pfcemNow could someone explain why, just a few days ago, Tom Burbage finally acepted that the 2014 “Fly Away” cost for the F-35A will be $80 million? (And he´s being optimistic)
Do you mean the Israeli F-35 quoted last month for an estimated flyaway costs at $47 million in FY2002 dollars or about $80 million in projected FY2014 dollars? 🙂
pfcemIsn’t the Typhoon more of a defensive aircraft with offensive capabilty as a second role. And the F-35 more of an offensive aircraft with defensive capabilty as a second role?
I don’t understand the point of comparing the 2.
No, the Typhoon is a 4th generation multi-role (although STILL not up to ‘full capability’ standard) fighter & the F-35 is a 5th generation mulit-role fighter.
The only point to comparing them is to show that despite how GREAT a 4th generation fighter the Typhoon is, it simply DOES NOT compare well vs a 5th generation fighter.
pfcemPFCEM
I’ve seldom seen so much error and disinformation in a single post.
You say: “THE MOST RECENT (public as of June 2008) FLY-AWAY PRICE FOR THE F-35A IS THE $58.7 MILLION (FY2008 dollars) OFFICIALLY STATED BY THE US DOD. That is the price quoted to Australia, Canada & Norway).”
George Standridge, Lockheed’s vice-president of business development for the JSF program, does not agree.
He made it very clear that that price was in FY2002 dollars (and is thus worth about $78 m today, allowing for defence sector inflation). Moreover, he also made it clear that the price was a short-term and conditional offer (available only to the JSF partners), and was dependent on all of the JSF Level 1 and 2 partners (Australia, Britain, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada and Denmark) signing up within a very tight timescale (long before development is complete) and dependent on all signing for their full commitments (368 aircraft), with no reductions. Recent statements from the UK and the Netherlands (and from Norway) make it clear that these totals (and in Norway’s case, this timescale) cannot be met.
And just where has George Standridge said it way FY2002 dollars?
Moreover, that price is contradicted by the USAF budget book, the price quoted to Israel, and the newer prices ferreted out by Aviation Week.
No it isn’t.
The USAF budget book is THEN YEAR DOLLARS, not constant dollars.
Israel was almost certainly quoted a FLY-AWAY price similar (if not identical) to OFFICIAL $58.7 million quoted to Australia, Canada & Norway. The “price” being quoted in the media for Israel is TOTAL PROGRAM COST IF ALL OPTIONS ARE EXERCIDED, not fly-away cost.
No-one would deny the extraordinary capability of the F-35 as a ‘day one, kick down the door’ bomber, but when operating with external stores, the F-35 becomes a slow, draggy aircraft, with few advantages over Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen NG/F-15SG, etc., and some disadvantages.
So what. The F-35 doesn’t have to operate with external stores, 4th generation fighters DO. It can carry more fuel internally than its 4th generation “competators” can with three external tanks & these days two JDAM (or other PGM) is the most typical payload carried by light/medium multi-role fighters. And of course the F-35 can substitute eight SDB for the two ‘2,000 lb class’ weapons…
What disadvantages would a F-35 have when operating with external stores?
You list a number of areas where you deny specific Typhoon advantages, using DOES NOT and WILL NOT in caps for emphasis. In every case you are wrong, despite your caps.
Ok, this will be interresting…
1) The Typhoon DOES offer better air defence capability.
It’s faster, faster climbing, quicker accelerating, with better supersonic agility, longer radar and missile range (especially at azimuth limits). It has a helmet sight, an excellent IRST, and better MMI, with DVI. There are, of course, scenarios, in which F-35 stealth would be a decider….2) The Typhoon DOES offer greater combat persistence.
It carries more AAMs than F-35, and can stay on CAP longer.3) The Typhoon IS more deployable.
The Typhoon requires a smaller logistics tail, fewer groundcrew, less ground support equipment, and does not require specialist kit to maintain/repair specialised surface coatings. Nor does it suffer from many repairs being impossible outside US facilities.4) The Typhoon IS cheaper.
We know that the actual flyaway cost for an RAF Tranche 2 Typhoon is £37.76 m. We know this because we know that the Tranche Two global production contract was was “worth €13 Bn” for al 236 Tranche 2 aircraft. That’s €55.08 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the €/£ rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m. For interest, that was then equivalent to $73 m (you can look up the exchange rates for that day at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/20041220/).Except that the cost in Euros was fixed, so you should use current €/$ exchange rates, which make a Tranche 2 Typhoon $69.498 in today’s money.
