maus92Isn’t the US the only military in the world that uses dedicated electronic attack craft? Wouldn’t air-to-ground anti-radiation missiles be more cost-effective?
Other countries use various electronic systems to map their enemies and protect their aircraft. However, generally the closer you bring your EW assets to the fight, the more effective your efforts will be. Anti-radiation missiles only address radar emitters – there are other types of sensors and defensive equipment that need suppression. In a less-complex air defense environment you might get away with using anti-radiation missiles to defeat standalone threats – but the US plans for penetrating sophisticated air defenses.
maus92The ~60m price for the F-35 that LM floating of late is for LRIP-4 F-35A’s. Depending upon who you want to believe, this price is accurate or totally misleading – the ~60m may be what LM refers to as the “air system contractor” unit flyaway costs – which does not include the engine. But we won’t know until the current negotiations between the DoD and LM are completed. In any event, LM is under pressure to lower prices, or risk Congress ordering fewer units, which drives up the cost even further.
maus92Not sure if this is the right thread for this query, but just wondering: does the US Navy’s acquisition of the F-35C make the EA-18G Growler redundant? Why would you need an electronic attack/jamming escort aircraft if the strike plane is stealthy?
Electronic attack aircraft create attack corridors for other aircraft (or cruise missiles, UAV’s, etc.) to exploit. The EA-18G will be critical component for strike packages for some time to come, until supplemented and eventually replaced by the F-35 NGJ. The idea that the F-35 will mount strike missions without electronic support is ludicrous. Stealth technologies reduce the detection range of enemy sensors, but doesn’t make the aircraft invisible. EA further reduces the effectiveness of sensors, and can also disrupt communications links that integrate the various nodes of an air defense system. Incidentally, the EA-18G platform will host development for a number of systems that will be eventually integrated into the F-35 NGJ.
maus92What is interesting in the article is the insight the reader gains from the various sources mentioned. And it was not written by Mr. Sweetman.
maus92Calling the F/A-18 a “bomb truck” is rather simplistic and really doesn’t give the plane the credit it deserves. It is not a bomb and missile carrying flying barge. In the right hands a basic hornet is a match or better with almost any jet out there. The F-35 has large shoes to fill
Don’t take me wrong – the F/A-18 is a super airplane. However, “bomb truck” is common nomenclature assigned to the plane by many, and should not be taken in a derogatory sense, imo. The F/A-18 is the workhorse of the fleet – it is effective, easy to fly, and is probably the safest naval aircraft to date. One author (who I can’t find at the moment) feels that the F/A-18 marked the end of the Navy’s transition to jet aircraft, in the sense that it is the first jet to posses all the attributes to make a great carrier aircraft.
maus92Entered service 5 years ago. Hardly a 20 year old airplane (the YF-22 is not the F-22A). I’d agree on the electronic goodies if only for supportability.
Yea, I am referring to the electronic systems. But it’s a mute point anyway. To reopen the F-22 line, and spool up all the subs would cost a lot of money. At any rate, the existing F-22 will have their systems upgraded if the AF requests the funds – something they are doing sporadically.
maus92F-35 nemesis Bill Sweetman is back
And bashing LM on pricing vs. cost. He is basically saying that LM is pressuring its subs to lower their pricing to offer (part of) the next batch of production vehicles at a low fixed price, with the promise of making the difference up on later buys. Stay tuned.
maus92Pardon me for my ignorance, but what difference does a few decimal point differences in mach number make in this era of BVR? Whether a plane flies at Mach 1.6 or Mach 2.6 it’s equally likely to get shot down by a Mach 4 AAM or Mach 6 SAM.
I doubt the F-35’s speed will have anything to do with its expected superiority over the Flanker or Fulcrum.
It makes little difference except when you need to extend to break off an engagement.
The F-35 is really a strike aircraft ala the legacy F-18 – a bomb truck – with the ability to imploy medium range (and future long range) AAM’S.
maus92If they built 100 more planes, the fly away cost would be below $140 million.
