MILAVIA Forum

Military Aviation => Military Aviation News => Topic started by: Armée de l'Air on September 24, 2010, 10:48:57 PM

Title: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Armée de l'Air on September 24, 2010, 10:48:57 PM
Quote
Dutch worry over F-35 costs

The cost of the F-35A for the Royal Netherlands Air Force faces a “considerable increase”.
 

September 24: In a statement to the Dutch parliament, the Minister of Defence Eimert van says that the cost of the F-35A for the Royal Netherlands Air Force faces a “considerable increase” and that the impact on the F-16 Replacement Project will also be “considerable”.

Van Middelkoop said that since the last report in 2009 the average cost per aircraft has risen from $69.2 million (€51.4 million) to $92.4 million (€68.6 million). To offset some of this cost the Dutch Ministry of Defence has pushed back the first delivery two years from 2014 to 2016.

Current plans are for 85 F-35As to be purchased in two batches (57 and 28 aircraft) to replace the entire F-16 fleet of 100 aircraft. - Air Forces Monthly

It looks as if the whole F-35 idea begins its downfall...

Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on September 25, 2010, 03:31:52 AM
I've been in this country, monitoring JSF news since the beginning, and it's laughable.. even frustrating at times to hear the "experts". They've always believed whatever Lockheed told them, and then if Lockheed tells someone else something different, they keep using the old info. First it happened with the overestimate on what JSF sales will be, when they needed investment from industry. The quoted price has always been underestimated in my opinion. I hate to do it, but this latest news is more of "I said so". They're still not there yet.

This is a $100 million jet for the USAF, that means it will be at least €100 million for export customers, no matter how great the usd-eur exchange rate is. And I'm afraid the so-called "fly away" will be much more like €125-140, and then the teething problems kick in...

It will be like the Typhoon/Rafale "off-the-shelf, ready to fly" price tag, options which were prematurely "cut".

Delaying the deliveries is only a bandaid...which was needed anyway because of the cut backs due to the crisis.

The real solution will be...further cuts in numbers. This of course will mean a rise in the "per unit" price. Forget about the 28 options, 57 will be max. I predict to see two squadrons axed when the F-16 goes out. 57 will give three squadrons a "full" complement of 15 aircraft, the fourth squadron will have 12 (training). I wouldn't be surprised if that's further cut "because of the high unit cost", they'll say, while it's actually "we can't afford stealth fighters" plus "need to cut defense". Eventually we'll "end up" with 12 planes per squadron, and 8 for training ("there's this brilliant simulator anyway"). So: 44 aircraft.

Sign the contract, get on with it, 44 jets fixed price contract, it won't be too many, why not order now... finally get some orders in for domestic industry to get subcontracted ASAP, they could use it in these times. The RNLAF will have its F-35 no matter what, ok, then cut two squadrons... Nonetheless, we'll have the best fighter in the world...for the time being.

But... of course my suggestion can't happen, because we haven't got a government!

Sorry for the ranting!
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on September 25, 2010, 07:09:49 PM
At least you folks aren't getting the "Rhino Beetle" version, are you?
Here's what Bill Sweetman had to say about the F-35B
"You design a jet with seven medium to large doors that all will have to open in a combination of high airflow, vibration, noise and heat. If they don't close perfectly after takeoff, the aircraft is no longer stealthy. If one of them won't open for transition, the jet can't recover to the carrier."
Consider yourselves lucky  ;)
Does anyone know if the -B model could make an emergency landing on a full size aircraft carrier?
Are any of the three models capable of supercruise? (What I'm curious about is-- after releasing the paltry few weapons they carry, will they be able to run away without turning on their afterburners and giving away their position with that bright yellow afterburner flame?) That damn flame makes a strong case for using the longest range stand-off weapons available.
My dos centavos worth.
Shawn A
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on September 25, 2010, 11:40:54 PM
True, just the basic A is complicated enough!
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Armée de l'Air on September 27, 2010, 12:15:55 AM
Well, whether the final price of the F-35 will be high or low it won’t matter unless one looks at the cost-effective side of it.
Personally, I see the whole program as just another Lockheed attempt to secure a production/selling contract. Nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is the kind of countries this contract tries to attract. I mean, after all to judge, the JSF will presumably be a multi-role fighter a little less complicated then the F-22 (I’ll never believe that it will be better then the Raptor). But all in all, the F-35 will prove itself to be a lot more complex (not necessarily better) then its competition – i.e. JAS 39 Gripen, EF-2000, Rafale or SU-35/37. What I can’t figure is what can countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Holland or Belgium do with the F-35. Relatively small countries for which the JSF is wayyyy to much! Or another piece of news announced Romania (?) as a wish-for F-35 country. Hilarious, really. These countries not only have small air-territories that could easily be covered and defended by an aircraft as the Gripen for example, but also that their possible enemies are all but inexistent. What good will F-35 do to them?
A country should consider military contracts first and foremost out of their own defensive needs, or at least this was the thumb rule in the past. Or this idea dropped sharply from the priorities list?  :o
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: RecceJet on September 27, 2010, 05:41:12 AM
I still think that when the F-35 finally does go into production it will be far more advanced than the current alternatives (JAS 39 Gripen, EF-2000, Rafale or SU-35/37). Any country could opt for these alternatives, but in my opinion it will lock them into an airframe that can't be further developed to the extent that the F-35 could be.