And guess what, that’s cheaper than $96.8 m! It’s less than $83 m. It’s even less than the over optimistic, stabilised, post FY2013 prediction of $79 m……
5) The Typhoon DOES promise lower support & sustainment costs.
EF GmbH will contractually guarantee their support costs, and MMH/FH figures, which are lower than what JSF aim to provide, but haven’t so far offered to guarantee.6) The Typhoon WILL be better networked.
It doesn’t rely on stealthy datalinks that are useless outside the bubble, and can communicate directly with AWACS and all other players, not only receiving the SRAP (Secure Recognised Air Picture) but also contributing to it. F-22 and F-35 can’t, and there’s no technology or contracts in place to ensure that they will be able to.7) Because of 6 above, the TyphoonWILL be better suited to CAS and BAI missions, and to any mission when being integrated into the Global Information Grid is essential – eg complex scenarios where you can’t afford to have ‘loose cannon’ flights of F-22s stooging around unable to communicate fully with friendly forces, or eg real time recce/ISTAR, etc.
F-22 and F-35 will have formidable ISTAR capabilities, but if they can’t transmit their intelligence ‘take’ to the network, such capabilities are of little use.
8) The Typhoon carries more useful mixed loads, and has a better A-A capability, and so WILL promise better swing role capability.
9) The Typhoon WILL carry a large number of weapons that JSF can not carry internally, and so cannot carry in the only configuration where it offers any advantage over non-stealthy platforms.
The Typhoon WILL be able to defeat the threat of a developed ‘Flanker’ more often, with a better exchange ratio than JSF.
Apart from that, good post! :rolleyes:
1) OPERATIONALLY that is not true, the F-35 fights CLEAN, all 4th generation fighters fight DIRTY which SIGNIFICANTLY degrade their flight performance.
2) The F-35 CAN (if needed) carry more AAMs than it would ever need AND with ANY payload stay in the air longer than the Typhoon.
3) LOL
4) Nice try. But even IF we accept your Typhoon numbers (which ARE NOT anywhere near the fly-away cost export customers have been quoted &/or are paying) 58.7 million is LESS than 69.5 million.
It is not fair to quote THEN YEAR DOLLARS (amorized beyond 2030) for the F-35 vs some contant dollars for the Typhoon.
5) LOL
6) BS, F-22 & F-35 will be FULLY networked.
7) Being is how 6 is complete BS…
8) Again, the F-35 CAN carry any weapon the Typhoon can carry (it is simply a matter of intigration).
9) BS. The Typhoon can not hope to possibly match the F-35’s exchange ratio vs ANY threat.
pfcemNor is it accurate to say that 2005 was “the last year firm numbers where given publicly”. JSF cost figures have been given out regularly by Tom Burbage, George Standridge, General Davis, and others at successive open briefings at Farnborough, Paris, etc. Moreover, more recent, more accurate figures have been published elsewhere.
1) By the Congressional Research Service (who gave an average procurement cost (APUC) for the F-35A/B/C (which does not include R&D or other costs) estimated at $104.4 million per aircraft in 2006. They identified a 38% increase since 2001.
2) In the Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book. Fiscal Year (FY) 2008/2009 Budget Estimates published in February 2008, which gave the following unit flyaway cost figures for the F-35A.
$83.131 m – average Programme flyaway
$199 million in 2009,
$158 million in 2010,
$124 million in 2011,
$101.726 m in FY2012 and
$91.223 m in FY2013, and
$79.973 m to completion.Those are unit flyaway costs, not unit system costs and not unit programme costs.
And those figures are founded on the assumption that defence industry inflation will run at only 2% per year, which is MOST unlikely.
3) In Aviation Week last month Av Week, Dave Fulghum wrote that: “16 F-35A/B/Cs in the 2009 budget will cost $237 million each. In 2010, 12 F-35A will cost $203.1 million each and 18 F-35B/Cs will cost $198.1 million apiece. For unit costs over the total program in then-year dollars, 1,763 F-35As will cost $96.8 million per aircraft, while the 680 F-35B/Cs come in at $122.6 million.”
