In fact, there is not much more than that. Sure, the systems (APG, EOTS, ASQ) are coupled/slaved to each other so they can all look to the same direction but what exactly is new here?

The difference is that the systems in the F-35 do not simply look in the same direction but instead use the info from each sensor to determine what the contact is, even if individual sensors cannot make an ID or track on their own.

If we call the F-35 cheaper only because they are able to contract 150 pcs in a year instead of 30, then we have to ask ourselves why didn’t they simply increase the numbers of F-22s, instead..

How quickly they forget… The F-35A has ALWAYS been much cheaper (in inflation adjusted dollars) than the F-22, even when the F-22 had virtually double the production of the F-35A (F-22 FY2001-2003 vs F-35A FY2008-2010). I know that there are also F-35B in there, but the F-35 was always cheaper, long before it hits the 150pcs a year mark.

I hate knowing something but not KNOWING something, so I opened up the last 15 years of budgets and crunched the numbers.

1. The USAF budget site (for you masochists out there who feel like repeating my calculations) is http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/budget/
2. I used the complete Rec Flyaway costs, including ECO for the F-35 even though it was not an F-22 line item.
3. I used Tom’s Inflation calculator http://www.halfhill.com/inflation_js.html
4. I included both then-year (Green Row) and inflation-adjusted to 2016 numbers (Red Row)
5. I use Rec Flyaway numbers for comparison because they are the only numbers that can be used to judge manufacturing efficiency over a long period of time and across platforms.

Conclusions:
1. The entire F-22 production run was in 10 batches of 179 planes.
2. The first 10 years of F-35 production will end with FY2016 and 178 planes, yes, that is only a 1 plane difference in the F-22’s favor.
3. The F-22 benefited from a faster ramp=up (2/10/13/21/22 = 68) for the 1st 5 years vs (2/6/7/10/25 = 58) for the F-35.
4. The F-35 did not overtake the F-22’s annual build rate until it’s 9th LRIP.
5. Even when looking at Then-Year dollars, the F-22 was ALWAYS more expensive than the F-35 in all but one year (in LRIP6 the F-22 was $1.29mil less)
6. The average Then-Year cost of an F-22 was $161.53mil and while the F-35 is $143mil
7. In Then-Year dollars the F-35 was on average $18.22 mil cheaper and in FY16 dollars, $53.72 mil cheaper.

Without further ado, the numbers.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]241767[/ATTACH]

That’s what I call “Rolling out the Red carpet” :very_drunk:

By the same people who now say – hey it’s as good as F-18 and only costs 10% more than a Raptor, we knew that from day one!! 🙂

Not sure what you’ve been smoking, but the only thing the F-18 can do near as good as the F-35 is maneuverability. In all other aspects (RCS, data fusion, sensor suite, etc) the F-18 is clearly outclassed.

As far as the cost of the F-22 vs F-35 goes, try an apples to apples comparison.

The last year that the F-22 was bought was in the FY2009 budget. They bought 24 of them for a Rec Flyaway cost of $147 mil each (per FY2011 budget).

Compare (and inflation adjust) that to a FY16 F-35A and it’s $169 (F-22) to $103 (F-35)
Compare (and inflation adjust) that to a FY20 F-35A and it’s $185 (F-22) to $87 (F-35)

So tell me again how the F-35 is more expensive than the Raptor again?

Using this inflation calculator: http://www.halfhill.com/inflation_js.html

The X-35 has next to nothing in common with the final F-35.

I was talking about the final bids from both parties to win the JSF competition.

It was a much lighter bird and would have cost significantly less..

Don’t forget that the wing & tail needed to be redesigned and would have been heavier.

Keep in mind that the avionics & engine are the most expensive components of an aircraft, for Dev, procurement, and O&M and they would have been relatively the same for the F-32 as they are for the F-35. They only thing that is truly unique in the F-35 is the liftfan.

My personal opinion is that the JSF experiment should have been declared a failure several cost revisions ago and another design should have been put forward.

The problem with that is the same that the JPO faced, what does the Cost/Benefit analysis say. The JSF did not have it’s “Come to Jesus” moment till ~2010 which was 10 years after the contract was signed.

To start over would have meant that it would have taken anyone else 13-15 years to get to the same point in the development cycle. That means having to pay for another round of RFIs, competitions, contracts,, and development. You would also have to pay for 10-15 more years of lifetime for existing fighters.

All that without any real guarantee that the next guy won’t have the same problems.

It’s LockMart who sets the requirements. That makes them directly responsible even for the cost of their subcontractors.

No, it was the USG that set the requirements and LM offered up a proposal to meet those requirements.

Note that the X-32 costs were similar to the X-35 bid.