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

[Grand Danois]

@gf, ozzy, grand,
I think what you partitially misunderstand is that its not meant that the missile has to match the fighters turning performance all over the time. As you guys said if the missile is many km away such maneuvers by the fighter would reduce the missiles range at best, but in such a scenario it would be better to turn the back and run away, though that requires that you aren't in the NEZ. What I speak about is a last ditch maneuver to avoid the incoming missile a hard pull in the opposite direction might be to tight for a missile to adjust the course and hit the target. BTW which BVR missile pulls 50+ gs?

Got it. It's just that in purely mathematical terms the missile wont have to match the fighters turn radius, except maybe if it does the evasive maneuver in a head-on engagement, where the missile is quite close - the virtual turn radius as seen from the missile. (actually "apparent" turn radius would be more accurate.)

If the missile is up to it is another matter. I for one don't have such data on any BVR missile.

But being able to only pull, say 35g, doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I've had conversations with several former F-16 pilots with very good knowledge of the F-35 who basically say the same thing with respect to agility and performance: compared to the F-16 the F-35 performs a little worse in some areas and and a little better in others.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

I'm not going to dispute your view, but there is only one actual pilot who's flown an F-35 of any flavour to date.

example

US pilots made significant assumptions about the capability of the Mig 15, 21, 29 and Su 27.

All of those assumptions were thrown out the window when the US managed to acquire those platforms and placed them in their red hat squadron for training, test and development.

similarly, RAAF assumptions about the JSF performance against Mig35 are based on empirical data provided to us by the USAF (and none of which is in the public domain). - Now, short of getting one of the Polish or US Red Hat Mig 29's and modifying them accordingly to reflect the Mig35, then it's all assumption - albeit accurate as possible.

I have significant difficulty with any pilot who's making comparative claims about handling vis a vis the Viper (or anything else for that matter)

Why? Well, none of the JSF data is available to the public (eg refer to the RAAF comparative data against "red assets") - and anyone who does know would not be saying.

Sure they might have an opinion - but the chances of any pilot having access to current JSF data is close to zero - it's just not being made available to anyone except those on the program. To use a further example, none of the RAAF JSF assessment team say anything - and thats even to people with approp clearances.

 

[gf0012-aust]

@gf, ozzy, grand,
I think what you partitially misunderstand is that its not meant that the missile has to match the fighters turning performance all over the time.

Which has been my point from the first "engagement" post I submlitted.

Why do you think the USAF/USN/USMC/RAF/RAAF/CAF have a thing about AL decoys? It's the closing engagement that makes pilots twitchy, or if head on, the meeting engagement range.

HOBS, all aspect off bore sight missiles are a nightmare - and relying on escape and evade as the missile approaches its NEZ window means that preferred options are:

• pilot training is good
• there's an AWACs upstairs with a gods eye view of unfolding events
• there's an ALD still attached for use
• that spoofing might work
• that the missiles energy is at bingo
• that the missile is not multi seekered
• that the missile is not TV controlled
• that the missiles agility in the NEZ is depleted.

can the pilot do it? of course - but so can the missile.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Eurofighter can do sustained 12g.

Wouldn't that kill the pilot? I thought the max G-loading a human can take is 9G and thats only if the pilot is in very good shape and has been trained for that kind of load.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

In addition to that, would more than 9g not be a problem for the pilot? In another forum a pilot (or he claimed he was a pilot) said that even 9g is way beyond what they would normally do since they would get tunnel vision and could also faint. He claimed that normally they would not go above 4-6 g.

If the above is not correct I'm sure somebody will correct me


V

You are somewhat correct. Most people like you and me can only go up to 4-5G before the blood leaves our brains and we pass out but a fighter pilot who has been trained and in very good shape can go at 9G.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Before any others post their opinions on what pilots can and cannot do:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...planes-can-fulfil-their-design-potential.html

It's a 1993 article - and it's no closer now than it was then:

again, as I said before, name any in service G suit which will keep a pilot coherent and alert at sustained 9G (let alone 12G)+. 10PSI is the current capability.... (IIRC there is a 30sec 9G sustained maximum that any pilot can cope with before the body starts to give up)

Europe's new fighter aircraft will be a supreme warplane with great power and agility in the air. But while huge sums of money are being spent developing the technology for the Eurofighter 2000 (formerly the European Fighter Aircraft), little cash has been set aside to investigate the effects of this formidable flying machine on the people who will pilot it. According to specialists in aviation medicine, the aircraft could well be too agile for its own good. As things stand, pilots will become unconscious long before the fighter reaches the peak of its design performance. Even more worrying, however, is that there will be no warning of the impending crisis in the cockpit. One second pilots will be in complete command, the next they will be slumped at the controls.

