The problem is (and has already become), different integration and standup costs make it seem like we are giving FMS customers a better deal than JSF partners.
There is also the year of production to consider. Some partners have early LRIP planes that increase their average cost.
Those 4th gen lines represent (at the time) estimated production schedules, not fighters flying. Without knowing which lines represent what plane, it’s a little hard to say it’s not accurate.
However, F-16, F-18, EF, Rafale, etc could fit some of those projections.
btw, it was not the program’s failure to execute the schedule, but a failure to fund the schedule due primarily to the global economic crisis.
Does that chart show production rising from <50 in 2013 to >125 in 2014? Is that a projection or has that been authorised? I’m curious about 4th generation A,B,C,D. Any idea what they refer to?
The numbers were from early 2010 and are what the schedule plan was at the time before the recent budget crisis and fear of concurrency caused the annual build rates to be chopped. Those changes lead to our partners also delaying orders as early LRIP costs rose.
I assume that the 4th gen lines are specific production schedules for individual fighter planes like the F-15/16/18, etc
Here is a year-by-year schedule from 2009ish

Spud you’ve been playing fast and loose for years with your interpretations of F35 costs based on fabricated LM marketing stock.
I have never play fast and loose with the numbers. I have always provided official sources (either budget docs or LM estimates) when I referenced costs & plans.
someone who thinks that the resin-and-PPT CUDA is real.
No, CUDA is not real. At most it’s gone through simulation and maybe some wind tunnel testing.
LM is chomping at the bit to get production up. It’s not their choice that the numbers have been stagnant.
Per the 2010 numbers, the USAF F-35 production rate would have reached it’s peak of 80 in FY2015. As it stands now, it’s at 32 in FY15, 48 in FY16, and 48 in FY17. That is just the USAF. The other services and partner nations have delayed their plans (but not their commitment).
There is plenty of room.
Take a look at this 2010 graph. The yellow section is the buffer. Now note that the annual buys in the pre-2020 timeline have been delayed so again, there is plenty of room for FMS sales.

AKA Sandbagging 🙂
Block 3I is the same software as Block 2B but on the final Hardware (called Tech Refresh2).
You might want to have a word with the USMC as they intend to declare IOC with Block 2B (in other words, combat capable).
Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.
–James R. Schlesinger
Korean contest requires a delivery of 10 units in 2016, 12 units a year in subsequent years.
2016 : 10
2017 : 12
2018 : 12
2019 : 12
2020 : 14
==========
Total : 60
So:
— If F-35 is chosen then initial deliveries would be Block 3I and upgraded to 3F when the dev is done.
— If F-15SE is chosen then initial deliveries will be F-15SA with upgrades to SE when that dev is done.
I wonder how much of the F-15SE bid is development & upgrade related?
I’ll say it again, I don’t want your (or some other reporter’s) interpretation of the Cost Ceiling, I want a direct source that specifies what it entails.
The “ceiling” is a legal ceiling, the final contract price cannot be more than what the Parliament authorized
Again, what is covered under this contract?
52 F-35 cost 10.5 billion USD (approx). I don’t know why the Koreans can get 8 a/c more and pay just 0.3 billion more, they are not even partners!
It depends on what is included.
The Korean DSCA does not include construction, weapons, long term support, etc.
FYI, the F-35’s bid price is still $1 billion above the legal price ceiling.
It depends on what is included in that “ceiling”.
There is a lot included in that DSCA that is not the airframe like Full Mission Simulators, a reprogramming center, training & support, software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, etc.
Do you have an official source on the “ceiling” or just news articles referring to it?
DSCA Notice for the Korean F-35 Bid released
WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.
The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes:
Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software Development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf
Forget going “through” the defensive screen….. go “over” it.
As ESM suites get better at geolocating an emitter they enable more optimized missile trajectories. The attacker can launch a missile on a high parabolic arch that could reach above 125k feet. Gravity provides the maneuver energy on the downward arch.
Admittedly I do not follow foreign budget situations and plans to that level.
“human rights and humanitarian missions” ≠ the main job of the military.