Unless there really is no significant technological difference between these alternatives and the F-35, I think it's better to wait and have an aircraft that is more advanced. The world is slowly moving to the ideology that quality is better than quantity as far as military hardware goes. A more advanced platform will naturally be more expensive, but I think we still have to wait and see if the F-35 is really as advanced as its price tag would suggest!

  :-\ I think my comments firmly place me on the fence! Anyone else want to be a fence-sitter on this issue? lol
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on September 29, 2010, 01:14:06 AM
Well, whether the final price of the F-35 will be high or low it won’t matter unless one looks at the cost-effective side of it.
Personally, I see the whole program as just another Lockheed attempt to secure a production/selling contract. Nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is the kind of countries this contract tries to attract. I mean, after all to judge, the JSF will presumably be a multi-role fighter a little less complicated then the F-22 (I’ll never believe that it will be better then the Raptor). But all in all, the F-35 will prove itself to be a lot more complex (not necessarily better) then its competition – i.e. JAS 39 Gripen, EF-2000, Rafale or SU-35/37. What I can’t figure is what can countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Holland or Belgium do with the F-35. Relatively small countries for which the JSF is wayyyy to much! Or another piece of news announced Romania (?) as a wish-for F-35 country. Hilarious, really. These countries not only have small air-territories that could easily be covered and defended by an aircraft as the Gripen for example, but also that their possible enemies are all but inexistent. What good will F-35 do to them?
A country should consider military contracts first and foremost out of their own defensive needs, or at least this was the thumb rule in the past. Or this idea dropped sharply from the priorities list?  :o

I agree, but to Lockheed any customer will do, no matter how little need they have for it. You have a point, but you could say the same for any military capability that's beyond any country's needs. Yes on your last comment, that's no longer the priority.
From your list I only can't understand Switzerland (although I have to say, I didn't know they were). But for Denmark, Holland and Belgium, it is primarily because of the NATO and EPAF framework. EPAF only concerns the F-16 at the moment, but it's a good success story that can be continued if all would be flying the same type. NATO... because basically to keep up with the major ally, the US, the airforces want the F-35 or else they may not count, and at least for the Netherlands I can say it wants to be a good ally and if that's through airpower rather than manpower, all the better. Romania also falls in that "good US ally" category, they'd rather get second-hand high-houred F-16s than seriously look at the Gripen for example. It's because of the strong US connection, military but probably even more political. You are right about defending small airspace, even that these countries don't need much defending at all (only a NATO mandated air policing capability, which does not have to be as large), but this is no longer about air defense as it was 20 years ago. It's now delivering air power within the NATO framework and that means taking part in strike packages under what is basically US command. So you'd want capabilities that really fit the US. That's why these air forces want them so bad. So yes, like you said having a cost-effective air defense capability for their own countries is not the primary goal. "NATO compatible" does not mean sh** to the US forces, if you won't be as stealthy as them, you don't get to play the game...

I am not a big fan of the above, but I'm afraid that's what it gets down to. The Netherlands doesn't need trident missiles either, but what else is an easier way for the Navy to be a valuable player on the US team?

