F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[Grand Danois]

Quite right that I presented that information wrong as then year when it was constant year 2002 dollars.

Yeah I realized that when I later read the ares blog.

That still leaves us with a current estimate in today's dollars of $95 to $113 million per F-35. A number that is certain to keep rising.

In then-year dollars.

Edit: you're right this time around: it's 2009 dollars according to the article you had read - but APUC and GAO says 113 million usd in then-year.

Check this link to get the source for the numbers (95-113 is in then-year, APUC or around 80 million in 2008 dollars ).

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03 March/Sullivan 03-11-10.pdf

 

[fretburner]

Maybe the USAF can start buying more F-22s and the LM team focus on making sure the USMC get their F-35Bs?

The USMC have very old fighters - one F-18D just crashed - and since they don't want to buy F-18E/Fs as an interim solution, then maybe they can speed up the F-35Bs?

With SDBs, the F-22 can be a very lethal strike fighter.

 

[LGB]

Catch-22

The catch-22 in any suggestion like this is reducing planned buys of F-35 in favor of any alternative means less F-35's are purchased which means average unit cost goes up leading to fewer F-35's being purchased.

The issue really isn't LM focus on "USMC get their F-35Bs" but rather LM being able to just deliver test aircraft so the flight test program can move along. Full rate production is not scheduled now till 2016. The USMC is already going to get a lot of LRIP F-35B's. It's unknown what the cost will be to bring these LRIP up to the production standard.

This is another hidden cost in the program in that around 300 LRIP aircraft are in the plan and these will need to be updated. It's actually incredible to call 300 aircraft "LRIP" and this is after the program was restructured and they just cut out around 120 more.

The level of concurrency in the program is still very risky. Which is another way to say it will end up costly. If the flight test program does not turn around very quickly they will cut more LRIP aircraft.

At some point, whether we've passed it or not for some customers, delays in the program will mean gap filling aircraft need to be purchased or older aircraft need a SLEP. This can be very expensive. To cite one example to gain up to 1,400 more hours on legacy F/A-18's costs $26 million hours vs buying a new F/A-18E/F at $50 million.

In the case of the USAF they are rebuilding the A-10's and updating 178 "golden" F-15C's (the E's are in good shape) but to my knowledge there is no study on extending F-16 service life. Indeed I believe this was recently noted in AFM.

Maybe the USAF can start buying more F-22s and the LM team focus on making sure the USMC get their F-35Bs?

The USMC have very old fighters - one F-18D just crashed - and since they don't want to buy F-18E/Fs as an interim solution, then maybe they can speed up the F-35Bs?

With SDBs, the F-22 can be a very lethal strike fighter.

 

[SpudmanWP]

You are mistaken that 300+ LRIP F-35s will somehow need to be upgraded to be the same as FRP.

Only 32 (47 if LRIP 5 is Blk2 instead of 3 as is now planned) are less than Blk3. Monies have already been set aside in FY2011 budget to handle the upgrades.

 

[LGB]

When SDD is complete there will certainly be additional changes made to production aircraft; moreover, as the flight test program unfolds changes will be incorporated. The plan to build 300+ LRIP prior to completion of SDD, the concurrency in the program, is describe by Dr Carter as "worrying" and by Michael Sullivan as "very risky".

This program is critical to the future of US tactical aviation. It was not well conceived nor well run and according to Dr Carter it has long lost it's focus on affordability. When the flight test program has barely begun and hardly made a dent in total required flight tests (I believe it's around 3% complete as of now) we simply do not know what we do not know. It thus remains to be seen what changes to the aircraft will be made as a result of flight testing. We can all hope it's minimal but that's probably not realistic.

At this sobering point in the program in my view we need to see substantial progress in various areas to prove it can indeed achieve the restructured, and further delayed schedule. Any unsubstantiated optimism in this program does not serve us well. Indeed we've got years of documented and substantial reasons for deep skepticism that can only now be overcome by results.

You are mistaken that 300+ LRIP F-35s will somehow need to be upgraded to be the same as FRP.

Only 32 (47 if LRIP 5 is Blk2 instead of 3 as is now planned) are less than Blk3. Monies have already been set aside in FY2011 budget to handle the upgrades.