The most recent flyaway price for the F-35A is thus $96.8 m, and for the B/C $122.6 m.
The average estimated flyaway costs given by Simdude above ($45 million for the A model $55 million for the B and $61 million for the C version) are thoroughly out-dated and discredited. Lockheed gave them in FY2002 dollars, to start with, and inflation alone has increased these totals significantly. Recent official USAF figures suggest that they’re out by nearly 100%!
THEN YEAR DOLLARS!!!
Not constant/current (FY0208) dollars.
THE MOST RECENT (public as of June 2008) FLY-AWAY PRICE FOR THE F-35A IS THE $58.7 MILLION (FY2008 dollars) OFFICIALLY STATED BY THE US DOD. That is the price quoted to Australia, Canada & Norway).
In suggesting that selection of the F-35B: “has something to do with the fear of the RAF if the RN gets F-35Cs then the Typhoon becomes extraneous. The only thing the Typhoon has on the F-35B is range.” Simdude shows his anti-Typhoon bias.
OK smart-ass, so what (other than range) does the Typhoon have on the F-35B? And don’t give me that weapons capability BS because any weapon that the Typhoon can employ could (note I said COULD, not WILL – it is simply a matter to the cost of integration) be employed by the F-35B.
No-one would suggest that JSF isn’t a better carrier aircraft than any Typhoon would be, nor that JSF’s Stealth doesn’t give it a fundamentally better “day one, kick down the door” capability, if you’re going up against an opponent with a sophisticated modern IADS (Integrated Air Defence System), and can’t use cruise missiles.
But Typhoon offers the UK things that JSF won’t, and that’s why the two complementary types are being procured. Quite apart from industrial factors and timescale (it will be ten years before we have a JSF squadron close to becoming operational), the Typhoon offers better air defence capability and greater combat persistence. It is more deployable. It is cheaper, and it promises lower support and sustainment costs. Until the USA sorts out the issues with stealthy datalinks, Typhoon will be better networked, and thus better sorted to CAS/BAI and to missions where being directly integrated into the grid are important. After Day One, Typhoon promises better swing role capability and can carry vital UK weapons which JSF can only carry in a non-stealthy fit.
BS.
The Typhoon DOES NOT offer better air defence capability.
The Typhoon DOES NOT offer greater combat persistence.
The Typhoon IS NOT more deployable.
The Typhoon IS NOT cheaper.
The Typhoon DOES NOT promise lower support & sustainment costs.
The Typhoon WILL NOT be better networked.
The Typhoon WILL NOT be better sorted to ANY missions.
The Typhoon WILL NOT promise better swing role capability.
The Typhoon WILL NOT carry ANY weapon the JSF could not carry.
Yes I know you said non-stealthy fit so I will add…
The Typhoon WILL NOT be able to defeat ANY target that the JSF could not.
pfcemAre the USMC/RAF/RN going to use the F-35B so the aircraft can land (and take off vertically) – in the battlespace – on unprepared/rough airstrips?
SHORT take-off & landing from SEMI-PREPARED airstrips.
And why aren’t the USN using the F-35B? Is it simply range? And if so, don’t CATOBAR aircraft have to caryy massive fuel reserves anyway – in case of ‘go rounds’ and aborted landings?
Because the only advantage a V/STOL aircraft has is in when a CTOL aircraft can not operate…
The bring-back payload (fuel & weapons) for the F-35C is greater than that for the F-35B even with the need to reserves (which is not that much anyway because aircraft that abort landings take on additional fuel from tankers.)
And also why not just use the F-35C instead of the F-35A in the USAF, for example does it matter if a carrier based aircraft operates from land (like the European/Aussie/Canadian etc etc Hornets, for example – Why was the F-18L not used?)
Because the F-35A IS the F-35 optimized for the largest customer (the USAF). The F-35B is a compromised (STOVL) design for the USMC based on & with much commonality with the F-35A and the F-35C is a compromised (carrier-borne) design for the USN based on & with much commonality with the F-35A.
Keep in mind that the F-35A weighs ~3000 lbs LESS than the compromised F-35B & F-35C…
The whole JSF programme seems a bit strange. For instance the RN are building these two supercarriers with the intention of using the F-35B, I don’t understand why the RN will be operating these two CATOBAR size carriers with an airwing of STOVL fighters and helicopters? Why not just use more carriers similar to what they have?Are they simply leaving the CATOBAR system asleep because they might use the E-2?
