Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[Dr Freud]

I was more specifically thinking of SAAB's statement :
"SAAB also has claimed it can sell its jet for half the price of the Americans' model".
I believe it would put them right out of business forever if they arent reasonable accurate here.
Which hint they are confident JSF cost will continue to increase to at least 80 mn usd fly away.

But perhaps they sneak in maintenance cost, off set buys, industrial cooperation, jobs, etc, to justify the "half price" promise.

 

[Falstaff]

But perhaps they sneak in maintenance cost, off set buys, industrial cooperation, jobs, etc, to justify the "half price" promise.

I guess you can be pretty sure about that. Not a single durable good is bought these days without considering "total cost of ownership".
From the production engineer's point of view it will be very interesting to see how Norway evaluates the fact that SAAB can probably predict the Gripen's TCO very accurate due to several years in service.

Fact is- as mentioned several times already in this thread- Norway is a very very wealthy country and although they are not going to ruin themselves for shiny toys they will chose the best package for their needs, even if it might cost a few billion € more (well at least if it really is about a few).

 

[energo]

Since F-35A is 50 mn usd fly-away, this would make the Gripen a 25 mn usd ufc jet?

Do you genuinely think this is the cost of a Gripen?

Btw, "Klassekampen," the name of the newspaper, translate to "The Class Struggle." Lots of botched up calculations. 70-140 bn nkr for 30-50 F-35?

Currently conversion rate 5 nkr to 1 usd (note the rates are not representative at the mo)... 140 bn nkr = 28 bn usd or in the case of a purchase of 50 jets, 560 mn usd a jet, in what I take to be cost of ownership !!!

LOL!

Clueless.

Indeed. There is a lot of misinformation in the norwegian news media on technical aspects and cost, even from established defense anaysist. A very common mistake is to include the operating and support cost over the fighters 30-year lifespan into the purschasing cost, which in it self is estimated to between 70-140 BNOK. Interestingly, that the Dutch GAO in its 2006 report specifically differenciated between these two cost factors also went unnoticed by quite a few "experts".


Bjørnar
Oslo

 

[Dr Freud]

SAAB can probably predict the Gripen's TCO very accurate due to several years in service.

Now that you mention it, i read somewhere that:

SAAB has offered a guaranteed life cycle (20yr) cost of 22 bn DKK or 3 bn EUR to Denmark for 48 Gripen NG.

I bet a draft beer at the nearest chrome pole LM wont offer that for even 6 bn EUR...

The best guarantee i ever saw in my life was 5 years, more often it has been "around corner" guarantee, ( a shady bike-dealer in pattaya springs to mind!) So SAAB do have an awful lot/unlimited of confidence in the low TCO of Gripen.

ps. "Norway is a very very wealthy country" - my norwegian friend tells me Norway is the 2nd richest country in the world, second only to Lichtenstein! - and by his beer consumption alone i can preti much comfirm this.

 

[Falstaff]

I bet a draft beer at the nearest chrome pole LM wont offer that for even 6 bn EUR...

Besides that it is probably very difficult to predict what the JSF will cost. I know it's been designed with low operating costs in mind (as is the Gripen to a very large extent) but there's also an awful lot of new tech in there and rumours go the F-22 needs an awful lot more of maintenance than planned.

ps. "Norway is a very very wealthy country" - my norwegian friend tells me Norway is the 2nd richest country in the world, second only to Lichtenstein!

... but unlike them the Norwegians earn their money honestly

 

[Dr Freud]

Besides that it is probably very difficult to predict what the JSF will cost.

Maintenance of low observable features has historically been more difficult and time-consuming then expected.
On F22, excessive maintenance has been associated with compounds that are used to fill gaps or seams. Under certain conditions it swell or crack.(GAO-01-310)

Conditions like low temperature or high humidity?

And this is why i challenge anyone on a draft beer they just wont offer any 20 year guarantee no matter what.:cheers

rumours go the F-22 needs an awful lot more of maintenance than planned.

