The USAF does the same in its budget documents. As mentioned earlier, it often turns out that the price negotiated by the JPO is different from the amount that the DOD budgets for the product. In the case of the LRIP 7 it was 22% lower than what was budgeted. At times the services have to pay more then what they have budgeted or expected..

Bring

Unfortunately we can officialy put a grave on the idea that somehow the JPO had got a 22% discount over what the USAF had budgeted for LRIP7…
And using the JPO and LM official documents. I�ve checked it out, De Brigantis got the numbers all wrong (but the general idea of the article is correct).
Thing is, the JPO spokesman, Joe DellaVedova, when mentioned the 98 million bit for LRIP 7 just forgot to say that it didnt included things like the engine (and ECO, non recurring costs and ancilary equipment, wich are all part of the definition of whats a “Fly Away Unit Cost” in the USAF parlance).
Its the bleeding contract between LM and the JPO, it doesnt cover a bucket load of things that are needed to have an aircraft, namely the engine.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip-6-7-contract-agreements

The “Fly Away Unit Cost” for a LRIP 7 F-35A is 126.859 million us$, has stated in the 2015 USAF Budget, and thats the end of it.

So yes, Bogdan is (respectufully) entirely nuts if he belives in that 2019 prediction and he´s bollocking numbers. Well, he´s just the latest JSF Program Executive Officer, on a long line, who has bollocked numbers.
But i´ll be happy if they prove me wrong 🙂

Cheers

19 March 2014 – World’s first formation flight between a single engined 5th generation jet fighter and a twin engined WWII-era fighter where both aircraft were named “Lightning.”

hops,

:dev2:

That photo either belongs to the JSF topic or the historical forúm, or both, not here.
Nothing against a bit of bantering (quite the oposite) but be a nice chap and move along, ok? Next a photo with a Rafale on it would be apreciated.

Cheers
ps – A photo with the F-35, the Bac Lightning and the P-38, now thats a photo i woud like to see

I never said you based your Research on his article, sorry if it came across as that, what I meant was that ” here’s a quote from an article” :). I only used the JPO quote from the article to show what the office had to say about the apparent discrepancy between the bogdan prediction (80-85 million) and the budget documents.

Ok

Apparently the JPO head thinks they can save money over and above what is budgeted.

I sincerely hope they can. I have been watching the JSF and Eurofighter´s program costs for years, between the two the future of something like 80% of NATO (and to a smaller degree) western nations fast jet fleets depends on those two programs. Both have been doing the same bleeding mistakes and they are going to end up a lot more expensive than it was originaly planned, smaller fleets, and the smaller nations might get excluded from the fast jet business…

Speaking to reporters in Canberra on 12 March, Gen Bogdan cited a price of USD80-85 million per aircraft in 2019 dollars, inclusive of engine, manufacturer’s profit and inflation.We’re pretty confident we are going to get there”, he said, noting that this figure could fall should further orders be received but could also rise if any existing customers cancelled or deferred planned acquisitions.

Speaking in February 2013 at the Avalon air show near Melbourne, Gen Bogdan said that Australia could expect to pay about USD90 million each (in 2020 dollars) for the F-35A variant, rather than the USD67 million suggested by manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

http://www.janes.com/article/35212/pentagon-f-35-chief-suggests-unit-cost-of-80-85-million

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1482

Not sure what “COST” he is referring to but one would assume that the metric would be the same when he talks about what it costs NOW vs what he thinks it will cost @ full rate of production..Every cost metric (procurement side) should see a proportional reduction anyhow, although the total cost numbers will definitely be different..

If he includes inflation and if he was talking in 2019 US dollars, he should be fired. Simple as that.

You cant have the latest USAF Budget saying this:

Recurring Cost (2019)
Airframe – 58.995
CFE Electronics – 17.458
GFE Electronics – /
Engines – 12.725
Armament – /
ECO – 1.784

and this (2019):

Flyaway Unit Cost ($ in Millions) – 97.117

and the JSF Program Executive Officer stating numbers in the 80/85 million US$ ballpark at the same time. Its ridiculous.
Did i forget to mention that the numbers present in past Budget´s have been incredibly optimistic?
So either Bogdan bollocked the numbers (in wich case he would simply be the last in a long line of JSF Program Executives “bollocking” the numbers), or he was mis-interpreted by the Journos.

And the US Navy ASW Fleet Challenge 2014 was just won by… the RAF!
An entirely RAF crew “scraped” from seedcorn picked up a P-8 and went winning an ASW competition…

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80308

ACKSONVILLE, Fla. (NNS) — Fleet Challenge 2014 wrapped up its annual anti-submarine warfare competition April 10 at Naval Air Station Jacksonville.

This year’s winners were the allied P-8A Poseidon aircrew from the Pro’s Nest of Patrol Squadron (VP) 30, followed closely in second place by VP-4 Skinny Dragons flying the P-3C, and third place taken by a VP-5 Mad Fox crew in a P-8A.

“Fleet Challenge was a great, challenging experience and a superb opportunity to fly together as a British crew on a real submarine target,” said Royal Air Force Master Aircrewman Mark Utting from VP-30. “As with all anti-submarine warfare flights you have to remain flexible, and the submarine never does what you think it will. That being said, we had planned for all eventualities and the sortie went well.”

The cynic in me says that Boeing is delighted :dev2:

I´ll get me hat :angel:

another prototype model apparently shown to Medvedev. looks similar to the german bomber

Thats a BWB wing and its not a bomber design, think civilian transport configuration first, possible airlifter configuration second. No Bomber.

You can only save initial purchase cost by dropping features along with a lower cost for smaller planes airframe. My statement is based on a scenario where they choose a smaller plane but then try and cram all P-8 level of equipment into it.

Oh, i see. Trying to “cram” a P-8 level of equipment into a smaller airframe might well be a very fine way of having a more expensive aircraft than the original P-8!

My comment was on the assumption that you were comparing the two designs that were publicly touted as the “leading” contenders for the RAF future requirement, an Airbus C-295 variant and the P-8.
In truth seeing that there are dozens of RAF chapies flying in P-8�s and there�s no one stationed with the likes of the Portuguese (or the Irish) Air Force, its a fair bet that there�s a favored option.