F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Air Force Brat]

Beatmaster, as myself and others have been attempting to point out, when people starting talking about prices for programmes and aircraft, unless one is talking about the same conditions, the prices are going to be wildly different.

In other words, the price is not $128 mil. per aircraft,

Actually it is according to the US Pentagon, posted Friday, 4/11/12, who reports they "found" 258 million to buy back 2 F-35s cut by last falls budget axe. In the end of year fiscal review the Pentagon reports it found 258 million to buy back 2 F-35s, not 3, not 2.5, not 2.25, 2 aircraft. If your 70 million per copy figure were accurate the report would say 3 or 3.5. All this smoke and mirrors on costing is simply that, the US Pentagon agrees with beat and his figures. This posted today on Inside Defenses daily SITREP, 4/17/12. But I know, thats only the US Pentagon!

This in response to Beat's post #2184, When Vice Admiral Ventlet states the cost will "suck the wind out of your lungs", he is stating that as an F-35 "Supporter", not one of the strawmen naysayers and doomsday prophets. He has been tasked with fixing this "aircraft".

Admin: Source and thus context needs to be quoted here. Please provide references when quoting or paraphrasing material and/or claims

 

[jack412]

so you think the 30 odd LRIP 5 should be the same as 200 odd full rate production planes?

I don't know why, other than it suits your purpose, to try and use early LRIP's as the final full production price

ps re the wind sails, can you put up the full quote for context, something I have asked you to do before, with the very same quote, or is it your intention to mislead?
I personally think it's time the mods pulled you in, as it was only 3 weeks ago you did the exact same thing, with several posts asking requests and giving context
as shown here
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...ole-joint-strike-fighter-2013-135/#post241759

 

[ADMk2]

In other words, the price is not $128 mil. per aircraft,

Actually it is according to the US Pentagon, posted Friday, 4/11/12, who reports they "found" 258 million to buy back 2 F-35s cut by last falls budget axe. In the end of year fiscal review the Pentagon reports it found 258 million to buy back 2 F-35s, not 3, not 2.5, not 2.25, 2 aircraft. If your 70 million per copy figure were accurate the report would say 3 or 3.5. All this smoke and mirrors on costing is simply that, the US Pentagon agrees with beat and his figures. This posted today on Inside Defenses daily SITREP, 4/17/12. But I know, thats only the US Pentagon!

These are LRIP 5 buys, not full rate production buys, of course they are going to cost more... However even the cost of these two low rate INITIAL production aircraft is $72m per aircraft BELOW some of the ludicrous $200m+ figures that are being bandied about and aren't so different than the cost of some full rate fighters available at present...

This in response to Beat's post #2184, When Vice Admiral Ventlet states the cost will "suck the wind out of your lungs", he is stating that as an F-35 "Supporter", not one of the strawmen naysayers and doomsday prophets. He has been tasked with fixing this "aircraft".

That quote from Venlet was in relation to the cost of fixing the "mistake jets" if it turned out that the US would retrofit hundreds of early production aircraft with fixes devised during SDD. It wasn't in relation to the cost of the F-35. You're being disingenuous there...

That issue has been largely side-steped through the slow down in early production (30 or so per year now) that Venlet advocated and got.

Now it seems no more than about 80 early aircraft will require these retrofits at a cost of a couple of million per aircraft, or in another way if measuring, the cost of about two LRIP F-35's...

 

[SpudmanWP]

Official - It's back to the F-35B for the UK.

Cameron 'has decided on F-35B' - Defence Management

 

[Air Force Brat]

Official - It's back to the F-35B for the UK.

Cameron 'has decided on F-35B' - Defence Management

That probably makes a lot more sense than changing the design of the two carriers honestly, plus they have a lot of stovl experience in the bank to draw on. I think they were well served by the Harrier and the added capability of the B will be a real force multiplier for them. Plus that increases support for the B, and thats a good thing as well.

 

[swerve]

Official - It's back to the F-35B for the UK.

Cameron 'has decided on F-35B' - Defence Management

No, still not official. An unofficial website quoting newspaper reports that unidentified officials have said things. It's only official when you get names.

We had equally 'official' statements before the SDSR in 2010 which turned out to be false.

 

[gf0012-aust]

so you think the 30 odd LRIP 5 should be the same as 200 odd full rate production planes?