Because the UK is being cheap.
Also, how will the USMC launch the F-35B off the IwoJima type carriers, if they do not have skijumps? And if they can do it, then surely the F-35B could be operated from an HMS Ocean type ship, so why are the new carriers so large?
Without a sky-jump but the same way they would if they did have a sky-jump. This will sacrifice range/payload vs having a ski-jump but leaves the entire deck open for use.
pfcemOK, some have touched on this but appearantly too many still do not get it.
The 2009 USAF estimate that indicates an average unit cost of $83 million for the 1,763 USAF F-35A is in THEN YEAR DOLLARS. That means the 2010 unit price is the projected 2010 price IN FY2010 DOLLARS, the 2020 unit price is the projected 2020 price IN FY2020 DOLLARS & the 2030 unit price is the projected 2030 price IN FY2030 DOLLARS. So PLEASE stop this nonsense that it indicates that the average unit cost is $83 million is CONSTANT (FY2008) DOLLARS.
The FACT is that the DOD has PUBLICLY stated that the fly-away cost for the 1st 368 export F-35A is $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars). That is known to be the price quoted to Australia, Canada & Norway (most likely Israel & anyone/everyone else as well). Yes there is a lot that can happen between now & when export customes actually pay for their F-35s that can change what price they ultimately pay BUT that is true for ANY & ALL weapon system & is NOT unique to the F-35.
Now I know there are those who simply can not believe that the F-35A can/will cost $58.7 million but that is THEIR problem & DOES NOT change the fact that that IS the most current OFFICIALLY QUOTED fly-away price.
pfcemwel you have to understand two facts
fact one
The F-16 weighs 9205kg empty weight and has either two options for engine one of 13000kg of thrust or other of 14500kg thrust of force
see lockheed brouchurehttp://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f16/index.html
You should get your facts straight.
And keep in mind that “company’ websites are meant for the “public mass market” & don’t necessarily state the actual correct factual data…
[note that the data below is PURPOSELY rounded to the nearest 250 lbs range]
F-16 Block 25, 32 & 42
empty weight: ~18,000-18,250 lbs
engine: F100-PW-220 ~ 14,500 lbs dry & 23,750 lbs with afterburning
F-16 Block 30 & 40
empty weight: ~19,000-19,250 lbs
engine: F110-GE-100 ~ 17,000 lbs dry & 28,500 lbs with afterburning
F-16 Block 50
empty weight: ~19,250-19,500 lbs
engine: F110-GE-129 ~ 17,750 lbs dry & 29,500 lbs with afterburning
F-16 Block 52
empty weight: ~18,250-18,500 lbs
engine: F100-PW-229 ~ 17,000 lbs dry & 29,000 lbs with afterburning
F-16 Block 60
empty weight: ~20,500 lbs
engine: F110-GE-132 ~ 19,000 lbs dry & 32,500 lbs with afterburning
pfcemAgain, we will be lucky to get enough F-35s to replace all the F-16s, A-10s, F/A-18s & AV-8s that they ARE the replacement for much less replacing F-15s.
pfcemOk lets get some things straight here.
The USAF has A LOT of responsibilities all over the world. In order to meet those responsibilities (in part at least) there are 10 Air Expeditionary Forces.
In order to ensure a VIABLE F-22 force of ONE squadron for each Air Expeditionary Force PLUS training, attrition & periodic aircraft depot maintenance the USAF requires a MINIMUM of 381 & even then it would have to by some miracle keep 178 F-15C “Golden Eagle” flying well beyond 2025 to suppliment the F-22s. The last USAF F-15C was procured in FY1985…
THE F-35 IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE F-15!!! We will be lucky to get enough F-35s to replace all the F-16s, A-10s, F/A-18s & AV-8s that they ARE the replacement for much less replacing F-15s.
Now, in order to BE ABLE to build 20 F-22 for FY 2010 there are a lot of suppliers that MUST have firm orders NOW or production will be delayed resulting is SIGNIFICANTLY higher costs.
pfcemWell, the Spey is a big Turbofan. So, I would think a P & W F-100 or GE F-110 would be a better choice…..(non-afterburning of course)
😮
The Spey IS NOT a big turbofan, NOWHERE near as big as a P&W F100 or GE 110. Shorter but of similar diameter to the GE F404 & EJ200. And an uprated (13,500 lbs thrust) Spey 807A flew in 1991 but never entered service.
pfcemThe AMX is a light attack aircraft, not a strike fighter by any stretch of the imagination.
