Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Last edited:
Since (according to the 2009 US budget) the USAF expects to pay $91.2 mn flyaway & $100.1 weapon system price for each F-35A delivered in 2013, & an average of $80 million flyaway & $86.7 mn weapon system (in "then year" dollars") for each F-35A delivered from 2014 onwards, & LM isn't allowed, by law, to sell it to anyone else for less than it sells to the US military, that's very interesting. 
I wonder what price basis it's on?
I wonder what price basis it's on?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Because US flyaway ain't partner flyaway. Different accounting practices, as I understand it (some of what would usually be accounted for as programme cost is included in the FY09 flyaway cost).
Otherwise they'd have some explaining to do to the USAF and Congress.
Otherwise they'd have some explaining to do to the USAF and Congress.
While I am sure that is the rock bottom fly away costs, I am sure by the time spares and simulators, etc., are included the price will be much higher. Never-the-less this price is no where near the doomsdayers' US$ 90 million plus many on these forums speculated upon not so long ago. This price should also riducule the Eurofighter and Grippen fanatics....
Dr. Goon must be eating crow, somehow the Lightning IIs are half his price of Raptors. He and his group must be totally egged. It will take a long long time for his group to wipe the eggs off their faces. Should we serve them crow?
Dr. Goon must be eating crow, somehow the Lightning IIs are half his price of Raptors. He and his group must be totally egged. It will take a long long time for his group to wipe the eggs off their faces. Should we serve them crow?
Small but significant point, Goon is not a Doctor, be it Vetinary, Human or one of Philosophy.
I seriously doubt that any challenge, not matter how validated and or qualitative will stop them sledging all and sundry who don't embrace their view of australias future ORBAT....
Or it's another 2002 dollars price . . . .Because US flyaway ain't partner flyaway. Different accounting practices, as I understand it (some of what would usually be accounted for as programme cost is included in the FY09 flyaway cost).
Otherwise they'd have some explaining to do to the USAF and Congress.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Ok, try to disseminate this one... is Dr. Davies mixing up AUPC and UFC?
...or is it the journo (most likely).
That ASPI study made by Dr.Davies his a case study by himself!
http://aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=167&pubtype=9
I was reading the document and something was bothering me on a high scale, but i couldn´t quite trace it, what was wrong with the the conclusions?
Until it hit me, i had read most of the documents that Dr.Davies used to make the study, and the numbers that he claimed that he got from those documents were diferent from what i had read!
Now, i can be making a mess of it, and i´m not acusing the good Dr Davies of getting the document all wrong, probably it´s me, but... It´s dam strange.
This is taken from the ASPI document, it´s a chart with the "Fly Away Cost" for the F-35A that it´s suposed to come from the "2009 USAF Budget":
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/5746/25380983bg4.jpg
And this is taken directly from the "2009 USAF Budget", and the numbers are completely diferent, they are way higher!
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1096/26859944bi4.jpg
And it´s not the only example, there are several other numbers on that document who seem to be smaller than what his quoted in the original sources!
I must be making a hell of a confusion, it´s a gigantic mistake if my conclusions are correct, so it must be me! Can someone help here?
Aaaalright! Back on track.
Creampuffs for everyone!
Grand Danois
Remember the 48/year F-35A production rate for the USAF that we have discussed?
Found it.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3881
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/AFbudget070202/
But that "2009 USAF budget" doesnt reflect this VERY BIG "stealth cut", they are still predicting costs on a 1763 units production run... And you wont get 1763 units at that production speed.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
No they will still get the 1763 F-35s....it will only take 40 years to get it though.....
The chances of that happening are more or less the same for snowing tomorrow in Ouagadougou
Cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Nope, Read this from your link form airforcetimes:
The F-35 Lightning II program stays in development, but instead of buying 110 of the jets annually starting around 2013, the Air Force will limit its yearly purchase to 48 of the stealthy jets.
The USAF Plans to ramp up to 110 in 2015, not 2013 as airforcetimes says. In 2013 it will be 48 as planned (so according to aftimes they're cutting from 48 to 48 in 2013!).
What the USAF is indicating is that they have not have money in the budget for more than 48/yr. This is part of the budgetary game; they want extra funding - and it's classic - just like the ongoing story of the GE/RR F-136 engine; DoD cuts it at every review and Congress reinstates it.
The USAF is facing a major fighter gap even with the F-35 being built on schedule. Congress is going to demand F-35 en masse a few years from now. USAF knows this.re: Dr. Davies I'm also confused, but now on a higher level than before. Will get back to him.
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
See the USAF has no choice but to get all the F-35s because not only do they have F-16s and A-10s but they also have F-15s that need to be replaced and they did a few studies before to determine a certain number of jets that are needed for the USAF to do its job effectively plus its highly unlikely the F-35 will be cut because the USAF is only getting 183 F-22s.The chances of that happening are more or less the same for snowing tomorrow in Ouagadougou
Cheers
No, no, no.Nope, Read this from your link form airforcetimes:
The F-35 Lightning II program stays in development, but instead of buying 110 of the jets annually starting around 2013, the Air Force will limit its yearly purchase to 48 of the stealthy jets.
The USAF Plans to ramp up to 110 in 2015, not 2013 as airforcetimes says. In 2013 it will be 48 as planned (so according to aftimes they're cutting from 48 to 48 in 2013!).
What the USAF is indicating is that they have not have money in the budget for more than 48/yr. This is part of the budgetary game; they want extra funding - and it's classic - just like the ongoing story of the GE/RR F-136 engine; DoD cuts it at every review and Congress reinstates it.
re: Dr. Davies I'm also confused, but now on a higher level than before. Will get back to him.