Quote
my comments firmly place me on the fence

RecceJet, that's a great place to be, and I'd happily join you. You are right that it will be more advanced, although the others will come close in everything besides stealth. It's hard to say that it can't be further developed, when we hardly now what the future will be. I can see it further developed, just not the airframe itself and nothing custom/local, only with the OEM.

I'm hoping off to one side or the other, taking different perspectives.

But these countries can't keep doing that forever and they've already been doing that for 10 years, otherwise they would have started taking deliveries by now. More importantly, unfortunately there's only so much fence-sitting one can do. It's time to decide and put in an order, because the F-16s are getting old. Waiting for something better is a matter of decades really, waiting for it to prove itself could be done, but when is there enough proof anyway? Who will be developing something better in the next 25 years? Not including those from who these countries would never buy anyway. And even then, look at Italy, they had to lease Tornados, then F-16s, before finally getting enough Typhoons.

It's funny I agree with almost all arguments for or against the JSF. IMHO whatever you get, do it right and make it as cost- and combat-effective as possible. Unfortunately the Netherlands passed this point, it never fully explored the offset opportunities of other programs, and for the JSF, probably due to political indecision and lack of bargaining power because of that, industry didn't get a large enough share, and as everyone is cutting numbers, the few orders once envisaged won't be as big. So the business case is already shattered. Now the "combat case" will suffer as well, let's see.

It will probably be a great aircraft. Even the -B.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Bomber on October 12, 2010, 10:13:17 AM
Quote from:  Admin
"NATO compatible" does not mean sh** to the US forces, if you won't be as stealthy as them, you don't get to play the game...
Yes indeed; it does seem that this is the case, doesn’t it?
Having said that, I do see the subject quite complex. NATO is an alliance that has yet to include STEALTH capabilities in its signature. So, your above statement – in this light – falls a little short I think.
Personally I think that the whole JSF thing is a political statement before anything else. Why you ask?
I’ll tell you why: because if JSF was supposing to be the angelic intervention in releasing “old-dogs” (i.e. F-16s, F-15) and kicking the “new-ones'” butt (i.e. Gripens, Rafales, Flankers or Eurofighters) in an attempt at strengthening an alliance in need of strenght, it has terribly failed to do so as long as new (http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/view_news.asp?ID=2602) non-member countries (with even less JSF related needs) jump into the fray…

P.S.
As far as Romania goes, don’t count on it. We are on the verge of collapsing, literally. There are so many socio-political issues in that country right now that it doesn’t even has the funds to offer our population a decent living future. F-35 in ROAF? That’ll be the day…


Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on October 20, 2010, 02:28:02 AM
Having said that, I do see the subject quite complex. NATO is an alliance that has yet to include STEALTH capabilities in its signature. So, your above statement – in this light – falls a little short I think.

That's the thing, part of NATO (not new member), you don't look at what other NATO countries bring to the table, it's only what the US brings that matters.

Personally I think that the whole JSF thing is a political statement before anything else. Why you ask?
I’ll tell you why: because if JSF was supposing to be the angelic intervention in releasing “old-dogs” (i.e. F-16s, F-15) and kicking the “new-ones'” butt (i.e. Gripens, Rafales, Flankers or Eurofighters) in an attempt at strengthening an alliance in need of strenght, it has terribly failed to do so as long as new (http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/view_news.asp?ID=2602) non-member countries (with even less JSF related needs) jump into the fray…

Yes, but you also need to justify a huge investment to the public for replacing your ageing fighterjets. Half the population doesn't even agree that the air force needs expensive fighter jets. Now, think about that for a while, would you opt for new F-16s rather than going for something new and advanced the AF wants.

For those "new" countries, it's thus not the same as with Holland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium even. Plus they don't have large budgets. They are either very politically aligned with the US or US military when it comes to aircraft choice, or do seek the best value for money with all kinds of offset and lease terms. F-16 or Gripen basically.

Regarding Israel, you are wrong my friend, Israel has perhaps thé biggest need for a JSF of all "West-aligned" countries. I don't think I need to explain why. They'd take F-22s as well if/when they can get them.

As far as Romania goes, don’t count on it. We are on the verge of collapsing, literally. There are so many socio-political issues in that country right now that it doesn’t even has the funds to offer our population a decent living future. F-35 in ROAF? That’ll be the day…

Right, I'm not. I could see one or two programs of second-hand F-16s for next 30 years easily. And by then, Iraqis will be teaching you to fly them, joking. In 30 years, maybe some gap, and then eventually you'll get those F-35s second-hand as well.

