JSF cost has several estimates, none solid

Lockheed Martin:

“The average estimated unit recurring flyaway cost for the F-35A is about $65 million in 2011 dollars,” said Lockheed spokes-woman Laurie Quincy, reiterating the company’s claim in an email Aug. 31.”

JSF program office:

“….Lockheed’s $65 million price tag claim is “disingenuous” because the figure does not include the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that powers the jet.”

“… the program office has repeatedly asked the company to stop using the $65 million figure.”

Source: Navy Times

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/09/navy-jsf-cost-has-several-estimates-f35-091111w/

The British and Germans have no problem to have a time-out for their naval fighters for some years. It is no real capability gap because the training needs of modern fighters do not differ that much from shore-based examples. All modern main fighters are 24h all weather multi-role examples, when sim-domes allow to train special missions. In the worst case of urgency funding is no issue.

Landing on a 10K ft runway is completely different than landing on a carrier deck moving in 3 dimensions at night in foul weather. It can be simmed to a point, but cq is a perishable skill.

V/R,

CA
Annapolis

F-35 Head Blasts $918M Cost Rise

Vice Adm. David Venlet:

“[cost increases are] an extreme and problematic burden to the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

“Costs must come down significantly to make this aircraft one we can afford.”

“The first three initial production contracts are exceeding target costs by 11-15 percent. Over-target cost projections for the 28 U.S. aircraft in these production lots total $918 million. The U.S. Government is responsible for paying $635 million and the contractors [Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney] pay $283 million by reducing their target fee. Adding to the extreme burden, and a product of the plan that is concurrently testing and producing aircraft, $136 million [to fix cracked bulkhead on F-35B and other problems] is required to modify early production aircraft to attain useful service life and capability,”

http://defense.aol.com/2011/07/19/f-35-head-blasts-918m-cost-rise-extreme-and-problematic-burde/

Top 10 F-35B issues

More on the F-35B: drive shafts, roll post nozzle actuators, lift fan clutch, generator (apparently the problem lies with newer generators,) wing roll-off.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/03/top-10-list-of-f-35b-flaws-and.html

F-35B’s will not operate from CVN’s

“The agreement formalizes an earlier decision not to deploy F-35Bs from carriers, but rather to have all Marine squadrons deploying on carriers flying the same C version as their Navy compatriots. The STOVLs will operate from land bases and amphibious ships.”

Also noted is the Navy plan to operate 2 F/A-18E/F and 2 F-35C squadrons per CVN by the mid 2020’s.

The Navy also intends to develop a 6th generation aircraft to replace the Super Hornet, noting that it will not operate a CVN with an all-F-35 loadout.

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=5956057&c=AME&s=SEA

What? You’re saying that the partner nations will rely on the F-18E for air superiority? Canada, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Turkey, the Royal Navy etc will all have USN carriers with F-18Es on tap? Amazing!

In the USN, the Super Hornet’s role will be is anti-air, while the primary mission of the F-35C will be strike. Both aircraft are multirole, so packages and roles can be adjusted as tactically necessary. How other nations intend to utilize F-35’s is up to them, but it looks like they have decided that single role aircraft are not the way to go.

Dis’ a Super Hornet to your own detriment… if you have ever seen one ~hover at high alpha, you know what I mean.

Why do people compare a multirole F-35 to an air superiority EF and expect them to compete? The EF is going to be more agile, and the F-35 is going to plink targets at will…