$300 million on JSF... are they MAD ?!?
 

Apart from the (expected) woefully innacurate media reports on Australia "buying" the JSF, is anyone else amazed/disturbed by the decision to participate as a "developmental partner" (read: 'impotent bystander') on the F35???

To summarise, Australia has commited a small fortune to an aircraft not flying (I'm sorry but 'flyoff' prototypes don't count) on the premise that if we do decide to purchase we may save some money down track.
(I'm reminded of Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22 with his foolproof plan of having the Germans pay him to bomb his own airfield as a cost saving measure!)

How are the AIR6000 procurement team expected to be independent arbiters now?

The only positive I can foresee is that Aus may be forced to procure an 'off the shelf' aircraft to fill the 10+ year gap prior to AIR6000's arrival. Of course, we all know that the F35 WON'T have cost blowouts or be obsolete by the time it enters service...:rolleyes:

Booger, $300 million is not a lot in the big scheme of things.

Why doesn't Australia consider a Russian type and upgrade it with western avionics?


Gotta be cheaper overall whilst still capable...

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/home.htm

http://www.migavia.ru/mig31.htm

TCF,

not as feasible as you might imagine. Probably achievable in the 80's/90's when the technology was all in engines, airframes and weapons.

The next generation is all about software and systems integration. Its hard enough and costly enough upgrading current F18 and F111 (and somewhat unsuccessfully in the case of the latter) with new western avionics/software, let alone soviet airframes with western systems.

We cannot afford to go it alone with a unique system, we must have commonality with the US.

$300 mil
 

Ftrplt,

I know that $300 mil is a drop in the ocean compared to the potential budget of $12 BILLION for AIR6000, but it's still a lot of money nonetheless. What exactly are we getting for our money? It sounds a lot like a bag of magic beans to me.

$300 mil now would equate to 3 airframes of any of the world's latest 4th generation fighters that are proven and flying. Australia's track record of capital acquisitions is pretty woeful - our penchant for buying 'A-models' (or worse still: 'paper aeroplanes') has resulted in some spectacular IOC date & cost blowouts. Why haven't we learned our lesson?

Here's a crazy thought: How much money have we got & what do current airframes cost?;)

Weeell... post-NZ A4 debacle, another Commonwealth member is decommissioning aircraft which might do - second hand but with decent radar and multi-targetting, combat proven in an early incarnation and still newer than F-111.

Just like NZ they still seem to need the aircraft but are still bent on dumping it... :D

Sea Harrier FA2 thread [Mil Aircrew]

Booger,
despite the detailed technical arguements, the decision is one of being in a partnership of protection in a globalised world. We have to choose which gang we will ally with, be supported by, trade with, leverage off and gain influence from.

The $300M is 'partner' money. Our masters have decided that furture protection and participation in conflict will require this partnership, since we are - economically- too small to afford to stand alone. Also, we are unlikely to apply this weapon system alone. By plugging into the deal at this stage it is showing that we will be founding partners with the project, that we will support the yanks in their protectionist principles, and they will (in principle) support us in many regional issues. Hence we can justify the weapon because it brings the yanks into our protectionist policies. The kiwi government on the other hand has dropped the ball by getting rid of its combat airforce, and in doing so signalled a resignation of it's influence - it cannot leverage economically with with an offer of combat air support. Economically, they have pulled out the plug to save their pennies, but in world terms they are powerless to kick butt, even in their backyard.


On the technical side, he who has the superior air toys, logistics, intel and economic horsepower now wins the airwar, despite huge armies. There is no doubt the JSF will be a good machine, and the logistic support base of the US industry will swing behind it, making contenders harder to support. If we cannot patch seamlessly with the yank battlespace operation, feed off their logistics and support their intents and goals in the future, they will not be genuinely interested (like the Kiwis now). And they clearly have the industry and the toys. All the signals and support from our govt re sept 11 / Afganistan / Howards trade speech to US leaders...etc -display this policy now.

It's all about power. We will be a bit like a potential USAF det-A.

Jeez Roller, everything I would like to say but no chance of putting it in words. Well said old chap!!

