F-35 Program - General Discussion

[RobWilliams]

I was comparing that the unit price for initial F-35s was around the $200 million and now they are around $100 million, yet people still claim that they're still $200 million a pop and climbing.

Unit prices are going down. That's a fact. That's the numbers I was talking about - unit costs.

If an example cost $200 million in 2001, adjusted for inflation into 2012 dollars that's around $300 million. That's not far off triple the money being paid now for aircraft.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The gun was ALWAYS going to be a Block 3F feature.

Block 3F is being written now and integration of the gun will begin VERY shortly.

The gun, on an F-35, will fire this year (in all likelihood).

http://i.imgur.com/QWOC6Xx.jpg

 

[Air Force Brat]

The gun was ALWAYS going to be a Block 3F feature.

Block 3F is being written now and integration of the gun will begin VERY shortly.

The gun, on an F-35, will fire this year (in all likelihood).

http://i.imgur.com/QWOC6Xx.jpg

Thanks Spud, I believe you are no doubt right, and with the Marines going IOC this year, and USAF next year, no doubt the gun will be in the priorities list, though probably not first or second, LOL? Anyway, I appreciate the accurate and timely information and more importantly reassurance here on DT.

So can some one give us a cogent response to critics that are all in a flap because we only have 180 rounds in our magazine???
I never carry my AR with more than 20, simply because it is much handier, and I actually prefer a 5 or 10?

 

[RobWilliams]

So can some one give us a cogent response to critics that are all in a flap because we only have 180 rounds in our magazine??

I'd imagine whichever side they sit on the A-10 debate has a bit to do with it, some places say 180 is a single tactical burst whereas others say 4 - 5.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I'd imagine whichever side they sit on the A-10 debate has a bit to do with it, some places say 180 is a single tactical burst whereas others say 4 - 5.

I'd say the 4 to 5 is on the money, if you are intercepting a Bear Bomber, the gun allows you to send a message or issue the "coupe de gras"?

 

[SpudmanWP]

So can some one give us a cogent response to critics that are all in a flap because we only have 180 rounds in our magazine???

I can think of three things that contribute to the reduction of rounds carried.

1. A higher pK for AIMs reduces the need for the gun
2. The GAU-22 is more accurate than the M61A1, thereby reducing the rounds needed to take out an adversary.
3. The round carried for the F-35 weighs more than the rounds carried for the F-16. Since the round weighs more, it carries more impact energy thereby reducing the rounds needed to take out an adversary.

These are not unique to the F-35 either:

The Mig 29/35 and SU-27/30/35 all have 150 rounds for their gun (30mm)
The Eurofighter carries 150 rounds (27mm) when it actually carries a gun
The Rafale carries 125 rounds (30mm)
The Gripen carries 120 rounds (27mm)

So in reality, the F-35A carries between 20-50% more ammo than top-tier, 4th gen non-US fighters. Since most of them are 30mm, the "throw weight" evens out for the most part.

Now, let's talk A-10.

That beast of a plane was built around the gun for a reason. It is a massive gun with an equally massive ammo drum. The reason why it carries so much ammo is simple, the gun was the only cost effective tank-killer of it's day. In it's era, PGMs either did not exist or were so expensive (Maverick) that they had to come up with some other way to effectively and accurately take out vehicles.

 

[RobWilliams]

I imagine the biggest concern about the capacity of the gun is based around how many CAS runs it could do before it runs dry supporting troops in contact.

I can't really say because ultimately I have no idea.

In terms of A2A, you're dead right.

It's a bit ironic recently that I've read US Govt documents saying that the USN/USMC aren't as fussed about that role as the USAF but they'll end up with more rounds, albeit in an external pod.

 

[SpudmanWP]

It's a bit ironic recently that I've read US Govt documents saying that the USN/USMC aren't as fussed about that role as the USAF but they'll end up with more rounds, albeit in an external pod.

I think the reason the pod carries more is that it "can" and that being a pod makes it not as accurate thereby needing more ammo to ensure a kill.

I see lowcost PGMs as the answer going forward for CAS anyways. Think (cheapest first) APKWS, LG-Zuni, JDAM (and LJDAM), L-SDB (not to be confused with SDB2), etc.

 

[RobWilliams]

I think the reason the pod carries more is that it "can" and that being a pod makes it not as accurate thereby needing more ammo to ensure a kill.

I think there's quite a lot of promise for that pod, replace the gun + ammunition holder with other kit, could be quite handy.

I see lowcost PGMs as the answer going forward for CAS anyways. Think (cheapest first) APKWS, LG-Zuni, JDAM (and LJDAM), L-SDB (not to be confused with SDB2), etc.