 

[Aussie Digger]

IOC in 2016 has been known for years?

Schedule delay, yes, has been known for years. It is blindingly obvious with the year in year out failure to meet their own flight testing schedule. If the testing hasn't been done, how can IOC be declared?

It was formally announced recently that USAF IOC would be pushed back. Blind freddy could infer that these delays would effect the initial operating capability date however.

Nunn-Mcurdy has been known for years?

For more than a year, yes.

The 13-month delay (which some "insiders" claim is optimistic, 30 months have been mentioned) has been known for years?

Again, with flight tests enormously delayed, jets unable to be built because of re-designs and parts shortages, what was the inevitable result going to be?

JET and GAO have been sceptical, however it seems that until recently Gates et al have trusted LM more than those committees. LM has kept bashing those committees because they did not "get it".Last fall Gates said things were running smoothly.

There are significant deficiencies in the reports that are being written. Both L-M and some of these negative reports are being disingenuous about the information they are providing to their respective political masters.

The fact remains that it was always optimistic to believe that any manufacturer could deliver 3x brand new aircraft types (and the difference between the models is significant no matter how much commonality was desirable in the planning stages) of such complexity within a reasonable time, whilst the SDD budget was continually being slashed. Furthermore the low acquisition cost was ALWAYS based on large production numbers and a smooth SDD phase with a sufficient source of funding.

Cut the SDD funding and cut production numbers and then add inherent design difficulties, ie: SWAT and other unexpected difficulties - parts shortages etc and you are always going to run into problems....

 

[fretburner]

The catch-22 in any suggestion like this is reducing planned buys of F-35 in favor of any alternative means less F-35's are purchased which means average unit cost goes up leading to fewer F-35's being purchased.

But then you would also be lowering costs on the F-22 right? Doing the math for both programs though, I bet the combined cost would still be a lot higher, but perhaps not as high as if they started buying more F-22s?

The issue really isn't LM focus on "USMC get their F-35Bs" but rather LM being able to just deliver test aircraft so the flight test program can move along. Full rate production is not scheduled now till 2016. The USMC is already going to get a lot of LRIP F-35B's. It's unknown what the cost will be to bring these LRIP up to the production standard.

This is another hidden cost in the program in that around 300 LRIP aircraft are in the plan and these will need to be updated. It's actually incredible to call 300 aircraft "LRIP" and this is after the program was restructured and they just cut out around 120 more.

The level of concurrency in the program is still very risky. Which is another way to say it will end up costly. If the flight test program does not turn around very quickly they will cut more LRIP aircraft.

At some point, whether we've passed it or not for some customers, delays in the program will mean gap filling aircraft need to be purchased or older aircraft need a SLEP. This can be very expensive. To cite one example to gain up to 1,400 more hours on legacy F/A-18's costs $26 million hours vs buying a new F/A-18E/F at $50 million.

This could probably be another argument for buying more F-22s. There are way too many unknowns in the F-35 at this stage, and all indications are that costs are not going to go down in the years to come. The costs for the F-22s are already known.

In the case of the USAF they are rebuilding the A-10's and updating 178 "golden" F-15C's (the E's are in good shape) but to my knowledge there is no study on extending F-16 service life. Indeed I believe this was recently noted in AFM.

I did forget about the golden eagles with the new APG-81 radar. I guess I mentioned the USAF because they're the only ones with F-22s, and the F-22s are the only new fighters being built today for them.

This "buy more F-22s" probably is getting too annoying. And I did read that very lengthy post/article about the problems with the 'outdated' technology in F-22 and why it would be so hard to upgrade the aircraft later on, which is against how the US builds their military hardware. Just thinking out loud here.

 

[Grand Danois]

At some point, whether we've passed it or not for some customers, delays in the program will mean gap filling aircraft need to be purchased or older aircraft need a SLEP. This can be very expensive. To cite one example to gain up to 1,400 more hours on legacy F/A-18's costs $26 million hours vs buying a new F/A-18E/F at $50 million.

In the case of the USAF they are rebuilding the A-10's and updating 178 "golden" F-15C's (the E's are in good shape) but to my knowledge there is no study on extending F-16 service life. Indeed I believe this was recently noted in AFM.