It's defintely one of the DUMBEST things I've seen the gevernment do .... um, ever.
The SU-37 Super Flanker is the beast we need. Nearly the speed of the F-111, more range, far more manouverable

Roller Merlin ,

If the rationale for the JFS decision is 'teaming' with our allies then why did the Air87 decision go to the French (Eurocopter Tiger)? There were TWO credible US contenders and plenty of crew room discussion that alignment with the US logistics (and politics) system would prevail.

Perhaps the Air 6000 team are doing some detailed technical research too?

BTW, a look back in time reveals some similar criticism of the F111 acquisition; maybe the JSF will be as successful?

Good username!
:D
Gibbo

Yet to be built?

Then what the hell is that thing flying around on TV???

I thought the F-15 was on the cards at the last airshow. The US pulled out all stops to "show it off" and try to sell some.

I guess it didn't work.

Correct - it is 'yet to be built'
 

Sorry "Hmmm...", but Booger is right:

but what you see 'flying around' on TV is not the JSF. It is merely one of the Lockheed-Martin JSF prototypes that won the fly-off for the JSF program against the Boeing submission. It has a looong way to go before being a commercially viable production aircraft.

Some other aircraft 'flying around' that have yet to obtain Initial Operational Capability (IOC):

F22 Raptor IOC ~ 2005 (YF-22 first flew around 1996?)
Eurofighter [version 1] IOC ~ 2006 (prototype flew ~ 1998?)
Rafale IOC ~2003 (prototype flew ~ 1995?)

There's a big difference between an airframe that flies and an airframe that fights (or performs it's intended role in the case of non-fighter types).

USAF Det-A
 

Roller Merlin,

I agree entirely, you are preaching to the converted re: the RAAF's (and Australia's) best option being to "hitch it's wagon" to the US Defence juggernaut.

My bone of contention is our insistence on completing more & more complex "capability requirement studies". We are becoming too smart for our own good. I realise that bureacracy is an inevitible part of our capital acquisition processes, but do we really need to incorporate studies that ask: "an aircraft could do this job but would we be better served by purchasing some sort of gerbil powered UCAV utilising antigrav thruster technology integrated with particle beam stand-off weaponary?";)

Jokes aside, the point is modern defence capital acquisitions are probably the second most expensive item in our nations budget (behind welfare I'm guessing). Our recent history has us ordering platforms that were not mature in their development or employment e.g. Collins, J-models, Anzacs, SeaSprites, the list goes on & on... Obtaining a "state of the art" military platform is impossible to achieve; the law of computer development coupled with the time required to iron out any platform deficiencies means that when equipment is fielded it is already obsolete. The benefit of choosing unproven or immature platforms is far outweighed by the risks of delayed IOC, cost over-runs and associated stop-gap replacement costs to maintain combat effectiveness whilst we await the arrival of the 'magic bullet'.

The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and available airframes that exist today.

The beauty of this is we can still be "USAF Det-A" and when/if JSF matures (at least 10 years from now) we could still avail ourselves of it...

Do Kaman built fighters? My money's on them.:p

I see the problem as that if you want to have "State of the art" equipment you need to get on at an early Stage. The J-model acquistion had it's teething problems (don't all new aircraft, have a look at the F111 acquisition). However it has come good. Also lets not forget , if you buy off the plans , just like houses, you get a good discount. Have a look at the current price for purchasing J models.

Scrap the $300 million and buy 6 A400's :)

’Why did the Air87 decision go to the French (Eurocopter Tiger)? ‘
Good question Gibbo! Perhaps someone better qualified than I could provide the facts regarding the Tiger buy, however my guestimate is: just a few aircraft required + just a few dollars available + need relatively soon = buy the cheapest one that can do the job. Besides, the ARA commanders will tell you that a helo is just another means of getting the men onto the ground! Conversely, the ADF wants 100 JSF airframes, and that is one hell of a huge buy. But it looks better being 10 years away (Just like my mortgage....hell what a lot of money...costs a lot to set up too, but it looks better over 20 years!).