I don't know why, other than it suits your purpose, to try and use early LRIP's as the final full production price

It is a common repeated mistake often made by critics - and is thus perpetuated when not challenged

Date and timeframes as well as source and context is critical to understanding whether people are actually grasping the costs per platform per country or whether they are genuinely confused or trolling

 

[Air Force Brat]

It is a common repeated mistake often made by critics - and is thus perpetuated when not challenged

Date and timeframes as well as source and context is critical to understanding whether people are actually grasping the costs per platform per country or whether they are genuinely confused or trolling

gf, I did not make that statement, I did quote the US Pentagon, as quoted by Inside Defense, today in SitRep that as of Friday 4/13/12. Thats really not in dispute, and I did include that in my post. As to "wind sails" master jack should at least quote me accurately when he wishes to dispute my quotation of Vice Admiral David Ventlet, what the Admiral stated is posted on AOL Defense on line in an Article by Richard Whittle dated 12/01/11, so once again for the record.

"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the "program" have suprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Admiral David Ventlet stated. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your LUNGS".

1. I was pointing out that if the us pentagon is costing that at 258 million for 2 as of 4/13/12, that beat's info from his gov agrees with that.
2.Thats what it will cost you today, in real time, in real dollars.
3.StobieWan linked that article from AOL with Admiral Ventlet's statement in his post #2024
The admirals statement was/is newsworthy because Admirals charged with completing an assignment, normally don't commiserate in public. For the record in the same AOL article, Admiral Ventlet also states "I don't have the luxury to stand on the pulpit and criticize and say how much I dislike it and wish we didn't have it". end quote, I think most of us can agree thats not a statement a happy camper would make? or a good airplane salesman? Maybe you should call Admiral Ventlet and tell him he's a naysayer or a prophet of doom?

 

[jack412]

As to "wind sails" master jack should at least quote me accurately when he wishes to dispute my quotation of Vice Admiral David Ventlet, what the Admiral stated is posted on AOL Defense on line in an Article by Richard Whittle dated 12/01/11, so once again for the record.

"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the "program" have suprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Admiral David Ventlet stated. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your LUNGS".

1. I was pointing out that if the us pentagon is costing that at 258 million for 2 as of 4/13/12, that beat's info from his gov agrees with that.
2.Thats what it will cost you today, in real time, in real dollars.
3.StobieWan linked that article from AOL with Admiral Ventlet's statement in his post #2024
The admirals statement was/is newsworthy because Admirals charged with completing an assignment, normally don't commiserate in public. For the record in the same AOL article, Admiral Ventlet also states "I don't have the luxury to stand on the pulpit and criticize and say how much I dislike it and wish we didn't have it". end quote, I think most of us can agree thats not a statement a happy camper would make? or a good airplane salesman? Maybe you should call Admiral Ventlet and tell him he's a naysayer or a prophet of doom?

I gave the link to where 3 weeks ago this was the topic
"re the wind sails" wasn't a quote, but was a subject reference


"ps re the wind sails, can you put up the full quote for context, something I have asked you to do before, with the very same quote, or is it your intention to mislead?
I personally think it's time the mods pulled you in, as it was only 3 weeks ago you did the exact same thing, with several posts asking requests and giving context
as shown here"
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...ole-joint-strike-fighter-2013-135/#post241759

It is a common repeated mistake often made by critics - and is thus perpetuated when not challenged

Date and timeframes as well as source and context is critical to understanding whether people are actually grasping the costs per platform per country or whether they are genuinely confused or trolling

He still isn't quoting in context, as the quote refers to concurency costs and hence the reduced buy for the next few years
as my link shows, it was only 3 weeks ago we had the exact same thing.
I'm opting for him deliberately trolling and as such I wish to make a complaint to the moderators

this is the context

http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/01/jsf-build-and-test-was-miscalculation-production-must-slow-v/
WASHINGTON: Fatigue testing and analysis are turning up so many potential cracks and "hot spots" in the Joint Strike Fighter's airframe that the production rate of the F-35 should be slowed further over the next few years, the program's head declared in an interview.

"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Adm. David Venlet said in an interview at his office near the Pentagon.
"Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."
Venlet also took aim at a fundamental assumption of the JSF business model: concurrency. The JSF program was originally structured with a high rate of concurrency -- building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing -- that assumed less change than is proving necessary.

"Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation," Venlet said. "You'd like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, 'Give me that jet back in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what concurrency is doing to us." But he added: "I have the duty to navigate this program through concurrency. I don't have the luxury to stand on the pulpit and criticize and say how much I dislike it and wish we didn't have it. My duty is to help us navigate through it."

 

[LGB]

When it comes to aircraft pricing the number used in budget discussions in the US is unit flyaway. According to the USAF FT2013 Budget the cost (which is an estimate) for 1,763 F-35A's is an average of $112 million. The C and B in the USN FY13 Budget are $139 and $144 million for 321 and 290 aircraft.

Now looking at the FY09 USAF Budget the estimated price for 1,763 A's was $83 million. The numbers are not in the same years dollars; however, in the past 4 years the price estimate by the USAF has gone up around $28 million or roughly by 1/3rd.

If other nations are paying a different price (unit flyaway), or have garnered any savings due to currency differences fine. The price for the largest customer, by a very wide margin, is up about 1/3rd in the past 4 years. In terms of the US it's simply misleading to state the price of the F-35 has not significantly risen.

The issue isn't even the current price. What matters is how much more the price will rise over the next decade.

Finally it's worth mentioning the P-40 in US Budget documents does not line item REC flyaway. The P-40 is the first exhibit in the Budget and for discussion purposes when the US Congress talks about price it's talking about the unit flyaway as listed on the P-40 in official documents. One can pick from a variety of numbers if one desires to inflate the price to further a point of view.

 

[Grand Danois]

When it comes to aircraft pricing the number used in budget discussions in the US is unit flyaway. According to the USAF FT2013 Budget the cost (which is an estimate) for 1,763 F-35A's is an average of $112 million. The C and B in the USN FY13 Budget are $139 and $144 million for 321 and 290 aircraft.

Now looking at the FY09 USAF Budget the estimated price for 1,763 A's was $83 million. The numbers are not in the same years dollars; however, in the past 4 years the price estimate by the USAF has gone up around $28 million or roughly by 1/3rd.

The highlighted is then year $ and fly away. The numbers in the two right-most columns are in then year dollars. Shifting 179 airframes to the right increase then year dollar unit cost even if the unit cost was stable in 2012 $. You are comparing incompatible numbers!

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf

Look into the SARs to get apples-apples numbers.

 

[jack412]

LGB, could you post the link you are quoting from please, then we are all on the same page
At this point I see it as, if we were talking about average usa costs over the fleet, your point would be valid and the definition of what the $112 includes

if you mix 2002 yr dollars and 2012 year dollar or even then year dollars, it gets very muddy indeed

the subject is partner prices, which isn't an average across the usa fleet in any price. This adds confusion because the partners cost is the number of planes brought in a given year at that years cost and then averaged over their total buy in unit recurring flyaway price plus their exclusive costs of procurement.

Canada has for example an estimate of $75m URF and $140m procurement, plus servicing plus fuel, weapons, pilot wages etc to a total, all inclusive lifetime cost of $380m / $25b
their $75m, $140m and $380m estimate is correct, it just depends what you count, no link because this is just a generic example and from different sources

 

[colay]

No, still not official. An unofficial website quoting newspaper reports that unidentified officials have said things. It's only official when you get names.

We had equally 'official' statements before the SDSR in 2010 which turned out to be false.

Agreed, nothing official yet but then there's the RN issuing an intriguing press release..if it walks like a duck, floats like a duck and quack likes a duck...
Coalition set for defence strategy U-turn over carrier jets - UK - Scotsman.com

THE Royal Navy has announced the next generation of aircraft carriers will use the original version of the joint strike fighter (JSF) in an apparent U-turn in the government’s defence strategy.

A press release issued by the Royal Navy said the B-version of JSF, which is being tested over Texas, “will deliver the punch of the Royal Navy’s future carriers at the end of the decade”.

That version of the jet, which is capable of vertical take-off and landing, was originally ordered by the previous Labour government, but ditched by the coalition in favour of a cheaper model...

The Ministry of Defence last night insisted no final decision had yet been made...

The press release came after reports that senior commanders made it clear to Mr Cameron that the government should revert to the B-version and drop the plan of purchasing a C-version.