That's certainly the trend for the RAF, lower yield, lower collateral damage warheads.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I think there's quite a lot of promise for that pod, replace the gun + ammunition holder with other kit, could be quite handy.

Terma, the manufacturer of the pod housing, is already marketing it as a carrier of other equipment.

F-35 Multi Mission Pod on Display

http://www.terma.com/media/199692/terma_update_july_2012.pdf

btw, The center hardpoint has the same high-speed datalink as the other hardpoints so it can integrate well into the avionics suite without a rewire.

 

[swerve]

I was comparing that the unit price for initial F-35s was around the $200 million and now they are around $100 million, yet people still claim that they're still $200 million a pop and climbing.

Unit prices are going down. That's a fact. That's the numbers I was talking about - unit costs.

If an example cost $200 million in 2001, adjusted for inflation into 2012 dollars that's around $300 million. That's not far off triple the money being paid now for aircraft.

In 2001, we were told that by now an F-35 (unit price, not including development) would cost around $50 mn in 2001 dollars. That's about $67 mn in 2014 dollars (your inflation estimate is too high).

What you're saying is that the price has dropped from a level it was predicted never to reach, down to a level it was supposed to reach only for a small number of initial examples, & therefore the price hasn't gone up.

True, it's coming down, & some of the stories about unit prices are bollocks (as with all military aircraft). But allowing for that, allowing for predicted future falls in costs, taking out development & adjusting for inflation, expected unit price over the whole production run is still about 80%* higher than was officially predicted in 2001.

*More than programme unit cost. Development costs have gone up by less then production cost.

 

[ADMk2]

In 2001, we were told that by now an F-35 (unit price, not including development) would cost around $50 mn in 2001 dollars. That's about $67 mn in 2014 dollars (your inflation estimate is too high).

What you're saying is that the price has dropped from a level it was predicted never to reach, down to a level it was supposed to reach only for a small number of initial examples, & therefore the price hasn't gone up.

True, it's coming down, & some of the stories about unit prices are bollocks (as with all military aircraft). But allowing for that, allowing for predicted future falls in costs, taking out development & adjusting for inflation, expected unit price over the whole production run is still about 80%* higher than was officially predicted in 2001.

*More than programme unit cost. Development costs have gone up by less then production cost.

The cost coming down to that level was predicated upon a production ramp up that hasn't happened because the US Congress has subsequently failed to fund and authorise it.

Since that has happened, why the fixation on a price that was only ever predicted if certain things occurred remains, is a mystery to me.

They didn't, so that price never had a chance of being reached. However the current price as it stands is more than reasonble in comparison to other options in the marketplace, given the capability that can be acquired for that price, including L-M's own advanced F-16 derivatives, which is the point they seem to be spruiking nowadays.

 

[Eskodas]

The F-35 had a 2001 approved program price of $2003 63 million which is 78.6 in $2012, in 2014 the SAR indicated a program price of $2012 108.7 million, which is a 38% increase.

www .gao.gov/new.items/d03476. pdf

breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/F-35-2013-SAR. pdf


As to the program pushback in delays causing increased prices you can quiet clearly see that here with the increased support costs for the last few years.

i.imgur.com/PgFiDY9. png

Sorry for the spaced links, can't post properly yet.

 

[RobWilliams]

O

In 2001, we were told that by now an F-35 (unit price, not including development) would cost around $50 mn in 2001 dollars. That's about $67 mn in 2014 dollars (your inflation estimate is too high).

What you're saying is that the price has dropped from a level it was predicted never to reach, down to a level it was supposed to reach only for a small number of initial examples, & therefore the price hasn't gone up.

True, it's coming down, & some of the stories about unit prices are bollocks (as with all military aircraft). But allowing for that, allowing for predicted future falls in costs, taking out development & adjusting for inflation, expected unit price over the whole production run is still about 80%* higher than was officially predicted in 2001.

*More than programme unit cost. Development costs have gone up by less then production cost.

Ah I see what you're saying now!

To be honest, I wasn't factoring in the predicted costs at all because I haven't really looked at them. I've just been dealing with production costs per airframe during production.

But ADMk2 does have a point, IIRC by the original schedule within the next year or two FRP-1 was due to begin with something like 80-100+ a year or something like that. Now thats not going to be happening until 2019/2020 (that's the number rattling around my head, don't have a source to hand right now) since the LRIP slots have grown IIRC.

I'm optimistic about the unit price, I'm very optimisic. Because once full rate production hits, we're going to see more price reductions rolling in.

