VnomadThis question is nonsensical. If you order first ten F-35As with three additional surplus F135 engines, how long are they gonna last? I say anywhere between few weeks and ten years. One flock of birds over the airbase can change the figure in a day.
I certainly don’t appreciate you trying to prove your point by asking questions you know having no known or even halfway satisfying answers.
You’re missing the point of the question. Are the spares and support being provided for the entire lifetime of the aircraft. Since engines are not something consumed at a steady pace, lets take lubricants for example. Does the ‘full support’ include a lifetime supply of lubricants for the aircraft?
I’m trying to ascertain if you’re claiming that SAAB’s offer covered everything and did not leave any scope for supplemental orders down the line.
VnomadNope, read my responses again.. In my post #1878 I have clearly stated that I was not even trying to account for the total ownership cost for next ~30 years because the F-35 would come out as a very sore loser.
I’m not talking about total ownership costs. My reference was to spares and support (not inclusive of operating cost). Did this include lifetime supply? If not, then for what period was this supposed to last?
VnomadQuite on the contrary, everyone is perfectly able to compare two aircraft without all that flyaway nonsense or any reference points..
Fact 1 is that Norway could have had an air force of 48 Gripens for US$4.0 bil.
Fact 2 is that now they will have an air force of 52 F-35s for $10.6 bilAnything still not clear?
And then how is it that SAAB quoted a 6% higher unit cost to Netherlands in same year (2008) for an order that was 75% larger, assuming both packaged included full support (such as it is)?
VnomadFull support means EVERYTHING. It is a much more logical figure than putting all assets to an equal. If the F-35 for some reason required three times as many landing gear struts as a Gripen (a pure example only), then it’s not SAAB’s obligation to provide exactly as many spares just to please your accountant.
Full support means everything you need to run the force properly. If the type acquired can do more with less, then even better.
Do you mean to say that the cost quoted by SAAB included 30 years of spares and support and that no supplement orders would have needed to be placed again? (Theoretically, full support would even include the cost of an MLU)
VnomadAs for the comparable numbers, I have already quoted the SAAB offer for Gripen E. Which was 48 aircraft for $4bil. Incl. full support, mission planning, spares and training…
I’m afraid ‘full support’ doesn’t mean anything. The company’s perception of full support can be very different from the customer’s. Case in point: the SAAB offer to the Netherlands (that was being discussed recently) was quite comprehensive but did not include spare engines and radars, which were certainly a part of the signed F-35 contract.
VnomadI am arguing that Vnomad’s effort to exclude the spares, support and basic weapons from the F-35’s price tag to demonstrate some $109mil figures is futile. We are comparing weapon system cost and these numbers belong there. Note that I am including these cost in SAAB figures, as well.
Unless you’re a govt that’s receiving direct cost quotes from the OEM as per your set requirements, so you will never be able to compare two aircraft. Even then there is an ever present element of uncertainty created by the profit margins, which may vary from one supplier to the next.
However, the weapon system cost is a function of the flyaway cost; the fighter with a lower flyaway cost will almost always have a lower weapons system cost. Point is, the recurring flyaway cost is the only near-standard reference point that can be employed if any comparison is to be made.
VnomadNot buying these naked numbers, sorry. You make a nice little division there by not including spares and other stuff but IMO, sims and spares for F-35s are used for F-35s and nothing else and as such are part of the whole deal. The total price of those six F-35s incl. spares and support is $1.23bil and I recommend to use only comparable numbers for future reference. Thank you
http://news.yahoo.com/norway-wants-buy-6-more-f-35-fighter-134725018–finance.html
The flyaway cost for the F-35A to Norway is $109 million. Exactly was it was estimated to be. And it stands to reason that $85M is quite achievable, as the eventual flyaway cost.
As for the real cost including spares, support etc, let me pose that same challenge to you. Can you give us the comparable numbers for any other fighter aircraft with the same degree of support, same no. of spares, same degree of training and the same scale of offsets?
VnomadPer page 5 of this USAF FY2014 budget doc (F-35A only):
http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2014/AirForce/P40_F03500_BSA-2_BA-5_APP-3010F_PB_2014.pdf
The USAF is buying 11 upgrade kits (upgrade to Block 3i) at a total cost of $65 million ($63 mil includes the kit, support, and spares then another $2 mil for install labor in FY2016). From FY2014 thru FY2017 they are planning to buy 45 upgrade kits covering LRIPs 2-5 (USAF only as USN has their own docs & line items for the F-35B&C). There is a two year lead on these kits. In other words, FY2014 kits will be installed in FY2016.