Not just rumours. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
{Investigative arm of Congress charged with examining matters relating to the receipt and payment of public funds.}

wrote that, quote: "A key
reliability requirement for the F-22A is a 3-hour mean time between
maintenance, defined as the number of operating hours divided by the
number of maintenance actions.
Currently (as of 2007, my note) the mean time between maintenance is less than 1 hour." (GAO-07-406SP)

In english that mean on an average i cant even drive an hour before i have to go back to my mechanic, in fact, i will have to head for the mechanic after <30 min. This all but confirm my suspicion Lockheed Martin was somehow involved in building my bike!:devil

A US requirement (dream) is already far less then half the actual performance of Gripen, the reality is much worse.:type

 

[Grand Danois]

No 20 year guarantee has been offered by Saab.

A fixed price of 22 bn dkr for 48 Gripens and costs directly associated with inside 20 years is what has been offered.

Saab and the Swedish govt (taxpayers) underwrite any cost overruns.

20 years doesn't cover the life cycle of a jet, and total cost of ownership is not life cycle cost. 35 years would more descriptive, but almost impossible for anyone to predict.

Lastly, the avionics suite and other stuff is unknown, just as the cost of peripherals like podded avionics and external tanks are not included.

Dr Freud... do you know which jet Saab is talking of, when they claim half cost? If not, could you perhaps ask them?

 

[Grand Danois]

Also, VLO maintenance is only part of the total maintenance. The experiences with humidity was on the coatings of the B-2. These experiences should have been leveraged into never VLO technologies, just at the very comprehensive VLO of the F-22 is not representative of the VLO on the F-35, where ease of maint is even more a priority.

 

[Dr Freud]

No 20 year guarantee has been offered by Saab.

A fixed price of 22 bn dkr for 48 Gripens and costs directly associated with inside 20 years is what has been offered.

Saab and the Swedish govt (taxpayers) underwrite any cost overruns.

20 years doesn't cover the life cycle of a jet, and total cost of ownership is not life cycle cost. 35 years would more descriptive, but almost impossible for anyone to predict.

I will answer this breaked-up post with Grand Danois own post earlier

Gripen has offered a guaranteed life cycle (20yr) cost of 22 bn DKK or 3 bn EUR to Denmark for 48 Gripen NG.

Dr Freud... do you know which jet Saab is talking of, when they claim half cost? If not, could you perhaps ask them?

SAAB is refeering to the Gripen variant being offered to Norway, well, i know what you are really pointing out: , the precise sentence seem to be :

"I wouldnt be surpriced if our bid is around half the cost of JSF" says Hans Rosen, General of Gripen International.

Lesson for today ? always demand and evaluate source for any claim, or it will be interpreted into something that is not factually accurate by 3rd person, and later on stated as fact. This is as valid for a newspaper as it is for a forum.

ps

the very comprehensive VLO of the F-22 is not representative of the VLO on the F-35, where ease of maint is even more a priority.

So they raised the requirement to an all time high 3.5 h MTBM with the F35 ? that would be an astounding ~17% increase in requirement from the 3 h MTBM requirement on F22. If the requirement translate into 17% actual increase in performance it will allow F35 to cross the 1 h MTBM bar tho....

 

[Falstaff]

total cost of ownership is not life cycle cost

Correct. Life Cycle Costs contain costs the manufacturer has to count in. Product Life Cycle Costs (PLC) are relevant for the producer of a product, TCO for the customer, who in general doesn't have to pay directly for development, production preparation, etc.
SAAB -> PLC
Norway -> TCO
Both are hard to calculate and must be estimated to a certain extent. And 20 years is a long, long time...

Still, the thing is, I guess it is much easier for SAAB than for LM to do so.

 

[Sintra]

Grand Danois

SAAB might have a valid point.
The official Pentagon “Unit Fly Away Cost” for the entire fleet of 1763 F-35A
his 83.131 million US$ a "piece", this number is from February this year, and you can find it in page 43 of the USAF Budget (which his public).
This is a "Best Scenario Case", one in which the inflation his low for decades, the materials like Titaniun dont go into escalating costs, the US Dollar his stable, etc, etc.

Taking into account that the F-35A production for the USAF was "caped" at 48 units/year we can imagine when the entire 1763 fleet gets finally delivered (somewhere around 2050).
If the production rate (48 units year) his maintained, it´s highly unlikely that the USAF will receive the full complement of 1763 “Lightnings II”, and if the numbers get axed, the cost will go up.

It´s true that Lockheed Martin commercials have been showing a Power Point Presentation with a Fly Away Cost of 47 Million US$ for the F-35A as late as this year, but that number his from 2005. Completely outdated.

