even if your 100m for the f-35a is right, i cant see it making a lot of difference
the purchase price isnt as big as the 30yr to maintain and running costs
they might have evaluations with other craft to reconfirm which will suit

As I remember things correctly the F-35 was supposed to be (a) low cost to buy (b) low cost to operate and maintain – a natural follow on choice for F-16 operators. If it is now going to have a procurement cost closer to F-15, Rafale, Typhoon then much of its attraction as an F-16 replacement will have gone. It shares some of the technology developed for the F-22. From what I hear, the F-22 is extraordinarily expensive to maintain. That does not bode well for the maintenance cost of the F-35 over 30 years, does it?

Does it surprise you that an F-16 operator like Denmark should no longer want a replacement that promises to cost much, much more than expected?

Indigenous development will always suffer till the govt controls defense production…the F22 was not made by the US govt and certainly not by a company where recruitment is done by quotas and not merit.

I’m curious about this “quotas” thing. I’m a jobbing programmer/analyst and I’ve never come across the idea of anyone giving me a contract on the basis of anything except merit and provable track record. Why on earth would any organisation want to recruit someone for any other reason?

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2010/03/15/112521.htm

Quote:
The defense dumper struggle aircraft Joint Strike Fighter
15. March 2010 11.25 Money
The defense gives up battle aircraft Joint Strike Fighter, JSF. When Denmark for seven-eight years must have new fighter, it will not be big favorite Joint Strike Fighter if the defense to decide.

According to DR news sources will defense in his recommendation to the government, instead pointing to Boeing’s F18 as the safest choice.

I think that what this says is that the F-35 is no longer in contention as an F-16 replacement. Of course, that may not be true. My take is that if the F-16’s do not need replacing for 5+ years, Denmark has the time to select something else.

Article from Domain-B

Pentagon confirms cost of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 up by 60-90 per cent

Inspite of strenuous efforts by the world’s largest defence contractor, Lockheed Martin, to contradict reports that the Joint Strike Fighter programme was heading for substantial cost and time overruns, it has now been confirmed in Pentagon testimony before the US Congress’s Senate Armed Services Committee that the cost of the programme has increased 60 to 90 per cent in real terms since 2001.

Even as the Pentagon steps into overdrive trying to reassure stakeholders, which are three armed services of the United States and eight partner nations that it will take all required steps to deal with the problems, Congressional auditors have said the program was likely to haemorrhage in terms of costs and suffer time overruns.

I don’t understand what grounds the Pentagon has to “to reassure stakeholders”. What “required steps” can the Pentagon take “to deal with the problems”? The Pentagon did not design the F-35. It is not testing the F-35. It does not manufacture the F-35. It can do nothing to fix design, test and manufacturing problems. All it can do is ask LM to do that. It has doubtless already been asking LM to do that for a very long time.

Congressional auditors have said the program was likely to haemorrhage in terms of costs and suffer time overruns.

In view of this comment, I think the program is ceasing to make sense. I think it should be put on tickover (except for testing) until it is brought under control. I think that would be better than blundering on resulting in the politicians imposing savage cuts in the number of frames to be purchased by the US forces.

I think it was a stupid idea to take the big risk of embarking on manufacturing an untested product.

NG cited shareholder concerns about (in effect) throwing good money after bad, (I wonder what they’ve spent on this effort, it must be in their annual report if anyone is a shareholder…$30 million?) and with the new RFP appearently favoring a smaller aircraft, they just don’t want to spend the money and time to prepare a bid that would likely be rejected.

Fair enough, the specification now means that Airbus cannot offer a product with much prospect of winning. I’m as happy for Boeing as I am sad for the US forces.

I think I must be too simple in my approach to these things. I never really cared either way who got the deal, only that the US forces should get the best deal available on a KC-135 replacement.

Lula (the predent) is expected to anounce the F-X2 winner in April if it happens this way (and not gets postponed once again) in theory it would take at least one full year to flesh out all the contract details and to finally sign the final contract. This would put this “signing” inside the next presidential term. To be signed by someone other than the current president.

Right now the election seems it could easily go both ways, so: If Dilma wins in a landslide, the Rafale has its best chance to be confirmed one year from now. IF Serra on the other hand comes out victorious next October he may opt to cancel the whole bid once again.

Understand now?

Regards,

Hammer

Thanks for that. I think I understand the mechanics of the situation: the winner can be selected during the Lula presidency but the contract won’t be signed during his presidency. Dilma would stick with Lula’s decision. Serra might not, no contract having been signed. But when you say Serra might opt to cancel the whole bid, do you mean deferral of new fighters for several years or simply a reappraissal of what to buy ie let’s still buy some fighters but re-think which one to buy?

Harriers originated the 20 kt “rolling vertical landing” and use it daily.

But I’ve seen film of Harriers stopping adjacent to the carrier deck then coming over the deck sideways before landing at zero deck speed.

In any event, I don’t see this as an LM problem to fix. It’s the job of the customer to check the aircraft is fit for their purpose IMO. Assuming that LM made the data available to the USMC, I think it was their job to check whether jet blast would present problems in vertical landings.

It will also give lie to all the Airtbus fans who decried Boeing’s successful appeal of the first competition based on their concern for American forces.

“Based on their concern for American forces”??? This was the company which tried to take the American forces to the cleaners but got caught.

I know of no big deals done where the customer gets a better value product/service from only having 1 possible supplier. It seems to me that if Boeing has suddenly become concerned for American forces, the company should be lobbying for at least one other product to be considered. Best way to do that would for Boeing to threaten to withdraw from consideration for the contract unless an alternative product was evaluated as well.