VnomadNot; the Fly Away Unit Cost in 2013 was 126.859 million US$, for 2014, well i´ll let you see with you own eyes, its a very interesting number. What you call the “flyaway cost” of “$110M” is actually the Unit Recurring Fly Away Cost (take the Non Recurring Costs and the ancillary equipments of the Fly Away Unit Cost and you get that number) for the (yet to be signed) 2015 LRIP9 (and its actually 112.86$ millions)…
I just love when the JPO uses the “URFC” and calls it the “Fly Away”… Or even worse, when they use the LM annual production contract.
I though we were discussing URFC only, which is why we’re comparing the $75M figure to the $55M for the SH (which would presumably rise after the latter’s production winds down).
Here you go, page 37: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140310-041.pdf
Cheers.
I really don’t what to make of that. Weapons systems cost in 2013, $145 million. Flyaway unit cost next year, also $145 million?!! Wild swings in cost between 2013, 2014 & 2015, even accounting for varying non-recurring costs. Only explanation I can think of is that SDD specific expenditure i.e. on modifications is unevenly spread over that period. Which still wouldn’t explain why the costs in 2019 are lower than for subsequent FRP aircraft, built presumably at a higher rate.
VnomadIt is constantly mentioned that the F35 is to be considered an Air Superiority Fighter, yet NO evidence to support that “Dream” has materialized….in fact, to the contrary, there have been reports out of the US Pentagon itself clearly stating that under NO circumstances is an F35 CAPABLE of being a self protecting airframe…They are already in advanced planning to ensure that all F35’s will have F22’s flying protection for them…..as released by the Pentagon some time ago…….The F35 IS NOT manouverable enough to engage in any form of “dogfight”……and in fact is really middle range for ANY task assigned it…..it NEVER excells at anything……
Unfortunately you simply haven’t read enough. ^ this is what you’d expect on a youtube comments page rather than Keypub. Passionate… but ignorant (sorry about the bluntness). Try to find out how the EODAS functions with the HMDS in a ‘dogfight’ and capabilities of the Aim-9X Blk2 and (upcoming) Blk3. How many F-22s do the USN & USMC operate? (To say nothing of the RAF/RN, IsAF etc.)
Each to their own…..but in reality, the F35 will not now or ever fit Canada……….and I doubt it will for most other Nations either……..only the USA, and hey we saw how well the F22’s went right?
Do you? Google Northern Edge 2006 & Red Flag 2007.
VnomadVNomad – You can spit a long way, apparently. The lowest projected cost for an F-35A that I have seen is $75m, URFC with engine, 2019 delivery, then-year, 160 jets per year. That includes promised but not guaranteed cost reductions.
First I’m reading about ‘160 jets per year’. Most sources say the $75M is the cost of an aircraft ordered in 2018 and delivered in 2020 (in 2014 dollars). That’s associates to a production run of around 120 units per year (LRIP 11 will reportedly be about 110 units).
The URFC for a Super Hornet in 2012 – the actual cost paid, off a far smaller production run, for a larger and carrier-capable airplane with two engines, and about half the run being two-seaters – is $54 million, or $62 million. Not huge in itself – but then not quite apples-to-apples and with a ton of factors favoring the F-35.
Last I read, the Super Hornet’s production rate was 48/yr (compared to 11/yr for the Rafale) and being scaled down to 36/yr. In the absence of further orders that’ll be drawn down to 24/yr, supposedly the minimum required to keep the line profitable. From the perspective of an export customer like Canada, what impact will that have on its unit cost? Even a generous assumption wouldn’t put the RUFC lower than $65M at current day prices.
The F-35C has a 2019 flyaway unit cost of $119 million. The FY2013 cost for the F-18 was $61m, or $68.5 m in 2019.
The F-35C is not relevant to anyone not operating a CATOBAR capable carrier. Any comparison has to be with the F-35A (unless we’re talking about the USN). Super Hornet at $65M or F-35A at $75M. Most customers would prefer the latter.
I shall await with interest a guaranteed, sign-on-the-dotted line price for the F-35 that is anywhere near that of Gripen, along with the 35 per cent cost reduction (from where? to what?).
35% cost reduction from the current $110M tag (brought down to $70M). The differential on procurement prices with the Gripen will of course be greater (as will the combat capability delivered).
As to the $75M price tag –
(From Spudman’s channel) – Watch from 02:45
VnomadAgree Jay: does it fit ?
in case of Canada, no, i dont think it does, this is not a cost effective interceptor in any shape or form
.
.
besides, most other nations is also first and foremost looking to defend their airspace,
rather than attacking someone
Lets be clear here. Are we discussing an aircraft for air policing or for air combat? If all the nation wants is a traffic cop for the skies, then yes F-35s for an air gendarmerie is certainly a huge overkill.
