maus92Not quite..
Canadian purchase
65x F-35As for $6.99bil + $6.93bil support = $15.92bilAustralia purchase
24x F/A-18F for $2.23bil + $2.37bil support = $4.6bilF-35A is ca 15% more expensive to procure, but we got to count economy in scale effects where Canada orders almost three times as many aircraft. That would attribute to additional ca 20% difference (est.). I think it would not be far off to say that F-35A costs ca 30-35% more than F/A-18F.
I think the Canadian support costs are for 20 years according to G&M vs. 10 years for the Australians, according to your Australian defense link.
So just for the aircraft and associated equipment needed to fly the plane (without having the actual details about what’s included in the acquisition costs of either) you could buy a F-35A for $138.3m a copy, and a F/A-18F for $92.9m, for a difference of $45.4m, or ~33%, keeping in mind that the Canadian cost is a budgetary figure, while the Australian cost is a contract price.
maus92Here is a breakdown of the Development Costs taken from the latest MOU. You will notice that while some partners are paying less as a part of the Development, their Per-Airframe cost of Development is virtually the same no mater who they are.
Participant Maximum Contribution Airframes Per Airframe<br />
Australia 690,000,000 100 6,900,000<br />
Canada 551,000,000 80 6,887,500<br />
Denmark 330,000,000 48 6,875,000<br />
Italy 904,000,000 131 6,900,763<br />
The Netherlands 586,000,000 85 6,894,118<br />
Norway 330,000,000 48 6,875,000<br />
Turkey 690,000,000 100 6,900,000<br />
United Kingdom 952,000,000 138 6,898,551<br />
United States 16,843,000,000 2443 6,894,392<br />
Good info to have, and per airframe, the costs are similar – for these partners. How about potential future buyers: Japan, Israel, Finland, Spain, Korea, UAE, the Saudis, etc……
maus92canada isnt paying $140m for flyaway the wording runs
“Also included are system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support”thats the big bit that gets mixed up, ‘whats included’
with our fa-18, you can say any price between $50 and $250m and you would be right, depending what you includedfor the f-35a
the usa say ~usd60m 2010 yr$
aussies allowed ~usd68M 2008 yr$
That is why the URF is such a fantasy because it does not reflect all the costs associated with fielding the airplane, but it is an attractive metric to those who want to make the aircraft seem less expensive than it will turn out to be. Costs outside the URF are real and substantial, and will need to be accounted for and funded if you actually want to fly and fight the aircraft that you buy.
maus92“….but unless we see an itemized list of what each includes, it’s hard to say.”
Which is exactly the problem with all these comparisons between aircraft. It’s called “smoke and mirrors” in colloquial terms, and a convenient way for any party to disguise or exaggerate costs and promote their favorite product over another. At least these types of documents: “Defense Security Cooperation Agency NEWS RELEASE” give somewhat of an indication of what is included in a purchase, and I like them for that reason.
maus92“….. the total cost of the canadian f-35a works out to be cheaper than the total cost of our super hornets…”
The Canadian purchase of 65 F-35A’s works out to be $138.3m per plane, based on the $8.99b acquisition cost. This figure does not include an additional $6.93b for a 20 year “sustainment services” (maintenance) contract, and another $9.6b (fuel, etc.) cost to operate the planes over a 20 year period. These figures are in Canadian dollars, but the current exchange rate is very close to 1:1.
The Australian purchase of 24 F/A-18F’s works out to be $129.2m each, or $135.95 adjusted to 2010 US dollars. I might add that the Australian F/A-18F’s are prewired for easy conversion to EA-18G’s, and are 2-crewed version of the SH. The USN is buying their next batch of SH’s for considerably less per unit – but unlike the Australian’s, the USN doesn’t need to buy all the support gear needed to field a new aircraft.
So, it looks like the Canadians and the Australians are paying essentially the same amount.
maus92The fact is that if you want to introduce a 100 unit F-35 force into service, you need to pay roughly $13-14bil dollars + plan additional $10-11bil for next 20 years. In order to introduce the same number of F-16 Block 50s, you need to pay roughly $6-7bil and plan roughly $5bil for next 20 years.
The Canadians would probably buy F/A-18E/F’s rather than F-16’s, but they would still be cheaper than F-35’s.
maus92Why wasting a single dollar beyond USN ?