’The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and available airframes that exist today. ‘

Booger,
the ADF already owns the aircraft it wants for the next 7-10 years, and the Hornet upgrade (now in progress) will see it through this time. All defence costings now are done on a whole-of-life system management basis, so if you get rid of the asset early and lease something else you blow the depreciation a and usage budget in a big way with all associated projects (AAMRAM, HUG,...etc) becoming worthless! Even a leased combat machine needs an enormous ADF infrastructure to maintain the system. Besides, the swish airframes built today will be like Beta video recorders and aching for major systems upgrades by the time the open-system JSF comes on line. And if a UCAV can do the job instead of JSF then the yanks would not be committing to 2500 or so airframes. (But wait, perhaps the JSF system will be such that it could be used as a UCAV...just hold that thought!!!)

My well picked friend, you are obviously familiar with the rampant bureaucracy in the 'grey sponge' that justifies so many defense jobs with pithy studies and reviews that most worthy Ppruners could manage in a heatbeat. If these studies finally bubble to the surface in the form of an endorsed project, they often get hammered and modified by the political whims of the goverment - and the ADF doesn't get what it desired anyway. One of the best things about this JSF bit is, as you pointed out, it is likely to be an off-the-shelf buy to fit the US battlesystem (avoiding political footballs such as vote-buying industry support, locally-sourced systems....etc) and the public has 10 years to get used to the idea of spending the cash. With JSF the banker and bully on the block has laid down his cash already, the project will happen, and it's a matter of get on the train now or miss out. Also, in 5-8 years the political pundits will be afraid to pull out the plug because so much will have been invested by then.
;) RM

You are right Roller Merlin,

the scale is different, but the concept isn't really.

The Tiger is the newest of the Air87 contenders (assuming that you don't count the Whiskey Cobra from Bell as new, but an extension of the line). The Apache is well established, even old. I don't see the speed of acquisition as being relevant.

As for troop delivery; it would be a terribly slow assault ferrying the guys on at a time in the tandem seat of an Armed Recce Helicopter.

The Air 87 programme is listed in the order of 1.2 billion and I believe was aimed at acquiring between 24 and 30 airframes (although my info may be out of date on the numbers)

It will be very interesting to see where we end up in terms of fighter (and bomber/recce) capability. I have to say though that IMHO the ADF does OK at acquisition; it is a very complex game and we (Aust) are pretty well equipped. It could always be better, but what couldn't?

Gibbo

Im just wondering what will happen when the next election comes around. This is a big ticket item and Labor's still smarting over the submarine contract dramas, so why wouldnt they use this as an election issue out of sheer spite and promise a royal commision and a 'review' should they be voted in just to raise their profile in the defense debate? They could use NZ as a precedent to say the huge expense isnt necessary. How about cancelling the deal and cut our losses and buy UCAV's? I can hear the arguements now.

Besides being available for pictures in the RAAF news, and providing some training for P3s, why does Australia have a fighter force? They haven't the range to get to any bad guys, and the bad guys don't have the range to get to anything important (if I remember correctly there is a big sea gap around Oz!).
Surely a nice cruise missle (Sub launched of course!) to go out and touch people, and a nice kick arse gunship helo would be a better investment.
Best the RAAF keeps to what it does well, Airline training
:D

A contact of mine who is associated with a company that has been selected to support the JSF if it does enter service with the ADF said that this aircraft is going to be the best value for money platform available at the right time to replace the F111/F18. It is being built using the best components that provide significant operational capability at the best price over the life of the aircraft type ie the aircraft is being built to a price so there shouldn't be any nasty surprises for the government after contracts have been signed. :D

This has been a paid political anouncement...
 

GB, that "friend" wouldn't happen to be you by any chance..?
;)

All I said was this piece of halibut was good enough for Jehova!
 

"Besides, the swish airframes built today will be like Beta video recorders and aching for major systems upgrades by the time the open-system JSF comes on line"

Roller Merlin, my supercharged V12 liquid-cooled friend, I'm guessing you must own a computer to be contributing to this forum, so my question to you is this:

Why did you decide to buy your computer when you did, rather than simply wait a month or so more when something far better & cheaper would've become available?

A rhetorical question, but it highlights the point that what you buy now will inevitably become obsolete. If we wait for "the next big development" before acquiring it, we will (by definition) never acquire anything. You refer to the JSF as an "open-system", this sounds a lot like the stereo salesman who tried to tell me the amplifier I was thinking of purchasing was "future-proof"... Such a beast simply does not exist.