If the AF wants to gear up for warfare, there are two possibilities. Either the case is like Brazil or Switzerland, where the threat scenario isn’t any worse than that facing Mexico or Ireland, and having combat capable fighter fleet is as much for the esteem factor as it is for defence. The other case is that of Canada, Norway and the like, which have genuine defensive requirements and a history of participating in (US-led) expeditionary campaigns.
Some Canadians like Jay would suggest that only the interception mission should matter, so lets discount other possible missions and focus purely on interception for now. Interception against? If you have your (normal) Russian bomber patrols mucking around on the border – the EF is ideal but pricey, the Rafale a little less so (owing an less-than-impressive radar) but the perfect solution is the F-15E (or CF-15). Fast, long ranged, great radar, good payload, reasonable cost… all good.
But if god-forbid a flight of PAK FAs comes over that horizon, they’ll rue the day they settled for a ‘regular’ aircraft. What do you employ to intercept that? Ideally, the F-22 but that’s not available. The perfect aircraft ironically would have been the PAK FA itself but that’s not possible because of obvious reasons. Regardless of what public opinion on F-35 vs PAK FA is, the fact remains its the only western aircraft available that convincingly hold its own against the PAK FA.
That only downside is the single engine. But is the Canadian requirement in this matter unique? After all, the USAF will be basing F-35 squadrons in Alaska (also large and remote) and the USN, USMC & RN will be using theirs over ‘large water bodies’. Not an ideal situation perhaps but given the reliability of modern turbofans (despite the recent F135 news) its certainly worth the compromise.
VnomadShill: “The F-35 has a fourth-generation price tag”
Critic: “Er, no it does not [produces detailed budgetary estimates], not even at 3-4X the production rate of anything else, not even if the cost reduction promises materialize.”
– What detailed budgetary estimate? The flyaway cost is already down to $110M. Its already within spitting distance of 4.5G aircraft.
– A price reduction of just 20%, for a production rate increase of 400%, would bring it comfortably in the Rafale-Eurofighter bracket. (They’re aiming for a 35% reduction which would make it competitive with the Gripen.)
Shill: “HMDS, TDP yada yada”
Critic: “Ya got about $2 million there. Try harder.”
$4 mil+ for a first time order. (Just for perspective, the difference between the Rafale and EF, in the Indian MMRCA competition was supposed to be about $5M.)
Shill: “It’s still better value”.
Enough to make Boeing consider quitting the fighter making business.
Vnomadpurchase cost is but a fraction of total cost, beats me why you get so hung up on it,
its the operational cost that makes the difference.
As a rule of thumb, purchase cost is usually about a third of the life-cycle cost. The crucial difference is that the acquisition is usually structured to last just a few years, which could potentially stress military budgets over that period, while the operating cost is spread out over a very long period (40 years for the F-35 @ 200hr/yr).
Lets say a country orders 36 F-35As, each priced at a procurement cost of $150M (a conservative figure), and delivered at the rate of 12 units annually after a lead time of two years.
Annual Cost of Acquisition: $150M x 12 = $1800M
Annual Cost of Operation: 36 x 200hrs x $30K/hr = $216M
Even accounting for higher than budgeted operating costs, purchase price does end up being the single most important factor for an aircraft being considered by a country/AF.
VnomadNo, I am sorry, I hear what you saying, but this is not substantiated fact. For all we know LM may be dropping its profit margin or losing money in some other way simply to keep the cost down hoping the situation will improve when the big numbers come on.
There is a paradox here. The plane is expensive, but it will go down as more are sold. So you want the taxpayers to pay more now so they have a cheaper option tommorrow but still pay tomorrow again? Why? The US may not be Greece, but its economy is not much better off in terms of debt. The only difference is that the US prints money. But for how long before its (chinese held bonds) become trash?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.statista.com/statistics/270409/national-debt-of-greece/(and don’t forget, USA prints its own money….. 😉 )
that’s all…………………….
As it happens Greece prints its own money as well (even if key interest rates are determined by the ECB).
Vnomadthere is no evidence yet that the price is going to drop to realistic levels. The whole logic is flawed. It relies on USA buying more than 2000 of these to drive the prices down. What if approval is never given and say the US only buys 600.. what then?
It does not rely ‘on USA buying more than 2000 of these’. The main determinant of the unit cost is the production rate. The $70-75M price in question is for the start of the FRP phase. Which means if the ‘US only
buys 600′, about 450 of them will be delivered at the <$80M price.
VnomadAccording to the USAF there wont be an F-35A at $70-75M fly away unit cost (in then year) US$ ever (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140310-041.pdf page 37).
The server at http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil can’t be found, because the DNS lookup failed.
