SSSETOWTF makes a fair point. I can't see the US or all the other export customers being happy that BAE and other UK companies continue to benefit from 3,000 shipsets of work when the UK is no longer a customer. I suppose that, if a smaller number are purchased just for the RAF, continued participation may be justified but, presumably, any purchase of F18s would scupper the F35 completely.

SSSETOWTF & GK

I would not write off the accountants quite so glibly. At best, the LM cost numbers being tossed around today
- mostly concern the A model
- don't include the propulsion system, which on the B especially is well over budget
- are a "unit recurring flyaway" that has hardly ever been used before
- are valid only if partner and US orders proceed on the schedule established before development was slipped earlier this year

It seems that the current negotiations over the LRIP-4 contract are about risk. The government doesn't want to sign a low-ball contract, only to find two years down the line that the real costs are much higher. LockMart doesn't want to lose money in that event.

Underlying this is the fact that it is not a normal sale. The Pentagon needs the jets and has already invested several tens of billions in the program, and has terminated all alternatives, so whatever the jets end up costing, it can't simply tell LockMart to go pound sand. Fixed price, FPI or whatever is all somewhat irrelevant.

Find a good history of the C-5A program...

Or the F-111.....

and not 6 months ago, we were considering whether we could buy super tucanos for a CAS role.

just a thought

Buy the FAA some F18s, sort out Typhoon and as the A-G capability properly comes on line phase out the GR4, hopefully by which time F35 is online. Bin Harrier, buy a lesser number of F35 and have a force mix of F18 and F35?

What do we think?:E

Will they want it kitted out with RR engines then???? :uhoh:
:E
f

Bwitish Engines for F-18 ?
 

What !!! And have another Spey Phantom ???

We could always call it the Phantom Mk4 just to make sure eh?
:eek::)

Forgive me, I just don't see this. I think that this has all of the elements of a great RN canard: Super Bug is no match for F-35, which the RAAF has underscored by buying both.

Who knows whether or not the QE/PoW/CVF (perhaps we should call the design "Shazza", to go with "Dave") survives the SDSR? The main point is that the UK will slim its number of FJ types to two - Typhoon & something else. Based on the premise that we can't afford to buy any new aircraft for most of the next decade, the short-term choice is between:

- Some GR4s (and either Marham or Lossie);
- All the Harriers (and Wittering)
- All the Harriers and some GR4s.

What I can't see is retaining all the remaining Harriers because of CVF at the expense of the GR4s, as the GR4 is simply more capable and much more useful.

Personally, I would chop QE CVF and Harrier, and replace GR4 with Dave-C in the 2018-2022 period. But if we go ahead with CVF, could we lease some carrier capable jets / buy some used F-18A/Cs pending the arrival of Dave-C? It's going to be a better choice than buying a new type (Rafale or Super Bug) that will not offer the capability of Dave come 2022.

S41

Used Classic Hornets are all ganz geschagget - like the population of Venezuela. broken down by age and sex.

This whole "Super Hornet FA1" imbroglio is interesting insofar as it rates only two plausible explanations - it's either quite serious or a theatrical move aimed at influencing the budget cutters, the USG or LockMart.

And although I'm sure Boeing would offer a whole bunch of work on the mods to the UK, I would guess that the idea hinges on keeping the core of the aircraft pretty common to the USN version.

You Britons are very complicated !:hmm:

Just buy the Rafale M, who is better than the JSF,F-18,Typhoon,Gripen, Mig29K or Su-33.:ugh:

The Rafale M is at 60 millions US $

And at least it is european !:ugh:

Rafale better than JSF and Typhoon?! :rolleyes:

Surely cats and traps give a vastly greater opportunity for progress and development in the future than the utterly limiting vertical/ski-jump option. Think COD, AEW, let alone a less payload limited strike force. How does the mega-price mega maintenance swiss-watch F35 alone with no prospect of real back-up/support or true carrier ops answer to that?

Looks like a no-brainer to me. Bring it on! The FAA back in business as a real fighting force with a future and potential for development. With the money saved we can have Hawkeyes too...and convert the poor old baggies for proper helo tasks. And so on. And on. And on.

Who in the world are we going to come up against that squadrons of the "30yr old" F18 will disadvantage us c/f a mere handful of the F35? No one! That's who.


Result! Bring it on!
Before we know it we'll have a Navy to be proud of again, instead of one to be sorry for.

Agreed, result! (if it, indeed, comes off) :D

Maybe with the savings they could buy us Junglie Helo crews some decent cabs,we have put up with the SK for decades and would utilise the Chinnock to provide a truly awesome capability......

Do a deal with the Yanks bulk buy Hornet and Chinnock happy days....

HM RN & RM leading the way once again.........

LO...

While LM's predictions of costs are low-balled somewhat for PR purposes, I firmly believe that the government accountants are deliberately high-balling theirs... and by a greater margin than LM's fudging.

I fully expect when the F-35 enters full-rate production, that when each batch is delivered at a particular price (likely 10% or so above LM's predictions), the accountants will then predict a 30%-40% increase for the next batch.

And that, no matter how often they are proved wrong, they will continue to vastly inflate their predictions of the next batch.


There is precedent... just look at how Denis Healey killed CVA-01... he presented a price to Parliament that included a CVA-01, its aircraft, its escorting T82, and other costs... and told them that was the cost per CVA-01 "just the ship, nothing else"!

For some reason, the government accountants are deliberately inflating their estimates of F-35 costs far above what simple error can account for.

LowObservable

This is the second time I have seen you post inaccurately about JSF cost. The numbers being tossed about for all models are usually either the Total Flyaway Cost which comprises airframe, engines, avionics, and any other equipment that come "standard" with every JSF of each type (A B and C will have different numbers here). Plus basic startup costs which allowances for each operator’s required modifications. Or the other number being bandied about is the Total Flyaway Cost or Unit Cost. This consists of the above plus delivery costs, training costs, technical documentation and other support costs.

In all cases price in the is given with engines and avionics. True the total program cost is unknown at this time because no one knows what the actual procurement volume and rate will be. Suffice to say the higher the volume and rate the more costs come down. Don’t however be fooled into thinking the price is being given ala Typhoon IOW basic airframe and nothing else for 40M.

Astronaute
 

Haven't laughed so much for ages! Thanks for the morale boost with your witty joke! :D

Stinkydocker
 

Utilise the chinook ?

You can't even spell it ! :p

No !!!!

The rafale M is flying over A-stan, it is a omni-role airplane, not a expensive piece of junk, who will never fly operationally as the F-35 ! About the Typhoon, it is a good air to air aircraft, but only on that role !

Anyway, good look for the FAA, with the F-35 or the F-18 !:hmm: