maus92Definition URF – Unit Recurring Flyaway” cost
“Recurring flyaway cost: Usually reported as the “unit recurring flyaway” (URF) cost, this covers only the airframe, engines, avionics, and other such equipment that come “standard” with every airplane (and thus are “recurring”). The URF is one of the two fundamental cost elements of the basic FAC. Until the F-35 program began using it, the URF was rarely ever reported in the general press. The F-35 program uses it to capture those costs of the basic airplane that are common to all of the partners. The partners are individually responsible for those “nonrecurring” elements they may desire to better “tailor” the airplane to their specific requirements. The F-35’s URF is often mis-reported as the airplane’s FAC, but this understates the true FAC.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Askari_Mark/Understanding_aircraft_unit_costs
maus92JSF predicted to cost less than F/A-18E/F (1996)
From a June, 1996 GAO report “Navy Aviation”:
“The Navy’s JSF variant is expected to be the most costly of the three service variants due in part to carrier suitability features and the greater operational capability in range and internal payload proposed for the Navy’s variant. Current unit recurring flyaway cost objectives for the Navy variant range between $33 million and $40 million (fiscal year 1996 dollars), based on a total buy of 2,816 aircraft for the three services. This compares to $53 million per unit recurring flyaway (fiscal year 1996 dollars) for the F/A-18E/F based on total procurement of 660 E/F’s at 36 per year. According to the JAST office’s Joint Initial Requirements Document, the JSF cost objectives are based on projected budget constraints and service needs.” (Chapter 4)
If you convert 1996 dollars to 2010, you get 45.85m to 55.8m for F-35C; 73.64m for F/A-18E/F (The Navy plans to buy 132 F/A-18E/F over the next few years for ~55m in 2010 dollars.)
maus92Maybe, but the Navy (like anyone else I guess) has also a record to screw up procurements. Like A-12, NATF or many (most? all?) ship programs…
Engine might be a problem because 2 F135s are to much, 2 F414s maybe not enough, the F119 is only good for faster jets. F100/110 too old?
To inherit the complete F-35 avionics suite is a good idea, as was done with F-18C to F-18E Block 1.But the A-7 wouldn’t cost 1m in todays money would it. 😉 The idea that a single purpose plane costs only 1/10 of a multirole fighter bomber is also hopelessly optimistic.
Would be interesting to have data about naval aircraft engine related losses. Problem is, there’s no modern single engined naval fighter in service.
For the Eurofighter, my guess is it was easier and cheaper to develop a 90kn class engine based on previous experience with the RB199 (no one had 180kn engines back then). Same might be true for the French, which operated mainly single engined jets before the Rafale (Mirage F1 and 2000, F-8 and Etendard). The F135 around a decade later would be the first fighter turbofan to offer the required thrust. I’d say safety was a bonus rather than the decisive factor for the euros.A bit late, I know. 😮
– I think that they could make the F119 work.
– Many F-35’s systems were developed from SH equipment, so yea it’s feasible to migrate some avionics and systems to NGAD / F/A-XX.
– a 1.5m A-7 in 1965 would be 10.38m today, vs. ~55m for a rhino, and who knows for a F-35C – but you can bet it won’t be less than a SH (even though it was originally promised to be less expensive.)
– I imagine that some Navy command tracks the numbers for engine failures / precautionary shutdowns – doesn’t necessarily have to have resulted in a crash (which is really the point.)
– I am a huge fan of safety, and the ability to get back on deck.
– Never too late to have a civil discussion.
maus92CF-01 (F-35C) test flight delayed
The projected numbers are still projected numbers only or I missed the test-flights of the service standard F-35C about that?! :diablo:
It looks like the CF-01 first flight will be delayed due to a wiring problem, described as a minor issue. Not always the case though, a MV-22 crashed in 1991 due to mis-wiring. Better safe than sorry.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/06/navy_f35c_test_flight_issues_060410w/
maus92Winslow Wheeler, Pierre Sprey, Carlo Kopp, etc… are certainly not going to provide objective reporting with regard to the F-35.
