F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
I believe that the Korean journo may have been confused. At best, 3F will be delivered to test sometime in 2016. If it was to be ready for operations at that time, the USAF and USN would be falling all over themselves to use it operationally.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Squirrel 41
Hence, if you are South Korea and want something useable before then, you don't buy JSF.
Advanced F-15 - not likely before 2020.
Eurofighter T3 - ditto!
Eurofighter T3 - ditto!
First Tranche 3 Eurofighter completes engine ground runs
DAPA described it as 'risk free'
Advanced F-15 - not likely before 2020.
But in JSF Troll World, all these things are true. It's just a matter of perspective.
By the way, another funny from the Korean report:
“The cost of the F-35 has come down substantially. From the first-year production to the seventh-year production, we decreased the price by 55 percent"
Yes, indeed - but you get to that 55 per cent by including the two FY2007 aircraft, which cost in the region of $400 million. Otherwise....
By the way, another funny from the Korean report:
“The cost of the F-35 has come down substantially. From the first-year production to the seventh-year production, we decreased the price by 55 percent"
Yes, indeed - but you get to that 55 per cent by including the two FY2007 aircraft, which cost in the region of $400 million. Otherwise....
Originally Posted by LO
“The cost of the F-35 has come down substantially. From the first-year production to the seventh-year production, we decreased the price by 55 percent"
The foreign customers are only interested in the purchase price.
Why is it using 'then year', as it meaningless in a comparison chart like this? The dollar scale is therefore wrong.
Its not wrong.
But the number is an accounting figure, unless its defined how the figures are calculated its difficult to know the relevance.
How is it the USAF budget figures (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...130408-079.pdf), equally 'impeccable', report figures in the region of $175million or LIRP orders quote $95million.
Which is the 'correct figure'?
Which is why I prefer to stick to the actual purchase price given by, in this case, S Korea.
Its the price you would pay if you bought 60 aircraft at a certain date and its directly comparable to the price for an identical number of EF's and F-15's.
Its still damned expensive at 40% more than the F-15/EF. (130 v. 180)
But the number is an accounting figure, unless its defined how the figures are calculated its difficult to know the relevance.
How is it the USAF budget figures (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...130408-079.pdf), equally 'impeccable', report figures in the region of $175million or LIRP orders quote $95million.
Which is the 'correct figure'?
Which is why I prefer to stick to the actual purchase price given by, in this case, S Korea.
Its the price you would pay if you bought 60 aircraft at a certain date and its directly comparable to the price for an identical number of EF's and F-15's.
Its still damned expensive at 40% more than the F-15/EF. (130 v. 180)
I prefer "accounting" figures to "salesman", "politician", "media relations" or "fantroll" figures.
Fact is that the F-35 unit costs (flyaway, APUC, whatever... the numbers are different but the trends are the same) have budged little since Lot 2.
And as you correctly point out, what was originally advertised and sold with an F-16 price tag has been beaten on cost (for 2017+ deliveries, after ten years of production) by the F-15SE and Typhoon.
And that's the A model, the B and C being 40-50 per cent higher. Now wonder why the USN ("erroneously", my
) has been soliciting quotes for more Super Hornets and why the UKG is talking about only 48 jets in the next ten years.
Fact is that the F-35 unit costs (flyaway, APUC, whatever... the numbers are different but the trends are the same) have budged little since Lot 2.
And as you correctly point out, what was originally advertised and sold with an F-16 price tag has been beaten on cost (for 2017+ deliveries, after ten years of production) by the F-15SE and Typhoon.
And that's the A model, the B and C being 40-50 per cent higher. Now wonder why the USN ("erroneously", my
) has been soliciting quotes for more Super Hornets and why the UKG is talking about only 48 jets in the next ten years.
Originally Posted by LO
I prefer "accounting" figures to "salesman", "politician", "media relations" or "fantroll" figures.
Originally Posted by LO
has been beaten on cost (for 2017+ deliveries, after ten years of production) by the F-15SE and Typhoon.