You may have a point comparing acquisition cost of the F-35C with the SH, however to the air forces it doesn't make sense to buy $60m super hornets instead of $65m F-35A. $60m is probably the cheapest fly-away you would be able to manufacture a SH to in today's dollars.

SLEPs including structural zeroing are notoriously expensive as you point out.

 

[LGB]

Price Point

Yes I agree with you that it's all about the price point and comparing that price to the alternatives.

Further I entirely agree buying a $65 million F-35A is a much better buy than a $60 million SH or even the $50 million that the USN is being offered for a multi year buy.

It probably makes sense to purchase $100 million F-35A's instead of most alternatives (although at this price I think a 1/3 cost A-10 replacement makes more sense and if you actually do need air superiority aircraft than a $140 F-22 might be worth a second look at this price point); however, at some point the price of the F-35 rises to a certain point where it tips over from making economic sense in favor of the the alternatives.

The concern with the program now is that we may be on a trajectory where we pass this point or that indeed we have already passed it.

The point regarding the SH for the USN vs the F-35C is very important. At $50 million for a new F/A-18E/F (multi year contract) it makes little sense to spend $26 million to SLEP older and less capable F/A-18's that gain up to 1,400 additional flight hours when a new SH is good for 6,000+ hours. Furthermore, at some point north of $100 million (certainly north of $150 million) it does not make sense to purchase the F-35C vs the SH. There is also the UCAS-D/X-47B follow on aircraft that will have longer range and greater loiter time with a similar internal weapons load.

It's not clear we actually know the alternatives to a SLEP for the USAF even if only to provide gap filling aircraft before delayed introduction of F-35A. Nor do I believe there is any study regarding an F-16 SLEP much less data to compare to new build alternative. In any case I'm not suggesting the USAF start operating the SH; however, the current offered multi year price could be leveraged toward bids for alternatives.

The problem is that all we hear is that there is no alternative to the F-35A for the USAF when in fact it keeps getting delayed. At some point, and in the view of many we've passed this point, the USAF must deal with a significant fighter shortfall by extending the life of existing aircraft or buying new aircraft or a combination of both. This is the elephant in the room because money for any new fighter will be seen as less money for F-35A within the USAF budget. It's an unsustainable position- especially given further delays in JSF.

You may have a point comparing acquisition cost of the F-35C with the SH, however to the air forces it doesn't make sense to buy $60m super hornets instead of $65m F-35A. $60m is probably the cheapest fly-away you would be able to manufacture a SH to in today's dollars.

SLEPs including structural zeroing are notoriously expensive as you point out.

 

[t68]

You may have a point comparing acquisition cost of the F-35C with the SH, however to the air forces it doesn't make sense to buy $60m super hornets instead of $65m F-35A. $60m is probably the cheapest fly-away you would be able to manufacture a SH to in today's dollars.

SLEPs including structural zeroing are notoriously expensive as you point out.

Where are you getting the $65m price from for a F35A?

If F35 slips too much further to the right it might make economical scene to acquire a small batch of Super Hornet if the aircraft are too fatigued and require too much maintenance to keep it in a flyable condition, number’s for the F35 program should not be affected if the full rate production is set back buy a number of year’s, you effectively move your buy down the line and are only replacing aircraft that are too fatigued too manage.

You also have to take into account that buy doing a small buy now is in today’s dollars and F35 will be in what years dollar’s. With the delays we keep on hearing about F35 i just hope that they don’t cut corner’s just to save time and not bring the aircraft up to scratch.

In Australia’s case legacy F18 are getting on and the RAAF can not afford the aircraft to slip further down the line, we have the option of CBR but i do not think it is worth the hassle of doing when we have a squadron of SH on order and being introduced now. It is of my opinion if F35 slip further down the line in an unacceptable way a further order of SH is a must and having a mixed fleet for some years into the future with follow up order’s of F35 or more unmanned aircraft if the tech is so advanced.

 

[Grand Danois]

Yes I agree with you that it's all about the price point and comparing that price to the alternatives.

Further I entirely agree buying a $65 million F-35A is a much better buy than a $60 million SH or even the $50 million that the USN is being offered for a multi year buy.