The Pacific and Indian Oceans.
maus92None claims something like that. You are not even forced to buy the most capable items to have a credible defense. Smart people will figure their basic defense needs and most cost-effective solution for that. Whatever the hardware will be you have to have the money for the trained and willing personal to get a result at all. The next step is to question the need for out of area work more critical.
The asymmetrial war in Afghanistan will be lost as the Vietnam war before. No foreign military force can save a country driven by narcotics traffic, bribery, and a medivial tribes-society. 😎
The Vietnam War was not lost by the Americans – it was lost by the South Vietnamese when they ran out of financial and materiel support and according to some, the will to fight on. The US had already mostly withdrawn from the fight by 1971 after instituting the Vietnamization policy – training the RVN Army to fight its own battles without American support. A ceasefire of sorts was agreed in 1973, but in 1975, the NVA attacked the south for the final time. The NVA was well funded and equipped by the USSR and China, however the US Congress had withdrawn almost all American funding for South Vietnam, having tired of the conflict.
maus92F-16 loves 2nd engine
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/13/f-16-pilot-loves-2nd-engine/
The header should say: F-16 pilot loves 2nd engine
maus92Hang on,Gripens and Thyphoons have been designed to be integrated into NATO ops from the get go.Same comms,weapons, etc.
You do not need F-35 to fight in a NATO coalition, this has already been proven. That is a total non-argument.something out of a LMTAS brouchure….
Key phrase: “Tightly integrated.” That hasn’t really been done yet. Coalition partners usually get assigned different AOR’s for many reasons – some of them are due to differences in equipment, technology, commonality, and capability.
I am enjoying the accusation of foisting the LM line.
maus92Also, you gotta look at things with at least some perspective
In the late 70/early 80s nations were tripping over themselves to order the F-16.
Now look at its replacement.
Even if you assume a 2:1 replacement ratio, F-35s will in no way be ordered in as many numbers.
Several factors here
1) Cold War is over, countries have more choice. In the past you went either US/USSR (maybe France at a push)
2) Massive cost overuns of the F-35. Would be interesting to see how its current prices compares to in 1982 dollar terrms
3) Political strings. In the past the US could pretty much do what it wanted with regards to selling its aircraft.Most nations now (including very close US allies)want operational autonomy
4) Some countries dont even need such a fighter. For example, NATO members like Hungary, Portugal and Czech obviously have no military doctrine requiring such a vital “first day of the war” aircraft
I’m curious why you want to make a comparison using 1982 dollars? Can you explain what you are trying to show? But if you want to see what $60m is in 1982 dollars, then it is $26.54m.
If a NATO partner wants to be tightly integrated in coalition operations, then it would be a good idea to buy the F-35. A non-US buyer pays significantly less for the F-35 than the US taxpayer will simply because, depending upon their tier, it pays little or nothing for the cost of developing the aircraft. A per unit cost might be: (URF (~60m 2010USD) + nation specific avionics/equipment + nation specific weapons integration + FMS management fee.) This does not include the costs needed to field any new aircraft: specialized in-country support and repair equipment and facilities, perhaps simulators, and misc. overhead.
maus92We’ll have to agree to disagree. Your assertation that the budget issues are not bad just sounds like wishful thinking to me when the program has just gone through a Nunn McCurdy breach process.
Point of fact: the program has gone through 2 recertifications due to Nunn-McCurdy breaches.
maus92if the SH system is iffy now, it means there is no hope for the eurocanards
….as well as all other operational tactical aircraft. I can’t fully sign onto the notion that 4/4.5G aircraft are doomed because it ignores the fact that strike missions use multiple platforms and technologies to penetrate air defenses. No aircraft, including stealth aircraft, will attack an opponent that fields a sophisticated air defense network without support from other assets and weapons launched from complementary platforms.
maus92Replacing all of the U.S. legacy fleet with Super hornets would be a disaster.
Yes if you have 2-3 super hornets they can do the Job of 1 F-35.
How then do you argue that the F-35 is to exspensive if you need 2 or 3 aircraft to do its job?
Can you support this statement with some facts? A block II -E/F is a formidable aircraft.
maus92Boeing questions “5-Gen,” pushes F/A-18 at Farnborough
(Sweetman)
Sign In
