JSF Price Jumps to $135 Million

JSF Price Jumps to $135 Million

At the end of what has been a truly positive week for Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter, witnessing a number of key milestones in the aircraft’s test phase, DoD just had to damper the celebration somewhat by releasing updated cost estimates that show the per aircraft price tag has jumped nearly 90 percent since 2001, from $69 million to $135 million.

The current estimate for what the military must pay to buy 2,443 JSF aircraft has increased to $329 billion, from an original estimate of $197 billion for more than 2,800 aircraft (all figures in then year dollars), according to a Pentagon report provided to DOD Buzz.

The jump in the per unit price triggers a Nunn-McCurdy “critical breach,” requiring a “recertification” from Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the fighter is vital to national security. Since Gates has gone way out on a limb in favor of the JSF, that outcome is pretty much guaranteed. The cost estimates come from DOD’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office.


The Nunn-McCurdy breach is calculated using constant or base year dollars, which show an increase in JSF unit cost from $50 million in 2001 to $95 million today. Using then year, or inflation adjusted, dollars is a more accurate indication of what the military will actually pay for a weapon.

This week saw the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF complete a first ever hover and first ever vertical landing.

Join the Conversation

F-22’s cost how much, as of the most recent order?

This is with development costs factored into the price per unit correct?

Something is seriously wrong with our procurement system. Have we had more then 5 systems come in at or under the predicted cost in the past 15 yrs?

Wiki quotes the 2009 flyaway cost as being $142.6 million, citing Lt. Gen Mark Shackelford in a report to Congress…for a plane that features full-spectrum stealth plus super-cruise, mind you.

With the F-35, we’ve not even made it to production and the escalator is stuck on max.

What a surprise. The F22 and F35 both results of a new fangled try before you buy computer model origin by the same garbage company. Why is anyone surprised by this. Cut the number of F-35s like the F22 and be done with it. Let things cool off for a couple years

F-35 fail! We need something like the F-35… but wow, this is out of control!

If I had a vote in the matter I would vote to strip the Airforce of its F-35’s give it to the marines/navy. And purchase more F-22’s for the airforce. Only a couple mill more… and the price will drop abit if we did buy more..

The boys over on Air Power Australia gave testimony before the Australian Parliamentary Defense Committee back in 2004 that predicted this would be the price. So far, every one of their predictions on cost, schedule and capability risks have been right on the money.

Now they are saying that the T-50 PAK-FA has made the JSF irrelevant.

Could this be right?

My money is on the APA folks.

The DOD Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation (CAPE) office latest cost projections have been public since March 11. They are based on JET II (aka not based on the ACTUAL status of the program) AND is $80–95 million (FY2002 dollars or $96.36–114.43 million in FY2010 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator) average unit production cost. The average unit production cost of the F/A-18E/F thru 2010 is $81.5 million. Projections have the F-35 FLYAWAY cost ~85% of the UNIT PRODUCTION COST putting it at ~$68.0–80.75 million (FY2002 dollars or ~$81.91–97.27 million in FY2010 dollars).

Also note that since 2001 the production number has been cut from 2852 to 2443. THAT ALONE CREATS AN INCREASE IN THE AVERAGE UNIT PRODUCTION COST.

lol
that was not end

one prob about this plane: “TO BIG TO FALL”

Actually, one of the biggest problems with the way we design and build fighter jets (and about any other weapon system) in the U.S. is that the F-22’s (and likely the F-35’s) manufacturing is spread out over 44 states. This is done to maximize the number of Senators willing to vote to fund the project. The F-22, as I understand it, is $380M per copy, more than double the F-35. Argueably, the F-35 benefitted from all the F-22’s R&D. What needs to happen is to get our jets and all their parts efficiently manufactured in as few places possible. Not good for jobs nationwide, per se, but better for our country’s bottomline.

Another problem is that Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup all underbid the inital cost of the systems for the sake of getting the work — an all too common American thing to do. No easy solutions. We need the F-22’s and F-35’s, otherwise, we’ll be road kill for Russia’s latest Sukhoi’s and MiG’s and China’s jet’s, nevermind France’s Rafael and the Eurojet Typhoon.

The problem with US defense procurement is that they want one platform to do everything well and on paper that may work but when you actually build the thing all the flaws come out. Look at the EFV, LCS, as well as the FCS.

And yet we will produce hundreds of mistake jets before flight testing verifies production methods. Yeah real smart. Anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations.

As for Jet 1 and Jet 2. Jet 2 shows that not much progress was made in the program after the Jet 1 was released. This is basically a lost year with little improvement.

So much for the faith-based F-35 program cheerleaders claims of affordability.

Next we need a congressional investigation to find out the cause of this Ponzi scheme.

Maybe we should swich to F-22 or F-15SE or F-15A-D mass production. It maybe lower in cost..then comeback to it if the manufacturer decided to goback to the original price.

You just keep saying the same thing!

You just keep saying the same thing!

You just keep saying the same thing!

@ ELP —

Agree with you 100%.

Examples of the cause can be seen in posts like those of pfcem whose has obviously been gulping down the JSF Kool Aid and whose self deceit ain’t fooling nobody anymore except pfcem.

It’s the JSF Kool Aid, folks!

A damn congressional investigation won’t fix anything when it comes to the state of our fighter fleet. We needed new aircraft yesterday.

Come on, much of the rocketing cost can be attributed to the extremely weak dollar policies during the Bush administration which caused the nominal cost of the aircraft to rocket. We need airplanes and we need them fast. Our entire fleet in the USAF is falling apart. The B-52 and A-10 are still flying for God’s sake. The F-15 and F-16 are planes from a previous era and many are well past their service life. Pretty soon and we won’t have a manned Air Force at all. We need planes and we need them now. Blaming this on the defense industry or the Air Force is not going to help the problem. Unfortunately we have a governing body right now that seem to only make things worse.

My 2 cents are confused. We are upset because F-35 will cost 5 times what F-22 cost while delivering 13 times more aircraft? In addition, you cannot perform STOL with a F-22 or land on a big carrier. You cannot sell an F-22 to your allies to further increase their numbers. You cannot support CAS easily at 60,000′ and you lack a helmet mounted display and IRST capability in the F-22 and still will spend billions upgrading the 187 aircraft we have to do simple things like drop small diameter bombs. Have we discussed O&S costs yet?

Of course we could buy more non-stealthy 4.5 generation aircraft and see how long they last against future threat fighters and air defenses. But just as we have a nuclear triad, doesn’t a service triad of stealthy aircraft makes sense.…augmented by great allies?

don’t forgot f-22 was largely superior of this plane but he just “can’t launch” bomb .
the price of the f-35 need be similar of one f-16…
2 solutions: 1, this plane was exceptional

You know, Cole and Chantell, I wonder if you will be at the funeral for the airmen who will die in combat being OUTMATCHED by the CURRENT production version of the Su35, the upcoming PAKfa, or the JF10 because they were outmatched the F35 lighteningII. The F35 is under performing, over costing, and draining the defense budget so we can have a out matched bucket of bolts over reliant on sensors, instead of pilot training and maneuverability. And the sad part is, we had the technology to develop thrust vectoring,AESA radar,and canards and put themon the F16, F18, and F15…why don’t we go back to the future,produce more teen series fighters, and incorporate the technology demonstrated back then on the new production models…more aircraft, lower cost, and proven systems? But wait…we have the F35 that is broken, and does not work to save the day!

