First of all, before anyone bites my head off, I'll admit that my knowledge of the F-35 is no more than passing, and I can't be bothered to read 2100 odd posts.....

Having said that, regarding Gen Bogdan comments quoted in post 2084, specifically:

"Adding partners can help bring down costs,........., which could lead to a boost in orders that will force down unit costs in future...."

I thought that F-35 production for the US alone was originally in the region of 2,500. An order of say 30 JSF for Singapore and 60 for South Korea therefore represents an overall increase in sales of less than 4%!!

While no doubt having two more nations buy the aircraft adds to its prestige and reputation, I don't see how an increase in production of less 4% will produce any significant ecnomies of scale and reduce unit costs??? Let alone any requirement for offsets, setting up local production lines, etc - good for the host nation, but no doubt adding to overall costs!!

I can't fault your logic there, Biggus. But I suspect you may now face a bombardment of spurious figures that will categorically prove that you are completely wrong. What you have done here is the JSF equivalent of doubting the existence of God. Of course, it doesn't really matter anyway because it's already such excellent value for money that further savings are really not necessary.

The 10% cost difference per flight hour IS based on a comparable capability and it wasn't me who used that metrics, but Gen.Bogdan.
Please read what you intend to quote in support of your claims, before you do so.

sorry mate, the 10% isn't on capability..it's simply on cost comparison

Biggus he is talking about annual build numbers in the ramp up years till 2020 I think he said, I gave the example of turkey shifting 2 units out of a build year and the remainder went up $1m each
the more planes they build for a given year...the cheaper they are.

operational costs aren't capability

Ah...

That might make sense, thanks. Although if I was a foreign nation buying JSF I'd want the aircraft to be as mature as possible when I got them, so wouldn't be looking to buy in the early ramp up years anyway......

Also, by definition, the General's comments don't apply to the programme as a whole then, just in some very specific years? You can't have it both ways....

yep..that's what their bitching about...no one wants a fleet of the early ones..just enough for training till peak production is reached...catch 22

JSFfan,
I'm gonna avoid the trap CM finds himself often in :}, but I do wonder one thing.
Why do you keep typing all sorts of letters and then pressing the Enter key?

Singapore has ordered more F-15's the latest variant rather than F-35's.

Spore has ordered a dozen as a gap filler

NITRO104, I bet that felt better than saying you were mistaken:ok:

This thread would have been much better without JSFfan. He does not meet the spirit of this forum and I fear the moderation policy is far too light. One poster should not put everyone else from having an educated debate.

It does not appear that the US is going to cancel F-35 any time soon.

So who is? :confused:

I can see a number of European countries either again reducing their F35 buy or cancel their buy. What this would do to the economics of the USA's purchase levels and the timing of the purchase is unclear. It would certainly increase the USA's unit cost, however measured.

I suspect most of the customer base will walk but no-one wants to be first

Normally it's the Canadians or the Europeans who see sense first when they realise the total cost of trying to emulate the USAF

Lonewolf_50 I can't see anyone canceling..reluctance to buy too many LRIP's..extending the years that they buy over..reducing numbers..but as well as existing euro there may be at least another 3 to join.. Greece, Finland and Belgium.
cast your mind back to all the doom and gloom about f-16 sales..tall poppy syndrome

and again JSFfan , which branch of the military have you served or are serving in?

Greece simply won't have the money.
Finland usually stretches its assets as far as possible, a bit like the Swiss who also seem to get the most mileage out of their military equipment.
As far as Belgium goes, at this moment in time it can go all ways, fact is that the budget won't allow for any more than a token fighter jet airforce if we go for the F35.

I would sooner put my money on Poland, I think that would be the best bet as a possible future F35 client.

Even the Norwegians, who are beyond the definition of rich have trouble funding this jet,
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/...s&emc=rss&_r=0
10.65 billion$ in 2013 value means close to 205 million per copy.

something for those who might have missed it:


Flying the Flanker - The DEW Line

since the talk of supercruise:

In the basic plan, the JSF international partners are due to buy 730 jets.

100 are already gone due to cutbacks in Italy, Canada, Netherlands &c. (It's actually 104 but I am giving credit for the Noggies, who have upped their order.)

Of the remaining 630, about 300 are at risk. This includes the UK's aircraft beyond the initial 48, Italy being broke, the Netherlands arguing among themselves &c.

Moreover, the plan was for the international partners to buy heavily near the start of production (in the "program of record" they buy most of their jets by 2020). Now that the loyal Noggies have stretched their buy through 2024, others will follow suit.

Some of this is made up for by Japan (42) and the aircraft provided to Israel by the US taxpayer, but not all. Korea may well go F-15SE.

In the US, the USAF is unlikely to afford the planned buy rate but is not being allowed to say so, while the USN CV community is ambivalent at best to JSF, believing that Hornet/Growler upgrades offer a far better return on investment for the next decade. (Consider that manned deep strike, where stealth is most valuable, is not as crucial for the Navy as for the AF, and besides they have Tomahawks for that.)

The death spiral is very much a possibility.