Highest number was a average programme acquisition cost of 156 million. That's what it will have cost in total, on average, if you get the numbers they want now for the A, B and C. And development no longer exceeds what has been budgeted in the coming years. And I guess when production costs does in fact go down over time (probably will, provided inflation stays in check).
The highest average procurement cost number 138 million, I assume that's where it stands at the moment. It will go up further first, before it can go down, that's for sure. So if you want to end up with a nice programme acquisition cost, you need to stop delaying, get her done, and sell the magic 2800 right.
It was a bit political for AFM's taste. But yeah, some good points, I've always said it's gonna be more expensive and it wouldn't get the orders that were (still are, wth) envisaged. And now it's finally clear that it's also going to hurt even the military case. What I don't like, about the whole deal, is as the article correctly points out that delayed development / production are just going to raise costs for manufacturers and suppliers. So the few billions the government is saving now, you end up paying it back because you need to upgrade (more of) your legacy fighters, sustain it for longer, and pay for the higher production costs on the delayed new birds. Short term, ah, I guess it's understandable in these economic times with the debt, but it does put off export customers, quite literally too. And those are what's needed to recover the higher costs for suppliers, if you don't want to pay as much yourself. But I don't see it reaching F-16 sales numbers, which I think is what is required to get procurement back to the $92m in todays dollars they think is the right number.
Yeah, the different numbers. I think most make sense, just don't know how to compare them. So first using an average based on the three versions, then a dated average, suppose not corrected. Then an average programme acquisition cost estimate (iirc, that's including development sum divided by number of jets plus procurement cost per jet), which is as reliable as the prediction of budgeted development costs ánd orders. $30m, that clearly has not been corrected for inflation, or the dropped numbers, so then $69m makes sense. But how they came to $30m in the beginning in the first place is beyond me. Actually, I did not know this, that's what an F-16 cost back then? I always thought they started out with a $45m figure.
So it has doubled, but is that so suprising? Haven't all modern fighter jets since the 80s doubled their budgeted price? What's up, who really thought it would cost less than an off-the-shelf F-16. The Europeans are just stupid for ending up with an twice as expensive jets? Correctly me if I'm wrong, same happened with the F-16 in the past, it was also overbudget. F-22... disregarding development, just budgeted procurement cost, I bet it still cost twice as much.
Materials have risen more in these recent years than expected. What was the worse case budgeted price back then? OK, it's certainly over budget in terms of development costs. But to compare it with the F-22, hmm, that doesn't seem fair. Three versions, truly multirule, of course it costs way more. A decade of labour and fuel cost inflation... pls tell me if the 65 Billion has been adjusted to compare to a FY09 number or if it's FY09 as well, I just don't know what to make of that paragraph now.
The next numbers are per lot, per, variant, minus engine, etc. Those prices, that's including ramp up costs, come on, they will go down once they get enough rolling off, I wouldn't care too much about those numbers, but although 3 months ago, those are at least real numbers. The problem is building less planes isn't going to help it go down as much as they want.
I think the most important number on the last page is the NAVAIR study.... $30,700 hourly operating cost vs $18,900 for the Hornet. I hope they are comparable, I assume they are, that's where the JSF is really going to hurt. But again, what is it exactly? F-35B or C, or average for both? It's affordable if you replace 2 jets with 1 jet. Wasn't that the aim of the JSF?
The last paragraph, idk, technically bankrupt or completely bankrupt, since when does that mean you have to keep on flying old planes that only get more expensive by the hour too. The defense budget needs to shrink, and so do the numbers. But the closing statement... LOL. $330 billion sunk costs, why not, but there goes America's only fighterjet for export in the not so far future... ouch.
At least it's something. We finally got some numbers that make a bit more sense. And the problem is clear. More jets too expensive, less jets more expensive.
"have to start at least considering alternatives"... McCain, a bit late. If you want stealth it isn't gonna get any cheaper now.
Back to Index
Move to Top 