I´m going to leave the numbers taken from the USAF 2007 Budget (published in February 2006) and from the 2009 Budget (published in February 2008). Compare the two and let´s just hope that the 2011 budget don’t bring that kind of difference, because if it does, we could very well be looking at a 100+ million US$ “Unit Fly Away Cost” for the F-35A…
This is a very real scenario.

2009 Budget

ttp://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf

2008 Budget

ttp//www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070212-004.pdf

2007 Budget

ttp://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070214-050.pdf

Cheers

 

[rossfrb_1]

Media is hot again...

The bit that caught my attention was "...delays have cropped up in the development of several of the high tech components in the newest version of the US Joint Strike Fighter. ...."

That would be the B variant wouldn't it?
Is that the version that Norway is interested in?

rb

 

[swerve]

The bit that caught my attention was "...delays have cropped up in the development of several of the high tech components in the newest version of the US Joint Strike Fighter. ...."

That would be the B variant wouldn't it?
Is that the version that Norway is interested in?

rb

F-35B is STOVL. Norway is interested in the land-based CTOL version, F-35A.

 

[Grand Danois]

Correct. Life Cycle Costs contain costs the manufacturer has to count in. Product Life Cycle Costs (PLC) are relevant for the producer of a product, TCO for the customer, who in general doesn't have to pay directly for development, production preparation, etc.
SAAB -> PLC
Norway -> TCO
Both are hard to calculate and must be estimated to a certain extent. And 20 years is a long, long time...

Still, the thing is, I guess it is much easier for SAAB than for LM to do so.

Wholly agree to this.

 

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois

SAAB might have a valid point.
The official Pentagon “Unit Fly Away Cost” for the entire fleet of 1763 F-35A
his 83.131 million US$ a "piece", this number is from February this year, and you can find it in page 43 of the USAF Budget (which his public).
This is a "Best Scenario Case", one in which the inflation his low for decades, the materials like Titaniun dont go into escalating costs, the US Dollar his stable, etc, etc.

Taking into account that the F-35A production for the USAF was "caped" at 48 units/year we can imagine when the entire 1763 fleet gets finally delivered (somewhere around 2050).
If the production rate (48 units year) his maintained, it´s highly unlikely that the USAF will receive the full complement of 1763 “Lightnings II”, and if the numbers get axed, the cost will go up.

It´s true that Lockheed Martin commercials have been showing a Power Point Presentation with a Fly Away Cost of 47 Million US$ for the F-35A as late as this year, but that number his from 2005. Completely outdated.

I´m going to leave the numbers taken from the USAF 2007 Budget (published in February 2006) and from the 2009 Budget (published in February 2008). Compare the two and let´s just hope that the 2011 budget don’t bring that kind of difference, because if it does, we could very well be looking at a 100+ million US$ “Unit Fly Away Cost” for the F-35A…
This is a very real scenario.

2009 Budget

ttp://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf

2008 Budget

ttp//www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070212-004.pdf

2007 Budget

ttp://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070214-050.pdf

Cheers

Thank you Sintra, this is a good find. Great actuality.

The reason why the 50 mn usd UFC is relevant to Norway and the 79-83 mn usd UFC is relevant to the USAF is because they are made up differently.

The USAF figure include the A, B and C variants... Norway only wants the cheapest A variant.

The USAF include non-recurring cost, whereas the 50 mn usd partner figure does not.

The USAF figure include LRIPs and early batches, where Norway will get acces to later sweet spot batches with amortized unit costs.

Hence, 50 mn usd average UPC for partners and 80 mn average UPC for the USAF. Note that the US is not losing money or subsidizing this way... it's win-win.

The 50 mn usd UPC is not outdated. It has been quoted to Denmark and Norway inside the last year, kjust as it has been quoted to the press by lockmart March this year.

I guess it's up to Saab to make Gripen a 25 mn usd UFC jet.

Btw, the US is going to procure more than 48 JSF a year.

ANNEX A (APRIL 2007 REVISION)
ESTIMATED JSF AIR VEHICLE PROCUREMENT QUANTITIES

 

[swerve]

Thank you Sintra, this is a good find. Great actuality.

The reason why the 50 mn usd UFC is relevant to Norway and the 79-83 mn usd UFC is relevant to the USAF is because they are made up differently.

The USAF figure include the A, B and C variants... Norway only wants the cheapest A variant.

The USAF include non-recurring cost, whereas the 50 mn usd partner figure does not.

The USAF figure include LRIPs and early batches, where Norway will get acces to later sweet spot batches with amortized unit costs.

Hence, 50 mn usd average UPC for partners and 80 mn average UPC for the USAF. Note that the US is not losing money or subsidizing this way... it's win-win.

The 50 mn usd UPC is not outdated. It has been quoted to Denmark and Norway inside the last year, kjust as it has been quoted to the press by lockmart March this year.

I guess it's up to Saab to make Gripen a 25 mn usd UFC jet....

I've played with the published figures, & I can't see a way to make the flyaway cost of the F-35A $50 million. If the forecasts are right, it'll be around $48 million in 2002 dollars, but in current dollars, a lot more. If LM says otherwise, then they can't have told the Pentagon, since the numbers the Pentagon publishes consistently assume a significantly higher price. And no, I'm not confusing it with the average price of all three versions, or the cost of acquisition including extras, or the price including fixed costs: I mean the price of a bare-bones, empty, clean, unarmed F-35A without manuals or anything else.

 

[Grand Danois]

I've played with the published figures, & I can't see a way to make the flyaway cost of the F-35A $50 million. If the forecasts are right, it'll be around $48 million in 2002 dollars, but in current dollars, a lot more. If LM says otherwise, then they can't have told the Pentagon, since the numbers the Pentagon publishes consistently assume a significantly higher price. And no, I'm not confusing it with the average price of all three versions, or the cost of acquisition including extras, or the price including fixed costs: I mean the price of a bare-bones, empty, clean, unarmed F-35A without manuals or anything else.

What do you get in current $$?

(and no, I don't expect the UFC to end up around 50 mn usd, but nor does the gripen cost 25 mn usd...)

 

[swerve]

What do you get in current $$?

(and no, I don't expect the UPC to end up around 50 mn usd, but neither does the gripen cost 25 mn usd...)

In 2007 $, high 50s to 60 for F-35A. I don't have the numbers to hand at the moment, & can't reach them until tomorrow.

They're approximate. What I did was take past GAO cost estimates for the three versions at 2002 prices, assume the relative costs of the three versions, & the relationship between flyaway & system price, remained the same, & updated them to current prices using recent SARs.

BTW, I note that the much-trumpeted reduction of 0.3% in JSF overall costs in the latest SAR is at "then year" prices (i.e. including estimated future inflation, & therefore subject to changing assumptions about inflation rates & purchasing schedule) and is for 2 fewer aircraft than the previous total cost. At constant 2002 prices, the predicted cost has gone up by 0.3%, despite the slight reduction in numbers. Unit price at constant prices has gone up slightly -

$mn
September 2007 - 2458 aircraft
Then-year$ 299,824.1
2002$ 209,401.6
Unit - then$ 122.0
Unit - 2002$ 85.2

December 2007 - 2456 aircraft
Then-year$ 298,842.8
2002$ 210,014.5
Unit - then$ 121.7
Unit - 2002$ 85.5

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2007/d20071119sars.pdf
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2008/d20080408sars.pdf

Talk about political spin!

 

[Grand Danois]

Talk about political spin!

Yeah, it's everywhere. LM, SAAB, etc...

Anyway, haven't done the numbers en detail, but my gut feeling takes me somewhere between 50-55 mn usd (now). Perhaps higher at the end of the day...

Think your premise sounds right. Perhaps it is also doable to do a further breakdown based on the ratios of A, B and C's...

 

[rossfrb_1]

F-35B is STOVL. Norway is interested in the land-based CTOL version, F-35A.

For the sake of brevity, I was probably a little obscure. Sarcasm obviously doesn't translate well in text form.
What I was trying to allude to was the
fact that the article in question was probably
describing the situation with whatever the current
version it is they are working on, which I believe is the B or STOVL variant.
ie NOT the one that Norway is interested in,
so therefore the article probably wasn't that relevant for the Norwegian situation, even though the author of the article was trying to make it so.
Because in the quoted article it states "A defense analyst told newspaper Klassekampen on Monday that delays have cropped up in the development of several of the high tech components in the newest version of the US Joint Strike Fighter."
To my mind this does not describe the A model which Norway is interested in.



rb