F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So a politician is going to get up and say we are spending $30bn on a plane that isn't near delivery when we could buy twice as many of something almost as good for half the price
I don't think so - this is the first steps to EJECT
I don't think so - this is the first steps to EJECT
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFfan,
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suggest that if you're (remotely) interested in a balanced view (versus LM press releases), then you should check out the work of Winslow T. Wheeler (e.g. Winslow T. Wheeler: Primer on F-35 Performance, Cost, and Basing). Or the UK NAO Major Projects Report, or applying a critical eye to the JPO reports.
BLUF: I expect the Dave-A/C to be excellent aircraft IN TIME in their strike fighter role, with next-gen sensor fusion. Most of the time stealth won't matter in the air-ground role, and Dave-A/C isn't going to be a hot ship for Air to Air, but against most 4th Gen aircraft signature reduction will help in BVR. Doubtless you'll be able to tell us the proportion of kills scored since 1960 that have been BVR only, of course.
So Dave-A/C will be made to work (after enough cash has been spent) because the USAF needs it to, and the USN probably wants it to. I've always been sceptical of the rationale for the F-35B - and given the "fiscal beach/cliff" in the US, I'd not be surprised if it gets binned in the New Year to save a lot of cash.
The resulting aircraft is unlikely to cost- including engines, weapons, spares - much less than, $125m a copy (and potentially a lot more). Of course, the more it costs the fewer countries can afford, driving the unit costs higher. And this will raise the costs beyond what some are prepared to pay - e.g. Canada today Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase
S41
The Super hornet URF is $66m and the f-35a is $73m in 2012 dollars (LM thinks $67m) I don't know for certain the URF of the eurocanards, but I hear they are dearer
BLUF: I expect the Dave-A/C to be excellent aircraft IN TIME in their strike fighter role, with next-gen sensor fusion. Most of the time stealth won't matter in the air-ground role, and Dave-A/C isn't going to be a hot ship for Air to Air, but against most 4th Gen aircraft signature reduction will help in BVR. Doubtless you'll be able to tell us the proportion of kills scored since 1960 that have been BVR only, of course.
So Dave-A/C will be made to work (after enough cash has been spent) because the USAF needs it to, and the USN probably wants it to. I've always been sceptical of the rationale for the F-35B - and given the "fiscal beach/cliff" in the US, I'd not be surprised if it gets binned in the New Year to save a lot of cash.
The resulting aircraft is unlikely to cost- including engines, weapons, spares - much less than, $125m a copy (and potentially a lot more). Of course, the more it costs the fewer countries can afford, driving the unit costs higher. And this will raise the costs beyond what some are prepared to pay - e.g. Canada today Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase
S41
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Heathrow Harry I can't think of something almost as good for half the price, what jet are you talking about?
@Fox3WheresMyBanana and Squirrel 41
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7555626
As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M
@Fox3WheresMyBanana and Squirrel 41
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7555626
As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M
Last edited by JSFfan; 7th Dec 2012 at 14:15.
Canada, A Short History
2010 - Under pressure from Washington to commit more deeply to JSF quickly, and without the awkward necessity for a competition, the Harper government decides to take advantage of a loophole that allows noncompetitive procurement if only one contractor can meet the requirement. The military hastily cobbles together a Statement of Requirements that (they say) rules out everything except the F-35.
2011-2012 - It emerges that (1) nobody in Canada checked to see whether anything else would meet the SoR and (2) the F-35 itself may not meet some of the mandatory requirements by the mandatory IOC date.
Late 2012 - LMT bets on Romney to win, openly challenging the competence of Pentagon customer. Woopsers, Romney loses. Message from Washington to Ottawa: "No guaranteed IOC date until mid-2013, and when there is one it may well be missing some Block 3F capes. Price TBD."
2013 - Hilarity ensues.
2010 - Under pressure from Washington to commit more deeply to JSF quickly, and without the awkward necessity for a competition, the Harper government decides to take advantage of a loophole that allows noncompetitive procurement if only one contractor can meet the requirement. The military hastily cobbles together a Statement of Requirements that (they say) rules out everything except the F-35.
2011-2012 - It emerges that (1) nobody in Canada checked to see whether anything else would meet the SoR and (2) the F-35 itself may not meet some of the mandatory requirements by the mandatory IOC date.
Late 2012 - LMT bets on Romney to win, openly challenging the competence of Pentagon customer. Woopsers, Romney loses. Message from Washington to Ottawa: "No guaranteed IOC date until mid-2013, and when there is one it may well be missing some Block 3F capes. Price TBD."
2013 - Hilarity ensues.
Last edited by LowObservable; 7th Dec 2012 at 14:14.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO - LOL! But right across the board.
JSFfan - you do realise that the URF is an essentially manufactured number that bears little or no relation to the cost of a deployable capability, don't you?
S41
JSFfan - you do realise that the URF is an essentially manufactured number that bears little or no relation to the cost of a deployable capability, don't you?
S41
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ LowObservable well seeing Canada isn't going to place an order till 2014 for 2 trainers delivered 2016, mid 2013 sounds ok for the info they need
@Squirrel 41 obviously you cant open the link, Ill repost it for you, the partners procurement and aquisition price wont be the same as USA because they are eating a lot of the costs on behalf of the partners
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae...-3-29-2012.pdf
Page 62 page 65
TY (then year) US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy to year 2037
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $161 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $137.4 M
BY2012 (base year)
$M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M
As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M
@Squirrel 41 obviously you cant open the link, Ill repost it for you, the partners procurement and aquisition price wont be the same as USA because they are eating a lot of the costs on behalf of the partners
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae...-3-29-2012.pdf
Page 62 page 65
TY (then year) US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy to year 2037
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $161 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $137.4 M
BY2012 (base year)
$M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M
As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M
Last edited by JSFfan; 7th Dec 2012 at 14:25.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well seeing Canada isn't going to place an order till 2014 for 2 trainers delivered 2016, mid 2013 sounds ok for the info they need
S41
My prediction. World economy continues to contract, which with Canada being a resource supplier reduces Government income. F-35 is sacrificed to save costs around March 2014, taking Super Hornet instead. This will be the reason given, though Heaven only knows what the truth will be.
You read it here first.
You read it here first.
We don't need F-35s...
A CTV report from last night now says the cost of buying and maintaining the F-35 will be established at $40B over its lifespan.
I'm not against the Canadian Air Force replacing their ageing F-18 with something newer, more modern and better performing but I do not think we need to get a "stealthy" top of the line aircraft. And why would/should we get a single engine aircraft when we know how big and unforgiving our territory is?
One of the major reasons the F-18 won over its main rival, the F-16 back in 1980 was the fact that the F-16 was a single engine aircraft and the F-18 a twin engine aircraft and I quote... "two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols)."
If it was good then why isn’t good today? Why would we want to change that logic just for the sake of a new aircraft?
The Canadian Air Force's role does not require the latest and greatest and I think that the newer and more modern and better performing Super Hornet would do just fine for our country. This aircraft is a known system, already operational and not under development so cost of purchase and maintenance are already available and a known factor and not a guessing game.
The other factor tha't got me worried about the F-35 aside from an unknown over all cost factor is it's longivity and how many aircrafts are going to be left in the fleet after lets say 25 years?
If we look historically at the F-18 program, it cost us to procure this platform $4B ($2.4B was the original cost estimate) for 138 aircrafts that were delivered between 1982 and 1988.
Today we have only 79 F-18s that still remain operational. So over a 24 to 30 year period the attrition of this platform was of 59 aircrafts or approximately 43% of the fleet through crashes, accidents and moth balling because the airframes were simply over used.
Apply those numbers to the F-35 platform and in 25 years down the line a 43% attrition rate would leave us with only 37 aircrafts in our fleet! That would make for a great Air Force with the second largest country to cover I don’t know how a 37 aircraft fleet would manage that.
In the end at a fly away cost of $67M for each F-18 Super Hornet which is 2.5 to 3.5 times cheaper per copy than the “estimated” fly away cost of the F-35, I think Canada should definitely look at that option (plus others).
For the same amount of dollars spent on the F-35 (at today’s estimated cost) we could buy between 162 and 226 F-18s and that would be a hell of a lot better than the 65 proposed F-35s.
I'm not against the Canadian Air Force replacing their ageing F-18 with something newer, more modern and better performing but I do not think we need to get a "stealthy" top of the line aircraft. And why would/should we get a single engine aircraft when we know how big and unforgiving our territory is?
One of the major reasons the F-18 won over its main rival, the F-16 back in 1980 was the fact that the F-16 was a single engine aircraft and the F-18 a twin engine aircraft and I quote... "two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols)."
If it was good then why isn’t good today? Why would we want to change that logic just for the sake of a new aircraft?
The Canadian Air Force's role does not require the latest and greatest and I think that the newer and more modern and better performing Super Hornet would do just fine for our country. This aircraft is a known system, already operational and not under development so cost of purchase and maintenance are already available and a known factor and not a guessing game.
The other factor tha't got me worried about the F-35 aside from an unknown over all cost factor is it's longivity and how many aircrafts are going to be left in the fleet after lets say 25 years?
If we look historically at the F-18 program, it cost us to procure this platform $4B ($2.4B was the original cost estimate) for 138 aircrafts that were delivered between 1982 and 1988.
Today we have only 79 F-18s that still remain operational. So over a 24 to 30 year period the attrition of this platform was of 59 aircrafts or approximately 43% of the fleet through crashes, accidents and moth balling because the airframes were simply over used.
Apply those numbers to the F-35 platform and in 25 years down the line a 43% attrition rate would leave us with only 37 aircrafts in our fleet! That would make for a great Air Force with the second largest country to cover I don’t know how a 37 aircraft fleet would manage that.
In the end at a fly away cost of $67M for each F-18 Super Hornet which is 2.5 to 3.5 times cheaper per copy than the “estimated” fly away cost of the F-35, I think Canada should definitely look at that option (plus others).
For the same amount of dollars spent on the F-35 (at today’s estimated cost) we could buy between 162 and 226 F-18s and that would be a hell of a lot better than the 65 proposed F-35s.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how can I get you guys to understand that the SAR has a price of $66m for the super hornet and $73m for the f-35a ..both in 2012 year dollars for full production unit recuring flyaway cost
Last edited by JSFfan; 7th Dec 2012 at 16:00.
JSFfan, they keep asking how credible the number is.
It appears that this is unknown until actual costs can be discovered.
It appears that this is unknown until actual costs can be discovered.
JSF Fan,
quite a few of us have been through this charade with previous generations of aircraft.
It will be late, overbudget and less capable than promised.
Every other one has been, and Governments and major manufacturers haven't changed character, so why should this one be any different?
quite a few of us have been through this charade with previous generations of aircraft.
It will be late, overbudget and less capable than promised.
Every other one has been, and Governments and major manufacturers haven't changed character, so why should this one be any different?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF Fan,
quite a few of us have been through this charade with previous generations of aircraft.
It will be late, overbudget and less capable than promised.
Every other one has been, and Governments and major manufacturers haven't changed character, so why should this one be any different?
quite a few of us have been through this charade with previous generations of aircraft.
It will be late, overbudget and less capable than promised.
Every other one has been, and Governments and major manufacturers haven't changed character, so why should this one be any different?
what I would like acknowledged is that the price of a f-35 being 2-3 times more than 4th gen is unsupportable, I have given the SAR which shows the URF super hornet is $66m and the f-35a is $73m, now unless someone can give a decent reason why this is so wrong. It is silly just ranting silly numbers
Last edited by JSFfan; 7th Dec 2012 at 21:49.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is silly just ranting silly numbers
The real answer is that you're comparing apples with (make-believe) oranges. The F-35 URF is aspirational (no F-35s have been delivered for this price - check the LRIP numbers) and you need to understand what the URF doesn't include - try support, spares, training, weapons. Hilariously, the 2009 (IIRC) didn't include the cost of the engine!
So bravo to you for your keenness. But harness this to a bit more critical thought and you'll do much better at ADFA selection / Point Cook (do they still do trg here?) in a few years' time. Remember, this thread is full of people who've forgotten more about this and other FJ programmes than either you or I know. Sit, listen, learn.
S41
JSFfan,
Here are some numbers for the Eurofighter
Management of the Typhoon Project - National Audit Office
This is from the UK National Audit Office.
The Unit Price is 75% higher than the initial estimates.
In 1990, my posting officer told me I would be flying multi-role Typhoons by the year 2000. I laughed and left the RAF. It did not come into squadron service till 2006, and will not be fully multi-role till 2018.That's 180% wrong.
Go look at any other major aircraft and find me one that was In Service on time, fully capable and within budget.
Here are some numbers for the Eurofighter
Management of the Typhoon Project - National Audit Office
This is from the UK National Audit Office.
The Unit Price is 75% higher than the initial estimates.
In 1990, my posting officer told me I would be flying multi-role Typhoons by the year 2000. I laughed and left the RAF. It did not come into squadron service till 2006, and will not be fully multi-role till 2018.That's 180% wrong.
Go look at any other major aircraft and find me one that was In Service on time, fully capable and within budget.
In answering to JSFfan...
Hello you down under dudeness!
Perhaps seeing things from the other side of the world, make that upside down side of the world, numbers get reversed or scrambled. :-)
I do not pretend to know the whole story (and neither should others) because when it comes to the military, the governments that have a vested interest in keeping secrets and numbers low on a developing platform for obvious reasons, one should always take their "selling" numbers with a grain perhaps many grains of salt.
I for one do not believe your numbers. How could the new yet to be fully developed and far from being operational F-35 numbers be just a bit higher than the Super Hornet's numbers? BTW, it is said Boeing is ready to deal and sell the Super Hornet at a very good price these days so perhaps with a good order the F-18 could be purchased at a substantially lower price.
In regards to the F-35's fly away price a quick Google search with links to several US Government sites including the Pentagon's show their latest fly away price for the F-35A ranging from $125M to $165M per unit. Again I would tend to not believe even these prices because they are certainly low balling them to keep the US tax payers at bay.
This of course does not take into consideration that the price may further climb if partners like Canada drop out of the project by cancelling their own orders. The US itself may indeed reduce their own order because the price of the F-35 as gone ballistic. This again would bring the FAP of each unit even higher.
This of course is somewhat irrelevant to Canada. Many here feel that this "next generation" fighter is not required for our country because of the role our fighters need to perform. The whole "stealthy" aspect is over blown for our use IMHO. The Super Hornet is pretty stealthy itself perhaps not as much as the F-35 but then the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-22.
Another concern about the F-35 is the noise it generates from that huge engine. It is said to be 2 times as noisy as the F-16 or F-15 aircrafts!
Also another major concern especially in Canada is the fact this aircraft is a single engine airplane. With our vast territory and much of it in inhospitable areas a twin engine aircraft is better suited and a lot safer for its crews. One of the major reasons the original F-18 won the fly off over its main rival, the F-16 in 1980 is the fact the military stated a two engine aircraft would be better/safer for its extended operation over Canada.
So why would that logic change 30 years later?
Hello you down under dudeness!
Perhaps seeing things from the other side of the world, make that upside down side of the world, numbers get reversed or scrambled. :-)
I do not pretend to know the whole story (and neither should others) because when it comes to the military, the governments that have a vested interest in keeping secrets and numbers low on a developing platform for obvious reasons, one should always take their "selling" numbers with a grain perhaps many grains of salt.
I for one do not believe your numbers. How could the new yet to be fully developed and far from being operational F-35 numbers be just a bit higher than the Super Hornet's numbers? BTW, it is said Boeing is ready to deal and sell the Super Hornet at a very good price these days so perhaps with a good order the F-18 could be purchased at a substantially lower price.
In regards to the F-35's fly away price a quick Google search with links to several US Government sites including the Pentagon's show their latest fly away price for the F-35A ranging from $125M to $165M per unit. Again I would tend to not believe even these prices because they are certainly low balling them to keep the US tax payers at bay.
This of course does not take into consideration that the price may further climb if partners like Canada drop out of the project by cancelling their own orders. The US itself may indeed reduce their own order because the price of the F-35 as gone ballistic. This again would bring the FAP of each unit even higher.
This of course is somewhat irrelevant to Canada. Many here feel that this "next generation" fighter is not required for our country because of the role our fighters need to perform. The whole "stealthy" aspect is over blown for our use IMHO. The Super Hornet is pretty stealthy itself perhaps not as much as the F-35 but then the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-22.
Another concern about the F-35 is the noise it generates from that huge engine. It is said to be 2 times as noisy as the F-16 or F-15 aircrafts!
Also another major concern especially in Canada is the fact this aircraft is a single engine airplane. With our vast territory and much of it in inhospitable areas a twin engine aircraft is better suited and a lot safer for its crews. One of the major reasons the original F-18 won the fly off over its main rival, the F-16 in 1980 is the fact the military stated a two engine aircraft would be better/safer for its extended operation over Canada.
So why would that logic change 30 years later?