The reduced the number of test aircraft in the program by 3, before they were built. Now they are talking about adding more back in.

They should have left the number alone.

News flash…. Development cost are NOT part of TOC. They are a separate line item and are not paid by the service that buys the F-35. They were only added to make the true TOC look worse than it actually is.

About Plan B. The USAF could always order more F-16s and F-15s as the lines are still open. Hell, for the next 1-2 years, they could even order some more F-22s and keep the line open.

The gun for the V-22 is called the Remote Guardian System (RGS) and is made by BAE. It is basically two drop-in packages. In the forward hatch, the sensor turret is installed. The rear hatch has the gun and ammo turret.

http://www.defensereview.com/bae-remote-guardian-system-rgs-remotely-operated-gun-turret/

part 1

part 2

I had some extra time to dig up the yearly totals for RTD&E. A little surprise as the amount paid from 2003 through 2009 went down for the US and up for the Partner Nations (both in dollars and percent of total)

RDT&E: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
0604800F (US) 1612.83 2092.55 2307.42 2489.85 2203.45 2051.88 1686.68<br />
United Kingdom 161.00 200.00 356.00 384.50 355.20 266.30 85.00<br />
Canada 13.77 5.24 5.70 5.67 4.03 2.17 1.20<br />
Denmark 7.40 7.70 24.03 23.93 20.91 14.51 4.11<br />
Netherlands 90.00 103.00 123.00 133.00 120.00 76.00 28.00<br />
Norway 8.95 22.98 24.70 24.59 15.38 8.29 4.56<br />
Italy 104.00 126.00 152.00 171.00 154.00 98.00 36.00<br />
Turkey 25.70 28.70 31.20 31.00 22.10 11.90 6.50<br />
Australia 14.95 28.15 39.72 29.74 14.43 8.01 5.00<br />
Totals<br />
US 1612.83 2092.55 2307.42 2489.85 2203.45 2051.88 1686.68 14444.65<br />
Partners 425.77 521.77 756.35 803.43 706.05 485.18 170.37 3868.92<br />
Total 2038.60 2614.32 3063.77 3293.28 2909.50 2537.06 1857.05 18313.57</p>
<p>US% 79% 80% 75% 76% 76% 81% 91% 79%<br />
Partner% 21% 20% 25% 24% 24% 19% 9% 21%<br />
___________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p>Actual (From yearly historical Docs)<br />
RDT&E: FY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Totals<br />
US 1612.83 2081.93 2083.78 2187.09 2109.43 1843.51 1714.89 13633.45<br />
Partners 425.77 517.81 758.11 802.49 700.32 552.72 250.62 4007.83<br />
Total 2038.60 2599.74 2841.89 2989.58 2809.74 2396.23 1965.51 17641.28</p>
<p>US% 79% 80% 73% 73% 75% 77% 87% 77%<br />
Partner% 21% 20% 27% 27% 25% 23% 13% 23%<br />


I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve lost track of the argument 😉

Just to review:

1. The Partner nations (not FMS Customers) have been paying about 20% of each year’s dev budget. Here is a doc from 2004 showing the planned dev payments from 2003 – 2009. Tommarow I can go through the actual yearly docs to see what they did pay, if you like.

Here are the numbers in a spreadsheet to show the totals and percentages.

RDT&E: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
0604800F (US) 1612.83 2092.55 2307.42 2489.85 2203.45 2051.88 1686.68<br />
United Kingdom 161.00 200.00 356.00 384.50 355.20 266.30 85.00<br />
Canada 13.77 5.24 5.70 5.67 4.03 2.17 1.20<br />
Denmark 7.40 7.70 24.03 23.93 20.91 14.51 4.11<br />
Netherlands 90.00 103.00 123.00 133.00 120.00 76.00 28.00<br />
Norway 8.95 22.98 24.70 24.59 15.38 8.29 4.56<br />
Italy 104.00 126.00 152.00 171.00 154.00 98.00 36.00<br />
Turkey 25.70 28.70 31.20 31.00 22.10 11.90 6.50<br />
Australia 14.95 28.15 39.72 29.74 14.43 8.01 5.00</p>
<p>US 1612.83 2092.55 2307.42 2489.85 2203.45 2051.88 1686.68<br />
Partners 425.77 521.77 756.35 803.43 706.05 485.18 170.37<br />
Total 2038.60 2614.32 3063.77 3293.28 2909.50 2537.06 1857.05</p>
<p>US% 79% 80% 75% 76% 76% 81% 91%<br />
Partner% 21% 20% 25% 24% 24% 19% 9%<br />


2. The Partner Nations (IK, Norway, etc) will buy the F-35 for the same as the US GOV in any given year.

3. FMS cutomers (Japan, Tiawan, South Korea, etc) who were not part of the program will pay whatever the US Gov negotiates. LM does not negotiate FMS sales.

I remember that back in 1997 an aviation magazine listed the minimum/maximum fly-away prices per copy with:

A model: 28 – 31 mln $
B model: 31 – 35 mln $
C model: 35 – 38 mln $

What year dollars?

1. Doesn’t help,

WHAT??? So in your eyes a part that is produced to support 3000-4000 planes is just as cheap as a part that is produced to support 100-200?

a 3 times larger engine cost more nomatter what, it goes without saying it also burn 3 times the amount of fuel.

It has a bigger engine because it does more.

2. Everything is designed from beginning to be cheap, self diagnostics are standard these days and would certainly be standard on any new Harrier,

Tell me, with the USMC and RN out of the Harrier business (as per the original proposition in this thread), who is going to develop and pay for this new Harrier?

sensitive skin isn’t gonna help up.

This is the one and only part of the35 that is more expensive to maintain than it’s predecessor.

3. Internal bay is a tougher environment then under wing carriage.

So let me see, a missile will last longer while hanging under a wing while being assaulted by supersonic winds and thrown around because of being so far away from the center of lift/roll, rather than hanging in a wind-free environment and near the center of lift/roll… right….

4. VLO airframe will most likely mean shorter service life due exessive maintenance.

So an increase in maintenance shortens an airframe’s life??? Care to back that up with some facts.

How stupid I feel by performing the maintenance on my Honda! I should have left it alone and it would last forever 😉

5. What’s a jammer got to do with CPFH ? unless it brake down frequently it won’t make an impact.

If the F-35 is doing the job of two aircraft (and is more survivable than either), then CPFH is less for the the F-35.

Besides, the US DoD and Norway have both backed up the claims made by LM that the CPFH is cheaper for the F-35 than 4th Gen AC.

Royal Navy

Sorry, my bad.