Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Costs About To Soar, Says Pentagon  
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15997 times:

I am loathed to start yet another F-35 thread, especially another negative one... but the program is simply sinning out of control. Lockheed Martin is proving themselves to be completely inept at cost control, the DoD is proving completely inept at project oversight... not to mention tone deaf to the rising sound of the war drums to cut DoD funding.

What the hell is going on here? Talk about the world's biggest project implosion.

Quote:
Including inflation, the government now expects each F-35 to cost an average of $133.6 million. But even that figure could swell to more than $150 million when revised estimates are completed in June.

Lockheed Martin counters this by saying:

Quote:
But Lockheed Martin spokesman Chris Geisel said in an e-mailed statement: "We can foresee no scenario in which F-35 unit costs are even close to the projections ... cited in the Inside Defense article."

Yet only a month ago, speaking before a Senate committee, DoD project managers said:

Quote:
The F-35 unit cost estimate is incomplete because the $114 million to $135 million "Average Procurement Unit Cost" , to buy 2,443 aircraft does not include any research, development, test and evaluation for the F-35. The best available estimate of those additional development costs is about $60 billion. When added to the estimated $329 billion to produce the F -35s, the unit cost vary from $139 million to $160 million.

...So it appears that the cost of the aircraft could very well approach those numbers. Those same officials reported that the first batch of 43 aircraft will cost approximately $201million per unit! But that the costs would go down over time, as the learning curve made production more efficient.

One of the division directors of the CDI, Winslow Wheeler, says that we cannot rely on claims that the "learning curve" will eventually reduce the costs of the F-35, and uses the F-22 as a prime example:

Quote:
Indeed, the F-22 program is an excellent precursor for the F-35. Both aircraft are "fifth generation" aircraft that combine "stealth" with complex long range, radar systems. ..... Both rely heavily on extensive computerization. .... Both programs employ concurrent development and production. .... Both are from the same prime contractor and to a large extent the same aviation bureaucracy in the Pentagon. .... There are no other contemporary US aircraft with a more closely related design, production, and bureaucratic heritage. Due to its more complex nature, the schedule and cost of the F-35 can be expected to experience more delays and increases in the future than the F-22 did. In other words, using the F-22 "learning curve" should underestimate future F-35 developments.

see further:

http://www.military.com/news/article...sts-set-to-soar-says-pentagon.html
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,213006,00.html

It just does not appear that this program will ever meet the promises made.   

135 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15987 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well it's not too late to kill it and buy more F-15's (including the "Stealth Eagle") and F/A-18s...

It would be kind of karmic if the F-35, which effectively killed Boeing as a manufacturer of manned fighters, ends up bumping Lockheed-Martin out of the market and hand it back to Boeing.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7665 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15915 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Well it's not too late to kill it and buy more F-15's (including the "Stealth Eagle") and F/A-18s...

Except the Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz saying that they will not purchase any new F-15's or F-16's in whatever variant - article presently up on Flight Global - as they only want 5th gen a/c. they will continue with their plan to retire some 250 a/c later this year. He did mention a small caveat, that they would investigate the probability of a service life extension program.
I get the feeling that they are once again going down the F-22 road, if they kill as many programs as they can or retire as many serviceable a/c as they can, the congress will have no option but to purchase the a/c they want in the numbers that they want. Duh, did not work for the F-22 and I am betting it will not work for the F-35. Yes there is a prposal afoot to continue to purchase more F-22's since a fighter gap seems to be on the way, I'm sure that their feasibility study on service life extension of the current F-15's and F-16's wil reveal that the option is not avaliable. Expect them to come back to the table demanding an additional production run for the F-22, also expect the OEM to increase the cost as the line would already have been winding down.

There will be a lot of pilots looking for jobs in the civilian market, no way do I see the purchase of 1,000+ F-35's at the current prices, also expect a number of foreign customers to cancel, after all, whats the benefit of having the latest and greatest when you can only afford two frames? 


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 15831 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
...So it appears that the cost of the aircraft could very well approach those numbers. Those same officials reported that the first batch of 43 aircraft will cost approximately $201million per unit! But that the costs would go down over time, as the learning curve made production more efficient.

Hard to believe that the F-35 was supposed to be the cheaper alternative to the F-22, much like the F-16 was to the F-15. Now it looks like it would be cheaper to cancel the F-35 and put the F-22 back in production.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 15804 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
There will be a lot of pilots looking for jobs in the civilian market, no way do I see the purchase of 1,000+ F-35's at the current prices, also expect a number of foreign customers to cancel, after all, whats the benefit of having the latest and greatest when you can only afford two frames?

