffles to try and estimate the F35 program costs to the US - they're not useful in telling anyone (that's you, me, other folk on the forum) what the F35 will cost foreign customers and partners in the next four or five years.
Canada and Australia have both got solid $70m level of numbers as an average price, taking the first LRIP numbers through to the final production jets right at the end of the line. That's an actual "if we got our credit card out right now and bought these, how much.." number.
Beatmaster
New Member
Thin Ice? Sarcasm? Well sorry about that.
But i can be flamed for my posts while i post direct quotes from the government to prove my words, its for crying out loud national news.
But heey i am wrong and everyone else is right, because thats what you are saying.
Now forgive me for saying this but unless someone can come up with something usefull here i stand with what i said as i regard national news and a direct info from the government page truth.
So without sarcasm i would like to ask: How come that all those prizes are so different then?
Is it because the US prizes are BS? Or the Australian prizes are BS? Or is it because the Dutch Hans Hillen his prizes are BS?
Simple thing here is that i wrote a couple of posts, and i have been warned about the fact that the APA page is not good, fine np with that i did not know that.
So i went out to seek a credible source: Who else to go to then ur own government right?
And now everyone is slamming the door in my face that i am wrong.
While the info is less then 2 weeks old...infact that other link was from 2 days ago.
So how can that info be wrong, if its national news fro crying out loud?
Put yourself in my shoes....
I am not looking for trouble and if i said anything that offends people then by all means accept my sorry as this was never the intention but i will not let myself being bashed over something that is national news thus a fact.
Now i will accept any argument and i will accept any form of discussion as that is what this forum is for, and i think that the JSF discussion is a good one to talk about as it seems that there is a lot of sketchy info out there, but does that mean i am wrong? or is anyone saying that the info directly from the dutch government page is wrong?
Not being sarcastic here but i love to see some proof for that, because at this point the JSF discussion is HUGE in the Netherlands and if it turns out that the Dutch are posting wrong info on their national webpage and giving wrong info to the news, well forgive me for saying but thats going to cause civil war in the cabinet lmao.
Naah just kidding, instead of biting each others head of about who is right or wrong, perhaps it would be better to find out where the difference in prize comes from, because at this rate none of us can claim to be right as one report contradict the other.
See my point?
Cheers
Beatmaster
New Member
True, however question:
He says an average of 70m, US government says another number (Bigger), Other partners got their numbers......
Who is right?
Keep in mind a product from the line cost lets say a dollar, add the taxes and all kind of extra costs (Per nation different) and the same product will cost the end user 5 dollar instead of the projected 1 dollar.
Just trying something here ok?
So could it be that the 70 million is the actually " out of factory" cost and that the additional costs are extra's imposed by the government?
Because that would explain why here is written 70m average, but on the same piece the average is 135mil
In honestly do not know, i am serious trying to explain this as it seems that all of us do have a point.
Why are you quoting estimates constantly instead of contract prices?
Whilst you won't get an exact breakdown, you will get overall contract prices for these purchases.
You might have to dig a bit but the tender websites are out there. No need to bang heads over which ill-reported mass media news article has got the price wrong.
Just go and find the REAL prices the REAL customers are actually paying. Then we can all switch back to whether or not F-35 is worth the 'nn' million per airplane...
It helps to realize that when people talk costs, that falls into one of three general categories (URF, Flyaway, and Weapon System Cost).
URF (aka REC or "out of factory"): This is the cost to produce the plane and only the plane. It includes all electronics and the engine.
Flyaway: This is the URF plus non-recurring costs like assembly line upgrades, Post-SDD upgrade dev, etc.
WSC: This is EVERYTHING (except initial spares) that goes into buying a F-35 in any one year. This could also include Full-Motion sims, training manuals, support equipment, etc.
Attached is a graph I put together (from the Dec 21st, 2011 SAR) when I was researching Turkey's F-35 buy.
View attachment 5333
Now depending on when the Dutch buy their planes, you can figure it out. I included the REC,Flyaway, and WSC costs in the chart.
btw, A production F-35 has NEVER cost $389 million USD, not even the very first one and also taking the worst-case WSC numbers. Current FY2013 F-35As (what you would get if you placed your order today) is estimated at $117/152/188 for REC/Flyaway/WSC. Keep in mind this is for one of only 19 (USAF) produced in 2013. By 2018 this will get up to 60 (USAF) plus any Partner + Japan + Israel + etc buys. This is why the price drops significantly in the late LRIP & first FRP years.
The last thing to keep in mind is that for the sake of simplicity, larger long-term programs are quoted in a base-line cost value. In other words when price is quoted it often is in a baseline dollar amount. For a long time this was a 2002 value. This year they went to a 2012 value and it made the program look a little more expensive due to inflation. The reason they use baseline amounts is that otherwise the price would seem to go up by 2-4% every year. This would lead to a lot of panic, confusion,etc. Part of the problem is that some people are talking baseline 2002, 2006, 2009, 2012, etc so their number will never match even thought they are talking about the same price.