I would love to flip forward 20 years to when the RAAF's first F35 takes to to the sky (a reasonable & realistic IOC blowout I'm sure you'd agree). At the same time, the 'Microsoft BG-1' quantum computer equipped prototype fighter has it's maiden flight. Of course, our F35 is now a 'closed system Beta video recorder' because it's primitive electrical architecture is based on printed circuit boards &, GASP , copper wiring!!!! Meanwhile, our arthritic F18s & F111s, having ingeniously been held together for the past 10 years by a combination of dried seaweed and snot (at an enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer) are finally put out to stud. Somewhere, a wizened old cynic will sit in a retirement home, reading an aviation editorial (hopefully not written by Defence Minister Kopp) rueing the decision not to buy an 'off the shelf' solution all those years ago, rather than trying to buy the goose that lays the golden egg... (Phew, time to lay off the caffeine...)

;)

P.S. Donpizmeov: sorry mate, no bites today!

Wrong guess Booger - I'm just a QF line pilot with no business interests on the side. I was just passing on the info as told to me. Everything that I have heard indicates that the JSF is the front runner to replace the ADF's Fighter/Strike aircraft. GB :D

don.... you do like stirring the pot, don't you :)

Ahhh Don. The great moat theory of defence. Not a NZ Labour politician perchance:mad:
By the way, I thought it was the airlines that were training RAAF pilots for a change (BBJ)!?

I am not quite the Kiwi polli yet, but I have heard they are amongst the best money can buy!
It is very easy to go all gooey about shiny new jets, but when the budget is a small one, don't you think it should be spent on something that is really needed?
As I said before, defending Willy or Tindal may be great fun, but does it really achieve anything? It is the moat that keeps the bad guys away. Why not put a bl##dy big boat with a new generation 3D radar and SM2er out there to chase them away (and no the ANZAC canoe does not count!). A whole lot more effective, and a whole lot longer endurance than a handful of pointy jets.
I am sure once officer Fish Head becomes the chief things will change!!!!

Fishy
Heard some very bad news last night. My number one son wants to become a college boy!!!!! I blame his mother!!!!!

Roller Merlin touched on why the JSF could be a real winner, and the reason is logistics.

Or rather logistics is a part of the overarching reason why JSF is tipped to have low running costs. JSF will have information systems embedded that will allow it to achieve Prognostic Health Monitoring, or in other words, the damn aircraft will predict when a part is going to fail, info the IS, which will order the part and produce a job sheet for the maintainers. PHM being a part of the USA's Autonomic Logistics 2010 concept.

...thus, the theory goes, making Log a much tighter and cheaper proposition.

Another reason why it should actually be ok is that the F-35 is a relatively low-risk design, built by the people who practically invented stealth, with a reputation for coming in under budget.

Excepting the F-22, before everyone jumps down my throat, they handed back $19m on the SR-71 in the 1960s and boasted that they would give back $10-15m of their JSF developmental money!

So to be fair, I reckon anyone who gets in on the JSF is doing themselves a favour. At least it is the product of a competition rather than an international quango like other aircraft I could mention. It'll be the F-16 for the 21st century, cheap-ish, cheerful and a damn good piece of kit.

And don't forget the info systems - some day the platform manufacturer will be a sub-contractor and the Prime will be the people putting in the systems (just so long as its not microsoft)

...meaning of course that the geeks will inherit the earth!

anyway, I'm off now to watch the Star Trektacular on Sky.

Don,

all I will say is watch this space!

Don,

You're damn right things will change when I get to be chief.... why did we lose all those batmen anyway?

As far as #1 son goes, so long as he is taking after his mother, and not his father, I'm sure he'll be very 'popular' at the college ;)

To be fair though, you have got a point re the Navy's air defence boats.... a gaping hole in our capability right now, and not something that any knuck boy (or girl) would fill.

$300m ?!?
 

Sounds like the RAAF intend to become part of the USAF ORBAT!!

Doesn't relying on US support (and some capability) mean that the RAAF has lost some of its autonomy?!? If Uncle Sam has to help out each time...... is that a good place to be?!? I don't recall that much help in East Timor...

