I almost choked when I saw that, there is no way that is true. US is paying 3 billion USD for the 17 F-35s they ordered for next fiscal year (if I remember correctly). I know that's more than the cost when mass production hits in, but I doubt they will actually lower fly away cost to $53 million. That's almost ridiculous.
No it isn't. Explanation follows.
Even if we take the most stripped down F-16 block 50, it's fly away cost was around $45 million a couple of years ago. And when you go from that to F-35, it's $53 million in today's dollar. Heck, I think the flyaway cost for super hornet is even higher than that right now.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/10/navy_aviationbudget_100508w/
According to the naval aviation budget for 2009, USN is ordering 23 super hornets for 1.6 billion. That works out to be about $70 million each. Does anyone think F-35 will be cheaper than super hornets? Sounds like a case of people lying about figures to get their choice across.
First of all, F-18 SH is a twin engined jet - add 7-10M dollars over a single-engined jet.
Second, F-18 SH and F-16 are currently build at handmade-prototype numbers - which makes them much more expensive. This is the same thing that killed the Gripen cost advantage. It's assumed low price was dependent on large build quantity - if they didn't sell significantly more Gripen NG beyond Norway, the Gripen would be much more expensive - a risk Norway was unwilling to take.
THE REASON WHY GRIPEN IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE F-35 IS THE SAME REASON WHY F-18 SH IS MORE EXPENSIVE! THE JSF IS GOING TO BE PRODUCED IN 3100+ NUMBERS AT RATES OF ABOVE 200 A YEAR - ECONOMIES OF SCALE. THE CURRENT PRODUCTION RATES AND TOTAL PRODUCTION NUMBERS OF RAFALE AND GRIPEN GIVES THEM A "HANDMADE PROTOTYPE USED AT SQUADRON LEVEL PRICE TAG!"
I'll add to that the the jump in price from Gripen to GNG is due to poorly defined costs of the development from a 4 to a 4.5 gen platform, caused by the unknown quantity to be built.
The F-18 SH and F-16 have large total production quantities, but are CURRENTLY produced in small numbers - high current unit cost.
Notice that in fact F-18 build rates are higher than Gripens and that capability-wise - this is the league Gripen NG would be in at full development - the F-18 SH/GNG prices are roughly compatible.
Sorry, but I'm fairly tired of explaining this over and over.
Did they get any kind of real economist to do these inflation analysis? The people in LM and Norwegian air force are so clueless about this. With the current account deficit in US, we'd be lucky if the inflation doesn't go up 50% by 2016.
F-35 is a better choice than Gripen NG, but using cost as the main argument has little validity imo.
Numbers have been checked over and over and over by auditors, economists, etc. from many many countries!
The recommendation from Norway included risks analysis at high confidence levels, two private consultancies guaranteeing best practices and the national audit office!!!
The JSF is gonna kill the market on capability and cost - that's the reality. That's why it is under vehement attack from people trying to put the bombtruck label on it.
But you know, the Norwegians chose on capability grounds - the Gripen NG was murdered by the PAK-FA in simulations - Gripen could do Afgh style ops and Cruise missile defence - but failed at offensive/defensive counter air!!!