Fighter aircraft need to be fast but speed alone is not enough, not even when you can fly at more than 1500 kilometres per hour. What gives one fighter the edge over another is the ability to make tighter turns so that a pilot can outmanoeuvre or tail an opponent with ease. But as pilots twist their aircraft away from trouble or into a kill, they generate enormous forces on their bodies that they may not be able to withstand.

As they go into a turn in a modern fighter, their blood is pushed down their bodies and begins to pool in their legs and abdomens, starving their brains of oxygen. If the turn tightens, colour vision fades into black and white, a phenomenon known as 'greyout'. Then peripheral vision goes, their sight narrowing into a circle dead ahead. If the pilot doesn't ease off the turn, the tunnel vision becomes a 'blackout' - pilots are conscious, and able to hear and talk, but they cannot see. Finally, if they ignore all the warning signs, they are knocked out, a phenomenon known as G-induced loss of consciousness, or G-LOC.

These classic and progressive symptoms are well known. What has surprised specialists in aviation medicine, and is something they realised only after several fatal accidents, is how severe are the effects on the body of making tight turns in the latest fighters, such as the F-22 and the Eurofighter (see figure 1). There are no warning signs. Pilots do not progress through the classic symptoms of lack of oxygen in the brain, which they are trained and equipped to counter. They are simply and suddenly unconscious.

TAKING TURNS

The cause of restricted blood flow to the brain and, potentially, G-LOC, is the large centrifugal force generated in a turn by the aircraft's circular motion. When a fighter turns, it tilts or banks in the direction of the turn to maintain equal lift on each wing. If it didn't, and made a flat or skidded turn, the wing on the outside of the turn would be going faster than that on the inside, and would naturally develop more lift. If this lift were resisted and the wing held flat, the aircraft would develop drag and slow down, ultimately spinning out of control.

So pilots must make banked turns. But whichever way they roll their aircraft, they face an unpleasant experience that can put their lives at risk. Usually, pilots bank their aircraft so that they are on the inside of the turn. This means that they are pointing towards the centre of the turn and suffer a centrifugal force pushing down on their heads, which drains their brains of blood - and oxygen. If pilots bank their aircraft so that they are on the outside of a turn, the opposite happens: more blood is forced into their brains. But most pilots avoid the experience - it causes them to see red, literally, and to feel as though their heads are about to explode.

The greater the rate of turn, increased by higher speed or tighter curvature or both, the greater the centrifugal force. This force is measured in terms of the normal gravitational force (G) acting on the body. At 2G, a pilot feels twice his or her normal weight, three times more at 3G and so on. Modern fighter aircraft are capable of 9G turns and the next generation will be capable of more than 12G - the exact figures are classified.

While these forces are clearly well beyond what the body can cope with naturally, the rate at which its response deteriorates as the G-force increases very much depends on physical stature. For someone like me, who is fit with a solid frame of medium height, my limbs begin to feel heavy between 2G and 3G and it's hard to keep my head erect. About 4G, I see white specks and feel my lungs and stomach pressing down towards the pit of my abdomen. Then my colour vision fades and my peripheral vision narrows so that I can see only straight ahead. Suddenly everything is black, though I'm still conscious. So far, I haven't been knocked out during a flight.

G-LOC is directly related to the amount of oxygen circulating in the brain and thus to oxygenated blood delivered to it. When the flow is impeded, which happens when the G-force increases rapidly, the body has two ways of defending itself. When the increase in G, known as the onset rate, is less than about 1G per second, the main defence mechanism is the pumping of the cardiovascular system, which tries to overcome the effect of the G-force. At greater onset rates, the body must rely on its oxygen reserves in the brain, though these will last for no more than five seconds. If the reserves are used up or, at lower onset rates, pilots ignore the warnings that their cardiovascular systems cannot cope, G-LOC is inevitable.

