That was the original desirement for AFX of 1990, to keep the CVBG away from prying recce eyes and AShMs/TBMs. That requirement is making a comeback for NGAD and NGT too due to lack of friendly nearby basing options for the MCO scenarios.

They will get that with a UCAV like X-47B.

But we can be a bit more apples with apples: the niche is that which was filled by the F-16 as was (not the bloated monstrosity it is now); pre-E/F Hornets; and Harriers. The cheap and numerous (though capable) ‘low-end’ plane that bulks out your airpower; and the small and cheap STOVL plane.

That niche no longer exists. The F-16, as it was originaly evisioned, was a LWF that did not even have a radar. What is needed now is a capable & survivable multi-role fighter. The F-35 will excell in this role.

What you’re missing is that we’re looking at an analogy of the F-16+F-15 or early-F/A-18+F-14 low-high mix – JSF was always intended to be the cheap/low partner to the highs. It now costs the same as the highs, so has fundamentally failed in one of its core specifications (the one that informs all of the others).

The F-22’s Flyaway Cost at the last buy year was $150 million and going up (2009). The F-35 will cost half that when it gets to FRP status.

[By the way Spudman (or anyone else who this applies to), I hope I don’t seem impertinent but can I ask what it is about F-35 that you’re particularly attracted/attached to? It’s not its looks I’m guessing….:D I really am genuinely interested, if you don’t mind.:)]

On the looks front, consider yourself lucky that we did not end up with the F-32 Monica 😉 That thing had a hard time just performing unarmed STOVL testing. Imagine what it would have been after a few years of weight growth and then throw on some weapons and avionics.

In all seriousness, my “attraction” to the F-35 has to do primarily with two things; it’s survivability and it’s flexability.

There is just no other multi-role fighter that is as survivable as the F-35, and no I do not count the F-22 as a multi-role fighter. It’s signature management (both RF and IR), next generation networking, and superior sensors will ensure that it gets the job done and brings her pilots home.

The hook for JSF is stealth + sensors + networking.

The drawback for JSF is its short range, dictated by the requirement that the “common” airframe fit on an LHD’s elevator (a USMC requirement). USAF and USN (the target market) really needs an airplane with a 1500 mile combat radius. JSF cannot do that.

Who has a 1500 nm combat radius with weapons? How survivable is it?

Those navy operating costs were deputed by the JPO, only look at the plane (and ignore the package as a whole), and also are based on 4th gen maint practices, not the newer practives being put forward by the JPO (post 428.

I’d seek to define those terms within the context of the aircraft that it is intended to replace, then add a decent margin for evolved tech, with its increased costs, and inflation… say Affordable would be not much more than half-again an F-16 or maybe a more expensive aircraft in that niche (I don’t need to define that niche surely).

Ok, let’s look at the F-18E/F & F-15SE (since it’s the only recent buy that can be verified for price since the F-16 Blk60 or F-16I price is not available).

The FY2012 Wep Sys budget for F-18E/Fs are $90 million (for 28). This is about as cheap as it will get and will go up every year due to inflation. Boeing has said that they can build the F-15SE for about $100 million. Both of these airframes have benefited from full-rate production while the F-35 has not.

I was able to get an idea on current F-16 Blk50/52 pricing by looking at the 2009 proposed sale of F-16s to Egypt. They came to about $130 million each, delivered. Add 50% (your acceptable margin) to that and you get $195 (oddly what the F-35A Weapon System Cost is for LRIP4). The F-35 will get much cheaper as is progresses to FRP. The F-16/F-18/F-15 will only get more expensive (inflation) as they have used up any “learning curve” to be had.

Now I know there are those who say that I am over simplifying things. To them I say “well duh”. The truth is that none of us knows all the facts and figures involved in determining future F-35 costs. What I do know is that the JPO has all the data, has members from every service & partner country, and has laid out a plan that makes sense.

Has LM had problems executing that plan, well yes. Are those problems insurmountable, IMHO no.

One thing to keep in mind is that the US does not replace it’s fighters in small steps. Remember that it went from the F-4 to the F-15 to the F-22. They plan on doing the same for the F-16 replacement.

Is that direct from the LM communications dept or via the Lex institute Spud…;)

While they may say some of the same things, it’s common sense. I also forgot to mention the reduced per-plane costs of post-SDD research and upgrades due to economy of scale and the reduced need for ISR assets (and their escorts & IFR needs).

Keep in mind I never said “removed” the need for, just “reduced”.

Wrong thought. There is a given amount of money for a given number of aircraft next to a fixed amount of money for development. Within that total the single variable is the number of aircraft when the money for development of a FY is used up or an extra share is in need. Whatever the reason is LM will have its profit, when the taxpayer will get less aircraft for the same money. :diablo:

Check you figures. In the FY2009 budget they planned to spend $4872 million (Total Proc Cost) on the FY2012 buy. In the FY2012 budget they cut that to $3815 million. This was a reduction of over a billion dollars (22%) for the FY2012 buy.

This was never a matter of less aircraft for the SAME money, it was less aircraft for less money.

See the full Block 3 software about that. 2006 Service Entry about 2011 😎

Where did you get that idea? The IOC has not been 2011 since pre-SWAT. In 2006 the IOC was scheduled to be in 2013. In 2006 they had Block 3 just entering the DT&E stage in 2011. We are currently about 12 months from entering the DT&E stage for Block 3.

If “affordable” price is a spec, then define it.

That has yet to be implemented. It has neither shown nor failed to meet that spec.

The cost of this year’s LRIP buy is calculated on how many you buy this year… next year is a separate contract and has NOTHING to do with the cost of this year’s buy!

Whether there is to be an overall reduction in buy has nothing to do with the cost of a single-year production contract.

Only if it were a multi-year contract would the exact schedule of so many per year be of small relevance.

I think you misunderstood what was being referenced.

When they released the FY2009 budget (in Feb 2008), they estimated the future FY2012 F-35A buy of 42 aircraft to be $101 million (Flyaway Cost). Three years later, when they released the actual FY2012 budget, the number of F-35As that are being sought is only 19 (down from the projected 42) at $151 million each (Flyaway Cost).

All I was saying is that the reduction from the proposed 42 to the actual 19 is what has caused a majority of the increase in price.