 

[StobieWan]

Oh, I've always just stuck to challenging misquoted prices - the gun article from the DailyBeast quoted $180m for a jet for instance - I've pointed out you can get one on LRIP 8 for $95m so ner.

I've also challenged cost estimates pulled out of people's backsides - one over dinner conversation was "four times the price of a "normal" jet - had fun with that one.

 

[swerve]

The F-35 had a 2001 approved program price of $2003 63 million which is 78.6 in $2012, in 2014 the SAR indicated a program price of $2012 108.7 million, which is a 38% increase.
www .gao.gov/new.items/d03476. pdf

breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/F-35-2013-SAR. pdf

As to the program pushback in delays causing increased prices you can quiet clearly see that here with the increased support costs for the last few years.

i.imgur.com/PgFiDY9. png

Sorry for the spaced links, can't post properly yet.

I think you've confused procurement & programme costs. From page 21 of your second link
Procurement cost 2012 $ mn - 260618.7 - divided by 2443 = $106.8 mn
Programme cost 2012 $ mn - 323493.5 - divided by 2457 = $131.7 mn

 

[ADMk2]

Ah I see what you're saying now!

To be honest, I wasn't factoring in the predicted costs at all because I haven't really looked at them. I've just been dealing with production costs per airframe during production.

But ADMk2 does have a point, IIRC by the original schedule within the next year or two FRP-1 was due to begin with something like 80-100+ a year or something like that. Now thats not going to be happening until 2019/2020 (that's the number rattling around my head, don't have a source to hand right now) since the LRIP slots have grown IIRC.

I'm optimistic about the unit price, I'm very optimisic. Because once full rate production hits, we're going to see more price reductions rolling in.

Thanks mate. But the point is glaringly obvious to those who aren't being disingenuous.

The 'predicted' price point that hasn't been met was only 'predicted' based on assumptions that haven't been fulfilled, and are only observable through the benefit of hindsight.

Partly that is due to poor contractor performance and partly that is due to US Congress making demands that the program proceed along a certain path and then not fund the path that Congress said it wanted.

Despite this, many 'naysayers' still cling to the idea that the F-35 is somehow a failure because it hasn't met a 'predicted' price point.

But then, as you are undoubtedly aware they cling to the idea that the F-35 is a failure with every single bit of ill-informed commentary that exists.

The 'software glitch' relating to the 25mm gun 'not being able to fire' is just the latest in absolute nonsense written about this program.

As if software (Block 3F as programmed...) that needs to be written that hasn't yet been completed, is somehow a 'glitch'. If the F-35 not yet having Block 3F software is a 'glitch' then I can only imagine how many 'glitches' exist in every other tactical fighter that exists on the planet. The F-22A Raptor doesn't have an EO/IR pod, OR an IRST sensor and can't drop a laser guided bomb. Something strike fighters did in Vietnam. Yet it is rated THE most lethal fighter aircraft on the planet. Is that a 'glitch'? I'm confused suddenly...

Might as well write that the year 2016 is a 'glitch' because it hasn't happened yet...

 

[swerve]

Pointing out the cost overruns of the project ain't the same as saying the F-35 is a failure. In my case, I've never called it a failure, & certainly don't think it is one - but I've spent years arguing with fanboys who've told me it's going to have a flyaway cost of $n, where n is based on out of date predictions of costs, lower than the official cost estimates at the time. Hence my keenness to quote the current official estimates.

I'm as ready to argue with those who say it'll cost $200 mn as those who quote old underestimates, & I think I'm not alone in that. That's not exactly anti-F-35, is it?

PS. Used to be same with F-22.

I recall someone who said (I think truthfully) he was an F-22 pilot who said he knew exactly what the flyaway price was, because he'd collected one from LM & had to sign for it, & the price was on the documents he signed. Of course, he didn't know that didn't include the GFE, such as the engines, although he could easily (by asking) have found out. Doh! Even people deep inside sometimes make big mistakes about things not in their immediate area of expertise.

 

[John Fedup]

The only price that counts is the one on the purchase order and the one on LM's invoice. Hopefully the numbers match. All other numbers are just noise.

 

[Air Force Brat]

The only price that counts is the one on the purchase order and the one on LM's invoice. Hopefully the numbers match. All other numbers are just noise.

Well Gentlemen, when it comes to the defense of the USA and I would assume AUS and GB, money is NO OBJECT! We live in a dangerous world, if the bean counters leave us defenseless, they are men without vision. I watch my money carefully, but when it comes to home defense, I am well prepared!

The F-35 is imperative to the defense of my nation, and I assume yours as well, so lets stick together and build a bunch of em! The bad guys aren't going to be concerned with our GDP, they are like a pack of Jackals waiting for an opportunity???