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf, I did not make that statement, I did quote the US Pentagon, as quoted by Inside Defense, today in SitRep that as of Friday 4/13/12. Thats really not in dispute, and I did include that in my post. As to "wind sails" master jack should at least quote me accurately when he wishes to dispute my quotation of Vice Admiral David Ventlet, what the Admiral stated is posted on AOL Defense on line in an Article by Richard Whittle dated 12/01/11, so once again for the record.

and again, you are quoting without context. CREF Jack412 and his follow up

again. RAAF price in 6 years has not changed, despite all the illinformed and misquoted hysteria promoted by others in forums where the moderation or members are less robust when it comes to ensuring that figures quoted are wrapped around context and relevance.

we have a contracted price - now barring Burbage comes out with any more silly comments about how Australia needs LM, then we will still get JSF. The timeframes may adjust, the tranche options may adjust, but the plane and its capability is being built into ADF C4ISR force development 2020-2045, along with wedgetail and P8's in that air mix.

Now if Burbage has another brain fart, then I imagine that Govt will ramp up its options on another 24 Shornets - much to Boeings delight and where I have no doubt that they would come in cost neutral to seal the deal.

In fact I'd argue that the biggest risk to JSF in a RAAF context is not the slips right, its about Burbage and his intemperate comments. He would do well to remember how the Czechs reacted to LM's threats.

 

[Air Force Brat]

and again, you are quoting without context. CREF Jack412 and his follow up

again. RAAF price in 6 years has not changed, despite all the illinformed and misquoted hysteria promoted by others in forums where the moderation or members are less robust when it comes to ensuring that figures quoted are wrapped around context and relevance.

we have a contracted price - now barring Burbage comes out with any more silly comments about how Australia needs LM, then we will still get JSF. The timeframes may adjust, the tranche options may adjust, but the plane and its capability is being built into ADF C4ISR force development 2020-2045, along with wedgetail and P8's in that air mix.

Now if Burbage has another brain fart, then I imagine that Govt will ramp up its options on another 24 Shornets - much to Boeings delight and where I have no doubt that they would come in cost neutral to seal the deal.

In fact I'd argue that the biggest risk to JSF in a RAAF context is not the slips right, its about Burbage and his intemperate comments. He would do well to remember how the Czechs reacted to LM's threats.

Yes gf, and speaking of your buddy Tom Burbage, Stephen Trimble has quoted him at the National Aeronautics and Aerospace luncheon held 3/01/12, on Steven's blog The Dew Line, on the Flight Global web sight, as Stating that the F-35 will be joining Tom Cruise as a test pilot, in Top Gun Two, maybe they could work you in a cameo spot telling Tom B he better deliver this bird on time and at cost. Any way I'm very sorry, and to you Jack, I would never troll, or misrepresent the facts, and I do give sources or footnotes, but I do take issue with all the joy and smiley faces about the F-35 that read like a LockMart Press release, and not one of you gave any credibility to Gen Ronald Fogleman, who is a man of the highest ethical and military credentials and his concerns, and as you just alluded to the SHornet as an alternative, thats all Gen Fogleman was saying gf, that it was smart to keep our options open. I do not in principle hot link other copyrighted material to web sights, but I do give attribution and sources.
cheers gentlemen!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes gf, and speaking of your buddy Tom Burbage, Stephen Trimble has quoted him at the National Aeronautics and Aerospace luncheon held 3/01/12, on Steven's blog The Dew Line, on the Flight Global web sight, as Stating that the F-35 will be joining Tom Cruise as a test pilot, in Top Gun Two, maybe they could work you in a cameo spot telling Tom B he better deliver this bird on time and at cost. Any way I'm very sorry, and to you Jack, I would never troll, or misrepresent the facts, and I do give sources or footnotes, but I do take issue with all the joy and smiley faces about the F-35 that read like a LockMart Press release, and not one of you gave any credibility to Gen Ronald Fogleman, who is a man of the highest ethical and military credentials and his concerns, and as you just alluded to the SHornet as an alternative, thats all Gen Fogleman was saying gf, that it was smart to keep our options open. I do not in principle hot link other copyrighted material to web sights, but I do give attribution and sources.
cheers gentlemen!

if you look at the commentary coming from those who take a more neutral to plus side of JSF, they are not short of reality comments. I've yet to see any in here (who on the more enthusiastic anti-JSF forums) who have not injected reality comments about the capability, the costing and its potential. I'm sorry to say that my own experience is that over simplification of JSF and its future comes from a number of other sites where context, relevance and a glorious reduction of fact passes for insightful commentary. In the case of the usual soap boxers and aviation experts substitute insightful with inciteful

I'm sure various people at LM have suggested to Burbage that he should pull his head in and have reminded him of how LM's arrogance lost them a "sure thing" with the Czechs.