Follow the money. CDI is financed by groups who dislike defense spending in general, and the Lexington Group is funded by defense contractors. Objectivity has very little to do with it.
maus92F-35 podcast
Electric Politics recorded an hour-long podcast last month with with the Center for Defense Information’s Winslow Wheeler about his views on the F-35, which you can expect to be pretty much the polar opposite of The Lexington Institute’s Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. Not a whole lot of new information, but interesting – something to listen to in the car or working out.
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2010/05/the_f35_boondoggle.html
maus92JSF re-certified
As expected, the JSF is re-certified for a second time after Nunn-McCurdy breach.
maus92F-35 UFC/P
I did a quick calculation using 2002 numbers vs. 2010 numbers for Unit Flyaway Cost/Price (basically the cost of producing 1 plane w/o factoring in support costs, development costs, etc. – but including profit. Note that even the definition of UFC can be different between aircraft programs.) I got the 2001 numbers that were stated in 2002 dollars from GlobalSecurity and the 2010 figures from yesterday’s Reuters article about F-35 costs. The Reuters article cited the average unit flyaway cost at “about 60m” in 2010 dollars. I calculated the 2002 average UFC/P from the total buy numbers (this was prior to the Navy reducing their order,) and allowed for different numbers of each type – that came out to be 38.8m average UFC. If your convert 38.8m in 2002 dollars to 2010 dollars (using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator,) you get ~47m. So, 60/47=1.276, or ~28% increase from 2001 to now.
It’s easy to see how people get confused about cost numbers.
maus92According to the westegg.com inflation calculator, a $50M airplane in 1992 monies is worth $75.51M in 2009 monies. That is a difference of 22.4% when compared to the $92.4M estimate, not an 85% difference. Figures do not lie, but liars figure. Especially if those liars are told to do so by their management who want to poison the program in the same way the Clinton administration poisoned the F-22 program in the 1990s.
That’s true, but we need to know the constant dollar used for each figure to resolve the real relationship between the cost estimates.
***** Correction **** I think that you made the proper adjustments. I apologize.
maus92CF-01 (F-35C) getting closer to first flight
The CF-01 did some taxi testing on 28May,
maus92F135 vs. F136
Here is a very interesting article about the misinformation surrounding the “Great Engine War.”
maus92While the F-35 is replacing the F-18A-Ds, it will form the high end of the mix with the Super Hornets, so costing less than them isn’t the issue. Keeping their costs under control, so that they can get enough airframes is, though.
I think that once they get into serial production, these ridiculous price estimates will start to fade away, as the LRIP models aren’t representative of the fleet. I also think that the maintenance costs are exaggerated(and so does the USAF).
Yes, the USAF was very upset with the Navy about NAVAIR’s projections.
On a related note, Bloomberg published this today about JSF costs, referencing a report sent to Congress today:
“The Pentagon’s cost-analysis office reports that the price per plane — including research, development and construction costs — is now $112.4 million, the official said. That’s about 81 percent over the original estimate of $62 million.
The production cost alone of each plane is estimated at $92.4 million, almost 85 percent higher than the $50 million projected when the program began in 2002, the Pentagon will tell Congress.”
the Link to the story: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-01/lockheed-f-35-s-projected-cost-now-382-billion-up-65-percent.html
maus92Do you disagree that the F-35C wasn’t designed to replace the A-12, etc….?
I can understand you not liking the aircraft as a direct replacement for a program like that, and feeling that the Navy should’ve focused in that area.
I disagree that for what it is intended to do, that it won’t do very well, though.
I do not see the F-35C as a replacement for an A/F-X type. They are two different classes of aircraft. So yes, I do not disagree. I do foresee that it will be asked to perform some roles that an A/F-X would have been better suited, but like you said, that is not the fault of the F-35C.
I think that you understand my displeasure with the course the Navy chose (or forced to choose more likely,) when it changed its requirements and joined the JAST program. If the Navy wasn’t going to be allowed to build the aircraft it needed, it made sense to join a program that promised to replace legacy Hornets with a more stealthy jet for less than the cost of a Super Hornet.