My Google Foo is lacking here; I remember the recent Boeing offer, but not the prices mentioned. The stuff that I can find mentions current procurement costs and the potential savings over the entire remainder of the procurement budget with an additional buy. Current unit procurement costs are around $80m for an SH with the fly-away not that far off. The offer mentions saving of up to $500 over the entire budget - not just the fly-away costs! This indicates fly-away costs in excess of $60m if the offer were taken up.

p.26 http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/11pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf

Navy needs more time for Super Hornet deal - TheHill.com

It probably makes sense to purchase $100 million F-35A's instead of most alternatives (although at this price I think a 1/3 cost A-10 replacement makes more sense and if you actually do need air superiority aircraft than a $140 F-22 might be worth a second look at this price point); however, at some point the price of the F-35 rises to a certain point where it tips over from making economic sense in favor of the the alternatives.

The A-10 is a specialist aircraft and I will defer discussion of this particulr issue for now. Yes, the F-22 has indeed proven itself to be able to be built at a fly-away of about $140m. What killed the F-22 was not the procurement cost, but the excessive cost of through-life support and sustainment, specifically the three separate development spirals it is currently on and the wish to avoid a fourth spiral, incurring an additional double-digit billion RD&T expenditure. This is what killed the Raptor.

My own opinion is that it would have made much more sense if the F-22 fleet was 250 strong, but this was not to be.

The concern with the program now is that we may be on a trajectory where we pass this point or that indeed we have already passed it.

Well, as of now we differ on the data points.

The point regarding the SH for the USN vs the F-35C is very important. At $50 million for a new F/A-18E/F (multi year contract) it makes little sense to spend $26 million to SLEP older and less capable F/A-18's that gain up to 1,400 additional flight hours when a new SH is good for 6,000+ hours. Furthermore, at some point north of $100 million (certainly north of $150 million) it does not make sense to purchase the F-35C vs the SH. There is also the UCAS-D/X-47B follow on aircraft that will have longer range and greater loiter time with a similar internal weapons load.

It's not clear we actually know the alternatives to a SLEP for the USAF even if only to provide gap filling aircraft before delayed introduction of F-35A. Nor do I believe there is any study regarding an F-16 SLEP much less data to compare to new build alternative. In any case I'm not suggesting the USAF start operating the SH; however, the current offered multi year price could be leveraged toward bids for alternatives.

I'm not familiar with the details of the Aussie/Canadian HUG upgrade, but understand that many of the most expensive items were cancelled due to cost. Some of the EPAF countries are looking into the benefits of SLEPing their F-16s, but no results have been published as far as I know.

The problem is that all we hear is that there is no alternative to the F-35A for the USAF when in fact it keeps getting delayed. At some point, and in the view of many we've passed this point, the USAF must deal with a significant fighter shortfall by extending the life of existing aircraft or buying new aircraft or a combination of both. This is the elephant in the room because money for any new fighter will be seen as less money for F-35A within the USAF budget. It's an unsustainable position- especially given further delays in JSF.

What's in the cards is a draw-down in USAF fighter units and number of jets, JSF regardless.

 

[Grand Danois]

Where are you getting the $65m price from for a F35A?

I prefer authoritative sources: in this case the JSFPO/JET I estimates:

Please note that the $65m number used by me is in fact more conservative than the actual numbers, It is used in prev posts as a point for discussion.

 

[Sea Toby]

The problem with the F-35 is that we could post this chart, or another updated chart until the cows come in. We will still hear the false assumptions that the price of this aircraft will run as much, if not more than the price of the F-22....

Simply put, even if the F-35 was twenty million dollars more expensive, this fighter would be a good value....

The only worry I have have been the delays. Considering how much new technology is in this aircraft program, some delays should be expected. Its not as if this aircraft is rolling off the assembly line at full production with a rock solid firm price, yet.....

But many choose to compare this aircraft with aircraft that are..... The skeptics dream of a five year delay, whereas any delay at this point probably won't be half that long....

And even if I am wrong and there is a five year delay, I figure this aircraft will still be worth the wait..... Its no longer a paper aircraft. The F-35 in all its versions flies.