Originally Posted by LO
And that's the A model, the B and C being 40-50 per cent higher.
I agree with you on the sales price issue, but you confuse me with the above statement.
IIRC, F-35 is in LRIP.
Here are links to FY 14 and Fy 15 delivery orders. FY 14 started 01 October 2013. (Take a few grains of salt on the dollar figures if you like, it is a L/M site ... )
This contract signing clearly states that they are at LRIP 6 and 7, which means that LRIPs 4 and 5 are already alive and well. Low Rate Initial Production. The P in LRIP stands for "Production."
Peter, please explain what you mean by "it is not in production."
EDIT: LO, great minds think alike.
IIRC, F-35 is in LRIP.
Here are links to FY 14 and Fy 15 delivery orders. FY 14 started 01 October 2013. (Take a few grains of salt on the dollar figures if you like, it is a L/M site ... )
This contract signing clearly states that they are at LRIP 6 and 7, which means that LRIPs 4 and 5 are already alive and well. Low Rate Initial Production. The P in LRIP stands for "Production."
Peter, please explain what you mean by "it is not in production."
EDIT: LO, great minds think alike.
The F-35 is NOT in production.
I see. The low-rate initial PRODUCTION contracts that have been issued over the past seven years (at rates in the same order as full-rate for anything else) are nothing of the sort. They are in fact secretly funding the reverse engineering of alien spacecraft in Pigeon Forge, TN, in a facility covertly disguised as Dollywood.
I see. The low-rate initial PRODUCTION contracts that have been issued over the past seven years (at rates in the same order as full-rate for anything else) are nothing of the sort. They are in fact secretly funding the reverse engineering of alien spacecraft in Pigeon Forge, TN, in a facility covertly disguised as Dollywood.
low-rate initial PRODUCTION
All the cost have been amoritised over that number and paid off. Which why the F-18 is cheap.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO To show my lack of understanding of the accounting systems, are you saying that the way the LRIP costs are calculated exclude the initial R&D costs and any capital costs incurred in the set up of the production line.
In other words the LRIP costs are the semi marginal costs of producing the required output of planes that year?
So to get to the shall one say final cost to the public purse of a post tech refresh software version 3F lane for the USAF, it could be argued that it is the LRIP cost + a proportion (say 1/2,500) of the capital cost of R&D and setting up the production facility etc, + the cost of engineering out of the early batch planes the concurrency issues?
In other words the LRIP costs are the semi marginal costs of producing the required output of planes that year?
So to get to the shall one say final cost to the public purse of a post tech refresh software version 3F lane for the USAF, it could be argued that it is the LRIP cost + a proportion (say 1/2,500) of the capital cost of R&D and setting up the production facility etc, + the cost of engineering out of the early batch planes the concurrency issues?
PG -
There are two basic budgets - R&D and Procurement (=production)
The production system is designed and planned under R&D. The production line itself is built, staffed and operated under procurement.
However, each year's procurement contract is self-contained and fully funded. The result is that the first year's unit cost (for two aircraft) was very high - and this is why it is silly and misleading to use that as the basis for "price cuts" in subsequent years.
So, as the production rate increases year over year, the unit cost should come down as less of the total is spent on building tooling and factories, and more of it on building aircraft (buying raw materials and parts and paying workers).
Another big factor driving down unit costs over time is that production engineers (who are there in large numbers to beat bugs out of the system) finish their jobs and go away.
However, it's odd that as we get into Lots 7 & 8 of the JSF program, with rates of 30+ aircraft a year (more than Gripen or Rafale, pretty close to F/A-18) the unit costs are budging by no more than a few per cent versus Lot 2.
You can compute a unit cost by rolling in a share of R&D, but it's not very helpful because (1) R&D has been sunk and (2) what share you assign to each aircraft depends on how many aircraft will be built, and we don't know that answer until 2030-something.
There are two basic budgets - R&D and Procurement (=production)
The production system is designed and planned under R&D. The production line itself is built, staffed and operated under procurement.
However, each year's procurement contract is self-contained and fully funded. The result is that the first year's unit cost (for two aircraft) was very high - and this is why it is silly and misleading to use that as the basis for "price cuts" in subsequent years.
So, as the production rate increases year over year, the unit cost should come down as less of the total is spent on building tooling and factories, and more of it on building aircraft (buying raw materials and parts and paying workers).
Another big factor driving down unit costs over time is that production engineers (who are there in large numbers to beat bugs out of the system) finish their jobs and go away.
However, it's odd that as we get into Lots 7 & 8 of the JSF program, with rates of 30+ aircraft a year (more than Gripen or Rafale, pretty close to F/A-18) the unit costs are budging by no more than a few per cent versus Lot 2.
You can compute a unit cost by rolling in a share of R&D, but it's not very helpful because (1) R&D has been sunk and (2) what share you assign to each aircraft depends on how many aircraft will be built, and we don't know that answer until 2030-something.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
LM Says 200+ Aircraft Per Year for FRP Full Rate Production
Perhaps 'peter we' meant to say "Full Rate Production" (as defined by LM below) rather than [LRIP] "Production"? Anyhoo....
LM FAQs F-35:
https://www.f35.com/resources/faqs/c...mic-innovation
LM FAQs F-35:
...“What is the cost of an F-35? How is that cost determined?
The estimated cost for an F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 (the first expected year of full rate production) will be about $85 million in inflation adjusted “then year” dollars. This is equivalent to about $75 million in 2012 dollars. That price includes the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency.
F-35 unit recurring flyaway (URF) costs have been going down with each successive lot of aircraft. Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney have track records for delivering the airframe and engine below government SAR estimates and we expect this trend to continue in the future.
This Joint Program Office average unit recurring flyaway (URF) calculation is based on the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) to Congress and derived from actual F-35 cost on early production lots. These URF calculations take credit for learning from projected U.S. and international F-35 quantities (716 International/2,443 U.S. DoD).
What is full-rate production, and how does the overall production strategy affect the cost of the program?
Full-rate production of the F-35 Lightning II will be a pace of more than 200 jets per year, or about one completed each working day. At this volume, all F-35 customers benefit from economies of scale in both aircraft price, and in providing components and systems.”...
The estimated cost for an F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 (the first expected year of full rate production) will be about $85 million in inflation adjusted “then year” dollars. This is equivalent to about $75 million in 2012 dollars. That price includes the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency.
F-35 unit recurring flyaway (URF) costs have been going down with each successive lot of aircraft. Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney have track records for delivering the airframe and engine below government SAR estimates and we expect this trend to continue in the future.
This Joint Program Office average unit recurring flyaway (URF) calculation is based on the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) to Congress and derived from actual F-35 cost on early production lots. These URF calculations take credit for learning from projected U.S. and international F-35 quantities (716 International/2,443 U.S. DoD).
What is full-rate production, and how does the overall production strategy affect the cost of the program?
Full-rate production of the F-35 Lightning II will be a pace of more than 200 jets per year, or about one completed each working day. At this volume, all F-35 customers benefit from economies of scale in both aircraft price, and in providing components and systems.”...
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 6th Nov 2013 at 20:46. Reason: format
If Peter had bothered to be that concise and accurate, I'd not have had to ask him what he meant. 
No matter how one slices it, this bird is expensive.
No matter how one slices it, this bird is expensive.
Spas - Wake me up when the line hits 200 per year. That's actually a good definition for LockMart to use because the chances are that they will never get there, and so when they fail to hit the promised price points they will have an excuse.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To condition cost threshold with annual production rate of 200 planes is rather strange, since the F-16 probably the most successful recent western fighter, managed only a bit above 100 so far.
EDIT: F-16 managed to do over 200 planes annually only 10 out of about 40 years so far.
Anyway, FWIW Red Bear's take on observability issue.
Google Translate
EDIT: F-16 managed to do over 200 planes annually only 10 out of about 40 years so far.
Anyway, FWIW Red Bear's take on observability issue.
Google Translate