To put this in real terms, today's 2012 dollar is 26% more than a 2002 dollar due to inflation.
http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html
URF (aka REC or "out of factory"): This is the cost to produce the plane and only the plane. It includes all electronics and the engine.
Flyaway: This is the URF plus non-recurring costs like assembly line upgrades, Post-SDD upgrade dev, etc.
WSC: This is EVERYTHING (except initial spares) that goes into buying a F-35 in any one year. This could also include Full-Motion sims, training manuals, support equipment, etc.
Attached is a graph I put together (from the Dec 21st, 2011 SAR) when I was researching Turkey's F-35 buy.
View attachment 5333
Now depending on when the Dutch buy their planes, you can figure it out. I included the REC,Flyaway, and WSC costs in the chart.
btw, A production F-35 has NEVER cost $389 million USD, not even the very first one and also taking the worst-case WSC numbers. Current FY2013 F-35As (what you would get if you placed your order today) is estimated at $117/152/188 for REC/Flyaway/WSC. Keep in mind this is for one of only 19 (USAF) produced in 2013. By 2018 this will get up to 60 (USAF) plus any Partner + Japan + Israel + etc buys. This is why the price drops significantly in the late LRIP & first FRP years.
The last thing to keep in mind is that for the sake of simplicity, larger long-term programs are quoted in a base-line cost value. In other words when price is quoted it often is in a baseline dollar amount. For a long time this was a 2002 value. This year they went to a 2012 value and it made the program look a little more expensive due to inflation. The reason they use baseline amounts is that otherwise the price would seem to go up by 2-4% every year. This would lead to a lot of panic, confusion,etc. Part of the problem is that some people are talking baseline 2002, 2006, 2009, 2012, etc so their number will never match even thought they are talking about the same price.
To put this in real terms, today's 2012 dollar is 26% more than a 2002 dollar due to inflation.
http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html
Excellent post! I prefer using fly away costs per plane, but every nation will buy different packages for their aircraft fleet. Some will buy one simulator and others will buy more. The same applies for parts and tools packages as well. You don't get a true reflection of the cost of each aircraft by the total expenditure divided by a number of aircraft. Whether the nation buys any aircraft, there will be different parts and tools packages value. There isn't one set price as the packages differ.
The truth is that some nations who aren't buying a large number of aircraft won't get much bang for the bucks with their packages as some nations who are buying a lot of aircraft. On the other hand the early production aircraft are going to be much more expensive before the assembly line swings into full production runs.
Guess who ends up buying a huge percentage of the early production aircraft? Yep, the good ole USA. Never the less, what few expensive early production aircraft some nations have ( well planned) to buy, those nations politicians would rather wait and buy later when the price is less.
These production/price charts have been available for years, updated recently, and I find it disgusting so many wish to annul their early production buys. Its like a used car salesmen, everybody wants to buy wholesale and not pay retail for a new car, but wants retail instead of wholesale for their trade in.
Spud, can you reconcile the $70M with the $83.4M in the AOL article please?
Personally, I've tried to stay away from cost discussions as they are confusing though I am convinced that the F-35 in FRP will be very competitive with Gen4 jets in terms of price and affordability.
AOL Defense ... s-program/
"...Frank Kendall, the presumptive undersecretrary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that he had come up with affordability targets to drive Lockheed Martin to save costs. We obtained a copy of the F-35 SAR talking points and they include those targets for both production and for sustainment. These numbers are for unit recurring flyaway cost. (This is the cost to buy a plane, not to operate it. It also usually doesn't include all development costs.)
We lay them out for each of the three models.
Production F-35A = $83.4 million F-35B = $108.1 million F-35C = $93.3 million
Cost Per Flying Hour F-35A = $35,200 F-35B = $38,400 F-35C = $36,300
Personally, I've tried to stay away from cost discussions as they are confusing though I am convinced that the F-35 in FRP will be very competitive with Gen4 jets in terms of price and affordability.
AOL Defense ... s-program/
"...Frank Kendall, the presumptive undersecretrary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that he had come up with affordability targets to drive Lockheed Martin to save costs. We obtained a copy of the F-35 SAR talking points and they include those targets for both production and for sustainment. These numbers are for unit recurring flyaway cost. (This is the cost to buy a plane, not to operate it. It also usually doesn't include all development costs.)
We lay them out for each of the three models.
Production F-35A = $83.4 million F-35B = $108.1 million F-35C = $93.3 million
Cost Per Flying Hour F-35A = $35,200 F-35B = $38,400 F-35C = $36,300
Your link is broken
Here it is:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/30/f-35-total-costs-soar-to-1-5-trillion-lockheed-defends-program/
As to what the $83.4 refers to, I do not know because he does not state in what calendar year the dollars are based on. According to the latest SAR, the average lifetime REC flyaway for the F-35A is $78.4 mil in FY2012 baseline dollars.