That might even happen sooner than you think.
Both the Netherlands and the UK are going through an election year and the JSF is still a hot election topic.
In the Netherlands , some of the biggest parties are already making it one of their bigger issues to cancel the project and look in to alternatives.

In times like these with a weak economy and also when they are fighting battles that call for more Helo's and other more field related equipment (unmanned drones, transport planes, ... ) iso "fancy fighters" , the JSF might be on the chopping block for good while looking for cheaper alternatives in fewer numbers (F16 block ????, Sup Hornet, EF2000, Rafale or Grippen NG)



[edit post]
User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15760 times:

I'm not a big military buff... but this seems ridiculous to me. From what I've read (if I'm wrong do tell me) the F-35 isn't that great of a fighter. The F-22 can carry JDAM's and with the ability to supercruise it can drop them way out of town. So why are they letting the F-35 still live? Politics? Buercracy? I say order more Raptors.

User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4881 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15731 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 5):
Politics? Buercracy?

That's the very reason you can't have more Raptors. If you had signed the death knell for the Raptor, you'd feel pretty embarrassed if you then had to try and bring it back into production again - right?

And besides, if F35 got cancelled, the USA would be in one hell of a huge mess with partner nations who have also invested large amounts of money into developing the plane.

Remember, it's not just the USA pouring money into this incredibly expensive project, other countries are too. Where is the corporate governance? The project looks like it's starting to go off the rails.

Have to wonder of the Australian DoD was wise and right to purchase F-18 Super Hornets as an interim measure when they did- looks like they might be all we get for a long time, the F35 isn't looking promising at the moment. With 20/20 vision in hindsight, it's looking like a smart idea.

The first of the new Hornets started arriving the other week. Maybe the F-111C might need to be kept going for a little while longer as well to provide some long distance, high speed and heavyweight strike muscle as a deterrent.

We've never, ever used them in combat (they were considered too valuable for our national security), but just having them was worthwhile. They carried a meaningful weapons load at long distances and at the sort of speeds that would were useful. Good deterrent.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15668 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 6):
The first of the new Hornets started arriving the other week. Maybe the F-111C might need to be kept going for a little while longer as well to provide some long distance, high speed and heavyweight strike muscle as a deterrent.

Deterrent against what exactly. A surprise attack from ayam at Blok M in Jakarta
http://www.expat.or.id/info/nightifejakarta-barsclubsdiscos.html

Time for Howard's doctrine of pre-emptive strike to be buried and without that exactly what are we deterring? Kiwis, marauding Raskols from Port Moresby. Or are we planning to attack Chinese bulk carriers stuck on the barrier reef.

I am sorry cpd, this deterrent reflex nonsense has gone on far too long.   


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15561 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
Quote:
The F-35 unit cost estimate is incomplete because the $114 million to $135 million "Average Procurement Unit Cost" , to buy 2,443 aircraft does not include any research, development, test and evaluation for the F-35. The best available estimate of those additional development costs is about $60 billion. When added to the estimated $329 billion to produce the F -35s, the unit cost vary from $139 million to $160 million.

...So it appears that the cost of the aircraft could very well approach those numbers. Those same officials reported that the first batch of 43 aircraft will cost approximately $201million per unit! But that the costs would go down over time, as the learning curve made production more efficient.

I always tend to agree with postings from UH60, he has experience in the mil-av area, and also likely access to information generally that we don't.

In an earlier thread I opined that Canada should bail from the JSF program and look at what Australia did -- acquire F/A-18E/F/Gs. Our existing F-18A/Bs (although basically upgraded to C/D standard) are getting a little long in the tooth. At the current acquisition cost of the E/F/G variant, we could probably afford a near 1-for-1 replacement, say 90-100 or so in total. That should be enough to equip about 4 operational units plus a training squadron, and leave a small attrition replacement element. For the types of conflicts Canada is likely to be involved in over the next 20-30 years, the E/F/G variant should be effective. Beyond that, we're likely to look at UCAVs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Well it's not too late to kill it and buy more F-15's (including the "Stealth Eagle") and F/A-18s...

Killing it at this point might send a very powerful message to defense industries world-wide. There would certainly be a ripple effect throughout the US and with partner nations, but so be it.

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
Except the Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz saying that they will not purchase any new F-15's or F-16's in whatever variant - article presently up on Flight Global - as they only want 5th gen a/c. they will continue with their plan to retire some 250 a/c later this year. He did mention a small caveat, that they would investigate the probability of a service life extension program.