Researchers reckon that the unconsciousness usually lasts about ten seconds. If by then the G-force has reduced sufficiently, amnesia follows for a similar period. They base their estimates on tests in centrifuges, which subject volunteers to G-forces by spinning them at high speeds, and on the only video recording of a pilot known to have suffered G-LOC and survived, a lucky F-16 airman. The experience leaves an individual feeling frightened, confused and generally incapacitated for between five and thirty seconds after regaining consciousness. Volunteers in tests have sometimes suffered rapid and uncontrolled muscle contractions and relaxations, which cause their limbs and bodies to jerk as though they were having an epileptic fit. The overall timings depend on an individual's physical fitness and health. Paradoxically, those who practice aerobics are more vulnerable because this form of exercise increases the size of the heart and lowers blood pressure - two factors that you can do without when you need blood in the brain, not in an enlarged heart, and more pressure to pump 'uphill' against an increasing G-force.

LETHAL FORCES

Several test pilots and military pilots have flown into the ground and been killed in suspected G-LOC incidents but it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the cause. If an autopsy is feasible, then determining if the pilot was conscious at impact is not. However, investigators can rule out causes such as engine or aircraft failure, listen to tapes of radio calls, examine flight data recorders and take testimony from other pilots who were in the air at the same time.

Two prototypes of the Northrop F-20 Tigershark both flown by very experienced test pilots crashed while practising displays to demonstrate the aircraft's agility to prospective customers. In October 1984, Darrell Cornell died while practising a high-G air display at Suwon in South Korea. Just over seven months later, his colleague David Barnes was killed in similar accident at Goose Bay in Labrador. Official accident reports cited G-LOC as the most likely cause. Over the past decade, the US Air Force has attributed 20 fatal crashes to G-LOC; none are believed to have occurred yet in Britain, although this is hardly surprising. The Royal Air Force's latest fighter, the Tornado F3, was designed as a long-range interceptor of bombers and thus does not need to be very agile, while its older fighters, such as the Jaguar and Harrier, are simply not up to it.

But the prospect of the Eurofighter 2000 coming into service at the turn of the century has convinced researchers at the Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine (IAM), Farnborough, of the need to investigate G-LOC thoroughly. Eurofighter will be so agile that it could generate as much as 12G in just over a second if pushed to the limits of its performance.

Researchers at Farnborough are considering pressurising the oxygen that pilots breathe as a way of reducing the influence of G-forces. This could be done automatically by modifying the equipment that controls the supply of oxygen to the pilot so that it responded as the G-forces increased. Higher pressure in the chest cavity would squeeze the heart and so raise the pressure of blood flowing out of it. The trouble with positive pressure breathing for G-protection (PBG), as the technique is called, is that it hampers the return of blood to the heart. But the researchers are confident that this could be overcome by improving the design of the traditional G-suit, which squeezes the lower half of a pilot's body to restrict blood flow into it.

Most air forces started using G-suits in the mid-1950s and their basic design has changed little since then. The suits worn by modern crews consist of five inflatable bladders; one across the stomach and a pair on each leg located on the thigh and calf. These G-suits are extremely close fitting, even before automatic and very rapid inflation by compressed air that occurs when G-forces rise. However, the Farnborough institute is convinced that a better G-suit could provide more protection by increasing blood pressure even more. 'We developed a one-piece set of full-coverage inflatable trousers which, when used in combination with PBG, is very effective,' says Wing Commander Andy Prior, who is leading the institute's research team.

On balance, PBG raises the blood pressure slightly and gives between 0.5 and 1G improvement in an individual's tolerance to G-force. It also helps pilots to perform an exercise designed to counter the effects of high G-forces. In the exercise, known as anti-G straining manoeuvres, or AGSMs, pilots must tense their limbs and strain against a closed or partially closed glottis by inhaling and exhaling rapidly every three seconds. The timing of the breathing is important: straining for longer impedes the return of blood to the heart while longer periods of inhalation reduce blood pressure in the chest cavity and thus in the brain too.

In centrifuge runs at the IAM, subjects were taken from 4G to 9G and back repeatedly, while using PBG and the standard AGSM, until exhausted. These tests showed that although the techniques increase pilots' tolerance to G-forces only slightly, they do improve pilots' endurance of G-forces by more than 50 per cent. This means that pilots do not tire as quickly under the influence of high G-forces. Full-coverage anti-G trousers, which increase blood pressure considerably in the upper half of the body, also enhance a pilot's tolerance to G-forces.

