FalconDude16000 for a SH doesn’t sound much, and the F-35 will probably be cheaper to operate in the future.
Why? I have yet to hear anything that is more convincing than “LM said so” …
FalconDudeThere’s a military procurement inflation rate, used in US budget documents. It’s been higher than retail inflation for many years, but not by such a large margin that it’d completely invalidate the use of the RPI.
The assumption being that the US economy is robust enough to handle any inflationary fluctuations and the sheer burden of such a huge program? I asked a few posts back, are the other budgets tightening of not? If they are, isn’t that an indication of something?
FalconDudeIt 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.
This is along the lines of what was promised, but I am questioning how realistic it is.
FalconDudeYou know nothing about my opinion on that matter. I’ve said nothing about it. I’ve addressed only your mistake about debt burdens, & (in general terms) the confusion of your arguments, of which this baseless guess appears to be another example.
Whatever, do you have anything to contribute to this point after you finish your quest of deconstructing me (flattered btw) or not? The question still stands, feel free…
FalconDudeYou’re not addressing the issue. I called you on one thing, your erroneous claim that the US public debt problem is as severe as that of Greece. You’re either trying to confuse the matter or are confused. You’ve mixed up spending choices, & political arguments over how much to tax, spend, & on what, with financial resources. You’re getting things out of context.
For your own sake, I urge you to stop following this line. Accept the facts I posted, showing that Greek public debt is roughly twice as big in proportion to the size of the economy (i.e. roughly twice as great a burden) as that of the USA, & leave it at that. It’d show maturity & good sense.
I did address the issue, plus I clearly stated in my response to you that I still maintain that I think I am right in my original train of thought. You on the other hand are not responding to anything. It is fine by me though, let’s not digress from this thread by discussing my or your understanding of finance it is not important right now. Let’s focus on my main point, that the US military budgets may suffer from the f-35 program as the economic situation is… precarious.
From your responses I guess you think that is not an issue, am I correct?
FalconDudeFirst and foremost because they couldn’t afford to run it. Solutions that work for larger nations don’t reliably scale down to smaller ones. The US military benefits from economies of scale that other nations can only dream of (although China is getting there).
I would have thought one of the non nuclear older carriers would have been just about right. No need to carry that many planes either.. Ahhh it doesn’t matter anymore anyways…
FalconDudeThe UK Royal Navy has wanted this aircraft for decades so I would suggest there has been a JAST/JSF/F35 sized hole for it to “fit” into for a long time. In a way it is perhaps better to leave the RN out of the argument because it doesn’t “fit”!
I second that. Although I didn’t quite see why the UK never got a second hand carrier from the US…
FalconDudeIt gets embarrassing when members start treading into economics. U.S. public debt is not even at it’s highest historic level when compared to GDP, nor is it out of step with most other western nations. The problem comes when GDP growth stagnates compared to debt growth. Overall, the U.S. economy is growing at a healthy, sustainable rate currently (though that growth is uneven). The issue is largely political, the F-35 and overall U.S. defense spending would be impacted most by whims of congress, not by some imagined debt crisis.
Uhh, the APUC will drop based on full rate production. If the services buy the full number of over 2,400 that will lower the PAUC. What customers will pay would be impacted by the U.S. lowering yearly production.
What is this West Side Story? There are two crowds? The F-35 crowd and the NOT F-35 crowd? First off, the U.S. will most likely end up with roughly 2,000 across the services. What is in question is the 1,763 total planned for the Air Force. That number will probably come down. Do you have any evidence that the production numbers will be substantially less? Not one U.S. official has backed off from the overall commitment as of yet.
Imagined debt crises become very real, very quick. It is unwise to think otherwise. You can’t deny the budgets have become tighter….
FalconDudeOh dear. I’m afraid you’re flaunting your ignorance.
The USA has 30 times the population of Greece, producing twice as much per head. That gives the USA 60 times the raw ability to generate wealth. Quoting absolute numbers for gross debt (which don’t take account of countervailing assets) without taking any of that into account is, as FBW says, embarrassing for those of us who see the magnitude of your error. We feel for you, even though you know not what you do.
I suggest you keep out of discussions of economics, for your own sake.
First of all, this is a forum, not a place for absolute savants of various topics. Whether I am wrong or not is really and quite frankly not for you to say. And besides, even if my comparison choice is wrong, the fact remains that there were budget considerations just a short while ago (and the complex or not so complex) financial structure of the US hang in a balance -artificial or not-. You can’t wave my -alleged- ignorance just so you can cement your opinion. To put it bluntly, even if I am wrong (which I still maintain I am not) that does not make you right. The two are not related. Attacking my personal knowledge or correctness on this issue -which you misunderstood as you seem to be a numbers fan, without context- only shows your eagerness to be proven right. Why I ask? Are you attaching some personal gratification to this? Perhaps you should get that looked at. Friendly advice.