Chiefs of Staff should know they are expendable, particularly in an election year.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15533 times:

In addition to the financial burden on many governments, what would buyers like the Royal Navy do if the F-35 was scrapped? They have Harriers in desperate need of replacement, and no significant air to air capacity to speak of. Would they have the QE class come in with catapults and order Rafales or F-18s? I would love to see Rafales wearing British roundels, and it would make it much easier to operate in harmony with the French Carriers as you would have the same capability, but it would be difficult to swallow in parliament unless BAE was making them under license.

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15491 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 8):
In an earlier thread I opined that Canada should bail from the JSF program and look at what Australia did

I think even these costs will not be enough to break the "we have been right all the time in supporting this project" frame of mind. Or alternatively, my god, the oost of admitting this mistake is even greater, we must grit our teeth a bit harder. The US congress seems to be nearest to having the intestinal fortitude required for sanity.

So the white elephant of all white elephant will probably roll on at a cost of other things that might even be useful.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15472 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
The US congress seems to be nearest to having the intestinal fortitude required for sanity.

Now that, in itself is weird.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
So the white elephant of all white elephant will probably roll on at a cost of other things that might even be useful.

I think you are right. Oz has already signed their contract. The costs of the F-35 will exceed anything else, ever, including the A-400, which looks like a bargan compared to the F-35.

When will the USAF gain enough sanity to cut the order for their 1300 + F-35s by half, and buy the F-15SE, as the new "low cost" fighter? Will other Air Forces stand up and do that, or something similar, too?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15464 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
What the hell is going on here?

Who the heck knows?

These clowns had a flying prototype, for God's sake.

Didn't they learn anything from that expensive exercise?

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
I get the feeling that they are once again going down the F-22 road, if they kill as many programs as they can or retire as many serviceable a/c as they can, the congress will have no option but to purchase the a/c they want in the numbers that they want. Duh, did not work for the F-22 and I am betting it will not work for the F-35.

The jury's still out on F-22. Each F-35 delay makes it more likely the F-22 production is restarted.

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
There will be a lot of pilots looking for jobs in the civilian market, no way do I see the purchase of 1,000+ F-35's at the current prices, also expect a number of foreign customers to cancel, after all, whats the benefit of having the latest and greatest when you can only afford two frames?

I agree. F-22 was at $200M/frame or so and that was deemed too expensive. F-35s at a similar cost are way too expensive.

I pity the first person to eject out of a F-35, floating down on a parachute watching the $200M F-35 smash into the ground or water, presumably taking their career, or a big chunk of it, down with it.

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 5):
So why are they letting the F-35 still live? Politics? Buercracy? I say order more Raptors.

F-22s can't take off vertically or land on carriers.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
I think even these costs will not be enough to break the "we have been right all the time in supporting this project" frame of mind. Or alternatively, my god, the oost of admitting this mistake is even greater, we must grit our teeth a bit harder. The US congress seems to be nearest to having the intestinal fortitude required for sanity.

Clearly the F-35 is heading for a Nunn-McCurdy hearing in Congress, which should make for some interesting political theater.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7665 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15461 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Hard to believe that the F-35 was supposed to be the cheaper alternative to the F-22, much like the F-16 was to the F-15.

Not an alternative for the US Air Force, but to continue the hi-lo mix of fighter a/c where the larger F-15 with greater range and payload would clear the skies and the smaller F-16 handle point CAP patrols, it is supposed to complement the F-22 with less range, payload and similar stealth capabilities. I think stealth was an "option" put in to allow third country sales as in US Air Force use, it would not be expected to initiate or clear enemy skies to establish air superiority, that's the job of the F-22. The big issue for this a/c was supposed to be the integration of the lift fan in a VSTOL frame, the stealth capabilities are nothing new beyond the F-22, improvements yes, but not new science, the F-16 has been around for years with one engine, so developing a working engine should also not be new science.

So the big question is how did the US Air Force, the DOD, Pentagon, Congress and all these other oversight bodies boot the ball on this program, cost have been escalating from day one, parts and supplies did not just become an issue overnight, who was hiding this elephant and who let it out?

There is stimulus and there is stimulus, the F-35 became the stimulus package for its OEM and suppliers, the reason why it occured so early is because they had the foresight to see the financial crisis coming before the rest of us, can't blame them for their premonitions  


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5744 posts, RR: 44
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 15317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Oz has already signed their contract.

But at what price?