You ever figure out a way to make a Super Hornet take off from an amphibious assault ship? Do you think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread for defeating Su-35s and PAK-FAs? Or were you planning on pulling the F-22 out of the grave and sticking a tail hook and VTOL on it? (laughs) Better yet, cancel the F-35 and start over, THAT will surely be cheaper. [/sarcasm] Whoops, looks like you’re not “ELP”, maybe you could succeed in explaining where he comtinues to fail miserably? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Jesus, do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is or did you just toss that out because you heard a talking head yammering about Zero’s latest master plan? Speaking of “faith based” have you managed to miracle up a way for Super Hornets to operate off amphibious assault ships yet? Or for them to have a snowball’s chance in hell against a Su-35 ( and let’s not forget PAK-FA)?

APA? You’re joking right?

You mean “let the few people left in the US who can actually DESIGN a fighter leave for greener pastures”? Sounds like quite the master plan. You gonna have some of those “shovel ready” employees do the job or what?

7th wave, how many funerals have you attended for Soldiers/Marines dying by the thousands (when was the last US fighter pilot shot down in a dogfight?), who frankly would benefit more from F-35 EO/IR air-to-ground capabilities. Which would fare better against the Su-35 or imagined Pak FA capabilities/mass production…an F/A-18E/F, F-18D, Harrier, or an F-35?

You should live in Australia where Russians can do no wrong. The highly complex VTOL capability of F-35, is demonstrated, yet naysayers think the less complex Air Force version (with F-22 lessons learned) will have more problems than Pak FA with old engines, little stealth, and lots of drunk designers/manufacturers.

Pretty sad isn’t it sferrin when you find out your happy jet is a POS?

LM.… you are joking right? GAO and APA have been consistent on this program. So it seems, have you; for all the wrong reasons.

Apparently with all of the faulty project management on this project, we are already there. Why can’t Daddy program manage?

Cost creep on the Joint Strike Failure won’t stop.

However here is a good explanation of the current state of the program.

http://​tinyurl​.com/​y​c​l​x​5fl

Truth in numbers Joe.

Divide 2443 F-35 by $329 billion overall program cost and get $135 million per aircraft

Divide 187 F-22s by $65 billion (with billions in upgrades still required) and the similarly compared cost is $348 billion per aircraft

And the F-35 includes the much higher engineering/manufacturing costs of STOL/VTOL and carrier-based aircraft. The Marines and Navy need fighter modernization and 5th gen aircraft every bit as much as the USAF so that all eggs aren’t in the Guam basket.

You hyperventilating again…take an inhale from your oxygen mask. Lockheed made sure to spread the work around the whole country, so their is no chance that this is going to happen.

There has to be a better way of maintaining key infrastructure than being held to the fire to buy whatever junk a defense company is pushing. I wonder if the Pentagon and Congress ever ever came up with any answers to this.

The Navy and Marines don’t matter to the APA mafia.

Wheeler has an analysis on the actual production cost of the 2009 –produced ‘22s at CDI org. IIRC, it was $248m a pop.

Where on the site is that posted? CDI’s search engine is broken.

Which would mean something if there was a product that had a decent amount of flight testing on it. Too bad. Keep building those mistake jets though.

Cole… as an Australian I take offence at your comments regarding my country and our attitude towards Russia. Perhaps you have forgotten history regarding our alliance. I think you will find if you do your research that we have been in every major conflict since the First World War and have performed way beyong our size. We had the largest number of casualties per head of population of any nation involved in the First World War and we have stood by America in every major conflict for the past 60 years.

We are still by your side now and were one of the first after 9/11.

The cost of upgrading our current batch of in-service airframes with thrust-vectoring, AESA radars, canards, RAM paint, and what have you would be so expensive that designing a new fighter with exponentially more capability looked like the more attractive option (I won’t bother commenting on the reality of this decision). However the AESA solution is very feasible, and very much well worth it… which is why the F-15’s, F-16’s and F/A-18’s are receiving the upgrade.

Adding canards doesn’t provide enough benefits. It increases drag and weight, reducing acceleration, speed and range. It also adds more complexity, maintenance, costs and a larger logistics footprint to aircraft that are already getting harder and harder to maintain due to age. Besides, the aircraft are maneuverable enough to be able to keep up with current and near-future threats. Avionics and weapons more than makes up for the deficit in maneuverability. AESA radars can cover a very wide area at great distances, so even the latest Sukhois would have difficulty maneuvering out of range. With JHMCS and AIM-9X, they have high-off boresight capability… once again, it’s highly unlikely to maneuver out of range. And our current batch of missiles pull 18+ g turns, so outmaneuvering a missile with today’s aircraft is highly unlikely.

Can anyone explain to me why we spend billions of dollars on new planes and the armed forces still carry around the piece of junk called the M16/M4. As for new planes, it seems the wave of the future is drones. They can stay up for 12 hours, cost less money, and are not limited by human biology. Why don’t we just jump one step ahead and gone with the drones. How many of those Reapers can we buy with 320 billion? I bet a lot.

In Europe, a very serious site describes the JSF from the outset (I found texts on JSF dated jan 2002) at same price. Anticipated present saga for years. Impressive (in French unfortunately). I don’t know whether they are French, from Switzerland, Belgium (European Union in Brussels?), or even Canadians…
I like to look at it sometimes. Instructive in the way those guys see our problems before us.

http://​www​.dedefensa​.org/

At 135 million, wy not just buy JSF stocks so we , the government, army and navy can own JSF and its invertory and my lower the cost of this F35’S, F-22 and oter airxraft in production.

Drake 1,

Re: “Where on the site is that posted? CDI’s search engine is broken.”

My mistake(s). It’s on the site below, and I got the price wrong, too. It’s 213M, not 248M (I think I got the ‘48’ from the $348M price I’ve seen kicked around…) Anyway, here’s the link:

http://​www​.counterpunch​.org/​w​h​e​e​l​e​r​0​3​2​7​2​0​0​9​.​h​tml

Apologies to Australians and sober Russians. Australia is certainly one of many great allies I mentioned earlier. Russia has been a friend on Iran issues and in getting supplies to Afghanistan.

My comment was meant for another commenter who lives in Australia. Also, Air Power Australia continues to pronounce that Russian fighters are better than the F-35 without access to F-35 data. Certain US Aviation reporters also bad mouth F-35 when programs like F-22 and V-22 also started out poorly but ended just fine. Developmental risk is the price of progress.

But citing that speculative systems will render planned US fighters obsolete is ridiculous. For example, APA was claiming that some notional underpowered L-Band radar in the narrow wings and tail of future Russian fighters was going to pinpoint our stealth fighters and attack them with some imagined future missile. Yet, much more powerful L-Band AWACS and F-22/F-35 AESA radars would find, vector, and destroy those fighters with our stealth aircraft and AMRAAM…systems that actually exists. Pak FA is another system some attribute all manner of capabilities and mass production that will never exist or be fielded in great numbers to many nations relative to F-35 levels and actual stealth.