It was basically an early 1990’s A-4 Skyhawk. A bit bigger & heavier but no more capable.
I always liked it & thought it held promis as a relatively cheap yet capable enough light attack aircraft (ala A-4 Skyhawk).
pfcemLook, for goodness sakes, I’m not saying that the F-35s stealth is somehow a liability. I’m saying that the design’s greatest weakness is that in order to maintain stealth it must carry a much smaller and less diverse weapons load than any other equivalent fighter. It is a disadvantage that it must do this. It does put it at a disadvantage if it is discovered, but of course as I have said this is unlikely unless the pilot engages foolishly, which given the F-35s sensory features he is unlikely to do. But that the fact that in order to maintain this, its greatest advantage, it must use (at the moment, with no time scale on a possible increase) only four ordnance stations is a big trade-off and I don’t see how that can be denied.
Good God man. HOW is being able to carry MORE fuel internally than remotely comparable 4th generation fighters with THREE external tanks PLUS A SIMILAR TYPICAL COMBAT LOAD of two MRAAM & two precision guided munitions (or eight 250 lb SDB) an “Achilles’ heel” or “massive limititation” or a “great problem” for the F-35?
A ‘better’ design would include more internal weapons stations. This of course comes at the price of a larger airframe and more cost, a la Raptor. But that doesn’t make the fact any less real that the internal weapons bays limit an F-35s weapons capacity to such a degree it has the potential to become problematic.
DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT IT IS ONLY ABOUT THE SIZE OF A RAFALE RATHER THAN A FLANKER? The F-35 is NOT a medium bomber!
Again, HOW is it problematic to carry MORE fuel plus a SIMILAR combat load to what is commonly carried by other ‘similar’ fighters?
Also, other than the lack of stealth, I’d be interested to hear what you consider to be the ‘many’ other weaknesses of the Su-35BM, I must say. As far as I can see any criticisms levelled at it must surely also be levelled at almost any other fighter flying today.
Where have I EVER said that the Su-35BM has ‘many’ weaknesses?
pfcemI’m not saying it should carry weapons externally; I know full well what would happen then in regards to RCS. What I’m saying is that it’s unfortunate that the fact that it has to carry them internally means the current design is massively limited in its weapon load, resulting in the greatest problem with the fighter.
How is it unfortunate that a stealth strike fighter about the size of a Rafale CAN carry over 18,000 lbs of fuel plus two AMRAAM & two 2,000 lb JDAM (or eight 250 lb SDB) INTERNALLY? And yet DOES have 7 external hardpoints for use when REALLY needed…
Do you not realize that lots of extra fuel (2-3 external tanks) plus 2-4 AAMs & just TWO precision guided weapons (not to mention the other ‘stuff’ most 4th generation fighters have to stap on that the F-35 already has included internally) is pretty much standard loadout these days for light/medium fighters?
pfcemPlase can someone inform the source that state RCS of 0.001 m2 and 0.0001 m3 for the F-35 and the F22 respectively?
http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/815/F-22-Stealth-Ability-Revealed-by-USAF.html
http://glassmarbles.com/size.htm
I think it is fair to say that when MOST people think of a marble, they are thinking of the 5/8″ (15.875mm) diameter variety, cross resection area ~0.000198m2.
The standard golf ball is 1.680″ (42.672mm) in diameter, cross resection area ~0.00143m2.
pfcemSupersonic speed is not a matter of thrust. You can mount a 50,000 lbs engine on a barn door but it still will not fly at supersonic speeds.
BS.
Speed, whether supersonic or not, is VERY dependant on thrust!
The F-35 has the thrust of a F-15C, F/A-18E/F & Eurofighter Typhoon yet is SMALLER than all three.
Yes, aerodynamics/drag play a BIG role as well but the F-35 is aerodynamicly similar to the F-22 (abiet obviously optimised for transonic speeds rather than pure supersonic speeds) & I QUARANTEE is less draggy than 4th generation fighters are with external stores.
Sign In
