True, this has already occurred with the F-35. This has been eased somewhat by the addition of orders from non-partner nations and cost saving measures initiated by L-M. I don’t think that the USAF production will reach the planned 80 per year. However, if the cost curve continues to drop as it has, then a rate approaching 60+ for the USAF per year and a total buy in the range of 1,300- 1,500 F-35A for the USAF is plausible.

The backlog is completely predicated on what the US has determined as necessary from a force structure perspective. That could easily change in ten years if China or another nation decided to massively increase their force structure or posture. The initial decision would be to churn F-35s out of the factory in greater numbers that anticipated. Alternatively, China and Russia could disarm and numbers would drop drastically… (I know which scenario I think is more likely though…)

“Continuing System Improvements” category has gone down in the estimate and they mention “revised cost [of] hardware modifications”. Is it because the modifications are assumed to be cheaper, or because some planned upgrades are cancelled?

I would attribute most of that to improved learning of the maintenance staff and refined processes/reduced timeframes for undertaking upgrades.

Part about lower fuel cost is of course just a magic trick.

What would you rather they do, state directly and clearly that a lower fuel cost was a factor for CPFH reduction or leave it out and wait for Defence-Aerospace to announce it to the world as if they were hiding something?

Most recent number I’ve seen is $42000 per flight hour for F-35A and $20000 for F-16C. These probably do not include upgrade programmes. Even within same service, direct comparison might be hard as maintenance requirements decrease when the plane matures, only to increase again towards the end of service life.

Why take any number other than the SAR one provided by the USAF? Just to correct my numbers it is $29.8K for F-35 and $25.5K for F-16 and available here. http://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf on page 91.

It is the only metric we can trust when it comes to cost per flight hour for both airframes when operated by the USAF. Now there may be other numbers available which combine the cost per flight hour of all three versions, or even just the Bee, but I am sure you agree that averaging the cost per flight hour across three versions of an aircraft with such different roles and operational method would be rather stupid…

Even within same service, direct comparison might be hard as maintenance requirements decrease when the plane matures, only to increase again towards the end of service life.

That is more than balanced out by the fact that the USAF figure for F-35 includes at least three different versions of the aircraft from a slew of different LRIP lots. This would make a significant difference to in service use and sustainment, as well as an inexperienced maintenance workforce. Once the F-35 fleet reaches Blk 3F and all airframes are modified I expect the cost per flight hour will drop another 5-10% bringing it very close to the current F-16 number.

Given, as the SAR points out, the significantly capability improvement the F-35 has over the F-16, this is a great result.

FY2009 flyaway of a Super Hornet was $57 million, FY2013 flyaway was $65 million. Weapon system cost was ~$80 million (airframe $33 million, two F414-GE-400 $4.8 million ea, avionics $9.3 million, the rest is support and ancilliary equipment). In the meanwhile, the F-35 is approaching ~$90 million flyaway in FY2020+ from above and even these numbers require one to make a lot of assumptions..

Yet, miraculously, the same aircraft costs a whopping $47 million more when exported while (and here it comes), the F-35 even more miraculously doesn’t !! Funny how those financial “miracles” always happen whenever the F-35 gets involved…

As said, black snow, indeed.

So, in that context then, explain the price the RAAF paid for their Super Hornets? Purchased in 2007-08 right at the bottom of the price curve for the aircraft and yet the numbers provided by The_5aab_God are indisputable!

Why would I care about things which were solved years ago?? OTOH, F-35 problems are right here right now..

Oh the irony…

And that beautiful thing called concurrency basically says that you’re buying the aircraft with these flaws inherently built in.

In the Danish deal there is no concurrency given the jets are being delivered within full rate production lots.

i think this takes the cake in presumptions

Not really. We know how capable the F-22 is in exercises such as Noble Eagle and Red Flag.

The Raptor has a huge advantage against its adversaries as demonstrated by the F-22’s incredible kill ratio against USAF Red Air (which play as enemy air forces during exercises) and its F-16s and F-15s, during the exercises undertaken in the last decade: for instance, during exercise Noble Edge in Alaska in June 2006, few F-22s were able to down 108 adversaries with no losses, while during the 2007 edition of the same exercise, they brought their record to 144 simulated kills.

In its first Red Flag participation, in February 2007, the Raptor was able to establish air dominance rapidly and with no losses.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/09/30/these-may-be-the-only-f-22s-achilles-heels-in-a-dogfight-against-4th-gen-fighter-jets/

Given the F-35 has superior stealth, range, sensors and fusion over the F-22 it is very likely it will also dominate the way the F-22 has.

Don’t organize your maintenance department like the US does. It is terribly inefficient with maintenance specialists who have very narrow fields of training. This results in many maintainers being under utilized. But the guys standing around with their hands in their pockets still contribute to maintenance cost.

Agree, the US has maintenance squadrons with manning numbers twice and in places three times that of their international partners. While this is great for wartime service and allows the US to effectively plan for continued operations in the presence of casualties it kills budgets for a peacetime air force.

What’s the gospel about F/A-18 price? Is it $125 million as stated in the Danish assessment?

Interestingly Boeing hasn’t come out claiming they have been mis-represented on price. What does that tell us? Did Boeing think they had it in the bag and charged a bit more than they needed to? More likely Boeing had to present that cost structure because there was no other way to keep the SH in production until 2022-4 when the Danes wanted their first aircraft. I can’t see Denmark accepting aircraft manufactured in 2018 that have sat in the desert for 3 years before delivery.

In the end the SH procurement price doesn’t matter as the capability assessment of the F-35 was significantly higher, as were the industrial benefits, that it would have been stupid to choose anything else.

As posted in the European F-35 sustainment costs thread, the following has some great official info on the Danish selection.

http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf

Some great info there but pretty straight forward rankings given the F-35 now presents the lowest risk, was the lowest cost to acquire, second lowest to sustain and has the best survivability and mission accomplishment rating of the three candidates. Even factoring in the reduced number of F-35 compared to other contenders it still presents better overall value over the life of Danish service.