However I do understand why they want to buy into the F-35 program, you still have some decent aircraft manufacturing, right? Might be enough for someone to spend a lot of your limited GDP on it... maybe in 10-15 years, when there's another EU-zone economic boom?
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on October 25, 2010, 08:52:29 AM
Yeah, the F-35 won't need an alternate engine, and the F-110 won't need a gun....
The Dutch are doing damn well to worry over a slow, fragily stealthy, and lightly armed, expensive combat aircraft.
--dos centavos
S.A.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on October 26, 2010, 07:29:03 PM
And it looks like the Brits have formalized their worries, too--jumping on another horse by switching to the -C model. I wonder how this will affect the USMCs plans? Is this program falling apart because of costs?
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on October 30, 2010, 12:33:20 AM
I think the British decision has more to do with the government's need to cut back spending in every area since the country's debt has spiralled out of control because of the wars, bail outs + recession. Big ticket defence procurement programmes are easy targets. So I'd say no to your last question, although the high price tag is of course a factor, it could have been any fighter... so hypothetically, for example if they opted to get navalized Typhoons, they would have cancelled the program or if it would have been Super Hornets in the first place, the number would now be cut back or they would have cancelled the EW capability or something.

By the way... is that the final decision? Because I read a lot of speculation regarding this, but I haven't heard/read the final decisions yet.

USMC still wants to carry on with smaller carriers which can't support conventional carrier landing, right? So I don't think it will affect the USMC's plans for the -B version.

However I do think the USMC should also reconsider. It needs a carrier-borne CAS fighter which can forward deploy, basically it needs a better Harrier, which the F-35B set out to be, however this stealth makes it just overly complicated, and goes beyond their needs. It needs another option for that. For the stealth fighter and interdiction roles it can go with the -C just like the navy, and I think they eventually will. But for CAS, the F-35B doesn't make sense.

Australia is worried that UK cutbacks in JSF number affects the F-35A price tag... that surprised me a bit, I thought Australia was not so worried about costs (M1, C-17, Super Hornet, SH-2G fiasco). Maybe someone explain? I have to say, Australia is the only one with an effective stop-gap solution compared to most others. So it's at least really working on those JSF worries, not just ignoring them as the Dutch government/airforce does, imho. Because Shawn, it's unfortunately not those with the power who worry about it.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on October 31, 2010, 08:42:48 AM
Now I hear the Marines just may be rethinking the-B model because of sophisticated short range surface to surface missiles and other "short" range weapons that would bring their forward-based arming and refueling areas under threat.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on November 08, 2010, 06:04:46 PM
On the original subject...

News last week, two thirds of RNLAF F-16 fleet is grounded awaiting maintenance. Reason: shortage of spare parts and/or no money for parts/repairs. Fleet size is 87 atm, of which 14 in the US for training and I think 4 in Afghanistan.
In related news, next year 200 million cut backs on defense (mostly infrastructure/personnel), structurally the budget will be cut back 635 million by 2018 to approx. 7.6 Billion Euros. The title of the associated news story on the MOD website translates to "Radical cut-backs are going to hurt".

Just some more signs that we'll never have 85 F-35s...

Now about the F-16s, it didn't say age had anything to do with it, probably hasn't, but surely fatigue and reaching max hours will kick in as well before the F-35 is fully operable.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on November 11, 2010, 10:21:36 AM
Trying to stay on topic, I'll pretend I'm Dutch.
The plane seems to be turning out to be an expensive purebred dog!
Air Forces Monthly has a feature article on it, I suggest everybody to read it if they can.
'Nuff said, I'm off to Vegas for the Nellis show, where Lockheed usually has a public booth.
I'll try to be polite!
Shawn A.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on November 12, 2010, 02:32:03 AM
Seems you get your AFM quicker than me. Looking forward to it.