You do have a vote. Write your Representatives! The Air Force did a study of what it would cost to reactivate the F-22 line after a 2 year pause. It’s not a dead issue yet. Especially after Gates promised the world an affordable F-35. If we couldn’t afford 381 F-22s, how the heck are we going to afford 1700 F-35s???
If it’s almost equal cost for the F-22 or the F-35, i’d take the F-22 every day of the week. People can’t take air supremecy lightly because this country no longer has the stomach for high casualty rates.

Looking at healthcare I don’t think our Representatives care what we have to say. :( We lost our democracy… until November…

Just this February Boeing offered the Navy 170 F-18 E / F mix at just under $50 each
to address the Navy’s fighter gap.

So are 3 JSF ($400M) really more effective than 8 Super Hornets ($400M)?

The technology has still to catch up, but I take your point. The grunt is the one that often gets stuck with the junk, becuase everyone thinks that air power can do anything.

Average Unit Procurement Cost Comparison:

1. And when you subtract out the 308 mistake jets, that will be next to worthless, the AUPC is $154M for the F-35.

2. FY11 Budget documents show total procurement costs of $30B for prior years and $3.6B for FY09 plus another $368M for 10,11&12. The total is $33.97B for 179 aircraft. AUPC = $189.8M not $348M. If they had built the original 750 F-22s instead of only 179 the AUPC would have been lower still! Sure another $5.9B has gone into moderization but you are kidding yourself if you think F-35 won’t have similar costs especially since it’s development is even more protracted.

Guys dont be greedy. This is none cost effective. Its too expensive. Remember this is your country too.How about just changing the Site design of our missile shield defence system to underground missile defense system per State in all 50 States may be less expensive than this jets.

The price is sickening..

I just remember it like yesterday, Sec. Gates visiting Lockheed Martin to support the F-35, and making the statement about how the F-35 was half the price of the F-22. That whole song and dance about how the F-22 is horribly expensive vs. the F-35 is sounding pretty silly now, right? Kind of like the equally stupid comments about how there would be no other 5th generation fighters flying from Russia and China in the near future. Lets all pretend that the Russians and Indians aren’t planning on building 500 PAK-FA’s, or that it has equal stealth to the F-35 with 50% better baseline performance.

So while the latest successful test flights are a success, what are we ultimately going to end up paying for this fighter? And how is a $135 million dollar strike fighter with inferior performance to existing 4.5 generation fighters going to give us air supremacy in the 21st century?

Eh, don’t know what planet you’re living on but we’ve heard nothing of the sort. Then again you usually seem to hear what you want to hear. So since the F-35 is a “POS” why don’t you tell us about your master plan for a replacement. Oh, that’s right, you don’t have one. You haven’t thought any further than “F-35 SUX, GIMME DA F-22s”. (“Gimme da cash!!!”)

It’s nothing more than wishful thinking to believe cancelling one of the few cutting edge aerospace programs in the US wouldn’t have a devistating effect on our ability to design fighters. Look at what’s happening to ATK right now. Now apply that to fighter development.

If they have nothing to work on companies lay their people off. So you are essentially saying “we want to take away what they’d work on but for some unknown reason they will keep their employees”. Wake up and smell the coffee. If you want to keep the infrastructure and talent in place then they need to have something to work on. Making every damn weapon system into a political football is about the most destructive thing we could have done and we do it well. Start a program out then cut it’s funding because it’s “too expensive” thus driving the cost up more demanding more “cut the numbers because the cost is spiraling out of control!” rinse and repeat. We do it to ourselves time after time and are to goddamn stupid / corrupt to do anything about it.

That “equal stealth to the F-35″ comment must have come out of a deep bottle of vodka as it’s pretty obvious to just about everybody that that’s far from the case. Still, that doesn’t mean a production version might not be closer. On the other hand I recall many who are complaining about the F-35 now, telling us how we didn’t need the F-22 because it was “too good to justify” and “a relic of the Cold War” and all kinds of equally brainless drivel. My comment at the time was in essence “when the F-22 is firmly dead the F-22 detractors will turn their attention to the F-35″. At times you really have to wonder if there are people in power who are actively TRYING to destroy this country. (Because you see this kind of thing in many areas, not just fighter development.)

If we compare this price to the Gripen NG which is selling at the $70–80 million per plane, this makes the F-35 uncompetitive in the very market its supposed to dominate. And while LM has been blowing their horn this week with the successful test flight of the F-35B, the Gripen NG has quietly completed 117 test flights, with the latest flying the new enhanced AESA radar and updated communications systems.

Good Morning Folks,

I’m shocked, totally shocked, that this could happen.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Replacing the M-4/M-16 has nothing to do with foghters. It has everything to do with the Army not being able to make up its mind as to what it wants and how to go about selecting it.
However, maybe forst question should be caliber (6 or 6.8 mm?)

Drones cannot thnk for themselves and sensors linked to an operator 7,000 miles away can only do so much right now. Against fixed or slow moiving targets, great. Against a fluid environment not so great right now.

IS the Gripen carrier capable? Can the Gripen be produced in VTOL version? What is RCS of the Gripen NG? And less radius of action than a F-35A. The Gripen could not replace all 3 versions of the F-35.

Comparing different designs meat for different environments.

If we give up on the F-35, the USAf could extend F-22 production and buy some new-build F-15s, maybe the SE version. But the USN/USMC are left with no LO acft on the horizon. Yes, the USN could fill its decks with F-18E/F. but what about the USMC?

Probably the Boeng F-15SE can do the same job for lesser cost.

Negative, the Boeing press release even stated that the addition of canted vertical stabilizers, RAM paint, and internalized weapons carriages on newly designed CFT’s only reduce the RCS enough to make a difference against older airborne fighter-based radars. It’s useless against modern radars (especially sophisticated AESA radars) and more powerful ground-based and ship-based radars.

The F-15E can be upgraded to the Silent Eagle standard, as it’s a matter of just swapping the stabilizers, paint and CFT’s. But the USAF isn’t interested in a mod that offers little benefits, Boeing knows this and only “offered” (more like a, “Hey, we have this in case you’re interested. But you probably aren’t”) it to the USAF as a mere formality.

The F-15 future programs director also stated that the unit cost of the F-15SE would be about $100 million plus spares and support for RCS-reducing material. He also stated that the stealth features would only match the F-35 from the frontal aspect.

http://​www​.aviationweek​.com/​a​w​/​g​e​n​e​r​i​c​/​s​t​o​r​y​_​g​ene…

Truth in numbers? Please do not forget the F-22 (ATF at the time) had a projected initial buy of 750. All that R&D was supposed to spread out among 4+ times the acft.

Yes, USN/USMC will be left hanging if F-35 goes away. The USAF will have options

At that rate its probably a good idea to restart a new design at lower cost say combinatiion of F35, F22 , PAK-50, F-15SE and Grifen NG design capability.

Let’s also add the KC-767 to the mix so the tanker requirement can be taken care of, too.