Maybe (btw the ~140m is the 2007 URF based on a 20 unit buy.) But if for some reason the F-22 resumed production, I would want to significantly update the avionics suite – after all it’s a 20 yo airplane.
maus92maus
yes, a sort of a mini life time cost as we will have a resale value, it includes everything, only its over ~10-15 yrs (infrastructure sims wages weapons and fuel etc)
Hmm, that what it seems like – almost like a lease. I wonder how many hours per year this buys?
maus92i dont think AURF include this either ?
a recent example to show what you mean is our purchase of 24 SH
the URF was ~50m but our ‘total’ cost for 10 yrs is ~200m
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying that each SH will cost ~200m to procure and operate for 10 years? If so, that sounds like a some sort of total life cycle cost (LCC) – which are notoriously inaccurate.
maus92Not necessarily. The sunk costs have already been paid(i.e. R&D, testing, infrastructure and facilities). Spare parts, etc… aren’t going add up to those sorts of numbers for every additional Raptor, especially since the higher the number, the greater economy of scale you get.
The 140m is a generous number. But say you get a commitment to build 100 more planes (and if the production line wasn’t shut down,) you could conceivably negotiate a significant price reduction. But that’s not going to happen unless something drastic occurs. Reopening the production line would most likely increase the AUPC.
maus92If you add in development costs, how much more does any other fighter cost, than the commonly accepted fly away cost though? Had they not shut down the F-22 production line at 187, Raptor number 188 wouldn’t have cost $350 million.
Absolutely correct. If the ~350m figure you quote is the AUPC for the F-22 program, and the AF purchased one more aircraft, then the AUPC would be roughly 348.8m, assuming the cost to build one more plane is ~140m.
maus92“”””maus92 said
Currently, LM states that the URF for F-35A’s will be ~60m (2010yd) – if current production figures are held (btw, CAPE says ~80m URF,) and the Pentagon budgeteers say ~112m AUPC (2010yd). So there are the glaring differences. A non-US operator should expect to be spending considerably more money per unit to field and operate the aircraft””””no its the other way around, the usa eats most of the R&D
partners will buy at the URF price
non partner FMS sales will be URF + 3%? fms charge
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. A non-US operator will need to budget for support equipment, sims, and other facilities separately because those costs are not factored into a URF. These additional costs required to field and operate the aircraft will be considerable.
maus92Maus,
If there will in fact be a glaring price difference in URF recurring price (engine included) between FMS and US taxpayer bought, then there is a significant flaw in the Program that US Congress and taxpayers have not yet been informed about.
Added R&D and T&E costs should therefore not be further included into US-only URF buys. If the case then there are serious shenanigans in the Program with attempts to hide various under reported R&D costs.
URF and the Total Flyaway or FUC (URF + non-recurring and ancillary costs) should be similar under FRP MYB, given an indentical block variant and those being similarly equipped. Now if US variants have superior stock electronics and superior LO functions, then sure, they would appropriately come in higher priced under FUC. That mystery will need to be better understood perhaps starting in 2015, under anticipated FRP. If anything though, USAF FUC prices should be LOWER than similarly equipped FMS unit as USAF will be buying in higher volume.
But if USAF will indeed be paying significantly higher FUC, then there is a Big-Pharma type (a la US consumer subsidizing cheap Foreign market drug consumer) flaw in the Program which Congress/GAO need to be examining ASAP.
Flat out – unless part of such a subsidized Stimulus bill (or other hidden deal), USAF’s FY15 FRP buys will be higher than $60m URF (2010 YD), w/ engine included (mainly due to reduced buys not honestly being disclosed). Not to mention… hold onto your hats soon after, following an equipped block IV FUC. (economic realities will take over from marketing)
In the near-term, I simply cannot wait for lot 4’s full procurement pricing spin to come out. (unfortunately).
Sorry for the late response. Generally speaking, the US and a non-US customer will pay roughly the same price for the same airframe. If there is a difference, it would be due to the choice of engine (if any,) avionic flavors, or specialized equipment required / or not installed. The glaring difference I spoke of is a result of how the US budgets for weapons systems program costs. The URF is only part of the cost equation used in the budgeting process – because it does not account for the additional costs to develop, field and operate the aircraft. The US prefers to use the AUPC which allows for these additional costs, and produces an average cost of all three variants. Currently, LM states that the URF for F-35A’s will be ~60m (2010yd) – if current production figures are held (btw, CAPE says ~80m URF,) and the Pentagon budgeteers say ~112m AUPC (2010yd). So there are the glaring differences. A non-US operator should expect to be spending considerably more money per unit to field and operate the aircraft.
Sign In