Well about AUD$3.2B actually for 14 F-35A which is approx $228M per aircraft (USD$208M) although that is likely a program cost rather than a flyaway price. Consideration is to be given to a follow on purchase to provide operational capability sometime in 2012.

What do partner nations do if the F-35 has blown out of perportion or been cancelled?

Perhaps bailing early and buying one of the alternatives now and avoid the rush later?

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 15300 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 14):
What do partner nations do if the F-35 has blown out of perportion or been cancelled?

Perhaps bailing early and buying one of the alternatives now and avoid the rush later?

Good questions. The answer would have to be all the Gen 4.5 aircraft (F-15SE, F-16E/F Block 60+, Typhoon Trench 3, Rafiel, F/A-18E/F, etc.) would become more attractive. The only factor that makes the F-35A/B/C a Gen. 5 fighter is stealth, but it actually has less capability than the Gen most Gen. 4.5, and only slightly more capable than the Gen. 1 F-117A, which only depended on stealth for self defense (it could not shoot down an opponent). The F-22A is the only true western Gen. 5 fighter platform.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 14):
But at what price?

Well about AUD$3.2B actually for 14 F-35A which is approx $228M per aircraft (USD$208M) although that is likely a program cost rather than a flyaway price. Consideration is to be given to a follow on purchase to provide operational capability sometime in 2012.

But doesn't the RAAF order for the F-35As include the maintenance, training, and spares packages? Still at $208M USD each they could have gotten almost twice as many F-15SEs.

The F-15SE has the same frontal RCS as the F-35A/C does, and is actually a smaller frontal RSC than the F-35B, according to Boeing.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 15276 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
Except the Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz saying that they will not purchase any new F-15's or F-16's in whatever variant - article presently up on Flight Global - as they only want 5th gen a/c. they will continue with their plan to retire some 250 a/c later this year.

When it comes right down to it it's not up to the General what type aircraft are bought. It is up to the civlilian leadership of the Pentagon. With that said I don't think the F-35 is going to get cancelled.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The costs of the F-35 will exceed anything else, ever, including the A-400, which looks like a bargan compared to the F-35.

Apples and oranges.

[Edited 2010-04-08 07:35:04]

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 15266 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cpd (Reply 6):
That's the very reason you can't have more Raptors. If you had signed the death knell for the Raptor, you'd feel pretty embarrassed if you then had to try and bring it back into production again - right?

Well Boeing builds the aft third of the F-22, so you could be sure of a number of Congresscritter's support for a new buy. And no worries about securing the House Defense Subcommittee's approval since Norm Dicks, D-WA is now Chairman.

Quoting cpd (Reply 6):
And besides, if F35 got cancelled, the USA would be in one hell of a huge mess with partner nations who have also invested large amounts of money into developing the plane.

Unless those partners themselves cancel first.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7665 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15245 times:

I like a good conspiracy, anyone think the front and center issue of cost overruns on the F-35 coming to light immediately after the proposed cancellation of the F-22 is any coincidence?
In some quarters the F-117, C-17, A-10, F-15, F-16 were all diminished to secure additional funds for more F-22's when the price started going up, one way to minimize the cost increase is to ensure that the cost of the next alternative goes even higher, thus making the F-22 cheaper.

Not yet drinking to go further off the deep end to look at who the suppliers are for the F-35 and how many also provide parts for the F-22, would be some interesting research. Parts suppliers are sometimes paid up front, the primary contractor is the one left holding the bag when the program starts heading into a negative position.

I miss the X-Files  


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15225 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12):
F-22s can't take off vertically or land on carriers.

I honestly didn't think about that... but I have a ? for the insiders is the F-35 much more capable than the F-16F-18TyphoonRafaleGripen? They seem like much better buys to me... they lack stealth but the US Air-Force does have the B-2 and the F-22 at its disposal.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15153 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12):
F-22s can't take off vertically or land on carriers.

IIRC, there was a F-22N proposal

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
I honestly didn't think about that... but I have a ? for the insiders is the F-35 much more capable than the F-16F-18TyphoonRafaleGripen?

Yes

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
They seem like much better buys to me... they lack stealth

Correct.


User currently offlineANZUS340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15079 times:

Being an election year, with the Democratic Party trying to win some favor in the country, the F35 is unlikely to get the chop. It is all politics. The Republican Party would make a lot of hay over health care, the changing nuclear policy, the cutting of the manned space program and the chopping of the F35. Nope, this baby will fly-sadly I might add. I would love to see, as others have stated, additional F18s, F15s, Rafales and Typhoons in the world's skys. I dream of US carriers with F18s and Rafales exercising with USAF Typhoons, F15SEs and F22s.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12965 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14902 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 12):
F-22s can't take off vertically or land on carriers.