It is sad and a more than a little bit sickening that one of the things brought to us by the internet is the ability of any moron with an opinion to set up a website that will then be taken seriously by a large number of people who stumble across it. It has been said time and time again by people who know what they are talking about and now I will say it again, Carlo Kopp and the other clowns at Air Power Australia do NOT know what they are talking about. Mr. Kopp is a mobile phone repairman or something along those lines who for some reason has Sukhoi fetish. He is about as knowledgeable about airpower as I am about the manufacture of pantyhose.
Now, anyone who has more than a cursory knowledge of procurement and the Pentagon should have seen this coming. It is a absolute disgrace, but this is how business has been conducted with many of the recent defense programs. What we can expect to see now is the death spiral that hit the F-22 program. As the cost goes up, the number of platforms that congress will agree to buy will go down. The 1,700 F-35s that the Air Force does truly need to recapitalize the fleet will probably not be bought. Im guessing that the real number will be a lot closer to a thousand, possibly even lower. There will probably be a lot of talk about the growing capabilities of unmanned systems and they will try to sell some kind of UCAV as a cheaper alternative to the F-35 much in the same way that the F-35 was sold as a cheaper alternative to the F-22. The U.S. military will become smaller and less dominant, and the world will be a less safe place as a result. …and Carlo Kopp will still be a moron.

What about the not-so-sober Russians, are they any worse? Id imagine they’d be a great deal more friendly ;) Australia does in no way favor Russia over the US. Its quite easy to see that Australia favors the US over anyone. Both the F-18E and JSF were approved for purchase without proper analysis conducted. A subsequent analysis was done involving the JSF and competitor aircraft by a rather bold Minister who also put both the Su-30 and Mig-29 on the table. Despite being fine for what Australia needs these two would not have been seriously considered primarily for political reasons, which is rather ironic considering the impending bid by the Russian UA/as yet unnamed US company for the tanker program. Australia has signed itself up for the JSF regardless of capability or cost, putting absolute blind faith in the US. This is being loyal to the point of stupidity.

Of course without all the data APA can only make very well educated guesses but the same can be said about intelligence. LM has made some bold claims of the F-35 despite the fact that recent report stated the mission capability of the initial production aircraft is unclear and there is still years of development to go. The US/LM doesnt have all the facts about competitor aircraft to make those claims and I doubt they even knew about the PAK-FA when US/LM analysis were done.

The scenario you detail is not as simple as that and the current AMRAAM is pretty average TBH.

Hey Folks–
I think everyone is forgetting that an F-22 can carry the same “Bomb Load” (that’s right i said Bomb Load) as an F-117, as well as being the best dog fighter the world has ever seen. The latest price for F-22s was around 140million each, we need to scrap the F-35 and buy more F-22s. I read that the F-35 could not turn as well as the vietnam era F-4 as well as not having all aspect stealth , the top speed around mach 1.5. this thing will get slaughtered by the pak-fa fighter. 186 is not enough raptors to escort all theF-35s, and if you are going to need to escort the F-35s you might as well be using F-16s, Or just buy 500 F-22s and we would have enough strike capability with that many raptors that we won’t need F-35s. Then make an export version of the F-22 so we don’t upset our allies . We could still use some of the F-35 research to upgrade the raptors(like Ir search and track from the F-35 and the helmont mounted sight). I think that Mr.Gates’s little fight with the Airforce has been very very bad for the Airforce as well as for our country, and by sticking with the F-35 just to prove that your the MAN,is going to cost us all the best Airforce in the world.

For missions that don’t require stealth the F-22 could be equipped with four external under-wing pylons to carry more external fuel-tanks and/or ordnance. However it lacks the internal ground targeting systems of the F-35, and I don’t know if it can interface withh the same targeting pods such as the LITENING, LANTIRN, Sniper, or ATFLIR systems that the A-10, F-15E, F-16, or F/A-18C/D/E/F use.

To come to think of it, powering a jet at its own is not imposible, Say the year was 1950 when US airforce engineers created a nuclear powered engine use in a Jet.

http://​www​.eta​.co​.uk/​2​0​0​9​/​0​9​/​3​0​/​n​u​c​l​e​a​r​-​p​o​w​e​r​e​d-t…

The posibility on jet aircraft is endless. It is possible to power a jet by its own, we already invented it. And it through nuclear powered jet. It was in the 1950’s when our USA airforce engineers created a nuclear powered jet engine.

http://​www​.eta​.co​.uk/​2​0​0​9​/​0​9​/​3​0​/​n​u​c​l​e​a​r​-​p​o​w​e​r​e​d-t…

Just sell it low and mass produce it..If not then settle for F-16 A-D or F-22 or a newer design with a cheaper tag price.

Very true, I’ve seen this first hand many times. Bid low to get the contract award and then use the system to adjust the contract pricing to your actual operating costs.

The other part of this is that the export sales are going to take a big hit at this price. Again, the death spiral comes into play since these exports are counted on in the current pricing. So as more and more export customers back away the F-35 price will continue to increase. And heaven forbid a problem is found in the next 97% of the SDD (EMD) testing.

First, we need to seperate sunk development costs from everything else. We need to find out how much it will cost per aircraft to build say 3000 total airframes, not the entire program cost divided by 3000. If the cost of actually building a F-35 is roughly half that of building a F-22, we are still on the right track despite these problems.

However in an effort to control costs we should avoid trying to rewrite every piece of software on the aircraft. Use what we can from the F-22, Super Hornet, F-16E, F-15E and so forth. Add back in those damage control systems some fool wanted to remove and trim weight from elsewhere if needed.

Meanwhile the USAF should continue development and production of the F-22. Just as the F-16 and F-15 shared upgrades and development costs over the years, the F-35 and F-22 should do the same.

This is why the chinese are ahead of us in economics. They sell low, but they sold by the bulk and they profit from the difference.

Thank you for reminding us of what Australia and Australian’s have fought to insure freedom around the world. In Viet Nam as in many other wars waged against Communism, the Australian’s stood shoulder to shoulder with American fighting men to insure victory. I am proud to call you Friend and keeper of the Peace!

As of February 2008, it was about $30 billion according to this article: http://​www​.slate​.com/​i​d​/​2​1​8​3​5​9​2​/​p​a​g​e​n​u​m​/​a​ll/

This is still posted on the JSF​.mil web site:

http://​www​.jsf​.mil/​l​e​a​d​e​r​s​h​ip/
“The vision of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program is to “deliver and sustain the most advanced, affordable strike fighter aircraft to protect future generations worldwide.”

The cornerstone of the JSF Program is affordability: reducing the development cost, production cost, and cost of ownership. The program was structured from the beginning to be a model of acquisition reform, with an emphasis on jointness, technology maturation, and concept demonstrations, and early cost-performance trades integral to the weapon system requirements definition process.”

Part 2:
“Below is a brief timeline of the JAST/JSF/F-35 program’s previous leaders all of whom have helped to shape the program in their own unique way.
MajGen David R. Heinz, USMC
April 2009 — February 2010
Maj Gen Charles R. Davis, USAF
July 2006 — April 2009
RADM Steven L. Enewold, USN
June 2004 — July 2006
Maj Gen John L. Hudson, USAF
October 2001 — June 2004
MajGen Michael A. Hough, USMC
May 1999 — October 2001
Maj Gen Leslie F. Kenne, USAF
August 1997 — May 1999
RADM Craig E. Steidle, USN
August 1995 — August 1997
Maj Gen George K. Muellner, USAF
November 1993 — August 1995″

Kind of hurts to read it now.

“Add back in those damage control systems some fool wanted to remove and trim weight from elsewhere if needed.”

