So, Israel generals are so stupid and dont know what they are buying? Why the shock?
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
Grand Danois
Entertainer
They're buying into the project plus the project includes their own developments.
There's no shock - only posturing.
Fly-away F-35A = 58-63 M USD
citizen578
New Member
You misunderstood.
I was saying that i am unconvinced of the aircraft's inferiority - especially at a time when the aircraft's combat abilities are at this stage mostly hypothesised or simulated.
The report is, in my opinion, reactionary and based on very biased and incomplete sources. I have no doubt that the F-35 will work very efficiently in it's intended role, if for no other reason than it has to, given the level of investment and attention the programme has received.
Last edited:
You're sure the price won't increase then?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Nope. But it ain't gonna increase to 200 M usd a pop.
True. The cost you gave is the flyaway cost, what is the full program cost per airplane? How much is it likely to increase? Ultimately that's the figure that matters.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The US part of the JSF project, programme cost, is currently projected to cost 240 billion usd (FY2008) for more than 2450 A/B/C. This includes R&D, establising and shutting down the production line, LRIPs and FRPs. Initial spares. Documentation...
200 billion dollars, FY2008, will be spent on actual procurement of aircraft - A/B/C.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08467sp.pdf
F-35 is not gonna cost 200 M usd a pop.
The latest leaks put the F-35A at 96.8 million USD and the B/Cs at 122.6 million, then-year...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/CHOKE11198.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Duels%20Congress%20To%20F-22%20Standstill
I have to admit I am still confused by then-year, that-year and whatnot.
(Don't worry GD I am not asking you to explain it one more time -- I am sure you have explained it well enough already. I just need to find time to go through it properly...)
V
Last edited:
Depends whether or not a nation was involved in the JSF development. Depends upon how large the spares packages are bought with the aircraft. If a nation was involved in its development, I am hearing tales of around $60 million per aircraft for fly away, plus the spares packages when production is in full swing during the first few batches for the A model. B and C models may cost $70 million per aircraft. I would think the larger the buy will relect a lower cost per aircraft than a smaller buy.
Of course inflation will affect later batches of the aircraft, all models. Of course most nations are wishing to buy many aircraft during the first several years of full production, not before, and not after inflation increases the price.
The building program is being set up to go slow, and then gradually build up to full production. As the production steps up should help keep the price of the first few batches down in price. As noted by Lockheed, not many are wanting to order earlier pricier aircraft than planned. Lets be honest here, the nation that is swallowing the earlier higher priced aircraft will be the US. The US will lead the way testing earlier models. On the other hand, its the US which will get later inflated price aircraft as well.
Last edited:
So the real US cost of the program will be ~100 million per plane? That's the figure I was looking for. Thanks.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes, that's average Weapon System Cost or average Unit Procurement Cost for all three variants A/B/C and including LRIPs and FRPs.
The F-35A is a 60 million USD (2008) jet at FRP fly away cost or UFC.
Average Program Unit Cost is for all three variants and production modes 97 million USD (2008).
Does NG expect F-35 delays?
This just in:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/12/blah-blah-blah.html
So according to the link in to the google cache, Northrop-Grumman sees the following potential sales for Australia: 6 E/F in 2014, 10 E/F in 2015 and 8 in 2018....
Canada: 6 E/F in 2015, 8 in 2016, 8 in 2017 and 2 in 2018.
The only reason I can see for suggesting such a scenario would be delays of F-35? Or am I missing something else? Did Boeing really hope to be able to compete with the F-35 in those F-35 partner countries!?
Comments from the experts?
V
This just in:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/12/blah-blah-blah.html
So according to the link in to the google cache, Northrop-Grumman sees the following potential sales for Australia: 6 E/F in 2014, 10 E/F in 2015 and 8 in 2018....
Canada: 6 E/F in 2015, 8 in 2016, 8 in 2017 and 2 in 2018.
The only reason I can see for suggesting such a scenario would be delays of F-35? Or am I missing something else? Did Boeing really hope to be able to compete with the F-35 in those F-35 partner countries!?
Comments from the experts?
V
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The Aussies are in a pinch on the JSF timetables. They absolutely need to have replacement aircraft in 2014, though 30 E/F is a bit over the top. (2014, iirc)
Yes, the JSF timetable is very compressed and there is uncertainty as to if it'll be ready for Aust in 2014.
Yes, the JSF timetable is very compressed and there is uncertainty as to if it'll be ready for Aust in 2014.