IIRC, there was a F-22N proposal

I can't wait to see how much LockMart will want do to the work...  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14852 times:

The US ate the 7 billion dollars they had sunk into the Comanche program. They should pull the plug on the F-35 fiasco.

What a sad joke...



What the...?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14817 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 23):
The US ate the 7 billion dollars they had sunk into the Comanche program. They should pull the plug on the F-35 fiasco.

What a sad joke...

Yes, we did and we ate all the money sunk into the VH-71A/B/C, too. We did buy the overpriced F-22, and come to think of it, weren't both those programs, and the F-35 all LM programs?

Are we seeing a trend here?


25 KiwiRob : Probably buy the Rafalel. CVF was designed so that it could be fitted with catapults, so dumping the F35 isn't too big a problem, however some offici
26 UH60FtRucker : You know, honestly we ought to seriously look to the RAH-66 as possible "road map." Once the Army came to the realization that the Comanche was no lo
27 Post contains images ptrjong : Wow, interesting how widespread the scepticsim about the F-35 is in this community - nobody is saying 'well, it's becoming a bit more expensive than p
28 UH60FtRucker : But that's the problem... it's not "a bit more expensive"... it's "grossly more expensive. ...We're potentially seeing a $150-$200million aircraft, t
29 ptrjong : True, but I'd expect some enthousiasts to ignore that fact, as the F-14's supporters tended to to. But this doesn't happen in the case of the F-35, p
30 morrisond : What was the fly away price on the last F-22's? If they were to restart production wouldn't the marginal cost of producing say another 700-800 be sign
31 GST : I think you are seriously underestimating the cost of "carrierising" something like the F-22, ESPECIALLY if LM is doing the work!
32 JohnM : I would guess the lift fan vert landing version is a big technical challenge and costs lots of money. Dump that version. How much payload can it carr
33 Post contains images Revelation : Well, we've seen what we got when LM tried to "stretch" the EH-101 into the VH-71, a helicopter that costs more than a VC-25 does, and thus a cancele
34 morrisond : Agreed the USMC and RAF would be much better off with A-10's, in what close air support mission would an F35B beat an A10? You could probably adapt t
35 Flighty : It looks like this program is going to be very successful, from the standpoint of providing "jobs" and a sizable shareholder reimbursement. Lockheed h
36 Post contains images SAS A340 : Yes and at the same time they said that the Gripen would end up twice as expensive as the F-35...due to the fact that 50% would crash under it's life
37 Post contains images cpd : Indonesia was the threat, and was always consider a threat from long ago in the time when Howard would have hardly been out of school, if that. That'
38 Post contains images par13del : For a minute there I thought I was dreaming and this was about Boeing, my bad An excellent idea, to get the ball rolling we need some politician to m
39 Post contains images BMI727 : Too many compromises. Apparently nobody in DoD learned from the F-111. You just can't ask one airframe to be everything to everybody and not make com
40 JoeCanuck : Pull the plug. Do this enough times and companies will get the clue.
41 checksixx : I don't think about the money. I certainly don't factor in flight test and program development costs when researching the cost of an aircraft. That pr
42 UH60FtRucker : I'm sorry but I don't think you can just wave your hand and dismiss this as "teething problems." When the entire point of the program was stated from
43 BMI727 : Exactly. The best reason to buy the F-35 is that it is cheaper than the Raptor. Now that it isn't so cheap, why stay with the less capable plane?
44 JoeCanuck : Because they promised something and missing those promises is costing billions of dollars to taxpayers. Don't pitch something you can't deliver. That
45 Flighty : But it's the same old fallacy. Something that doesn't exist yet, is going to work great and going to be cheaper. On major point here is, Boeing had t
46 Zkpilot : If they are going to cost that much then more F-22s should be ordered.... perhaps the F-35 should be pushed back a few years to allow for the costs of
47 par13del : Well for many that is exactly the point, what new technology is this a/c bringing to the market, the version which will be purchased the most is not
48 rheinwaldner : I agree it is a shame. But if the F-35 fails I have some questions: Can the US ever design new fighters again? If yes, what would be different? How di
49 Revelation : Understatement of the day. Some people in the tanker threads think of Boeing as this almighty political engine, but it has NOTHING on Lockheed. In fa