Read the Congress transcript. I have already read something like five to six articles about this problem and everybody takes the exact same conclusions that i did, from aviation journos (Bill Sweetman, Graham Warwick), to midle ranking USAF officers, to Congressman, etc, etc. For the foreseable future and that´s after 2014, it´s 48 F-35A a year for the USAF, nothing more, nothing less. If i´m wrong on this one, then a lot of highly qualified people share the error with me.
And the money that the USAF intends to spend on those new tactical fighters (read the F-35A) for that foreaseable future his almost exactly the same that they have been spending for the last six to seven years with the F-22 RAPTOR production that his going to end NOW. So, it´s quite simple, the Raptor production ends, the F-35A beggins, the overall money spent by year his the same (more or less).
If the USAF was serious about getting 110 new tactical fighters a year from 2015 on, then there would be massive cuts on EVERY new procurement plan to fund all those new "Lightning II", this simply doesn´t fit with the new Tanker and Bomber programs.
That, or a bigger share of the Pentagon Budget pie.
And that´s where the Congress enters, or at least it´s suposed to enter. Now ask yourself what the Congress did when the Clinton Administration slashed the USAF fighter force, or when "W´s" Administration smashed the Raptor production run... Nothing.
Until the end of this year we are going to see a new American administration, if Barack Obama sits in the White House expect a massive "slash" in the Pentagon Budget, and you are well aware what his the biggest acquisition program that they are running for the next two decades. If Mcain gets the election, then we are going to see a lot of American Troops in Iraq for a very long time, and i cant imagine the USAF getting a budget raise to buy new fighters.
But you have raised a very important question that i missed. 2015...
The end of the LRIP production, and the "ramp up" of the F-35A WASN´T SUPOSED TO BE IN 2015!!
When the nine partners signed the PSFD MOU in the beggining of 2007, that date was set for the beggining of 2014...
So from 2007 to 2008, the production run got ONE ENTIRE YEAR LATE. And this his consistent with the deliveries to Great Britain and Holland who jumped from 2009 to 2011.
My, my...
This is going to be a very interesting 2008.
Mark my words, in February 2009 the "2010 USAF Budget" will be released, if in that document the costs of the F-35A keep on rising at the same speed that they have been on the previous two "USAF Budgets" (and i cant see why they wount), Maj Gen Charles R. Davis will be called to Congress, and he will have a lot to explain.
Cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Once again. USAF will need those jets and there is no other game in town. At 48/year, USAF will effectively drop to around 1,000 tacair jets inside 20 years. Do you think this is going to happen? Is this what the USAF plans on? Or Congress? Seriously?
Have you seen the list of doomsday predictions for the JSF - the ones that NEVER came true? It's long, very long.
Generally speaking, the thing is when the funding for 2015 is allocated then no one will care what has been said and done - it's a free ride to create FUD.
(Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric used in sales, marketing, public relations)
Have you seen the list of doomsday predictions for the JSF - the ones that NEVER came true? It's long, very long.
Generally speaking, the thing is when the funding for 2015 is allocated then no one will care what has been said and done - it's a free ride to create FUD.
(Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric used in sales, marketing, public relations)
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Uhhh, here is an early one.... see a trend? No one is going to kill off the JSF - it can however be used as a hostage in budget politics, as no one is really going to hurt it.
I have been following the JSF from it´s birth, and yes i have read a lot of "Doomsday" predictions, in 1998 the great Ray Braybrook called the idea of making three separate versions including a STOL one as a complete "Idiocy", he was proven wrong, "kuddos" to Lock Mart for that one.
But i also was "there" when the Air Force version was suposed to cost 28 million US$ a piece...
And i have seen what happened to every single one of Lockheed Martin past ten or more programs, the "juliet" Hercules, the Raptor, the LCS, etc, etc, etc, they have been delivered with the right "specs" (sort off) but with a massive cost increase.
And unlike of what a lot of people think, military programs doesnt always equate to "Pork", the Gripen program his one example, your "own" ABSALON class are another (and i really love those those two ships).
Once i have told you that i was playing the "Devils advocate" role in this discussion, what do i mean with this?
Unlike the famous APA, i do really like the F-35A platform, you or anyone else have never see me criticise its "specs". Actually i think that in the "time frame" required (2020+) it´s the only real alternative to substitute the "Viper" in one Nato Air Force on the Western part of... Western Europe.
And i am getting the dreadfull sensation that in that timeframe the Portuguese Air Force wont be able to buy more than a sqn worth of F-35A´s, and that equates to slashing 50% of it´s combat force.
About the USAF perspective, yes, you have just described the situation that i think the Congress doesnt even notice and the Air Force believes that the former institution will enter "the fray" at the right time to "save the day", something that i think it wont happen. And no, i dont believe that the F-35A it´s the solution to that "less than 1000 fighters" equation, because i dont believe in Santa Claus. I dont believe one single second that the company that doubled the costs of the LCS-1 in one single year can build a LO strike fighter in the 13 ton class with an AESA radar and an engine that costs more than the double of an "old" F-110 for the same costs of acquisition and logistical suport of a Block 50/52 Viper, that is pure wishful thinking.
The TACAIR problem will be solved somehow, might involve some sort of "light UCAV", or mantaining the Viper and the Eagle fleet flying until they desintegrate, or i can be wrong and the F-35A can be everything that Lockheed has promised. For the health of the USAF, the Portuguese Air Force and almost every NATO armed forces i do hope that i´m wrong. But i seriously doubt it...
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status