I’d agree but if they are dropping those particular systems to reduce weight then it seems they are *really* short on options.

The Gripen NG will have a carrier variant, they are looking to sell it to India. And it can land on a 800 meter stretch of highway and be refueled and rearmed by truck. That’s what it was designed for.

Thanks to theboss43

Our friends in the US need to remember that a lot of what they see and read about in the Australian Press comes from the far left wacko’s and that the silent majority support the US.

I for one have many friends from the US and consider us very lucky to have the US as our allies.

My grandfather served with the British Airforce in WW2 and whilst serving in North Africa used to sift through the sand every time they set up camp and kept a collection of coins that he found. He met a US serviceman who collected coins and asked my grandfather if he could have them. My grandfather happily gave them to him and the US serviceman asked if there was anything he could do for my grandfather. My grandfather asked if he could get his family to send my grandmother stockings, perfume etc due to the blockade and the US serviceman said he would. My grandfather thought that would be the end of it and nothing more would come of it. But true to his word my grandmother received an enormous parcel from the US with stockings, perfume etc.

My grandfather was always touched by this generosity to his wife as he was away for the best part of six years. These things are not forgotten.

Then sir, I expect you make excellent pantyhose. Have you looked at the APA website lately? Obviously not. Dr Kopp has a PhD in electronic engineering, his thesis being on using AESA radar technolgy for data linking and Squadron Leader Peter Goon is a qualified test engineer pilot having obtained this from the US Navy’s Test Pilot Training School. In fact, Dr Kopp is a contibuotor to Skolink’s Radar Handbook, the industry bible. Other contributors to his site include ex-one star air force officers and analysts specialising in foriegn weapons and tactics. So much for a being a morion. Any one using ad hominen attacks, hiding behind a pseudonym, reveal the paucity of their argument.

My friend, and i mean it, I had the pleasure of meeting some “Diggers” they were hilarious-but deadly serious when it came to fighting. Those guys were great, and yes, YOU have always been there, even in Nam..

why not sell the Raptor to our cloest allies? uh, the price would come down.

@7thwave,

How is the F-35 outmatched by the Su-35 or the PAK-FA?

The F-35 is OVER PERFORMING!

*

lwf,

try comparring apples-to-apples.

The latest PER UNTIL TOTAL PRODUCTION COST projection is $96.36–114.43 million in FY2010 dollars. The PER UNTIL TOTAL PRODUCTION COST of the F/A-18E/F through FY2010 is $81.5 million.

*

Sky Soldier 592,

Because some F-22 technology is too sensitive to share even with our closest allies.

Nice try buddy. Carlo Kopp is probably the single most disrespected person posing as a defense expert out there today. His constant raving about the superiority of the Sukhoi over everything execpt the F-22 or his insistence that the a combination of F-22 and F-111 is the only way that Australia can protect itself from impending Indonesian attack make him the airpower equivalent of Mike Sparks and his love of the M-113. Use your search engine, check him out a little further. He may have testified before the Australian govt. but then they turned around and completely ignored him, because he is a fringe nutjob. Nothing more. I have seen him described by an actual defense professional as, “A nut with a word processor and a slightly disfunctional slide rule.” Love him if you will, but he is far from the “expert” he makes himself out to be.

‘Defense professional’? Thats pretty broad. Whatever the reality is with Kopp and APA, its the so called ‘Defense Professionals’ I am more worried about — its they who are in the position to make the right decisions but as has been shown and is continuing to be shown, they seem to have little idea or control of whats going on. Governments don’t always make the right choices and they have also failed to heed the warnings of a minority to their detriment. Im not siding with APA, just dont have absolute faith in government (or the military) whose motives are not always what they should be.

HKDan two things. Firstly, I am not your buddy ‚and secondly, If you are going to do an hominen attack against someone, at least have the decency to reveal your real name. As you are neither an actual defence professional, which is made quite clear by your quote ‘I have seen him described by an actual defense professional’, on what professional grounds do you attack him from? You work from hearsay, not fact, and if you had cared to look at the APA website in the past twelve months it has concentrated on ground based air defence and surveillance equipment along with material on the Chinese military. The PAK-FA article was just one of many.

As for the Australian government, primarily through the Defence Material Organisation, making the correct judgement call on defense acquisition all the new major air force capability projects are over cost and delayed by years. I leave you with one word: Seasprite.

Oh by the way do you manufacture fishnets in size 12?

F-15 S/E STEALTH EAGLE, WHY NOT JUST UPGRADE THE CURRENT F-15 EAGLE FLEET WITH THE
SILENT EAGLE BUT AS USUAL IT DOESNT CARRY THE WARLOAD OF THE F-15 E STRIKE IN OTHER WORDS YOU CANT PRESS THE ADVANTAGE WE NEED A HEAVY FAST FIGHTER MACH 3 PLUS.
WHY NOT CREATE A CAST ARMOUR CHANGE SYSTEM FOR THE F-15 EAGLE AND THE F-16 FALCON
REEQUIPE THEM WITH VTOL/STOL ENGINE, WE HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM RUSSUIAN T-50 STEALTH FIGHTER THEY CATCH UP WITH OUR TECHNOLOGY, WHEN WOULD THE LIGHT BENDING EQUIPMENT BE READY OR PICTURE THIS RUNNING ELECTRIC CURRENT TO CURRENT RAM ARMOUR THEN MAKING IT TRANPARENT, I HOPE DOD MAKES THIS A PRIORITY AIR SUPERIORITY ISNT EVERYTHING
ITS THE ONLY THING USAF JAN 17 1995

Why has no one even mentioned that to protect the same area with the same protection capability we have to field 4 F-35s and a tanker. The F-35 carries only half of the Air to Air missiles and covers only half of the area, and must use afterburner to go supersonic. We’re not talking apples to apples in this discussion gentlemen. It is more like cannonballs to baseballs. To provide just the same number of missiles in the area, the fuel costs will be 90% greater.

The information is out there, lLook it up and do your own calculations. You did pass highschool math didn’t you?

I will agree with you on your first point, although you apparently struggle to identify sarcasm. No worries, some people people find that difficult to catch. As for wanting to know my name, excuse me if that seems more than a little weird. Are you grasping at straws here? No, I am not a defense professional, nor do I claim to be. I am simply a person who is interested in the subject and willing to evaluate different sources of information and judge them on their relative merits. On your advice I went and took another look at APA. I will admit that I had not done that in years after seeing the site roundly roasted in a multitude of places. Still not impressed at all with the alarmist and highly dubious claims made there. I generally like to look at several different sources before forming an opinion on something. In this instance, several years of reading various news sources and defense related chat rooms has led me to this opinion. I am sticking with it.

very good point that this is how things are done. i mean seriously, who involved in such a major project could not see a 90% increase in price coming? it is obvious they were just hiding the real cost, as happens often/all the time. the other thing is that although expensive and i believe we should be efficient and not wasteful in spending, it is hugely expensive gov’t programs that provide technology which ultimately fuels the progress of humanity. remember the internet? computers? the interstate? airplanes? nukes? satellites? wars and defense also bring about the exchange and creation of ideas. that’s right, defense spending actually is a great investment.

over performing my ass.
the f-35 they had to strip down and remove panels just to get it off the ground to win the contract.

the f-22 has no place in the tech. of today.

with unmaned and sats. and the latest air defense. the only thing you need is a cheap low tech figther like the lastest f-15 or the su-27

low tech and win with large numbers.

need to STOP the HUGE wast of DOD money and hold people accountable

take political BS out of the game

What hurts more is knowing that 3 of the 4 AF heads made third stars proving once again that nothing succeeds like failure.