 ;D Have a great time at Nellis!! Should be pretty cool!
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on November 19, 2010, 01:05:31 PM
Finally got my AFM, skipped over the depressing headlines about the cuts (UK esp.) and read the JSF article. I've got a few opinions about the article. It's another almost typical Jon Lake article, it's a balance of pros and cons, and most possible angles of criticism are covered. It doesn't tell the full story, as the author admittedly points out, but it covered most bases. Now, some criticism is the author's opinion, but most of it is based on reports, studies and what competitors say. At the end of day, it's clear once again, Jon Lake's job in these AFM articles is to raise issues and stimulate us to think about it more carefully than LM marketing or AF pr wants us too. He's far from championing the aircraft, as sometimes the case with these features. I appreciate that. However, I have a slight concern, more words are being spent on small issues or hypothetical concerns than on each of the merits the design offers. Now normally, for example when talking about the RAF or F-16 I don't mind, but since there's so little information on what the JSF will really bring to the table, I would have liked to know more about those with some explanation of the claims. My conclusion is that nobody knows... still... for sure that it will be great [even just great will do, not as great as promised]. Because of this I really had the following words in my mind after finishing reading: "nothing new?" and "JSF: crash 'n burn"

Like Shawn, I suggest everyone to read it provided you haven't been following the JSF for a while, it gives a nice summary of the testing (mis-)achievements so far, or if you still don't understand either where the concerns are coming from or why airforces want it. But I have to say, on the last point, it doesn't go into it that much.

On the other hand, don't worry if you miss it, there will be plenty of F-35 articles to come before this thing enters service.

Now coming back to the forum, I see Shawn said "Nuff said". And that's also how I feel now, I haven't got words left for the JSF. 
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: RecceJet on November 19, 2010, 04:02:18 PM
I bought an F-35 JSF t-shirt back in 2007. I'll keep in folded up at the bottom of a box a little longer then!
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on November 19, 2010, 05:15:53 PM
I bet the t-shirt is no longer accurate with all the design changes :P
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on November 20, 2010, 08:26:43 PM
If it's an F-35B t-shirt, keep it in pristine condition, 'cause it'll be a collector's item given the White House Deficit Commision's recommendation to terminate the -B model.
I say take the fan out of the-B, and replace it with a generator for directed energy weapons, and do it pronto!
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on July 17, 2011, 08:50:01 AM
In AFMs latest issue, the article on the unaffordability of the F-35 had ten different prices for the aircraft.
Is someone trying to confuse us?
I think 148 million was the highest figure.
The lowest was the 1996 estimate of "about 30 million"
Pentagon estimates for the maintenance of the plane are one and a half times as much as for the aircraft it will (maybe) replace.
So, how can the Dutch worry over the cost of the thing, when NO ONE knows what the cost will actually be?
How much are J-20s?
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on July 18, 2011, 08:21:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on August 13, 2011, 08:20:31 AM
OK..First of all, how can it be so more "multirole" than even an F-22, when the weapons load is so piss poor? External pylons? Bye Bye stealth.
And looking at that dearth of weapons, how can 1 plane replace two?
More prices courtesy of AW&ST,
 LRIP 1, (CTOL version)=$221.2 million
LRIP 2, (CTOL)=$161.7 million , (STOVL),=$160.7 million
LRIP 3 (CTOL)= $128.2 million, STOVL= $128
What a deal!!
Slow, lightly armed, but with the fragile concept of stealth as its' major attribute, along with some fairly innovative sensors and of course the data links that finally rival what the Swedes have had for years.
I'm still skeptical about this plane, and feel the B model is a poor concept for STOVL, and way too complicated.
Shawn A 
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on August 13, 2011, 03:16:20 PM
First of all, one weapon = one target nowadays, so you don't need the huge loads you needed in the past. One GBU will do the job which required a sixpack of Mk.82s in the past.

GBU-12, Brimstone and WMCD can be carried internal, making it suitable for CAS and tank-hunting, especially with the EOTS it doesn't need someone to pass it GPS coordinates. 25mm gun is also much better against surface targets than the F-22's 20mm. JSOW can be carried internal, making it suitable to do stand-off air interdiction, which the F-22 only has the JDAM for. For NTISR the EOTS will help a lot, F-22 only has its radar. Talking about stealth, an optical device is more desirable than relying on low emission radar.

So it's definately more multirole than the F-22, even when considering only internal load.
 
And then externally, a lot more is integrated than on the F-22. All types of LGB can be used with the EOTS when stealth is not a big problem (and let's face it, for many conflicts it helps to be stealthier, but stealth is not required, especially not following the first few days). Storm Shadow, AGM-158 and AGM-154 are stealthy themselves, so if you coat the pylons, would the external load really compromise stealth that much??