Both the US and the Brits (biggest partners in cash terms) have something else to go with the F-35, either the F-22 or the Eurofighter, as do a lot of the other participants (although admittedly not all). If the F-35 is so blindingly good (even on paper!!) why are they bothering to do that?

:confused:

...possibly because Eurofighter is not a V/STOL aircraft?

Harrier can't go on forever can it?

Also the F-35 is slated as a replacement for the early-model F-18 for the US and to replace the USMC's fleet of AV-8Bs.

- that's why.

Does BA Systems know Eurofighter is not a 'real' contender. They still appear to advertise it to be the ultimate replacement for All ADF fast jet needs.

LJR,

they wont tell BAE that no one wants Eurofighter because they would stop providing box seats at Rugby and League games around the country! (Plus pens, models and stickers etc:) )

Bureafighter - way to go!
 

Since I've already got my stainless steel BAe coffee mug & 'indigenous artwork Typhoon tie' then I'm happy to throw insults...

My personal favourite is their claim that the Bureafighter (when equipped with 3 jugs, 2 conformal tanks and a 200NM+ standoff weapon) could have the range of the F111. Of course, it would have to fly at 'theoritical long range cruise' speed (around M0.80?) at the tropopause to achieve this!!!

I also like their salesman's exclamation when showing pictures of the cockpit: "Look, there has never been a cockpit as modern and as ergonomic as this!!!" he said pointing out the 3MFDs and HOTAS (sorry, I mean VTAS) - Wow.

I guess the poms never looked into the cockpits of the circa 1980s Hornet/F16/Viggen/Mirage2000 etc... etc... Or perhaps the Brits regard any aircraft that doesn't have the oil pressure gauge in the centre of the panel while the main AI is located on the rear cockpit bulkhead as "super-modern ergonomics"!!!

:D

Booger.

OK, name a more modern cockpit, smart boy. With the same Wide angle modern HUD (not an old fashioned collimated job), big CRT displays, and with that degree of HOTAS and DVI. You can't 'see' DVI, but it's a core feature of the Typhoon MMI. And the way in which displays change format intuitively is also a stroke of genius. And it's a cockpit which fits pilots of all sizes, where everything falls beautifully to hand. It's even better than the updated Gripen. There are sticks to beat Typhoon with, but it's cockpit isn't one of them.

And nor is range if your alternative is to buy JSF. The Typhoon is cheaper than an F-15E or Rafale, and will be better than almost anything (excepting F-22) as an air-to-air aeroplane. It remains unproven in the air-to-mud role, however.

This thread was originally a question about JSF, "are they mad?"

If you'll bear with a very long answer, I'll say yes, and then explain why.

The Joint Strike Fighter has effectively been designed as an ‘F-16 for the 21st Century’. Technologically impressive, the JSF has been rigorously designed to cost, with a long-standing programme goal of achieving a lower unit price than the F-16. OK, lean manufacturing and smart assembly techniques (said to be BAE Systems biggest input into the programme) might reduce manufacturing costs significantly, but how cheap can a new aircraft (with all that R & D) and a Stealth aircraft be? Can you really build a JSF that's as well equipped as a Block 60 F-16 (or even better equipped) for so much less? Most people say that Lockheed can't and aren't trying to, and that JSF has useful work-arounds by relying on offboard kit.

The aircraft enjoys the cachet (and practical commonality advantages) of having been selected to serve in quantity with the USAF, USN and US Marine Corps, and looks set to enjoy widespread export success with a number of major air forces, including the British Royal Air Force and a number of core West European NATO nations. By contrast, Eurofighter and Rafale look like expensive and narrow national soultions (they aren't) which won't be widely exported (probably true enough). Saab’s Gripen, meanwhile, can be presented as being the aircraft of choice for minor neutral nations like Sweden, emerging democracies like South Africa and the cash-strapped East European former Warpac nations. Some believe that Austrian self-perception undermined Gripen’s chances in that country, because Austria wished to see itself as a more ‘mainstream’ West/Central European powerhouse and not as one of Gripen’s typically ‘peripheral’ customers.