Page 7 of the same PDF covers the USAF portion of the Concurrency costs. Notice that it is paid for on an annual bases, fluctuates a lot, and does not mention any kit numbers (number of planes upgraded per year).
Mostly projections but last year’s DoD report on F-35 concurrency is quite informative. While the average cost of concurrency for the LRIP aircraft is projected at $5.8M, the older units (LRIP 1-4) have costs in excess of $15M each.
VnomadNorwegian plans to procure 52 F-35s are set at 64 billion kroner, which is some US$10.7 bil – results in ca $205 mil a pop. You say the prices are that high because they include LRIP an d because the production rate is artificially dampened down. OK, let us trust this claim for a while.. Comically enough, the recent order of six F-35s (ship #05-10) equals US$1.23 bil which is still exactly $205 mil a pop, even if LRIP prices should be discernible with the initial batches better than ever.
Totaling NKr5.9 billion ($964 million), Oslo’s spending plan includes NKr4 billion to acquire six conventional take-off and landing F-35As for delivery to the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2018. The remaining NKr1.9 billion will cover the purchase of four simulators, armour-piercing ammunition from Norway-based Nammo for test and integration work on the aircraft, Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and the first package of deployable spares for the JSF.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norway-approves-next-round-of-f-35-acquisition-394126/
Dec 11 (Reuters) – Norway’s parliament authorised the government to purchase another six Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for about 4 billion crowns ($654.7 million), the parliament’s foreign affairs and defence committee said on Wednesday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/11/norway-f-idUSL6N0JQ1KE20131211
$654M for 6 F-35A = $109M each
VnomadPer the budget docs, Block upgrade costs and it’s included Tech Refresh costs are on a separate line item than Concurrency (bulkheads, generator, etc) costs. The reason is simple as each plane’s Concurrency costs are separate, even withing the same build year.
The Estimated $6 mil is just the Block 2B to Block 3i upgrade cost and does not include Concurrency costs.
It was my understanding that $6M was the concurrency cost not inclusive of the block upgrade cost.
VnomadApart from the bulkheads, the generator, lift fan clutch… etc etc etc
That was in 2011. Unless some secondary issues have arisen recently, AFAIK all three problems (plus the transmission’s thermal issues) stand rectified.
VnomadNo, it was originally a proposal to buy Mirage 2000. The IAF was happy to buy direct from France, but the GoI wanted licence built. India delayed until M2K production was closing down. At that point, Dassault & the French govt. offered to transfer the entire production line & licence India to build as many as it wanted, & to export them. The GoI didn’t even refuse that offer, it just prevaricated until it was too late.
They did buy ten or so Mirages in 2003-04. The IAF would have been happy with direct deliveries, but for any order larger than a few dozen, license production format was almost a prerequisite (with a history stretching from the Gnat to the Su-30).
Indian military procurement is a mess.
No dispute there. But I’d argue, its worked out for the best; with a domestic funding crunch and inflation, coinciding with the maturity of a few local programs, the domestic aviation industry may finally achieve critical mass, which bodes well for the future.
VnomadThe F-35 has not finished flight testing. The testing that has thrown up quite a few problems. Yet still hardware is being built at a crazy rate. Hardware that will likely require modification.
Judging from the retrofit costs, substantial modification doesn’t appear to be on the cards. Besides, most hardware issues have already been addressed – new RAM coatings for tail-plane, new HMDS, new tail-hook, fixed IPP and working fuel dump system. Plus the flight envelope’s been completely opened upf as well. Some thermal & vibration testing for internal payloads is still remaining, but aside from that, the aircraft is by and large complete as far as hardware is concerned.
It is not remotely the same as taking a viable working solution (which the F-16 was and the F-35 is not) and adding capability. Right now Lockheed are just trying to make the F-35 a viable working solution – and at this point, it is where concurrency is crazy.
The issues facing the F-35 relate primarily to its software. Implementing upgrades for that, even fleet-wide, should be relatively cheap.
VnomadThe smartest thing they did with the F-16 was to have it use the same engine as the F-15.
Of course they couldn’t do that with the F-35, i.e. use the F119, because ROFLSTOVL.
Ah, but imagine if they had: with the most expensive component remaining in production regardless, F-22 production could well have continued also.
Not for the first time, China and other prospective OPFOR are the beneficiaries of American short-sightedness.
The F119 might produce enough thrust to power the Rafale but its not nearly enough for a 13T fighter.
VnomadWell… He did both…
It appears the time has come for a son of France to gloriously rise, take up his sword (or rifle.. or Rafale) and unite Europe under him.. or against him.
So… how busy are you? 😉
Sign In
