Comments on: JSF Buy Shrinks If Costs Grow

By: MattH

MattH — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:29:39 +0000

Lockheed still has not said, except they will have to pay whatever the cost ends up being. Considering there is at least another 5.5 years of development, it is fair to add ALL development costs spread over the final production quantity to see the true cost. That is what the taxpayer cares about. That comes out of the money the military would have to spend on buying other fighters. I can insult you just as easily as you insult me, but your cheap cheerleading is insulting enough.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:55:41 +0000

MattH,

No the <$150 million IS NOT bogus. It is how much the government is allowcating for each of the 22 FY2011 F-35A. And that cost has been going down with each & every FY buy. DEVELOPEMENT COSTS ARE SEPARATE FROM PROCUREMENT COSTS!!! Add the developement cost to previous generation fighter & take wild guess how much MORE expensive they are using that metric.

Pull your head out of the 20th century & join the 21st century.

What is LM demanding Europeans fork over?

By: MattH

MattH — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:00:38 +0000

Cancellations will be forthcoming. The 150M is bogus, as these are not developed, proven or deployable aircraft. Add in development cost, tell me what each one will be. I have a very good idea of cost, having been in the industry my entire life. JSF cannot provide close ground support. Not deployed for five and a half more years, at least. If ever. No way Europeans will fork over what Lockheed is demanding. B variant still has not had one transitional landing.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:03:21 +0000

MattH,

More than 1000 ARE going to be produced. THE USAF alone is going to procure more than 1000 much less the USN/USMC, the 8 partner nations and who knows how many more that will add to the list before it is all said & done.

The 22 FY2011 USAF F-35A are less than $150 million ALREADY. Assuming you have ANY understanding of airfraft manufacturing take a wild guess what producing ten times that each year is going to do for the per unit cost.

The JSF WILL perform the A-10 fuction & do so in ways the A-10 could never dream of doing it.

The JSF is NOT an A-6 replacement, it is A F/A-18C/D replacement. Although obviously it will take over the role as the CAW’s primary strike platform & will do so in ways the A-6 could never dream of doing.

NOBODY is hinding any cost overrun. Although there ARE plenty trying to exaggerate cost overruns & delays.

By: Trophy

Trophy — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:54:08 +0000

That $227 million is for with the special tools and equipment still being available. Once the production line is shut down, the tools and equipment are all destroyed. At that point the cost to re-start production becomes too expensive, which is what happened with the A-10.… that’s why re-starting the A-10 production line looks unattractive, from the bean-counter’s point of view anyway.

By: MattH

MattH — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:40:22 +0000

pfcem,
I wish you were right, but fear you are not. Look at cost if only 1000 are produced. If it is fully operational by 2015, which it probably wont be. Higher cost, fewer planes, we put the Air Force and Naval Aviation out of business. Development costs will be spread over fewer planes.
No way the JSF will ever perform the A10 function, or the A6 function. It can’t fly as slow as the A10.
This is a national disaster, putting our Air Force and Navy, and therefore our country, at risk. A small program can hide a cost overrun, but not as massive a program as JSF. Air Force and Navy need quantity replacements for worn out airframes.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:36:56 +0000

MattH,

The JSF is NOT trying to be all things & what it will do it will do better than anything before (except for the F-22).

The JSF is not a replacement for the A-6.

CAS is now done use precision guided munitions launched from the relative safety of altutude. With the JSF’s sensors & sensor fusion it will be able to conduct CAS in ways the A-10 could never dream of.

The final average per unit cost of the F-35 is going to be LESS than $100 million.

By: MattH

MattH — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:58:31 +0000

JSF, by trying to be all things, does nothing well. It is a poor, unacceptable replacement for the A6 and A10, which are very inexpensive, straight wing aircraft. The final cost of JSF is going to be north of $250M per copy. Buy more F22, F18, F16, cancel JSF now.

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 05:10:07 +0000

the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?…What about the Japs?

By: caleb

caleb — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:05:39 +0000

they are different kinds of planes that do not fill the same rolls. The F-22 is an Air Superiority FIghter with the JSF is as the name says a Joint Strike Fighter. Reducing one and raising another does not achieve the same goal but instead changes the shape of the force that you have which is a very different decision

By: Cocidius

Cocidius — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:48:17 +0000

The latest Rand Corp study stated that the F-22 could be restarted for $227 million per airframe (unit cost of $179 million) for 75 aircraft.

This sounds like a bargain at this point with the JSF costs possibly approaching $150 per fighter (factoring the smaller number of fighters that will ultimately be ordered).

By: Trophy

Trophy — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:46:02 +0000

One way they could’ve fudged those numbers is by taking the TOTAL PROGRAM cost (as opposed to aircraft production cost) for aircraft production plus R&D, OT&E, marketing, general overhead, etc. and then dividing that total by the number of aircraft planned for purchase.… rather than just the costs of actually building a single jet.

I suspect that might’ve happened with the F-22 program as well.

We always see these single figures thrown about, without seeing how these actual figures were compiled.

By: Reg

Reg — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:36:39 +0000

I think we the gov’t should have kept the F-22 around now that Russia has the T-50 coming out soon. Will we ever learn from past mistakes. I don’t think many fellow history until elections or someone comes knocking at the front door. And now with their sights on making a new bomber what will our leaders say next???

By: roland

roland — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:06:43 +0000

Produce 10,000 if them if the price is low and right.

By: John King

John King — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:00:54 +0000

BINGO Hasbeen! You need to work at the Pentagon.

By: Hasbeen

Hasbeen — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:36:28 +0000

I know this is a simplistic view of it for a variety of reasons, but from the perspective of the company building the plane it is wonderful to have people committed to spending a set amount of money on your product. If you increase the price they just buy fewer and that means you get the same amount of money for doing less? Stupid way to run anything.

And again, I know that there are lots of issues on contracting, economies of scale, etc. But in the end the JSF producer gets the same amount of money (or more) for giving you less product. If we don’t think we got ripped off it’s because we’ve not been paying attention.

By: Formula

Formula — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:05:28 +0000

Anyone care to speculate who the execs are that will be axed? Too bad Gates is not one of them.

By: Weaponhead

Weaponhead — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:05:09 +0000

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?...Nothing's over unitl we say it's over..." Restart F-22 : http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG7...

By: Cocidius

Cocidius — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:54:19 +0000

Defense Talk did a good breakdown of some of the bogus numbers being used by LM, and calculated the current cost per unit of the F-35 at 100.6 million each. Unfortunately they also stated that this price was based on a SAR (Selected Acquisition Report) that is 18 months old. The SAR will be updated in April with today’s true costs, and this will elevate the price even higher. http://www.defencetalk.com/notations-on-the-cost-... With this information, the congressional aids cost per aircraft of $112 to $137 million seems to be accurate.

By: aerooooooooo

aerooooooooo — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:41:23 +0000

buy f-18 and make new version of it. it is largely suffisant today because all great nation who can have better plane have nuclear weapon and we know this nation don’t make one war against others nuclear power.

we live in one different world. this is the end of the conventional war (state against state).
3 great military zone (USA,EUROPE,RUSSIA) have the better weapon industry on the world but no one time these country was going to fight them self .
if these country don’t sale hi tech aircraft in country who don’t have nuclear weapon , f-18 would be largely suffisant.
f-35 was sale like we sale one new smartphone, not one tool for war