But while the JSF variants delivered to the US forces will be formidable aircraft, with very low radar cross sections and an array of smart technologies, export versions of the aircraft are likely to be quite considerably sanitised and down-graded, and even the USA’s closest allies are unlikely to get the ‘full-spec’ aircraft. Anyone seriously think Australia would get the full-up, full-Stealth JSF?

Moreover JSF was designed within a very American context, as a low cost complement to the F-22, and optimised to operate in conjunction with the F-22, and with unlimited support aircraft, from JSTARS to AWACS, and including sophisticated real time reconnaissance and targeting platforms. Does the RAAF have all of this 'combat infrastructure' in any more than tokenistic amounts?

Since the earliest days of the JSF programme, whenever cost constraints have limited the JSF’s own autonomous on-board capabilities or equipment fit, it has been pointed out that the aircraft will have unparalleled access to ‘offboard sensors’, by being datalinked to F-22s, F/A-18E/Fs, F-15Es, E-3 Sentries, E-8 J-STARS and U-2Ss, and even to a rash of UAVs. The JSF does not need to be a great dogfighter, either, since the F-22 and F/A-18 will be available to US force commanders for the dedicated air-to-air role. It doesn’t really matter to the USAF that JSF is not easily able to carry AIM-9 class short range AAMs, (the seekers have no real field of view until after launch) because it can augment the F-22 by bringing extra AIM-120 AMRAAMs (albeit in their crop-finned, compressed carriage version) to the fight. Nor does it have to be the best long-range attack platform, since the US force commander can call upon a range of bombers and dedicated attack aircraft, from the B-2 Spirit to the F-15E. The fact that the JSF is a relatively short ranged bomb truck, toting only a pair of JDAM-class weapons over a range of about 700 miles is quite enough. For the US armed forces. But is it for the RAAF?

For the US forces, therefore, the JSF is a very useful force multiplier, which can augment and enhance other ‘clubs’ in the US ‘golf bag’. But for export customers, the JSF’s relative lack of autonomous capabilities may be less acceptable, while some believe that the aircraft’s key advantage of ‘Stealth’ is rapidly becoming less important, as counters are developed to radar low observability, and as Western air forces increasingly find themselves operating in conditions of total air supremacy, thanks to the effectiveness of SEAD.

If you can't afford Eurofighter, then I'd have thought that Gripen would be a better solution. Or the F/A-18E/F. Gripen may lack the low observability of the full-standard JSF (though that remains to be seen, even if it is significant) and may have a shorter unrefuelled radius of action, but it is likely to enjoy better autonomous capabilities, and can carry and use a wider range of weapons, and arguably represents a more flexible and more useful stand-alone asset. It is unlikely that Lockheed Martin will be able to shave much off the Gripen’s formidably low costs of operation and ownership, either, making it probable that the Gripen will be a more economically viable air power asset. In fact, the US approach to Stealth is likely to add a considerable cost burden to JSF operations, because of the requirement for intensive support and surface rectification.

Despite having been rigorously designed to cost, the unit price of the JSF has remorselessly crept up, so that it is already appreciably more expensive than the baseline Gripen. Moreover, the US aircraft incorporates a number of advanced technologies which do impose an element of risk, and some would argue that the Gripen (already in widespread frontline service) represents a proven solution by comparison. Others point to the fact that Gripen improvements which are now being actively studied (from improved defensive aids, helmet mounted sighting systems, conformal fuel tanks and even a new engine, perhaps with thrust vectoring) will further blur any capability differences between the Gripen and the JSF, but will be achievable without disturbing the Gripen’s cost advantages over JSF.

Arguably the biggest advantages enjoyed by the JSF lies in its ‘Made in the USA’ label, and in the claim that it will be the World’s largest fighter programme, with work totalling $400 bn and a production tally exceeding 8,000 aircraft, according to some estimates. The potential value of sub-contract work on the JSF is enormous – especially since the US government no longer requires a second, US-based source for all foreign-supplied components meaning that foreign suppliers, could, in theory, build major sections of every JSF built, including those for the US home market.

You forgot the RN Jacko!!

In theory.