ChuckL,

Compared to what?

***

Robert Bryant,

Yes the F-35 IS over performing. It is meeting or exceeding all peformance goals.

Dream on, vs the F-22 &/or modern air defenses the F-15 &/or Su-27 are very expensive fodder.

Low tech & large numbers isn’t going to win anything but a prize (if there was one) for the highest losses in the most lopsided battle.

$50 for a Super Hornet? That’s quite a steal!

If my old boss, Robin Olds were still with us, he would say, as he did all thru the 1950s when the USAF was completely focused on the B-52 and “stragegic” warfare, the age of the dogfight is not over. He got in a lot of trouble with the Pentagon with his hatred of the Air Force philosophy at the time. When we encountered the Mig-17s, 19s and 21s in North Vietnam, we got our asses handed to us in the early days of “Rolling Thunder” because the PLAVN’s pilots were Soviet trained and Soviet led and were better than we were. Then they sent Robin Olds into the fray and the whole campaign changed. He made fighter pilots of those young kids and led them day in and day out. Some kick-ass flying.
We need the combat fighter, even now with all the young “pilots” sitting in recliners and blowing up stuff nine thousand miles away. The T-50 could be a nasty competitor, or it could be a bust. We can not take the chance that it is a bust.

How olds the B-52 and still functioning great. How olds the A-10? How olds the c-130? And if the jet jockies got their way the B-52 and A-10 would be gone. How many fighters do we need? Isn’t it on par with nuclear weapons? Some say we can never have enough, don’t the manufactures, designers and neocons. It’s time the procurement weenies and company exec’s are held accountable for their incompetence and greed. How many more tanker, fighter, cargo plane fiasco need to occur before the military industrial complex is held accountable. After all how long can we afford to pay 70% of a factory of overhead when only using 3%. Some one should go to jail and the jet should be cancelled. The will all continue their bad behavior until held accountable. They would hold you accountable for their mistakes, OH! I forgot they already are. Let’s do it right or cancel it!

Maybe you should try picking up an M16 and joining the army. Then you might understand why things are the way they are. According to you, the army is not needed. That is a load of BS. Maybe you should actually shoot a M16 once in your life. Every single one of mine went bang when I pulled the trigger. The old political problems with it are over, and it is a mature firearm.

When that origianl price of $69M per aircraft was stated, the government had not yet completed their checklist of all the attributes wanted and/or needed in the completed F35. Over the years, many different attributes have been added to the original requirements, which leads to higher costs and longer completion times. If you feel that the cost should have remained at $69M, you need to impress upon those whose job it is to submit requirements for new aircraft the importance of fully determining the necessary attributes BEFORE beginning to build the aircraft. It you ask you hairdresser/barber for a shampoo and blow dry and then half way through the blow dry, you decide you want a haircut and a color, the cost is going to go up and the length of time to complete the service will increase exponentially. I hope that clears up the deliberate misdirection of those who sensationalize the increase in costs for the F35 for the specific intent to inflame tax payers.

EdM said — “Another problem is that Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup all underbid the inital cost of the systems for the sake of getting the work — an all too common American thing to do. No easy solutions. We need the F-22’s and F-35’s, otherwise, we’ll be road kill for Russia’s latest Sukhoi’s and MiG’s and China’s jet’s, nevermind France’s Rafael and the Eurojet Typhoon. ”

Please see my previous comment re cost of the F35. Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup can only bid on the attributes requested at the time of the bid…attributes added after acceptance of contract, during production add to the overall cost — and should…NO ONE is going to build an aircraft at the original bid price, adding multiple attibutes for FREE!

Adjusted for inflation, it is a jump of 62% [$83,775,642] to $135,000,000 [2009 $]

To The Proud Australian and to Cole. Go Aussie, I don’t know what Cole is talking about “Russia can do know wrong”. His grasp of history as well as current affairs is, I am afraid lacking. May I point Cole to the following names : Aldrich Hazen Ames, Harold James Nicholson, Earl Edwin Pitts, Robert Philip Hanssen and George Trofimoff. They are the ones who supported the Russians and Mr Cole they weren’t Australians. Have you heard of the Group of Five. As the Proud Aussie pointed out, we have been by the side of the USA in every major conflict unlike the US when Australia asked for help with the Indonesians during Timor. I love the USA and I like the Americans, most Australians do, so Mr Cole, please don’t have a go at us without any basis in fact. To all my friends in the US, I apologize for bringing up all this crap, I am proud. I like you guys hate people having a go at my country.

If a country wants to sell a airplane to the rest of the world (or selected friends) then the price has to be reasonable and the airplane must be able to perform to all and above it’s design specifications . The expenditure in the developement of this aircraft is a joke it seems as though Lockheed are going in for the kill. ( Greed Factor ) That attitude only causes Recessions and Depressions as we have just endured and are still suffering . Does anyone know if any pollitians or high ranking Pentagon People read this web site . There’s one thing for sure they ain’t getting the message .

There was a few comments on the B-52. While the aircraft is old and “worn” the design itself is still practical for the use it has today. When airsuperiority is achieved it can bring lots and lots of conventional ordinance a very long way and pound the shit out of massed ground forces. Which is why it will probably server a 100 years… I think the only way to replace it would be to take the wings/engines of the globemaster and design a new body with bombbays.

For penetration into a well defended enemy airspace on the first days of a campaign you have the B-2’s (which at a cost of 2 billion per plane better perform as intended).

I have no idea what the designers were thinking when they designed the F-22 without advanced ground capabilities. The F-15 was designed as a air superiority fighter and also became a superp tactical bomber as the strike eagle.

In my uninformed oppinion the USAF would need 3 to 500 F-22’s to utterly guarante air superiority against an advanced enemy. That and a very highspeed stealth cruise missiles. Then lesser advanced aircraft can have their day with remaining forces.

it’s time they grew up and took the pilot out of the plane.

I just hope the whole thing lives up to its name at this point. and I agree with Anzac, the either British Commonwealth has been behind the United States when we really needed it the most ESPECIALLY the Australians. They play a huge role in the US’s pacific theater, with this being said we should give some thought to what they have to say when it comes to airpower threats. The United States needs to demonstrate the capabilities of the F-35 ASAP and needs to pressure Lockheed into getting it out on time. if this thing has a $135 million dollar price tag, then i can see why our partner nations want a real combat assessment of this aircraft, thats a huge investment to and thats why i hope its not a disappointment because the US has given most of the free world very top line defense systems in both aerospace and ground vehicles.

The minute I found out about this I would have dropped it. I was all for this bird because they said it actually cost less than the F22, well we know now that was a lie. Thats why I hate some contractors, because of stuff like this. They think they’re so imbedded into the defence system that DoD will accept their lieing no matter what because they know the Military need their product. If I were the SECDEF I would show them just wrong they are.

