So let me get this straight… The only way the F-35 is better is if you actually have to take it to war?

Gee, why would anyone consider war performance when selecting a weapons system?

Dumbasses

No, the report doesnt say that “the F-35 is better”, it says that some of the aircrafts are better for that particular mission, wich ones is not disclosed.
Boeing must have loved that report…

Yes, first he had to adjust the contracts he included, next he included the JPO response then had to include
So you have JPO telling him the Unit costs for each contract, and his dismissal of those. His major fail is trying to prove a rise in unit cost between LRIP contracts; as I’ve pointed out, and JPO pointed out, his methodology is flawed.

There really isn’t much more to say.

Let me throw a wrench in here.
Is the USAF methodology flawed? Because the latest official USAF Budget released in February this year also says that the “Fly Away Unit Cost” for FY 2014 is almost twenty millions higher for the same aircraft acquired through the FY 2013 budget (126.859 millions in FY2013, 145.062 millions in 2014).
To be perfectly clear for everybody, the USAF official budget says something not too distant of what De Brigantis wrote.
The only diference between the USAF numbers and the ones declared by Deladova is that the USAF also considers the non-recurring costs (things like concurrency…).
While De Brigantis can be criticised by pilling every contract on the JSF and then present it has something akin to “acquisition cost” divided by numbers of aircrafts built in one year, the numbers from the JPO should also be taken with a grain of salt. The numbers of what the JPO declare are correct, but they have this tendency to do the opposite of De Brigantis, not declaring costs that are clearly related to production.

Document here:
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140310-041.pdf

Cheers

I have not seen any quote from EF that they share bearing data in order to generate a track.

Available quotes in severall articles by AW and Flight Global, by Selex officials (Bob Mason by example) and severall Eurofighter chaps (dont remember the names).Discussed “ad nauseun” in the apropriate topic.

The laser rangefinder is on the “other” twin delta canard.

Cheers

um… Follow-on Development (PSFD)

Thats part of the name of a document, more precisely the 2006 MOU signed by the JSF partners. The Non Recurring Costs dont cover the R&D described in that document, they cover the non-recurring tools needed to produce the aircraft (thats part of the “P” in “PSFD”).

Cheers

The next American aircraft will probably be twice the size of Typhoon; the difference in requirements is too great for a trans-Atlantic project.

Correct. End of story.

The British and the French will almost certainly develop “something” in order to replace part (or the total) of their fast jet fleets, Germany will eventually “plug and play” in some program has a junior partner, it might be European or Trans-Atlantic, dont expect any serious move for about a decade. Sweden will keep churning Gripens for the next decade and a half, and unless the Russians go beserk, the Flygvapnet will only worry for a replacement two decades from now, the rest of Europe doesnt exist in terms of Aerospace Industry and whoever doesnt have the money to acquire the F-35A will either make a trek to Lynkoping or acquire second hand airframes of whatever will be available at the time they go shoping.

Comparative Chart Brazil / Sweden

width: 600	class: grid	align: right
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Brazil[/td]
[td]Sweden[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Active Personel[/td]
[td]328.000[/td]
[td] 14.000[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Military Budget[/td]
[td]US$ 33	143 Billion[/td]
[td]US$ 6	209 Billion[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Gripen E/F Fleet[/td]
[td]108[/td]
[td] 60[/td]
[/tr]

In fact the Military Brazil budget could be capable to finance the acquisition and operation from 108 Gripen E / F, however this number in Brazil Military Budget does not correspond to reality.

This Military Brazil budget were planned for the year, but not actually carried out since the Brazil has been incapable to use all these resources, once a share of this budget has been keeping frozen (locked) by the Government of Brazil.

Due to major structural problems of the finances from Government of Brazil, the same has been paying high bank interest rates from its domestic debt, which results in an amount that could match to 5% of GDP (or something like US $ 110 Billions) per year.

The Government of Brazil in each every year makes budgets, but it can not perform all those planned investments inside the budget, since it always has been occurred one or two facts:

1. the tax collection has keep below that were planned
2. The Government has been spending in priority goals more than planned.

Thus the Government of Brazil has always keep a share from its intire budge frozen to cover any possible holes in tax collection or in the expenditures .

The fact should be that every year such holes has been happened, and how the Military Budget are not a priority for Government of Brazil, such frozen share of this budget from Military Forces has been used for this goal.

Indeed the Military Forces can not use all resources supposedly approved, since the government has not released it effectively, as well as using those frozen funding to cover the fiscal deficit in each year.

This is a chronic problem that has been occurring for decades, however there is not much chance for this to be corrected in the short or medium term.

So in actual values Brazil’s budget has always been keeping lower than that were reported because of the problem about frozen resources.

By withdrawing the frozen part of the budget, the personnel expenses could be reach at a rate of 80% from effective budget since the Government can’t block this spending. However the other 20% of this effective budget should cover all other expenses such as maintenance of facilities and equipment; training; operations; R & D; acquisition of new equipments.

In this case when considering that Sweden would have spent 50% from budget with personnel, it could illustrated in this table:

Comparative Chart Brazil / Sweden

width: 600	class: grid	align: right
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Brazil[/td]
[td]Sweden[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Active Personel[/td]
[td]328.000[/td]
[td] 14.000[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Military Budget[/td]
[td]US$ 33	143 Billion[/td]
[td]US$ 6	209 Billion[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Frozen Budget[/td]
[td]US$ 4	971 Billion[/td]
[td] 0[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Personnel Expenses[/td]
[td]US$ 22	537 Billion[/td]
[td] US$ 3	204 Billion[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Budget remained[/td]
[td]US$ 5	634 Billion[/td]
[td]US$ 3	204 Billion[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Gripen NG in contract[/td]
[td]36[/td]
[td]60[/td]
[/tr]

Despite the resources for other activities is higher in Brazil almost in 80% from Sweden, the Brazil Military forces are much wider that Sweden, as well as the territory of the Brazil.

In short Brazil has a lot from more expenses than Sweden itself, which would allow the Sweden to be able to buy more Gripen NG than Brazil ,due the Brazilian plague of the frozen budget.

Last answer, i am getting tired of correcting public available data for you.
The Swedish defense budget is public (and is in English), its exactly 41 Billion SEK, 5.5 Billion US$, the budget for hardware (acquisition of new material, maintenance, etc) and development for 2014 was 16.5 billion SEK, thats 2 Billion US$, the Brasilian Defense Budget is also public, albeit only in Portuguese, in 2013 they´ve spent 9 Billion Reais, almost 4 Billion US$, just in new kit, and another 9.3 Billion Reais in maintenance. 2 Billion US$ versus almost 8 Billion US$.
Official numbers, end of story.

LRIP 8 just got signed.
Main points:

. A 3.5% discount by unit over LRIP7 (thats for the LM contract)
. 53 aircrafts contracted (35 in LRIP 7), 39 for the US, 14 for international customers
. $94.8 million per airframe for the F-35A, $102 million per F-35B and $115.7 per F-35C according to the JPO (Doesnt include government funded items, mainly the Engine, doesnt include non-recurring costs, doesnt include concurrency, etc)
. Known concurrency is, cost wise, split by half between the customers and LM
. “Newly discovered concurrency changes identified during the LRIP 8 production period will be authorized via engineering change proposals,” (costs agreements undisclosed)
. No news on the engine contract, but P&W has agreed to shoulder 100% of the cost to modify fielded engines and redesign future production examples after that “rubbing” thingy

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-seals-4.7bn-deal-for-latest-lot-of-f-35-fighters-406381/