I do not think that the F-35 series will be a bad aircraft. It certainly promises to bring some advanced systems to the strike community. I am actually excited to see what it can do – and even more excited to see what systems can be migrated to the NGAD F/A-XX.
The major problem that the F-35C is facing is cost. We already know that the aircraft will be expensive to procure. If NAVAIR is to be believed, the F-35C will cost significantly more to operate per flight hour than the aircraft it replaces – even after you factor in the SLEP. This will result in fewer F-35C’s purchased simply because the Navy can’t afford to support them. To fill decks, we will either have to buy more Super Hornets, or retire a few carriers. Not pretty.
In the end, I think that the Navy will be forced by fiscal realities to reduce their buy of F-35C’s, and mitigate the fighter gap with Super Hornets. And it needs to move forward with the NGAD / F/A-XX. The ASM threat looms larger than ever.
maus92Thanks for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance/disingenuousness/intellectual dishonesty. Clearly the editor of said web page mixed some of the F-35B & F-35C ‘data’. And some ‘data’ there (weight & fuel load in particular/most obviously) dates back to PRE WEIGHT REDUCTION!
It was never supposed to! The F-35C is a replacement for the F/A-18A-D (NOT THE A-6 / A-12 / A-X / A/F-X / F/A-18E/F line) & yet is achives range ON INTERNAL FUEL that the A-6 & F/A-18E/F require two external tanks to achieve.
Yes the A/F-X should have been developed but the USN was stuck with the F/A-18E/F instead. But the F-35C is a TOATLLY DIFFERENT developement to replace the F/A-18A-D.
The F-35C is meeting or exceeding its design goals & is MUCH more the right aircraft for the USN than the F/A-18E/F ever was.
The F/A-XX program began in 2008 but the USN can not wait until 2025 to get a stealth strike fighter.
Wrong. The F/A-18E/F WAS to replace the A-6. Had the A-12 or A-X / A/F-X continued there would be no F/A-18E/F.
The F/A-18E/F will never match the capabilities of the F-35C.
Again, the TF-30 was a 1960’s engine that was not designed for the F-14’s flight performance but it was the only engine that even came close when the intended engine (the F401) was cancelled. Even when the intended engine (the F401) was cancelled, the TF-30 was seen as only a interim engine for the F-14 in order to get it into service while a ‘definitive’ was developed.
Perhaps instead of faulting P&W for the TF-30 you should fault GE for not having anything better for two decades.
***
Because it knows that the F-35C will be able to do what the F/A-18E/F will not.
What the USN SHOULD do is change its IOC requirements to accept Block II F-35C & stop waiting money on any more F/A-18E/F. That would bring the F-35C’s IOC up to 2012.
The F-35C IS part of the USN’s ‘longer term’ needs!
The USN “2025 CAW”
1 squadron of twelve F/A-18E [12] (to be replace by F/A-XX, now NGAD)
1 squadron of twelve F/A-18F [12] (to be replace by F/A-XX, now NGAD)
2 squadrons of ten F-35C [20]
1 squadron of twelve UCAS [12]
1 squadron of 5 E/A-18G [5]
12-15 other support aircraft & helicopters***
But the F-35C isn’t intended to doesn’t address the Navy’s need for a long range strike fighter (although it DOES more so than the F/A-18E/F ‘did’). It will not be as expensive to build OR operate as you want so despirately to believe & even without stealth (including stealth simply puts in in a who different league) is a MAJOR improvement in capability of the the F/A-18E/F.
The F/A-XX began in 2008. Take a wild guess how expensive to build & operate it is going to be…not to mention that the USN simply can not wait for it to enter service.
It’s looks like you and I pretty much disagree about everything.
maus92Maus92-
I like how your thinking this out. After day 3-4, how about delivery of weapons via drone at that point. All your shiny toys can relax while the robots cleanup the neutered defenses.
Yup, that is certainly a reasonable scenario. Maybe you send the UCAV-N’s in before the manned strikes, to attrit the IADS to a manageable level. There are many possibilities.
Sign In