Hell,

See if Japan can build one cheaper.… Seems like there is a lot of puff in that price. They feel like they can charge the government whatever they want. Someone else can do this plane for half the price, I’m sure.…

This is outrageous. The whole program has been nothing but a moving platform seeking a bogus moving target without having adequate compensating backup defense alternatives. A ‘make jobs’ and keep Americans employed program to develop a dream machine. If these are the build out figures, you can bet the op costs and capabilities shortcomings list has also soared. Next government is going say how its better to fill the sky’s with $multi-million dollar remotes. No doubt a Pentagon genius will produce calculations the F-35 is best not flown but safely pulled in a truck trailer, as its loss deemed to expensive to replace, its base maintenance too high, and its capabilities too limited or net too expensive and non-productive to fly. There are more ways to shoot an aircraft down, and one is to put in hands of government contracting/procurement process.

The fly away cost of the last F-22 Sec Gates cancelled was $140 million. We are going to get half the airplane for more money before this F-35 fiasco is over.

excellent point

The basic problemis is the length of time these procurements take. Ten or fifteen years to develop a new aircraft leads to many issues including new technologies developed over that period that now have to be included to keep the aircraft current. This naturally leads to cost increases and delays. Anyone with any experience in project management knows that shifting requirements and project extensions have one major impact: cost increase. It’s a no brainer. Add to that the costs of inflation and, of course, the optimistic bids that we require our contractors to make to win the bid. The JSF has been through, what, three different presidential administrations, each with their own priorities. Look how the world has changed in the last ten years (e.g., 9/11, the rise of India and China, etc.) The role of the fighter we wanted ten years ago is probably different now. On this board we can’t even agree what the mission of the F-35 is and who it’s going to fight? Air superiority fighter? Ground support? Strike? Oh, wait we will develop this magic airplane that will fit all three roles, be built in every state of the union, and magically include all of the latest technology

Will the F-35 go the way of the A-12 Avenger? There may be the fact many allied nations are on board with the F-35; however, how can their budgets justify a project that has increased by 90%?

there will come a point when Lockheed will have to step back reanalyze the cost, and start offerring a discount on each plane, what do u say Lockheed, how bout you sell 3 Planes and give people of America the Fourth Plane Free. or make improvements in your production system that reduce overall cost per Plane. Yeah we need them, but aren’t your CEO’s rich enough to take a price cut so we can reduce wasteful spending in government.

We’re so hung up on gimmicks that we’ve lost sight of how we win wars. We need to build a large number of F-15E (or later models) and scrap these flying camels (Camel: A horse designed by committee) The Eagle can find the bad guys 120 miles out, engage up to 15 of them 50 miles out with “fire and forget” ordinance and go home without the bad guys ever even doing an “eyes on”. We’ve also got the hardware to kill satellites using the Eagle. I don’t care how good a fighter the Chinese field, when it goes up against 10–15 Eagles it will place #2 in the contest. The same is true of the F-22. It is a numbers game, people. We have F-22’s here where I work and they’re a good bird but we’re at the point where we’re asking a single aircraft to cover too much space but itself. If we can fly 10 F-15’s for the price of a single Raptor, then we need to be flying the Eagles.

The cause of the Ponzi scheme IS congress. Witness the healthcare bill funding profile.

Oh, everybody shut up for a minute and think about this– with all the BS and all the talk and all the calamor and all the fear building, everybody’s missed the point: this program was started in 1993 and has STILL yet to produce 1 aircraft for the troops. Can any of you spell BOONDOGGLE? If I hired a contractor to build me a tool shed and it took him almost 20 years and hundreds of dollars and still hasn’t made it, I’d fire him, get my money back, and find somebody who could about 19 years ago. But not the USAF (better known as Useless Stupid Accounting and Finances)- they just want to throw more money at it. WAKE-UP!!!!

Cole has already aplogised so get over it. Secondly, the US gave us a lot of assitance during our ops in East Timor in 1999/2000. You just didn’t read about it and I am not going into it.

special intrest and lots of money changing hands scratch mine and I scratch yours

BIG WAST OF TIME AND MONEY!!!!!!

Sure: 1) the new healthcare bill 2) social security 3) medicare 4) post office 5) etc. etc. etc.

I see there are still a lot of people fooled by this pathetic reporting.

This is PROJECTED (based on JET II PROJECTIONS, themselves NOT based on the actual status of the program) per unit TOTAL PROGRAM COST. AND $135 million is the HIGH END of the projection, the low end is $114 million. The per unit TOTAL PROGRAM COST of the F-22 is ~$350 million.

The same numbers for per unit TOTAL PRODUCTION COST are ~$96.36–114.43 million (FY2010 dollars) for the F-35 vs $191.15 million for the F-22 (FY2010 dollars).

The same numbers for per unit FLYAWAY COST are ~$81.91–97.27 million (FY2010 dollars) for the F-35 vs $155.74 million for the F-22 (FY2010 dollars).

dont blame the USAF for a DOD thing. Theres no doubt the Air Force needs new fighters and needs them now but congress does what congress wants. The F-22 and F-15E(or later variants maybe even the F-18 Superhornets) are the only fighters we need. We also need to grow up and tell the monopolies what WERE going to pay not the other way around.

How refreshing to see someone referencing unbiased sources in these discussions.
Can we please now separate patriotism from price?

I asked you this question on the other blog but maybe you didn’t see it. You made the argument that the F-35 was just slightly more expensive than the F-18 but had more capabilities. As far as cost comparisons and buying in bulk:

$90-$115 million a piece for 2500 or so F-35s and $80 million a piece for 400 F-18E/Fs. If the production runs were equal in number, what would the price comparison look like?

The savings isn’t so much in the cost of the actual airframes themselves. It’s in the parts and supply, which costs exponentially more than the aircraft itself over the course of it’s life.

Having separate supply lines for four different airframe families (A-10’s, F/A-18C/D’s, F-16’s and AV-8’s) is very expensive when they have less than 0.01% parts commonality. The F-35 variants are advertised to have about 80% parts commonality, and recent independent reports claim it’s becoming less (the accuracy of said reports is questionable). But even if those reports are true and that the actual parts commonality is about 30%, that’s still far more economical.

Also keep in mind that the F-16, A-10 and F/A-18 were designed with planned obsolescence. Meaning a replacement was supposed to have been designed 15 years into the life of those aicraft, begin retiring at 20 years when the replacement is online and operational, and finally phased out completely at 25–30 years. These jets are pushing past 30 years of service, and maintaining and supplying them is becoming more and more difficult (read: more expensive). The F-35 is designed without planned obsolescence, meaning it’s designed to continue service with the uncertainty of a successor.

Programs such as the U-2 and B-52 are living on borrowed time. I know from my personal experience that as these jets get older, replacement parts becomes harder to come by. Especially for the U-2, which was built in limited numbers. Many manufacturers stopped producing parts for it because it’s not profitable, either because they moved on to new manufacturing methods or technologies or because there’s so few U-2’s.

The F/A-18E/F (Super Hornet), F-15E (Strike Eagle) and F-16 Block 40/50 have a bit of an extra lifeline thrown in from the export market, but certain parts and technologies are US or export exclusive and are incompatible with each other. Not to mention variants within each airframe family also have parts exclusivity… the F-15E for example is 60% internally different from the F-15C/D. Eventually the F-15C will become unsustainable from parts non-availability, and keep in mind the F-15E is not as air-to-air capable as the F-15C, a trade-off for it’s strike role. In regards to parts, it’s the same case with older Block 20/30 F-16’s and F/A-18C/D’s.