50 KC135TopBoom : As good as the F-15E is, it is not as capable as the F-111C/E/F, and only half as capable as the FB-111A/F-111G was. That would be the proposed FB-22
51 par13del : I would say yes, look at who has the market in fighter design and manufacture, if no one else is allowed in the game what exactly do you expect? Duri
52 rheinwaldner : Oh I did not imply that the US would buy them. I meant: "How would the world look if the the US would buy F15/F16/F18 replacing F15/F16/F18 and a lot
53 Post contains images MCIGuy : Kill this pig, build more F-22s for USAF, more FA-18E/F/G for the Marines and Navy and call it a day. I agree with UH60, this is simply ridiculous. Th
54 Baroque : From which one might conclude that masochism is more popular than sadism, perhaps. Only if paranoid, mind you paranoia about Tamils is selling well a
55 Revelation : I thought you guys had a Navy capable of doing such a job, no? A little googling shows the Adelaide frigates carry Harpoons which may do in a pinch,
56 BMI727 : They're all like that, and it is a real nice system. But sometimes the government needs to bring the hammer down, and I think now is one of those tim
57 CMB56 : I read some comments a while back that the greatest use / value of stealth for strike aircraft was in the first few days of an air campaign when the m
58 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : I doubt it, you need two crewmembers. Maybe an F-15E, or F-16D/F. Both it would be a great mission if we had any two seat A-10s.
59 BMI727 : The Super Hornet makes a lot of compromises, but to be fair, to some extent the Navy is lying in the bed that they made when they canceled the A-12.
60 Post contains images par13del : I got that, my response was : The even if portion was an addition, should have used a full stop, my bad I would expect that if all and sundry knew th
61 KC135TopBoom : That is so true. If the A-12A entered production, and fleet service, today's F-18E/F would have been a much different airplane (it would not need a s
62 Mortyman : I still don't understand why the USA wont sell the F22 to good allies such as Norway, UK and the Netherlands... I can certainly understand that is ver
63 par13del : In my opinion it's the technology, somehow someway there are things in either the software or the a/c itself that are purely American, as in designed
64 KiwiRob : Do you realy think the Norwegian electorate would be happy with the govt spending 1.2 billion NOK per aeroplan for an F22, I sure as hell wouldn't be
65 Post contains links and images Shmertspionem : how about interim buy to fulfill alliance contribution requirements? you know contribute little to fight the far enemy - so uncle sam will pick up th
66 Mortyman : If they get a plane that is worth the money, yes I do think that the F22 would be considered. The reason why it has'nt been considered, is beacuse ou
67 LMP737 : If the Marines were to ditch the the F-35B they would end buying Super Hornets and just operating off USN carriers. A navalized A-10 would need to mu
68 par13del : I think that is the reason why the Marines have not yet bought the Super Hornet and why they are so pro F-35 with VSTOL capabilities, they have alrea
69 ptrjong : The F-22 is in the F-4/F-15 weight/cost class. Norway got the F-104 and F-16, so I doubt it would have bought the F-22. The F-35 was supposed to be m
70 Mortyman : Norway has to patrol Norwegian territorial waters wich are huge. The F22 has better range, speed and is a fighter. It also has two engines wich is ni
71 BMI727 : Ideally, I think that the Navy should go with some sort of resurrected A-12 and then pursue either the F-22N or s Super Hornet+ optimized as a fighte
72 ptrjong : You chose to ignore the fact that Norway has never had fighters in the F-22 class, which indicates you are merely discussing your personal agenda. Th
73 cpd : Funnily enough, it ended up being a great plane for its intended purpose - once the wing issues were sorted out. The whole acquisition is looking mor
74 JoeCanuck : The F35 should be canceled and LM should be seriously fined. Don't bid if you can't produce.
75 BMI727 : Well, one intended purpose anyway. It would not have worked out as well as a land or naval fighter, so it is just as well that the Navy got the Tomca
76 checksixx : I completely agree that its spun out of control...thats specifically due to lack of proper oversight. I also agree that the 'just going to deal with
77 Baroque : That is probably part of the "logic" but really it is common wisdon that u. sam will not do that in most cases, so really even that is built upon a (
78 KiwiRob : I don't believe that even if the F22 was on offer that Norway would buy it, Norway might be able to afford it but it wouldn't be a popular purchase w
79 Post contains images A342 : Then I'd suggest the P-8A
80 KC135TopBoom : Well, you cannot argue with the numbers, the A-400 program is up some 30% and the F-35 program is up some 90%. Not the F-15E, it is the F-15SE versio