Here it is:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/30/f-35-total-costs-soar-to-1-5-trillion-lockheed-defends-program/
As to what the $83.4 refers to, I do not know because he does not state in what calendar year the dollars are based on. According to the latest SAR, the average lifetime REC flyaway for the F-35A is $78.4 mil in FY2012 baseline dollars.
Thanks.
Here's an article that I believe expounds on some of the points that had been raised earlier by GF and others, i.e., stealth being not so much a defining characteristic but rather an enabler with its sensor fusion and other advanced features to help create synergy within a larger military ecosystem. The concept of a shareable "common operating picture" generated from multiple sensors and data links from distributed nodes within the military enterprise,whether based on the surface, in the air or in space will enable the battle space to be shaped in the most advantageous manner. It gives an appreciation how judging the F-35's impact in isolation is akin to missing the forest for the trees. A good read IMO.
Understanding the Basic F-35: What is in the Baseline Aircraft? | SLDInfo
But not fully grasped is that the first F-35s are already superior aircraft to any plane they are designed to replace.
To discuss the baseline or vanilla F-35, Second Line of Defense talked with a former F-16 pilot and USAF Academy graduate Dr. Mike Skaff who has worked with Lockheed Martin throughout the F-35’s development and production process.
In the course of the discussion with Dr. Skaff, 9 key elements built into the aircraft were identified as defining the baseline aircraft.
1. A new cockpit and helmet which enable the pilot to function as a tactical decision maker;
2. A fusion engine which brings together and integrates the core combat systems on the F-35;
3. The fusion engines are designed to share information across the combat enterprise, or put in other terms each plane is synergy enabled;
4. The plane is built as a weapon system built on a foundational architecture of chip and software upgradeability;
5. The software is built to shape a mangeable workload for the pilot;
6. Stealth is built into the aircraft and is a core enabler for the entire aircraft;
7. As a flying combat system, the F-35’s advanced agility is a key enabler of combat operations;
8. The power plant of the F-35 enables a long term growth strategy for the fusion engine. Unlike unmanned aircraft, where the power plant is devoted to flying the aircraft resulting in less than optimal sensor and weapons loading, the F-35 has significant growth possibilities;
9. The F-35 can fire a full gamut of legacy weapons but lays the foundation for the next generation of weapons as well.
Understanding the Basic F-35: What is in the Baseline Aircraft? | SLDInfo
But not fully grasped is that the first F-35s are already superior aircraft to any plane they are designed to replace.
To discuss the baseline or vanilla F-35, Second Line of Defense talked with a former F-16 pilot and USAF Academy graduate Dr. Mike Skaff who has worked with Lockheed Martin throughout the F-35’s development and production process.
In the course of the discussion with Dr. Skaff, 9 key elements built into the aircraft were identified as defining the baseline aircraft.
1. A new cockpit and helmet which enable the pilot to function as a tactical decision maker;
2. A fusion engine which brings together and integrates the core combat systems on the F-35;
3. The fusion engines are designed to share information across the combat enterprise, or put in other terms each plane is synergy enabled;
4. The plane is built as a weapon system built on a foundational architecture of chip and software upgradeability;
5. The software is built to shape a mangeable workload for the pilot;
6. Stealth is built into the aircraft and is a core enabler for the entire aircraft;
7. As a flying combat system, the F-35’s advanced agility is a key enabler of combat operations;
8. The power plant of the F-35 enables a long term growth strategy for the fusion engine. Unlike unmanned aircraft, where the power plant is devoted to flying the aircraft resulting in less than optimal sensor and weapons loading, the F-35 has significant growth possibilities;
9. The F-35 can fire a full gamut of legacy weapons but lays the foundation for the next generation of weapons as well.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Beatmaster, as myself and others have been attempting to point out, when people starting talking about prices for programmes and aircraft, unless one is talking about the same conditions, the prices are going to be wildly different.
Take for instance your price of $100 mil. for the F-16...
A recent (December 2011) order from Iraq for 18 F-16IQ Block 52 had a pricetag of $2.3 bil. or ~$128 mil. per F-16. The important bit which most people will automatically overlook is the following; please note the bolded text.
In other words, the price is not $128 mil. per aircraft, because that price include weapons and support for the purchased aircraft as well. Incidentally, the cost of weapons and support package can easily equal or exceed over half of the total programme costs.
Therefore, when voicing concerns about the F-35 costs being so high for the RNLAF, just what is being included in those costs? So far, it looks like you have been used some cost estimates which can include all sorts of items which are not specific to the F-35 which can bloat the price. At this point, the F-35 flyaway costs appear to be fairly consistent at around $70 mil. in 2012 dollars IIRC.
Therefore, do the Dutch figures include a weapons, training and support package which increases the price? Or perhaps some other items are also in the estimates. Attacking the F-35 programme for the price, when one does not have a firm grasp of what is included in the price they are using is not the sort of activity I would expect from someone wishing to engage in logical analysis and discussion.
-Cheers
- Status