 

[t68]

The problem with the F-35 is that we could post this chart, or another updated chart until the cows come in. We will still hear the false assumptions that the price of this aircraft will run as much, if not more than the price of the F-22....

Simply put, even if the F-35 was twenty million dollars more expensive, this fighter would be a good value....

The only worry I have have been the delays. Considering how much new technology is in this aircraft program, some delays should be expected. Its not as if this aircraft is rolling off the assembly line at full production with a rock solid firm price, yet.....

But many choose to compare this aircraft with aircraft that are..... The skeptics dream of a five year delay, whereas any delay at this point probably won't be half that long....

And even if I am wrong and there is a five year delay, I figure this aircraft will still be worth the wait..... Its no longer a paper aircraft. The F-35 in all its versions flies.

I concur F35 will be worth the wait but some nations such as Australia the wait will have a down side in terms of aircraft witch are fatigued and require CBR,it is an additional cost to the RAAF when it can least afford. If it does blow out spending such dollars on an old aircraft does not make economical sense when you can hedge your bet with new build Super Hornet and get 3 times the life out of the aircraft and procure F35 down the line and also not having all airframe’s reach bulk obsolesce at the one time.

 

[Grand Danois]

Yes I agree with you that it's all about the price point and comparing that price to the alternatives.

Further I entirely agree buying a $65 million F-35A is a much better buy than a $60 million SH or even the $50 million that the USN is being offered for a multi year buy.

On a further note/correction: if I had bothered checking the next page on http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/11pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf (p.27) I could have read that the REC fly-away is $60m for a SH in the FY11 budget. So I'm going to buy the premise that Boeing can push the price down towards the $50m mark.

 

[Sea Toby]

I concur F35 will be worth the wait but some nations such as Australia the wait will have a down side in terms of aircraft witch are fatigued and require CBR,it is an additional cost to the RAAF when it can least afford. If it does blow out spending such dollars on an old aircraft does not make economical sense when you can hedge your bet with new build Super Hornet and get 3 times the life out of the aircraft and procure F35 down the line and also not having all airframe’s reach bulk obsolesce at the one time.

I agree. I support multiple buys as to avoid block obsolescence in the first place. Its not the end of the world operating two different fighter types. May not be as economical... As Australia has noticed, when attempting to operate one fighter type for economical reasons one risks that the next new thing will have development delays. If you do so, one must take into account the next new thing may be late, and plan to extend the life of your old thing accordingly...

I believe Australia has done so with their Super Hornet buy. When the Super Hornets become active, fly your old Hornets less.... I have noticed in the past Australia has bought ships with a significant gap in the production program. A several year gap is wise...

 

[Vivendi]

According to "Dansk Radio" the Danish national broadcaster, the Danish DoD seems to prefer the SH not F-35.

Forsvaret dumper kampflyet Joint Strike Fighter - dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge

GD, has this been confirmed? It seems to say that the Danish DoD does not want to comment on it.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, they claim to have a source for it, but nothing confirmed. The recommendation (type selection) from the PO should have been made public months ago, don't know why they have tarried.

It would be a very big surprise if DK went SH!!!

According to "Dansk Radio" the Danish national broadcaster, the Danish DoD seems to prefer the SH not F-35.

Forsvaret dumper kampflyet Joint Strike Fighter - dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge

GD, has this been confirmed? It seems to say that the Danish DoD does not want to comment on it.

 

[fretburner]

It's also here: Denmark Bails on the JSF

Seems like Boeing is on a roll... they seemed to be going downhill especially on the commercial side, but now they're raking orders and contracts. IF, the reports are confirmed

 

[Vivendi]

It's also here: Denmark Bails on the JSF

Seems like Boeing is on a roll... they seemed to be going downhill especially on the commercial side, but now they're raking orders and contracts. IF, the reports are confirmed

The title in Ares blog seems misleading to me... IF the reports are confirmed it simply means that the Danish DoD will recommend the SH not the F-35. Even if that's the case (and it still remains unconfirmed) then that does not automatically imply that Denmark will decide to buy SH.

Like in most countries the decision is political/economical. I agree with GD; It would be a big surprise if Denmark buys anything but F-35. I also would be surprised if the Danish DoD actually will recommend the SH over F-35 -- let's wait and see.