Other sites can be cross referenced, if they're copywrite protected then use a link that goes to the site rather than display its contents here. We don't breach copywrite on that basis

You'd understand that my (and others) frustration is somewhat tested when we witness the usual canards thrown about on the JSF's continuity and relevance - especially when some of us are seeing the transformation and transition to other force capability which includes JSF and its technology set.

The discussions about the merits of getting 4th gen aircraft to be adequate substitutes for LO capabilities and pointedly JSF are examples where for me in particular, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of future force development issues. eg SHornet starts to lack relevance, irrespective of its capability against other near peers, Growler less so, both however are transition platforms in comparison.

The issue for some time has not been about "if" we get JSF, its about "when" and in what transition cycles. In a well structured air/space construct (and that means GIS, INT, C4ISR as well as the air picture) then pushing for 4th gen demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of how we are forming up to fight - and that includes the other 8 partners. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, build a bolt on capability to a 4th gen asset and expect it to be cost and capability competitive.

So the above comes into play whenever I see comments about cost. You pay for capability - its not a zero sum game.

 

[Vivendi]

Galrahn on F-35.

http://www.inform-ationdissemination.net/2012/04/this-is-obscene.html

No doubt the F-35 will be a game-changer and will be hugely important, however the costs of that project is mind-boggling, even compared to anything else it seems.

As long as we don't know yet how expensive it will be in the end, how can we already say that "it's worth it"?

Norway is still committed though, and recently refused to meet the maker of SH:

American Boeing was promptly rejected as they requested a meeting with the Norwegian authorities to discuss an alternative to purchase fighter planes from Lockheed Martin.

(google translated with minor corrections)

Google Oversetter

I am surprised they even tried. When they approach an F-35 partner like that, does it tell us something about Bs desperation to find new customers, or about potential future F-35 delays, or both?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Let's see:

Lost in India
Lost in Japan
Gave up in Switzerland
Australia backed off buying any more
The USN has no plans to buy more F/A-18s after 2014
Chances don't look good in South Korea
Chances don't look good in Brazil

Boeing definitely sounds desperate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Australia backed off buying any more

Not necessarily.

If Burbage has another brain fart then the Govt would exercise consideration to expand the interim fleet

If LM doesn't know that then they really are stupid. RAAF may want JSF, they'll get it in the end, but the issue for LM is when people buy. They can't afford to do a Czechoslovakia on Australia. We either buy it now or we defer our buy for 5-8 years down the track. The latter is unattractive for LM. In 8 years time we hit the time frame where a mixed force of manned and one squadron of unmanned is up for further consideration.

Don't forget that RAAF relationship with the USN is very very close - better than any other non-oz player.

 

[Haavarla]

The Norwegian Goverment and Secretary of Defence Roger Ingebriksen faces strong critism from other parties over the refusal to meet with Boeing and its proposal.

The short life span left in our old F-16 fleet are widely known and Norway may face the future with none or very few air worthy F-16 in a few years.

Boeings Interim proposal was believed to include a package of 16-24 SH with an avionics suite tailored to operate in the high north artic region. Improved Comunication suite and increased range are some of the proposals.

The Norwegian Goverments and its ruling parties will face stiff questions from the oppositions in an open hearings soon on the F-35 cost and delays issues.

Its in Norwegian, use translator!

Avviste møte med amerikansk forsvarsgigant - Aftenposten


Personaly i think if our Labour party and its coallision parties fail to re-elect, there could be talks with Boeing or possible a re-Tender, but this depends on what the cost and delays on the F-35 program looks like in the near future.

Anyway, i'm very interesting to see what comes out of those open hearings and what the figures from our Defence department look like.