F-35 isn’t perfect (IMO, it still doesn’t have enough combat radius on internal fuel), but its provides far superior force projection than F-18 alone.

I thought the F-35C will have a pretty decent range…?

What combat radius would the Navy really want then?

DATE:19/03/10
SOURCE:Flight International
F-35 cost estimate grows up to nearly 90%

pcfem I am still struggling to match the newspiece in Flight International with what you are saying.

Do you have any links supporting the claim that the delays are still only 6 months?

Development cost has greatly increased, but to account for a 50% increase in total project cost (what is being referred to), it would have to have overrun by a few hundred per cent. It’s by far the most expensive aircraft development in history, but even so, most of the cost for the planned US purchase is the aircraft themselves. The relative increase in development cost is far more than the relative increase in production cost, but I think the total increase in predicted “flyaway” cost accounts for the bulk of the total increase in costs.

I thought I was almost beginning to understand but then everything collapsed when you said

I don’t think so. AFAIK, the USA pays for all the development cost overruns. The partners don’t have to increase their contributions.

If the partners don’t have to increase their contributions to the development cost, then why the difference in message from the Norwegian MoD to what is said in US media?

If the cost increase is mainly due to production cost increase why does that not hit the partners as badly as the US?

Unless… those production costs increases are assumed to be going down dramatically due to learning etc, which would mean that the unit cost for the first planes will be very high initially, but then the unit cost is expected to drop dramatically, and basically close to the levels that were predicted earlier? And those partners that buys planes after productions costs have dropped will still pay a low price because they don’t see the increase in development cost (or just a fraction of it) and they don’t see the high unit price since that was for the initial planes.

Sorry I am a bit slow…

It is indeed a surprise to hear that F-35’s will be supplied without a 50% price rise. Wouldn’t that be below production cost? Even if LM sells them to US govt, US govt sells them to Denmark etc at a loss, it doesn’t sound legal to me under WTO rules. Called dumping, isn’t it?

I thought military equipment was excempt from WTO rules?

Could it be that the 50% price rice (and counting…) is mainly due to costs in the development program. I think pcfem and spudmanwp kept insisting on keeping R&D costs separate from the purchasing costs because it’s on another budget.

The US taxpayer will need to pay both the increase in development costs as well as the production costs. Whereas, IF the partners pay mainly the production costs and just a fraction of the development costs, they may not experience the really big increase in costs which is on the budget covered mainly by the US…. those costs will be “sunk” when partners like Norway buy their F-35s. Perhaps we need to delay one year to get the price down, but still.

I am just guessing here, I may be wrong. But it could explain the large discrepancy in the media reports from the US and what is said in Norway. And of course it does not help the US taxpayer much, to them the cost increase is real and will be felt.

Indirectly the huge increase in development costs can affect the partners of course if the delays become big but also if the cost increase force the US to reduce numbers.

And if the increase is in production costs then the partners will be hit as hard as the US taxpayers.

So you have a ‘new’ MoD? What ever happened to every Swede’s favourite MoD Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen? How is Grete Faremo compared to Strøm-Erichsen with respect to NATO, F-35, etc..?

A bit OT… sorry for that

I think there is no significant difference between the two. She is still quite new in this position however so we’ll see.