And if you are talking about the Fly Away Unit Cost excluding non recurring costs and ECO, your Super Hornet is on the 55 million dollar apiece bracket.
Call it $55M then (do post a link though if you have it). The F-35A still offers better value-for-money assuming they can deliver for under $80M. (BTW does the $55M tag include the cost of an HMDS & LDP?)
VnomadWake me up when that happens. Would you buy a sports car for $110k if it has announced price of $70k in later, improved batches? I mean who is that stupid?
If you’re willing to wait a couple of years for your sports car, go ahead. The fact that prices will fall are still not in dispute ($110M down from $250M for the first batch).
The bulk of the F-35 orders will be delivered after 2020. Most operators will capitalize on lower prices.
VnomadThat’s nice except in spite of the mass manufacture and parts commonality the F-35 is still way more costly than the competitors which are made in low-rate production..
The F-35A is about $110M flyaway currently which will fall to $70-75M after the production ramp up.
The same figure for Rafale is about $80M, for the Eurofighter probably around $85-90M and about $65M for the Super Hornet.
The difference is hardly vast.
VnomadSo…no need for F-35…
Let get this straight…it has less range than an F-16,cant use the same weapons and is more expensive…less potential for future versions…it only edge is its RCS…
The only factually correct part about ^^ was the ‘more expensive’ part.
VnomadJust to reiterate, the conflict in Ukraine started not with NATO’s involvement but with Ukraine preparing to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union. In fact, until last year polls indicated that the vast majority of the Ukrainian public wanted nothing to do with NATO while seeking closer ties with the EU.
Whatever opinions one may have about NATO in the post-Cold War era, the EU is generally regarded as a benign entity. Economically, there are upsides and downsides to membership but it is certainly not an instrument of Western imperialism or any other form of hegemony.
However an association agreement with EU would have punctured Putin’s pet project i.e. Eurasian Economic Union. The irony is that not too long ago Russia was viewed, with some certainty, as an future member of the EU.
VnomadI assume that the engine design problems mean that the production line at Fort Worth has basically stopped producing complete aircraft, as any engines that were in stock are not fit for purpose until they have been modified etc, what this will do to the unit cost in this year’s LRIP is of course another matter and I wonder who is going to take the hit for it.
I note that United Technologies are saying that they will pay for the necessary modifications to all the already delivered aircraft, I wonder how long the eventual fix will take for each aircraft and how long it will be before the necessary kits for the modifications are available. I would have thought that this might well cause problems with the scheduled carrier trials of the F35C.
The engine is assembled at Middletown. Production at Forth Worth will remain unaffected, as will the cost of the airframe which is independently negotiated with Lockheed Martin. Worst case scenario, there’ll be a delay in delivery to the customer, as new airframes are warehoused until a fresh batch of engines is delivered. While the engine fire resulted in a lot of media scrutiny, fact remains this is not the first modification made to the aircraft or even the most intrusive change for that matter.
Vnomad• The Taliban have used portable heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft, a fact that has not been publicly disclosed by the military. This type of weapon helped the Afghan mujahedeen defeat the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.
.
.
.
The Taliban’s use of heat-seeking missiles has not been publicly disclosed — indeed, the military has issued statements that these internal records contradict.In the form known as a Stinger, such weapons were provided to a previous generation of Afghan insurgents by the United States, and helped drive out the Soviets. The reports suggest that the Taliban’s use of these missiles has been neither common nor especially effective; usually the missiles missed.
Military Disputes Its Own WikiLeaked Missile Report
The report, highlighted by The New York Times and the Guardian, is definitive that a missile shot down the Chinook — and that the missile fire was part of a pattern in the area. “The impact of the missile projected the aft end of the aircraft up as it burst into flames, followed immediately by a nose dive into the crash site with no survivors,” it reads. “Witness statements from Chalk 3 suggest Flipper was struck by MANPAD and is consistent with MANPAD event described by Arrow 25.” That’s a reference to another report from the same day recounting how a different aerial mission over Helmand was “engaged by a probable first-generation MANPAD.”
.
.
.
I counted 11 accounts of just the Chinese HN-5 surface-to-air missile referenced in the WikiLeaks documents, from 2004 to 2008. Other accounts in the document trove of surface-to-air missiles discovered in Afghanistan or used against U.S. forces refer to first- or second-generation SAMs like SA-7s.
The MANPADS are still there apparently but a lack of numbers, training and obsolescence have ensured their impact has been very limited. With half decent training and an adequate number of newer gen missiles, an enemy force could force the USAF into putting altitude restrictions on the A-10 (not unlike the Balkans). At which point, the F-16 is just as good at CAS and the F-35 a whole lot better.
Sign In
