On the export market it can compete well, the only catch factor will be its engine (EJ-200/F-414 ) , so they have to make sure which ever engine gets selected it comes with exports right or no string attached.

It’s a shame that the Kaveri program as not managed and monitored better. It must have been clear years ago that the Kaveri engine was not on target to make the grade yet steps were not taken to pull in foreign expertise.

Had a foreign manufacturer been brought in on a consultative “no strings” basis to get the engine up to scratch, the cost of an all-Indian Tejas would have been much lower, making it much cheaper than any alternative Mig-21 replacement. India could have more or less achieved a world monopoly on light fighters where cost was a deciding factor in selection. To modify a Eurofighter marketing slogan, nothing would have come close on price.

Still, that’s history now.

i dont think they will cancel the A400M program now, to much has been invested in the aircraft, and the first production aircraft are already on the production line (i think).

But if Airbus Military have designed a dog, they would rather stop right now unless someone else pays to fix it as best it can be fixed, would they not?

My own view is that Airbus Military signed a deal and should be held to it. Airbus won’t go bust if they lose heavily on this project, so let the shareholders shoulder the loss, not the customers.

I think the truth about reluctance/refusal to release software codes is probably quite simple: the UK would have made an agreement with the US that it would only become involved in the JSF project on condition that it had access to the software codes it needed. Not on condition that it had access to the software codes that the US deemed it needed.

When a first party decides what a second party needs to be independent of that first party, the second party cannot be independent. Simple as that.

I don’t buy the doom & gloom cost increase BS either. US LRIP contracts have been BELOW projections. That simply is NOT possible if in fact the program is in shambles & on the verge of ANOTHER two years of delay & BILLIONS more in cost overruns.

Every time I see some BS about more delays & more cost increases (contradictory to actual facts) the more I think people are simple taking the existing delays & cost increases AND assuming they will continue. ESPECIALLY when people quote JET estimates of POSSIBLE delays & cost increases as actual delays & cost increases.

It is indeed good news that US LRIP contracts have been BELOW projections but LRIP contract prices have very little to do with the price of mass production F-35’s.

If JET’s 2008 report saw the possibility of a further $7 billion overrun then I assume that will happen unless action is taken to avoid it. Since the current study by JET reportedly sees the possibility of that figure being doubled, I assume that steps have not been taken to avoid the possibility of a $7 billion overrun and that the situation looks like it will possibly get worse still ($7 billion overrun doubling to $14 billion) unless action is taken to avoid that happening.

As to the credibility of the program being $70 billion over estimate, that was a figure presented as fact by FlightGlobal. I doubt it is speculation on the part of FlightGlobal. I imagine FlightGlobal can back that figure up with authorative source(s) if challenged.

😮 My god ! You really mean that the program is behind the schedule and over budget? I bet it is the first time in the history of aviation…Incredible…

Did I recently hear $70 billion over budget from a US govt source? If I did hear that right, I bet it is the first time in the history of aviation…Incredible…

Too late for the US to stop now IMO, but it could reduce the financial risk of continuing with the project by getting the aircraft tested before making preparations for mass production.

Just so you know, FY2009 USAF budget projections show the F-35A Flyaway Unit Cost dropping below $100 million in FY2013.

Indeed. However the USAF does not manufacture fighter aircraft and must have based that figure on what LM told them. LM had not contracted to supply at that price so the figure was simply an informed guess. To what degree it was informed one can only… guess.

I think any cost quoted by LM is still a guess since as far as I know the aircraft has completed less than 10% of flight tests. Flight testing may reveal problems resulting in redesign. Therefore at this point LM do not know with much certainty what they will be manufacturing in FY2013, nor what it will cost.

Had LM’s management of the F-22 program been a whole lot better one might have more confidence in their ability to manage the F-35 program and one might pay more credence to their cost projections.

Personally I don’t see the cost of F-35’s ever dropping much below $100 million. Unless they make it an “inkjet jet” – cheap to buy but with spares costing a fortune.

Anyways, the point is that R&D belongs to the whole project and you have to pay for it. For old planes this was included in procurement costs. For this one it is an additional budget item. It still belongs to the F-35. Every dollar spent on R&D increases the whole project’s price and eventually, when the program will have ended you will be able to calculate the total price per unit by adding all costs the project created and dividing them by the number of procured aircrafts.

So if you are now trying to fool the tax payers by telling them “procurement cost is only $70 million” while you are completely ignoring R&D you can bet your a*se, that you will never actually get close to that price ever. Even if you produced 100’000 units…

Good thinking in my opinion. Personally I am reluctant to believe a word about F-35 price from Lockheed. I don’t believe the price (divorced from support, spares etc) will ever be lower than $100 million per airframe. Why should it be? Defence planning is a very long term process. Lockheed can charge what they will (well, almost) once an export customer has committed its nation’s air force to F-35 acquisition years ahead with no priced contract being signed at the time of commitment. When the nasty shock of a price far exceeding expectations surfaces at contract signing time, what is the customer to do? Decide to dispense with a large chunk of its air defence/strike capability because its choice of aircraft is much more expensive than expected? I think countries opting for the F-35 will likely discover they need to make damaging cuts in other areas of defence to cover unanticipated increased costs in F-35 acquisition. In other words, I think that countries selecting F-35 on promised acquisition costs will actually reduce their defence capability.