No we aren't. Since the Super Hornet buy the timetable is not as pressing for the RAAF. Also the new belief that we do without mass CBR of the Hornets relieves a huge amount of pressure. The RAAF wants the F-35 as soon as it can but has a lot more breathing space now since the F-35 is not replacing F-111s while half the Hornet fleet if offline receiving new barrels.
Like the presento says these are "potential" exports. In the case of the Super Hornet follow ons this would be in response to the way the Australian procurement process works. Next year the Government will consider buying 75 F-35s under project Air 6000 Phases 2A/2B. Defence is obliged to present to Government an alternative off the shelf acquisition case so the differential between life time capability and life time cost can be evaluated in line with what risk must be assessed for the F-35 (as it isn't in service with any Air Force by next year). While probabilities are low its still a chance.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
So exactly when will the rest of the Hornets need to be replaced? Is it pushed out to 2016 or later?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Dutch MoD: JSF better, cheaper!
http://www.defensie.nl/_system/hand...media/JSF_persbericht_engels_tcm46-125462.pdf
JSF scores best in candidate comparison
Fax +31 70 318 84 37
www.defensie.nl
The F-35, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, best meets the requirements drawn up by the Netherlands for the successor to the F16. This emerges from the findings of the candidate comparison that the State Secretary for Defence, Jack de Vries, today sent to the House of Representatives. “The F-35 is the best multi-role combat aircraft and by around 2015 will certainly be able to carry out all six main missions successfully.” The F-35 also has the greatest operational availability. In addition, the capital costs of the F-35 are the lowest and it is anticipated that the total life-cycle costs will also be the lowest. The completion of the candidate comparison marks the fulfillment of the commitment made to the House of Representatives to carry out such a comparison prior to the definitive acquisition of the two JSF test aircraft. This is planned to take place by the end of April 2009 at the latest.
The candidate comparison follows on from the candidate evaluation of 2001, from which the Joint Strike Fighter also emerged as the best aircraft for the best price. In 2002 the Cabinet decided to participate in the development of this fighter aircraft. This decision was largely based on the wish to give the Dutch aviation industry an opportunity to win orders in this project. In the present government coalition agreement it is stated that in 2010 the cabinet will take a final decision regarding the replacement of the F-16 on the basis of a comparison of quality, price and delivery time. The Joint Strike Fighter scored the best for all three criteria.
The comparative study, between the Advanced F-16, de F-35 and the Gripen Next Generation, was carried out in cooperation with TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) and NLR (Netherlands Aerospace Laboratory) and was monitored by the audit services of the Defence organisation and the Ministry of Economic Affairs). At the request of the House of Representatives, the firm of RAND Europe also followed the course of the comparative study. In their reports, both the audit services and RAND consider that the candidate comparison was carried out transparantly and objectively and that the reports contain an accurate account of the results of the comparison. On account of the lengthy period of thirty years over which the project will extend, the calculation of total life-cycle costs includes an allowance for uncertainties.
* * *
Additional, from the Dutch language version, happy go lucky systran:
The letter also addresses the noise of the various candidates. Sound is not part of the candidates comparison. The starting point is and remains that the Defense legal restrictions in eight will take. The noise will also in future remain within the statutory standards. In setting the noise is not only the volume of interest in decibels. There is also looked at the number of aircraft and when the sound is produced. These include the choice for certain invlieg and uitvliegroutes and to parts of the day that it operated. Furthermore, part of the sound be exported from abroad to practice and also it is now al
NLR defense has asked the available audio data from the three candidate aircraft to assess. The findings of the NLR will in the first quarter of 2009 will be sent to the Board.
In a separate letter to the State Court has de Vries the arguments for and against a endlife update of the F-16 again put in a row. The F-16 is in service since 1979 as the Royal Air Force. The F-16 is designed as a lightweight hunter chandelier defense, but as a multi-role aircraft used and thus significantly heavier than those for which the charge is designed. For the initially planned to get his life since the nineties various modification programs. In their current state, the F-16's, over time, but still limited employable. She is not only technical but also operational outdated, that is no longer cope with new threats.