And the US may have 60 times (gross oversimplification taking into account the wealth spread in the US) the raw ability to generate wealth, it lacks however for example a functional national health service and its national debt is …for lack of a better word ..immense,
Or do you my learned friend deny that the US has extremely tight government budgets, a recovering bank sector, practically non existent foreign demand (compared to the past) and extreme income inequality? Insignificant things according to you, I am just wrong…..
In my -ignorant and erroneous- view then perhaps it is you who should start thinking things over. Sometimes it pays to listen to the “cry wolves” out there because there may be a big bad wolf coming!
FalconDudeNet government debt as percentage of GDP (IMF data, May 2013)
Greece: 176.1
USA: 89.0GDP per head (PPP, USD) 2013:
Greece: 25651
USA: 53143
http://www.statista.com/statistics/270409/national-debt-of-greece/
(and don’t forget, USA prints its own money….. 😉 )
that’s all…………………….
FalconDudeNot to go breaking up the pity party with facts again… but here I go:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579518801802832362
http://www.janes.com/article/35212/pentagon-f-35-chief-suggests-unit-cost-of-80-85-million
So no, we aren’t talking about the price of an F-35 after 2000+ have been built. We are talking about the price of F-35s ordered in the 2018-2019 timeframe, which is to say ordered a little over 3 years from today…. hardly the distant future.
Will, will, will, will, should be and we promise…!!! Humans, pretty much rely on past events to judge the future. All these are still mostly -mostly- promises. When they begin to materialse in ernest, we shall see. Their track recorrd is not exactly spotless on this plane (it has been mostly spotless on the F-16)
FalconDudeThe price for LRIP-8 is expected to decrease again from LRIP 7 ( 2016 vs 2015 – hope I am not wrong with the years ).
Besides just the fact that the F-35 production is done with multi-year program from 2019 will lower the cost by probably close to 10%.
The F-35A costs 112M in 2015 (URF cost ), which is not that much. The huge costs that are often mentionned include expensive things required to prepare the plane to enter service.
And there is also talk that the JSF partners could set up a MYP before 2019. A 3 year MYP for 2016-18 would be great if possible. There is no alternative to the F-35 anyways so there is no way it is going to be cancelled.
It is almost certain that the cost will go down to at least 90 million by 2019. So it is very likely that the US will be able to afford way more than 600 planes. I even bet that the USN F/A-XX will never be developped by the USN itself and more F-35Cs will be built. Overall the number might be somewhat less than initially envisaged, but the reduction may not be that great, 20% or so. That will also depend on whether sequestration lasts or not. Sequestration has nothing to do with the program itself.
No, 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.
Also the 10% is again unfounded. We do not have any convincing arguments that this will happen. Again the only positive thing is that the US will buy more and more and more planes. What if they don’t? You are not answering this question convincingly …
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?
People think we object about the price because we have some money fetish. Far from it, if you see the big picture you’ll see why there is a lot of concern around.
FalconDudeThe super hornet is clearly dead on the export market against the F-35A, whose cost is decreasing year after year. And the USN needs a really stealthy plane, so a domestic production is also very unlikely to continue ( unless something catastrophic happens, like it can’t land on the carrier ).
However, the super hornets being relatively new, it would be great if the USN could give them new features, like 360 degrees engagement capabilities with IR sensors like on the international variant. Perhaps 2 additionnal IRSTs on the top of the plane could complement the IRST in the centerline tank so that most angles can be covered. The IRSTs would give sufficiently accurate range informations for BVR shots, and could also provide near 360 degrees missile launch detection capabilities at long range.
there 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?
FalconDudeI have a small problem with a part of that video…
you talk about 800nm range… except that, if the horizon was visible at 800nm; that would require your “aircraft” to be at about 170km altitude (over 500 000ft). on that video you can see that the launch starts, and is visible way below the level of horizon, meaning that, if the rocket had been launched @ 800nm, your horizon should be at around, say 120nm. So, unless you testbed is a spacecraft, there’s no way your detection on the video is done from such a distance.
considering the angles, it looks much more like 80nm distance to launch (which places any rocket launch way inside the “eyeball mk1 detection range”.
but then again, I guess that if you believe all LM crap about the F-35, you can also explain to us that in the US the earth is flat enough to see the horizon 120nm away from the F-35…
And here lies the confusion. 800nm is -I guess- the maximum distance the system can detect a ballistic missile class plume. I don’t think it means anything out of this context.
FalconDudeWith at least two squadrons forming or formed, and more than 100 aircraft built, is it realistic to claim that the programme will be cancelled? Can you think of any other recent fighter programme that has reached this stage only to suffer cancellation?
For a program of such enormous expenditures, if the orders in total get reduced to say a total of 500 globally, I would consider that a cancellation. Don’t you agree?
And please respond to this without digressing, purely for arguments sake. Don’t come back with “it ain’t gonna happen” ..say it does. Is it or isn’t it a cancellation in the context of the f-35?
Sign In