While we’ll be able to further sustain F-15E’s, F/A-18E/F’s, and Block 40/50 F-16’s for a long time… the older F-15C/D, F/A-18C/D, and Block 20/30 F-16’s will have to be retired once they become unsustainable due to parts. They comprise well over half of our tactical air fleet, and having to retire them without a replacement will greatly reduce US military capabilities.

Designing new parts is not as easy at it sounds with the bureaucratic red-tape and politics involved, and it really shouldn’t be that way.

Every single one of you making comments obviously don’t work in the Defense Industry, or you’d know the ’20/80 Rule’ and not responed with such tripe. The REAL cost for anything the government purchases is in the sustainment side, and that’s the ‘80’ in the rule. Yes, 80% of the Life Cycle Cost (for you morons, that’s the expected cost of a product the government will spend over it’s intended life span — cradle to grave). So, if it costs $150M to design and produce (that’s the ‘20’ if you haven’t figured it out yet…), theoretically, it will cost the taxpayer 4-times that amount to sustain it. But not in this case, as that is why they governement has allowed the cost to rise (but I’m not condoning the amount it has risen, either…). The thought is that by spending a little more upfront, you can substantially reduce the projected cost to sustain it. That’s why this aircraft has so much commonality in parts. Less parts to warehouse, less trining of mechanics, etc… Does any of this ‘101-level’ college course explanation sink in to your kindergarden minds?

Look right above you, I already touched on this with my last response to TMB’s response in pfcem’s post.

You”ve got even better material than pfcem. I esp like this howler: “The thought is .… less trining of mechanics, etc…”

That may be the’thought’, but it’s not an original one. After all, I remember back when they also ‘thought’ about the F-22, and we all know how little that costs to keep running, don’t we? And how much more fuel is that honkin’ big F135 gonna burn compared to the engines in the Viper and the A-10?

As for the commonality –that promise seems to be falling by the wayside,too. What is it now? 50%? 40%.? And remember, ‘cousin’ parts won’t fit any more than will any other wrong part. Still, once the Navy dumps the ‘C’ model, that will help bring the commonality ratio up a bit. And as for training techs, well correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the services generally train their mechanics to work on the planes they actually fly? How much does the USAF waste on training redundant AV-8B or Hornets techs these days?

“As for the commonality –that promise seems to be falling by the wayside,too. What is it now? 50%? 40%.? And remember, ‘cousin’ parts won’t fit any more than will any other wrong part.”

40–50% is still better than the less than 0.01% parts commonality between the F-16, F/A-18, A-10 and AV-8.

“And as for training techs, well correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the services generally train their mechanics to work on the planes they actually fly? How much does the USAF waste on training redundant AV-8B or Hornets techs these days?”

USAF provides initial training to avionics specialists, E&E specialists, structures technicians, engine mechanics, and metals technicians on airframes that they may or may not work on when they are assigned at their first base. Also, they aren’t locked into a specific airframe or class of airframes (tactical or heavy/strategic). And so these technicians and mechanics can end up working on E-3’s, F-15’s or C-130’s.

Tactical aircraft APG mechanics (crew chiefs) are more airframe and airframe class specific, and they receive their introductory maintenance training (Fighter Commons) with other APG mechanics from other airframes. Afterwards they branch off to their airframe specific training and work on that airframe at their first base. After the APG mechanics are upgraded from apprentices to journeymen, they become eligible to work on other tactical airframes (F-15, A-10, F-16, U-2, F-22, RQ-4, MQ-1,and MQ-9). I’m almost sure that heavy/strategic APG mechanics work the same way. Upon being upgraded from journeymen to craftsmen and promotion to SNCO rank, they become eligible to cross airframe classes… but at that point their job is more management than technical.

For the F-35 the USAF, USMC and USN can teach a wider scope of subjects in the introductory maintenance class compared to the USAF’s Fighter Commons for APG mechanics. Fighter Commons only taught the very basics of maintenance that’s common to all fighters (what a screwdriver is, how to use a torque wrench, how to safetywire, etc). With the F-35 the introductory class can cover the basics of the airframe (hydraulic systems, electrical systems, flight control surfaces). Even with minor differences between the variants, it’s not much of an obstruction to training (for example: “This is X… on the A and C models it moves 10-degrees up, 25-degrees down. The B models have a wider range of movement going 12-degrees up, 30-degrees down. This is of necessity for the fan-lift system.”)

Drones work well as long as you have air superiority. If you don’t have that, drones are so much scrap metal on the landscape.

Somehow we must convince the DoD and the government to separate the production costs from the research costs. The research can be reused on much of the future products whereas the production costs are relatively fixed for the life of the product.

Once the research is completed, the cost of the aircraft already built does not change simply because you change the number to be built.

And is fairly obvious to anyone who has analizewd the costs required to provide the same area protection with F-35s that could be accomplished with F-22s, you quickly realize that 2 F-35s to get the same number of A-A missiles into the area, and 2 more F-35s to cover the same area must be combined with a tanker to provide the fuel needed and the cost of using F-35s becomes extremely hig in relatin to the F-22.

When you combine this with the fact that an F-35 would most likely lose a dogfight to a Viet Nam era F-4 or F-105. the F-35 begins to look like a very bad buy. The F-35 is slow, underarmed, lacks maneuverability and range. if supersonic flight is required.

Gates should be fired and Obama should be impeached for placing our country in this danger.

I don’t know in 2010 dollars, but the F-15C/D is $30 million and F-15E is $31.1 million in 1998 dollars.

The F-15K, which is the export version of the F-15E for South Korea is $100 million in 2006 dollars.

Note that the South Korean F-15K has advanced features not currently found on our F-15E’s… to include Infrared Search and Tracking, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, optional AESA radar, and more powerful General Electric F110-GE-129 engines (American F-15E’s use Pratt & Whitney F100-220 and –229 engines).

I know many F-15C’s have been upgraded with JHMCS, and 18 were upgraded with the AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA radars with 178 planned for upgrade for the (V)3 radar that began production last year. The F-15E will receive the AN/APG-82 AESA, which is a hybrid of the F-15C’s (V)3 and the AN/APG-79 radar found on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

who know price (in 2009–2010) on f-15 eagle?

After reading the specs on the T-50 and first flight reports JSF

Engines to be delievered later, buy a car get engine later that’s where you want to put your money . Are yoou in Congress?

you cant do that simply because the air frames are old and breaking. and i aint talkin about poor maintenance.. i mean material failure. it would be less cost effective to continue fixing these aircraft than it would be just to replace them.

For the benefit of Justthefactsmaam, I realise Cole has apologised, my response to him was about five weeks ago, shortly after he posted his piece and before he apologised. I don’t know why it took so long for my reply to get on the site. So to you, I don’t need your advice to ‘get over it’ thanks very much. However as I said, I like a lot of other Aussies love the USA and I am going there again for my holidays. I know that the US gave a lot of backroom assistance with Timor, just none up front as was originally requested, which would have given the Aussie troops a great boost. However, in the end we got the right outcome, thank goodness.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement