australia say the f-35 is costed to be about the same as our hornet, which according to janes is $21k for our f-35a, the SH fleet of 24 planes is costing $24k.

UK will be higher because they run the f-35b

this cost per hour is looking like the argument between flyaway, procurement and acquisition costs etc, it all depends on what's being counted in what group

That's the beauty of promisses, you can make up pretty much any number.
After a couple of years of operational use , the trueth comes out .
All of the US stealth programs have missed the promissed numbers by a very wide margin up until today.

Knowing the level of complexity and the issues that exist up until today, the F35 is following pretty much the same route.
There is a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin;
Only a fool does the same thing and expects different results.
That pretty much sums it up for the F35.

Edit;
I'm using the numbers provided by the USAF,
they basically use 2 numbers: Operational CPFH and Ownership CPFH, for aircraft in full operational use in sufficient numbers, there is only a small difference between these 2 numbers.
ex;
-F16C 22,315 Operational CPFH
-F16C 22,514 Ownership CPFH

well the USAF and CAPE have costed the f-35a at $24k, as per the statement to the dutch
this is not a JPO or LM or GAO or SAR or USN or USMC cost

of course in the big picture if you add the capability and survivability, even if the f-35 was twice the price, it would still be 'cheap'

They have done no such thing, the numbers will only be given in may, General Bogdan is not the USAF, the acquisition departement of the Pentagon stated that they don't subscribe to GEN BOGDAN's low number.
Also it's a promise, an estimate, something they've been doing time and time again and they always miss the marker with an incredible wide margin.

Nonsense, and I'm being very polite.

Whilst you appear to make a good point, JSFfan, I think you need to read kbrock's post a little more carefully. I would like to think you're right, but it's quite plain to see that you're somewhat seduced by the more optomistic figures. As we have discussed here before, it's a little early to be quoting ANY operating costs as set in concrete just now - EVERY project before this one has shown us that.

We shall get closer to an answer next month, but that will still not remove doubt. You don't need to worry too much about it as this is about cost for now, not capability, which is a different issue.

Ask yourself - not us, please - why nations are still holding off. I commend Kbrock's words to you. A purely defensive "it's great and we know how it's going to turn out" response isn't appropiate in this case. Not for quite a while yet.

On a personal note, I suspect it will be OK, but that doesn't mean any of us know that yet. And those of us that have been involved in mant previous programmes have learnt that the hard way.

there are a lot of nonsense numbers around, gripen for $7k is one of them
we will find out f-35 firm numbers in 2020 for my liking
my personal costing that I like is a total..lifetime everything in a now year cost
for the SH and f-35 it is a rough guess of $70k per hr

other than everyone has money problems (GFC) I don't think countries are holding off on cost, that's just an internal politicking by a few countries..I foresee no one not buying the f-35 regardless of who is in power at the time

the ones that have bipartisan support..it's about when is block 3, will it resemble what's written on the tin and can our legacy planes last that long
for australia we need the marine block 4 to cover our main missions

Norway to Order 6 F-35As with Permission of Parliament + brake chutes
 

Government Asks Parliament for Authority to Ordering First Six Aircraft in the Main Contract
(Source: Norwegian Ministry of Defence; issued April 26, 2013)
(Issued in Norwegian only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

Government Asks Parliament for Authority to Ordering First Six Aircraft in the Main Contract

"...the government is also now asking for other parts of the contract, aside from the actual aircraft, including weapons integration, training, simulators, braking parachutes and more....

...- The government now goes to Parliament for the authority to order the first six aircraft in the main contract, with four to be delivered in Norway in 2017."

spaz it looks like their costing was as good as australia's our costings have been stable too
"• .. Overall Norwegian cost estimates have been stable since 2008. "

Very pro US Norwegian government put the total cost (2010 dollars) for a 30 year 7900hrs/year operation at 40 billion$ for their 52 F35A's
This comes down to an average of 168500$ total ownership cost per hour.

If we can conclude one thing it is that over the years the cost estimates only evolved upward, in the direction of where our Norwegian friends estimated they would be in the first place.

sounds like they have the gate guard, lawn mowing costs and pensions in that too, I don't think my everything is the same as their everything

Maybe not, but they've actually owned, flown, maintained and paid for a FJ fleet for quite a few years - have you?

Oh, come on, JSFfan. Your answer to my post you was

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JSFfan

there are a lot of nonsense numbers around, gripen for $7k is one of them we will find out f-35 firm numbers in 2020 for my liking
my personal costing that I like is a total..lifetime everything in a now year cost
for the SH and f-35 it is a rough guess of $70k per hr

---

No one was talking about Grippen or Hornet. Those numbers are irrelevant to this. Trying to discredit what you see as opposition doesn't change the facts or the unknowns about JSF. And it's not a problem to have unknowns at this stage. What is a problem is irrational assertions about how great it is and will be before we know. Your personal costing (based on whatever you wish it to be) is actually as valid as anyone's else at this stage- i.e. a (hopefully) close estimate, based on the best information available (I can assure you that none of us here have even half the available information). As you suggest, we may know more in 2020. It's simply too early now.

I suggest you drop the vehement arguments about costs for now. You simply do not know, and why should you?

hey, I'm not the one who's having a dummy spit because the swiss from memory has the gripen at $24 and Bogdan has the f-16 and f-35 around the same price

I don't care if it's 20 or 40k..it is what it is and is about the same as the eurocanards, f-16/18 4th gens
On a capability basis alone, I would choose the f-35 even if the f-35 was twice the price, which it isn't

And now just say what any of that has to do with what I just posted.

Extra Potential F-35 Sales (includes F-35Bs for Singapore p'raps)
 

Gen. Bogdan opines about more potential F-35 sales (rumour has it that Singapore is interested in the F-35B).

F-35 office sees improved relations with contractor 26 Apr 2013 Aaron Mehta

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...NEWS/304260013 (page 3)

"...Adding partners can help bring down costs, and both Singapore and South Korea have shown interest in purchasing the plane, which could lead to a boost in orders that will force down unit costs in the future. Singapore has shown “tremendous interest” in the JSF, according to Bogdan. “They are quite enthused about the airplane. I believe by this summer we will hear” if they will be purchasing. Similarly, South Korea should have a decision for their fighter replacement program by June , and said he is “cautiously optimistic” the country will pick the F-35....”

he said the f-16 and f-35a, apple to apple comparison is about the same price 21/24k..I accept this because it is similar to what janes said it was costed at by australia and I assume they are using a similar costing measure.
Calling BS on it isn't productive unless there is better apple to apple data used. So far no one has provided that and it's just been unfounded dribble

Yet again, you fail to understand.
The first issue here is that the F-35 comes within 10% of the F-16's cost in a specific set of conditions (A'stan, Libya, Russia, China?), so this is a kind of a cost/effectiveness amalgam, presented through $.
If we assume the F-35 is more capable than an F-16 as announced, then the JSF's actual flight hour is even costlier, by the magnitude of difference in capability and may well land where GAO and kbrockman said.
The second issue is that most nonUS operators that are supposed to field the F-35 will be mostly operating them in a low-threat and consequently high-cost environment, so it's difficult to justify JSF's procurement for those operators.

Although valiant, your efforts to 'defend' the JSF are misplaced, since no one's battling the JSF where you think they do.

Obviously, but you must allow others to care, since at some point in life everyone needs to stop bringing their laundry to their moms and start taking care for themselves.

I put up the costs of the f-16 as per the dutch, it was ~26k per hr, so his 21k wasn't far off theirs and dearer than his f-35 number

with your capability logic, but if you use capability the f-35 is much cheaper than the f-16
air forces assess the f-35 and others with their needs, they say they need the f-35

the GAO uses SAR numbers and SAR has said their cost is dearer than 24k but less than their 32k cost last year. SAR will be released soon.

this cost per hour seems to follow a....depends what's counted....apple to apple comparisons are always nice

JSFfan,

How long have you been trotting out the same cost estimates now? Over and over again. We've all seen tham now, thank you very much.