81 Post contains links blrsea : Docs Say F-35B Too Hot, Noisy Looks like the plane has major thermal and noise issues. The thermal issues may lead to expensive carrier modifications
82 KC135TopBoom : well the F-35B does have a significant FOD issue, much more than the AV-8B. Maybe that can be solved and maybe not. But it, and these issues, if true,
83 wvsuperhornet : It wasn't it hasn't been offered to anyone no export model has been built or tested and it seems like it wont be. Same as the F-22 it was 10 years be
84 KC135TopBoom : Back then, most FMS sales wanted the F-16A/B or F/A-18A/B, also a few More F-4Es were also being sold in the late 1970s.
85 Post contains links and images Devilfish : To their credit, Boeing did downplay the stealth aspect. I'm not really for killing off the JSF --- only that the procurement be rationalized a littl
86 KC135TopBoom : If South Korea were to order the F-15SE, that could extend the program until the USAF and/or Congress decides what it is going to do.
87 Shmertspionem : with the vertical lift fan or the regular engine? What's the nature of these problems? cant function in congestion (dust water etc) or can deal with
88 KC135TopBoom : I don't know if the chicken test has been done, or if it has what the results were. But the problem is mostly with the vertical lift engine blowing d
89 Shmertspionem : The F-14 on the other hand was sold hot off the drawing board to Iran, even before the USN placed orders. But I don't think Norway will want the F-22
90 BMI727 : I am not inclined to allow the F-22 to go to anyone in the Middle East.
91 ANZUS340 : would the SE be more attractive to the USAF or foreign air forces if fitted with thrust vectoring (FX program) or canards and a F22 style cockpit? Als
92 Post contains links Arniepie : Holland is seriously starting to get some cold feet from this project and are seriously indicating that this JSF saga might be something not for them.
93 KC135TopBoom : Well, the Dutch do have other options outside of the JSF program. These include US, EU, and Swedish fighter programs. These would be Bock 50/52 F-16C/
94 connies4ever : Cost and program risk in the sense of delivery schedule seem to be driving the Dutch, as well as local politics (as if that doesn't happen everywhere
95 KiwiRob : I hope that the Dutch do bail out, it might make the Norwegian govt see sense and do likewise, it just appears to be an ever larger waste of money fo
96 wolbo : It's clear the Dutch airforce wants the F35 and nothing but the F35. However politically it's all but clear if there is a majority for it in parliame
97 Post contains links Shmertspionem : here's an excellent resource (as reliable as we're bound to get in the public arena) - inflation, currency and ppp adjusted that I use often - note t
98 Post contains links SeJoWa : Excerpt from an interview with Gen Norton Schwartz: Q. On F-35, do you have backup plans? A. We're committed to the F-35 because we believe that a gen
99 Shmertspionem : what exactly does this mean? This seems like the gentleman is in total denial and related to Sir Humphrey Appleby..... i believe the simple answer to
100 Post contains links mffoda : Nice to see some good news about program for a change....(ahead of schedule!) "June 10, 2010: The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II progra
101 Mortyman : Norway would want a fighter that can operate both abroad and domestically. Unlike during the Cold War, Norway will proabably take more part in operat
102 Mortyman : The class also have 8 × Naval Strike Missile SSMs 4 × torpedo tubes for Sting Ray torpedoes etc, etc
103 Post contains images Shmertspionem : I believe all NATO produced fighters conform to NATO standards - all would be interoperable - especially the gripen following the Swedish philosophy
104 Shmertspionem : Sorry continuing from above 1) If Norway needs the F-22 then the rational and logical corollaries to look for in the Navy would be a) upgrading 8 VLS
105 Post contains images SeJoWa : Good one.
106 KiwiRob : My opinion is that the Nansen class are really oversized patrol boats with a fancy airwarfare radar and sub hunting ability. If the Norwegians were r
107 Post contains images Shmertspionem : "smart" politicians bought an under-armed under-crewed boat ?!?!?! I think our Mortyman is onto something here. Kidding aside i'm with you on this bu
108 ThePointblank : To be fair, the Nansen's 8 VLS cells are quad-packed with ESSM, for a total of 32 air defence missiles. For a self-defence standpoint, the Nansen's f
109 Shmertspionem : "self defence" being the operative word. Its a fine boat but just a glorified patrol boat - but how does that square with a super high end F-22 purch
110 KiwiRob : Dreamers, a bunch of Norwegians who dream dreams of equiping the military with equipment far above what is practical and necessary. Lots of countries