Because while any customers for Gripen can negotiate a guaranteed piece of workshare, and can enjoy guaranteed offsets, workshare on the JSF requires investment in the System Design and Development (SDD) phase of the programme. And such investors (or ‘Level Two partners’) are not guaranteed workshare – they are allowed to bid for it, in open competition against US companies who may have powerful Senators and Congressmen backing their needs at the highest levels of US Government. With most major workshare already allocated under the EMD phase (which Britain joined as the only ‘Level One’ partner) further JSF customers are unlikely to gain any appreciable role in building the aircraft, but will be asked to ‘stump up’ enormous sums for the privilege of being allowed to bid. There is unlikely ever to be a second foreign production line for the aircraft (as there was for NATO F-16s) and some doubt whether foreign suppliers (with the probable exception of BAE Systems and Rolls Royce) will ever gain worthwhile workshare on the aircraft. Do you really believe that Aussie companies would get 1% of the total JSF programme?

Britain, by dint of its Level One status, will gain a small royalty on every JSF sold, and may gain workshare worth about 10% of the value of each aircraft. But to gain this, the UK government has paid $1.3 Bn for Level One status, a further £600 m for UK specific requirements, and $1 Bn further for the SDD phase. This enormous sum (about $3.2 Bn) does not pay for any of the aircraft to be purchased for the UK armed forces.

While being a JSF partner would appear to have little obvious economic benefeit, it will have political advantages. With the JSF, potential customers are not being sold an aircraft on the basis of unit price, capability, workshare and offsets, but instead are effectively being asked “Are you with us (are you a US ally) or against us?” The JSF does enjoy a low unit price (though this is rising, and already exceeds the original $28 m target price by at least 25%) and does offer some impressive and useful capabilities. But many analysts believe that effectively, those being asked to buy JSF are being asked to put national industrial and defence needs behind wider national political and foreign policy considerations. A senior Corporate Business Development executive at Lockheed summed it up at the 2002 Singapore air show by saying that: “every government has to assess where its strategic future lies.”

Our PM has been caricatured as George W's poodle for years now. It's nice that the Aussies are also jumping aboard the 'US Allies at any price' band-wagon....

Sorry about the inordinate length.....

Fair points all Jacko and very impressive. I was under the impression though that the Typhoon was going to cost in the region of $90m and therefore relatively expensive.

Is this true?

JSF:

The JSF gets better press than it deserves in the cost-containment category. It is described as a $29 million a copy aircraft, making it seem competitive even with existing F-16s.

Nothing could be further from the truth. That $29 million figure appears to be expressed in 1994 dollars, and to represent flyaway costs rather than unit procurement costs—a distinction that seems arcane, but that is important here. Correcting for these two distortions in how the Pentagon describes the price of the plane, the unit procurement price is better estimated at $43 million for the Air Force version of the JSF—and at slightly more than $50 million for Marine Corps and Navy variants.

Not only that, but these numbers ignore likely cost growth. One must salute the Department of Defense for trying to keep the price of the JSF within bounds, and commend its decision to view cost as an independent, important variable in the fighter's development program. But those facts will not ensure zero price growth. More likely, according to CBO, are unit procurement costs of $65 million for the Air Force's version and about $77 million for those of the other two services.

Eurofighter:

The overall production contract for the initial purchase of 620 aircraft plus an option for 90 aircraft was signed by NETMA and Eurofighter GmbH in January 1998. Included under this maximum price Umbrella Contract, were the Production Investment for 620 aircraft, and long lead items for the first batch of 148 aircraft

In September 1998 supplementary fixed price agreements were signed between the NATO Eurofighter Management Agency (NEMTA), Eurofighter GmbH and Eurojet GmbH. These agreements translated the maximum prices defined in the Production Umbrella contracts into firm orders at fixed prices for a first Tranche of weapon systems comprising 148 aircraft and 363 engines. The value of the order being in the region of 14 Billion DM.

For the UK, this translates into a system price per aircraft of £68.5 million. ($104.5 million).

On this basis, the Eurofighter is 50% more expensive than the JSF (but around 60% of the cost of the F-22 which is just passing an estimated $177 million a copy).

Including R&D. Unit production cost is only £42m according to NAO. Still more than a JSF, but you get much more of an aircraft.