A further extension of the life of the F-16, however, has major disadvantages and risks. Some weaknesses of the F-16 are not improving, or even detrimental to the performance of the unit. An update can also endlife at best only a limited operational value compared to the current F-16's. The cracks, for example, will always go and that will always require labor intensive inspections. A financial consideration is that the Netherlands is the substantial costs of an upgrade from such small numbers of F-16's (Block 15) itself will have to bear largely because no other country that use the F-16 seriously considering a endlife update. Even the countries that used our F-16's have taken over, Jordan and Chile, consider endlife no update. These countries use their F-16's for a limited tasks which use less intensive than in the Netherlands. The conclusion is that an extension of the life of the F-16 is not feasible.
http://translate.google.com/transla...t_beste_in_kandidatenvergelijking&sl=nl&tl=en
http://www.defensie.nl/_system/hand...media/JSF_persbericht_engels_tcm46-125462.pdf
JSF scores best in candidate comparison
Fax +31 70 318 84 37
www.defensie.nl
The F-35, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, best meets the requirements drawn up by the Netherlands for the successor to the F16. This emerges from the findings of the candidate comparison that the State Secretary for Defence, Jack de Vries, today sent to the House of Representatives. “The F-35 is the best multi-role combat aircraft and by around 2015 will certainly be able to carry out all six main missions successfully.” The F-35 also has the greatest operational availability. In addition, the capital costs of the F-35 are the lowest and it is anticipated that the total life-cycle costs will also be the lowest. The completion of the candidate comparison marks the fulfillment of the commitment made to the House of Representatives to carry out such a comparison prior to the definitive acquisition of the two JSF test aircraft. This is planned to take place by the end of April 2009 at the latest.
The candidate comparison follows on from the candidate evaluation of 2001, from which the Joint Strike Fighter also emerged as the best aircraft for the best price. In 2002 the Cabinet decided to participate in the development of this fighter aircraft. This decision was largely based on the wish to give the Dutch aviation industry an opportunity to win orders in this project. In the present government coalition agreement it is stated that in 2010 the cabinet will take a final decision regarding the replacement of the F-16 on the basis of a comparison of quality, price and delivery time. The Joint Strike Fighter scored the best for all three criteria.
The comparative study, between the Advanced F-16, de F-35 and the Gripen Next Generation, was carried out in cooperation with TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) and NLR (Netherlands Aerospace Laboratory) and was monitored by the audit services of the Defence organisation and the Ministry of Economic Affairs). At the request of the House of Representatives, the firm of RAND Europe also followed the course of the comparative study. In their reports, both the audit services and RAND consider that the candidate comparison was carried out transparantly and objectively and that the reports contain an accurate account of the results of the comparison. On account of the lengthy period of thirty years over which the project will extend, the calculation of total life-cycle costs includes an allowance for uncertainties.
* * *
Additional, from the Dutch language version, happy go lucky systran:
The letter also addresses the noise of the various candidates. Sound is not part of the candidates comparison. The starting point is and remains that the Defense legal restrictions in eight will take. The noise will also in future remain within the statutory standards. In setting the noise is not only the volume of interest in decibels. There is also looked at the number of aircraft and when the sound is produced. These include the choice for certain invlieg and uitvliegroutes and to parts of the day that it operated. Furthermore, part of the sound be exported from abroad to practice and also it is now al
NLR defense has asked the available audio data from the three candidate aircraft to assess. The findings of the NLR will in the first quarter of 2009 will be sent to the Board.
In a separate letter to the State Court has de Vries the arguments for and against a endlife update of the F-16 again put in a row. The F-16 is in service since 1979 as the Royal Air Force. The F-16 is designed as a lightweight hunter chandelier defense, but as a multi-role aircraft used and thus significantly heavier than those for which the charge is designed. For the initially planned to get his life since the nineties various modification programs. In their current state, the F-16's, over time, but still limited employable. She is not only technical but also operational outdated, that is no longer cope with new threats.
A further extension of the life of the F-16, however, has major disadvantages and risks. Some weaknesses of the F-16 are not improving, or even detrimental to the performance of the unit. An update can also endlife at best only a limited operational value compared to the current F-16's. The cracks, for example, will always go and that will always require labor intensive inspections. A financial consideration is that the Netherlands is the substantial costs of an upgrade from such small numbers of F-16's (Block 15) itself will have to bear largely because no other country that use the F-16 seriously considering a endlife update. Even the countries that used our F-16's have taken over, Jordan and Chile, consider endlife no update. These countries use their F-16's for a limited tasks which use less intensive than in the Netherlands. The conclusion is that an extension of the life of the F-16 is not feasible.
http://translate.google.com/transla...t_beste_in_kandidatenvergelijking&sl=nl&tl=en
Last edited:
The closest comparison to the F-35 program is the Eurofighter program...
- advanced western jet with multiple western partners, large number of guaranteed sales due to partner participation, etc.
Cost is a little over $120 million per plane.
---
The F-35 will, according to the specs:
- have a more advanced electronics suite (most sophisticated ever built);
- much better LO (stealth) characteristics;
- most powerful engine ever put on a fighter (although only 1 instead of 2 for the Typhoon);
- better radar (most sophisticated fighter radar ever built);
- internal bay for bombs/missiles.
Yet it's going to be much cheaper than the Eurofighter!!!
And if you believe that, then I've got some real estate in the Florida everglades that I'd like to interest you in...
---
Involving foreign partners in the development only reduces cost if labour/parts are much cheaper over there. That is not the case with any of the F-35 partners, nor was it with the Eurofighter (Western materials/labour costs are all high).
All it does is distribute some costs - final price is likely to be increased if anything, as all the companies involved will want some kind of profit.
If the F-35 comes in at around $135 million on average, they'll be doing pretty well in my opinion.
- advanced western jet with multiple western partners, large number of guaranteed sales due to partner participation, etc.
Cost is a little over $120 million per plane.
---
The F-35 will, according to the specs:
- have a more advanced electronics suite (most sophisticated ever built);
- much better LO (stealth) characteristics;
- most powerful engine ever put on a fighter (although only 1 instead of 2 for the Typhoon);
- better radar (most sophisticated fighter radar ever built);
- internal bay for bombs/missiles.
Yet it's going to be much cheaper than the Eurofighter!!!
And if you believe that, then I've got some real estate in the Florida everglades that I'd like to interest you in...
---
Involving foreign partners in the development only reduces cost if labour/parts are much cheaper over there. That is not the case with any of the F-35 partners, nor was it with the Eurofighter (Western materials/labour costs are all high).
All it does is distribute some costs - final price is likely to be increased if anything, as all the companies involved will want some kind of profit.
If the F-35 comes in at around $135 million on average, they'll be doing pretty well in my opinion.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
120 million $ an EF might be in the ballpark. Sophistication of course will make a fighter built and supported under similar conditions more expensive (stealth, STOVL, avionics). But they're not built and supported under similar conditions! How they're built, build rate and support has far, far, far more influence on costs than added complexity.
Consider this: ~150 EF have been built over ~5 years from 2 production lines - that's 15 a year per production line! You can easily add 25-30% to the EF costs from this fact alone. Additionally the British made a report on this pointing out that 30% could be saved if duplication was eliminated. No comments from the consortium partners. This is not about making the EF cheap. This is about spreading out the high-tech jobs. Note I'm being a bit weasel worded on that report; I've not actually read it. And for multinational products: The US is clearly the lead nation on the JSF. Who is the lead nation on EF?
Nothing is wrong with this, the money comes back via taxes and through the technology base. But if you're an export customer this modus operandi is horrendous.
More than 200 JSF will leave Ft Worth per year under full rate production.
Software for radars is hardly a recurring cost. Another example: the 4 inch IRST wafers for the DAS/EOTS are going to be produced in a quantity of minimum 21,000. The IRST wafers for the PIRATE is going to be produced in the 100s. Who has economy of scale? Who has serial-industrial production?
Integration of weapons is about 100-150 million $ per weapon, and that's only carriage and release testing, modification of pylons and some integration with software. No developing of tactics and supporting infrastructure. It's better to spread this over 3,100 jets than 700.
This goes for every upgrade applied to the product. The support becomes much, much cheaper. The acquisition becomes cheaper.
Why do you think the Gripen NG got hit so bad? Because it is low volume item on both counts and with a need of heavy upgrading over its entire life to stay minimally relevant! The costs sky-rockets even if the programme is technologically low-risk.
The JSF may represent more objective value; this does not mean that it's going to cost more to produce or maintain.
The influence from how you build, the rate you build at, the total quantity you build, far overrides that cost of the extra capability.
Things are not equal!
Last edited:
Crusader2000
Banned Member
You guys just kill me on price of the F-35. Come on the average is going to be $135 Million. Which, is more than the larger F-22. The F-22 is currently approved for just 183 Aircraft! Even if the talk is true that the US Goverment will approve 60 more that would still only be 243 aircraft in total! The F-35 on the otherhand will easily reach in the thousand and was design from the outset to be much cheaper than the F-22 to build.............
Its worth noting that Norway and the Netherlands just stated the F-35 would be cheaper to purchase (and operate) than the proposed Gripen NG.
Sorry, your argument hardly holds water...............with all do respect!
nfloorl:- Status