111 ThePointblank : The Nansen's are larger, more capable, and have better endurance over the old Oslo class frigates they replaced. They will help provide air defence f
112 kanban : the problem here is to justify all this expenditure one must be "defending" against a superior "enemy" . yet defensive equipment is considered inferio
113 flipdewaf : I'm assuming then that you would also be giving back the tens of billions that it has cost these other countries so far? I'd agree with that. For me
114 KiwiRob : The Hauk's were decommissioned in 2008, that leaves the 6 Sjkold class of which only 1 is commissioned.
115 Post contains links Mortyman : My god, relax people. I have never really said or beleaved that Norway should have the F22. My response was more of a general one. That Norway's scena
116 Post contains links kanban : from http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/List_of_Royal_Norwegian_Navy_ships Skjold class — significant dates # Name Laid down Launched Commissioned Notes P
117 ptrjong : Can you discuss boats elsewhere please.
118 Post contains images spudh : Ahhh, dry up!
119 william : Maybe its time to deveope Boeing's version of this aricraft. It doesn make one wander where would be if Northrop and Boeings's version won the contrac
120 BMI727 : No, the F-35 won fair and square. The problem is not the F-35 itself. The whole concept of the JSF is flawed.
121 kanban : it would be in the same mess... overbudget, over weight and late...
122 ThePointblank : And Boeing's aircraft was rated as being higher risk because they had a lot more to do to get the performance where they needed to be.
123 Shmertspionem : Correct - its a still born - too small - too few weapons- too much equipment, miniaturisation has not advanced to this stage yet (hence the Swedish g
124 Post contains links Shmertspionem : And here's the latest - chops to its redundancy system amounting to all of 5 kgs - but still makes a big difference (??!!!??). http://www.wired.com/da
125 BMI727 : The whole point of the JSF was to get an F-22 in a cheaper and more well rounded package. And now, it has become clear that it isn't an F-22, it isn'
126 kanban : plus there is this assumption that the opposite side isn't working to overcome the few advantages that the stealth capabilities have... yes it probab
127 Post contains links Lumberton : There is a lot of concern about the weapons load. Lockheed seems to be listening. As for the other criticisms, it is very, very early in the program.
128 Post contains links and images Shmertspionem : I was never worried about the AA load since 6 was the initially desirable number as well. What worries me is the AG load - 2 JDAMS is just not good e
129 Lumberton : A program runs decades; even after IOC, there are block updates. Aircraft--especially tactical aircraft--are ALWAYS evolving. Thus the "very, very ea
130 brendows : The last argument has puzzled me quite a few times when I see it show up in discussions. The ability to attack while being stealthy is a feature the
131 Shmertspionem : By that measure Since the F-16 E only came around in 2004 you could say the F-16 C, D's were still "early" in the programme or that the F-15K and S a
132 Post contains images par13del : I am taking the last quote out of context to say that if the F-35 is going to be used like an F-16 carrying external loads once air supremacy has bee
133 SAS A340 : So,i guess that the US doesn't create the F-35 to be a plane that "clear" the Skye's before the rest despite it's stealth capabilities,and without its
134 Lumberton : Not far at all, especially since the aircraft has not even achieved initial operating capability. You could apply your "rationale" to the eurofighter
135 Shmertspionem : Of course that's why you have eurofighters tranche 1 ,2 and 3 and rafale's f1, f2 and f3 tranches. This doesn't make the first IOC Eurofighter "early
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Costs About To Soar, Says Pentagon
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Malaysia About To Buy A400M posted Mon Jan 24 2005 17:12:49 by Columba
Portugal Is About To Cancel Eurocopter Order! posted Wed Aug 14 2002 19:36:36 by CV990
Question About F-35 Export Version... posted Sat Feb 28 2009 18:20:24 by Alberchico
Road Blocks To Israeli F-35 posted Sat Feb 28 2009 10:21:52 by LAXintl
F-16 Adv. As Alternative To F-35 posted Sun Oct 26 2008 10:27:28 by TexL1649
Putin Selling SU-35 To Libya posted Thu Apr 17 2008 00:30:01 by Beaucaire
Pentagon To Support Usaf Request For 381 F-22s posted Sat Dec 8 2007 09:33:30 by STT757
U.S. Agrees To Sell F-35 To Israel posted Tue Jul 31 2007 09:32:18 by Playloud
Indons To Buy 8 Su-30MKs & 4 Mi-35 Helos posted Thu Nov 30 2006 01:03:15 by DEVILFISH
US Senate Approves Selling 100 F-35's To Turkey posted Thu Nov 9 2006 11:30:01 by Wing

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format