Prior has begun to study the long-term effects of these techniques, and particularly whether they cause damage to the heart and lungs. So far, RAF pilots who regularly experience high G-forces have reported only minor complaints, such as cricked necks and pulled neck muscles, says Prior. But he admits that the physical traumas could be much more severe for aircrews when the Eurofighter is introduced in 1999.

Another avenue of thought on G-LOC is to accept that it will occur, detect that the pilot is unconscious and have the aircraft automatically fly straight and level until the pilot revives and is able to resume control. Several methods of monitoring the pilot's level of consciousness are being studied. Are the pilot's control inputs rational or not? Is the pilot slumped or just looking down at a cockpit display? Are the pilot's eyes open? Warning devices that measure the level of blood oxygen at eye level are being studied. All are in the experimental stage and perhaps the best solution would be a combination of these, voting for or against taking control from the pilot.

The USAF has developed such a device but Prior foresees problems: 'It is only useful for a combat aircraft in peacetime, especially if the other side knows you have it. In war you can't afford to fly straight and level. You'd never wake up because the other guy would shoot you down. Also, how do you detect G-LOC in a noninvasive, unobtrusive and fail-safe way with no false alarms? It would only need to mistakenly take control once or twice before pilots distrusted it and simply switched it off.'

Prior goes further: 'But is it really the right approach - to accept that your pilots will become unconscious? At Farnborough we are concentrating on G-LOC prevention by giving aircrew better protection. We do not want our pilots unconscious in the air in peacetime and in air combat, we want our pilots to win.'

The USAF Armstrong Laboratory at Wright-Patterson air force base in Ohio is the centre of US G-LOC research, led by Bill Albery. The USAF is taking a two-pronged approach to G-LOC based on detecting it and lessening its effects. The air force is also investigating ways of taking control of aircraft from incapacitated pilots until they recover.

American military researchers have reviewed several systems for monitoring the consciousness of pilots, but is currently only developing one, a device that is inserted in the pilot's helmet earcups or oxygen mask. 'It allows you to monitor heart rate, or whether you've lost the pulse, which tells you that you have no eye-level blood pressure. It also measures the blood's oxygen level, which is a good indicator of the physiological state of the pilot,' says Albery. The device uses two different wavelengths of light to monitor oxygen levels in the blood; deoxygenated haemoglobin in the blood absorbs one and oxygenated haemoglobin the other. By comparing the level of light absorbed, the oxygenation level of the bloodstream is determined. The device is still being tested in the centrifuge.

The USAF is examining two other G-LOC sensors, which would be mounted on the pilot's helmet. These would consist of electroencephalography arrays to monitor the electrical activity of the brain and deduce the level of consciousness. One is under test, the other is not yet ready for evaluation.

To lessen the effects of high G-force, the USAF is putting into service the PBG technique and a fuller-coverage Advanced Technology Anti-G Suit. With the ATAGS and PBG system, the USAF is finding a four to five-fold increase in G-force tolerance compared with a pilot wearing a standard G-suit and having no PBG assistance. Where the pilot is tired and not able to withstand as much G-force as earlier in the flight, PBG combined with ATAGS gives more endurance. However, even these measures may not be enough to protect a pilot against a rapid onset rate, admits Albery. The USAF has evaluated a progressive arterial occlusion suit that pinches the body at various points to cut off blood flow temporarily. Though it enabled pilots to sustain an additional 3G, it was a painful solution and one that has not been developed further.

Because of the deaths from G-LOC, the USAF has been experimenting, as a near-term solution, with a Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS) in a General Dynamics F-16 fighter. The GCAS, which uses topographical data derived from satellites, is linked to an aircraft's navigation and flight control networks. If a pilot becomes unconscious, GCAS takes over and prevents the aircraft from descending below a predetermined height. Though the system cannot yet avoid constructions such as tall buildings, the USAF is optimistic that it should keep aircrews out of danger until they recover and can regain control. The GCAS-test F-16 has been deliberately dived 'hands off' about 100 times to date and has recovered safely each time.

Mike Gaines is a freelance journalist. He is the former military editor of Flight International and has flown many times in high-performance military aircraft.
From issue 1881 of New Scientist magazine, 10 July 1993, page 28

Note - G ratings (and their absolute performance stats) are classified - pilots have achieved 9.5g but the body takes a hammering - and the suit cannot sustain positional pressure for "nn" (classified) seconds as it can damage the body.

Then reason why aircraft have frame stress alerts that go off at 7 - 7.5g is to not only alert the pilot that the aircraft is reaching mechanical structural failsafe, bit also to send a supplementary audible alert to the pilot.

 

[energo]

Sure they might have an opinion - but the chances of any pilot having access to current JSF data is close to zero - it's just not being made available to anyone except those on the program. To use a further example, none of the RAAF JSF assessment team say anything - and thats even to people with approp clearances.

These are not opinions, but the manufacturers assesment.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[gf0012-aust]

These are not opinions, but the manufacturers assesment.


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

which manufacturer? and of sufficient substance to be cleared for public comment? I don't think so.

Again, none of the JSF assessment team for RAAF make any public comment about capability - because they can't.

It's an opinon unless it's Cleared. and that means it's worth squat as a reference point.

 

[energo]

which manufacturer? and of sufficient substance to be cleared for public comment? I don't think so.

Again, none of the JSF assessment team for RAAF make any public comment about capability - because they can't.

It's an opinon unless it's Cleared. and that means it's worth squat as a reference point.

The manufacturer is Lockheed Martin. This is, of course, a general statement and must be viewed in that context.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[Scorpion82]

HOBS, all aspect off bore sight missiles are a nightmare - and relying on escape and evade as the missile approaches its NEZ window means that preferred options are:

• pilot training is good
• there's an AWACs upstairs with a gods eye view of unfolding events
• there's an ALD still attached for use
• that spoofing might work
• that the missiles energy is at bingo
• that the missile is not multi seekered
• that the missile is not TV controlled
• that the missiles agility in the NEZ is depleted.

can the pilot do it? of course - but so can the missile.

I mainly thought we speak about a BVR scenario here. So far BVR missiles neither pull 50 g nor do they usually have TV or HOBS capabilities. An exception here is the MICA IR, but if launched at long range and the rocket motor being burned out TVC is not going to help the missile any more.
ALD = Airborne Launched Decoy?
Multiseeker heads aren't a reality right now, at least not for AAMs.

again, as I said before, name any in service G suit which will keep a pilot coherent and alert at sustained 9G (let alone 12G)+. 10PSI is the current capability.... (IIRC there is a 30sec 9G sustained maximum that any pilot can cope with before the body starts to give up)

Libelle-G-Multiplus

 

[tphuang]

The manufacturer is Lockheed Martin. This is, of course, a general statement and must be viewed in that context.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

I think Gary is saying that there is what the manufacturer is allowed to reveal to the public and then there are a lot of confidential data that simply don't reflect the same things. And that unless you have certain clearance, you won't know the real flight performance and such.

I think Gary has mentioned a few times in the past that the stats you see on internet regarding radar performance of E-3C doesn't reflect the reality at all.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think Gary has mentioned a few times in the past that the stats you see on internet regarding radar performance of E-3C doesn't reflect the reality at all.

Correct. In fact Janes (for example) has a history of manipulated data presented as fact (starting from as early as 1911) - that's due to the fact that information is generally provided by the manufacturer.

OAN, the US has been testing (successfully) modified multi seekers on AAM and AGM munitions for the last 5 years. The ease and speed at which it can be achieved (as a Field upgrade) can be witnessed by the SAM's found in Iraq where missiles had been modified to include IR heads.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Libelle-G-Multiplus

I'm aware of the LGM, and herein lies the beauty of manufacturers claims.

I stand by my prev that there is no suit available which will allow sustained 9g manouvre without degrading the efficiency and personal tactical coherency of the pilot.

Suits have been made that allow short 9-12g - but they fail on the above metric.

 

[energo]

I think Gary is saying that there is what the manufacturer is allowed to reveal to the public and then there are a lot of confidential data that simply don't reflect the same things. And that unless you have certain clearance, you won't know the real flight performance and such.

I think Gary has mentioned a few times in the past that the stats you see on internet regarding radar performance of E-3C doesn't reflect the reality at all.

We don't disagree on that. Note that I haven't mentioned any performance data. It simply gives a idea of its performance class. I think it can be safely assumed that it will perform neither much worse nor much better than this.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[gf0012-aust]

We don't disagree on that. Note that I haven't mentioned any performance data. It simply gives a idea of its performance class. I think it can be safely assumed that it will perform neither much worse nor much better than this.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

I'm completely skeptical of manufacturers publicly stated data - the reason being that I've been involved in weapons procurement, tender submissions and tender evaluations in a variety of weapons/platform disciplines - so unlike the data on the net - the manufacturers provide the evaluation team with "meaningful" data - and then it's subjected to evaluation compliance to ensure that "it does what they say it does".

the majority of the time, the performance data in the public domain is borderline useless at a systems comparison level. (esp ewarfare and/or signit claims)

detection rates are significantly coloured "down"

 

[Scorpion82]

I'm aware of the LGM, and herein lies the beauty of manufacturers claims.

I stand by my prev that there is no suit available which will allow sustained 9g manouvre without degrading the efficiency and personal tactical coherency of the pilot.

Suits have been made that allow short 9-12g - but they fail on the above metric.

Well in my opinion, the fact that a Luftwaffe pilot set a world record with sustaining 9 g for 86 seconds in a centrifuge speaks for its self.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well in my opinion, the fact that a Luftwaffe pilot set a world record with sustaining 9 g for 86 seconds in a centrifuge speaks for its self.

A centrifuge hardly qualifies as per my repeated qualifier. Read my responses (again) carefully.

This is my last on this. It's apparent that I am getting nowhere fast when a centrifuge result is promoted as ACM qualification where getting in and out of a restraint is the minimum to get on with the job.

 

[JohanGrön]

Well in my opinion, the fact that a Luftwaffe pilot set a world record with sustaining 9 g for 86 seconds in a centrifuge speaks for its self.

Gee I would like to see before and after pictures of the dude

AFAIK one and a half minute in 9 g could permanently cripple you.

 

[Scorpion82]

A centrifuge hardly qualifies as per my repeated qualifier. Read my responses (again) carefully.

This is my last on this. It's apparent that I am getting nowhere fast when a centrifuge result is promoted as ACM qualification where getting in and out of a restraint is the minimum to get on with the job.

It was just an example. Libelle is in operational service and was evaluated and optimised over many years. It's a proven device and not just marketing hype.

 

[Grand Danois]

We're down to 83.5 mn usd UPC a pop... maybe even further down if those 5-10% are realisable. My translation.


The fighter competition intensifies

Three manufacturers are now competing on who will provide 48 new fighters to the Danish defence. A last minute offer from Boeing has caused Lockheed Martin, who is behind the Joint Strike Fighter, to reduce their price tag.

Christian Brøndum
Wednesday, 27. august 2008 22:30

As the decision to buy new fighters to replace the F16 is closing in, the competition about who will get the contract worth billions intensifies. The U.S. aircraft and missile manufacturer Lockheed Martin has just informed the Danish defence that the price of 48 new fighter, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), is now down to less than 20 billion Danish kroner [4.0 bn USD, GD] in "flying" condition, including spares package and two years of pilot training.

The price tag on Swedish Saabs offer of 48 Gripen NG is 22 billion kroner.

According to the head of Lockheed Martin's JSF program, Tom Burbage, it is the large number of F35 to be produced, explains why the newly developed 5th generation fighter can be sold cheaper than the Swedish Gripen.

>>Gripen is an 4th gen fighter, developed in the 1980s, which has been developed into a model called the 'New Generation'. But whereas the expected production figures on the U.S. aircraft is forecast to over 3,100, the Swedish aircraft has been sold or leased out in 264 copies, to countries such as Hungary, Thailand, India and South Africa.<<

>>When we begin to up to build 20 planes a month, and you have to buy 48, you get real advantage of the high production. It is the only way to sell an aircraft with F-35s capacity for the same or slightly lower price than competing aircraft,<< Tom Burbage said.

Price reduction

According to the head of the JSF programme will be forecasts for the Joint Strike Fighter gradually replaced by actual prices as the production of "prototypes" [LRIPs?, GD] progresses. And it is these figures that give the background to lower the price, he says. The price of the aircraft has been notified on several occasions since 2005.

A contributing factor to the fall in prices is also that the other global U.S. manufacturer, Boeing, recently signed up on the track with a last-minute offer on their F-18 fighter. >>We have a new competitor, and when we got the new figures on what it costs to produce the aircraft, we decided to update our prices to Denmark,<< according to the Lockheed Martin delegation that has just visited Copenhagen.

[...]

Lockheed Martin's next move will be, according to Tom Burbage, an offer to the nine partner countries, including Denmark, to buy their total of 370 aircraft at a joint five-year contract in the style of the single European purchase of F-16 in the late 1970s. If we manage to knit a bid together, the nine countries could save five to ten percent due to joint procurement.

http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20080827/danmark/708270050/