The concept is not that bad and stealth does give it an edge, perfect to fill the "niche" stealth strike roles which are not met by unmanned and stand-off weapons. But at this price, I would argue it's better to leave the missions that require stealth to specialised platforms, which means F-22 for fighter, and B-2/NGB plus UCAS for strike, and thereby dropping stealth from being a requirement for what is the bulk of the fighter fleet. Low obserability is something that is desired, but not to the extend where it means hefty price tags for production and maintenance. Unfortunately mixed fleet is only affordable for a few countries and the JSF concept "prohibits" split buys. The way the UK (before they went C), Italy, Turkey and Israel see the JSF it makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately the volume procurement by the US is needed for it to be affordable to those. As the only workhorse for countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Canada it is really arguably if stealth should be a requirement at all. The only country I can think of which will have it as main combat aircraft with stealth as necessity is Australia...for which the JSF is really not cutting it.

It's not the "one size fits all" solution it pretended to be. But it's a great aircraft and dropping it would be a huge mistake, it will leave a 20-year capability gap. It will be expensive as hell, and it makes a lot of sense to complement it with new airframes of what are now called "legacy" fighters, freeing up production lots for export to countries who really can't wait much longer and want it at "any" price.

Regardless of the F-35 fulfilling its promises, clearly a mixed fleet (at least two tier) of fighter is desirable for the US. The recent groundings just prove this. So there's no need to champion the F-22, it needs another fighter alongside anyway.

The STOVL version made a lot of sense to me, supersonic and multirole, perfect on smaller carriers. It's stealth that made it so complicated. I don't get why the UK went for bigger carriers. If they wouldn't, the F-35B would not face to be cut. I don't know the USMC plans, but clearly the supersonic multirole STOVL concept seems perfect for it. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the USMC is set to lose its fixed wing assets in the future. The aviation component of the MAGTF has always been compared to a small country's air force... well those small country air forces are becoming more and more rotary only airforces, working closely with allied forces, I foresee the same for the USMC, becoming less independent and more reliant on the USN/USAF airpower and dropping the F-35B would fit in perfectly with such a setup (uhh, cutback). Rotary only, with maybe some unmanned fixed wings. I'm no expert on the future of naval aviation though, especially not the whole USMC/USN setup.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on September 04, 2011, 06:34:50 AM
I'm an "old" guy, so I can adopt Alfred E. Neuman's attitude="What, Me worry?"
There's severe confusion over the whole program-not a good sign!
If I was younger-(much younger) I would worry.
Just like the Dutch!
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on April 16, 2012, 06:29:13 PM
So thought I'd revive this topic, instead of posting the latest news as a new "yet another JSF" topic.

Finally, it has officially been announced that the 85 JSF for the Netherlands will never happen. As I said many times there was no way 85 would be acquired. With the announcement that it was going to be 57 with 28 options, I said forget about those options. Now although it's still not stated how many will be acquired, it's been confirmed fewer than anticipated will be needed. Not because threat analysis or strategic roadmaps indicate we need less!? Not because we just can't afford them!? Nope, it's because we have fewer F-16s today, can you believe that reasoning?

The number of F-16s has been getting cuts, the latest drop to 68 remaining in the inventory. I think they're not done yet and more will be cut. The thing is it appears to be phasing out ageing jets, but actually it's major force reduction and the phasing out still has to start. JSF will replace whatever number of F-16s remain at the end, not more, only less. Now it's waiting for the "we only need to replace x F-16s" thinking to transform into "one JSF can do the job of two F-16s" reasoning and we'll see a pathetic JSF fleet in the end. And it's basically the same story for other NATO countries.

I'm an "old" guy, so I can adopt Alfred E. Neuman's attitude="What, Me worry?"
There's severe confusion over the whole program-not a good sign!
If I was younger-(much younger) I would worry.
Just like the Dutch!

With all respect, that's not true, Shawn. Your comments on the SecDef, Congress, F-22 or NGB testify you do worry to some level about these things... you might not care/worry about this case, but don't forget for EPAF nations (= your allies that don't have their own agenda compared to Germany, France), the JSF = F-22 plus NGB. There's nothing else! That's the problem with the JSF over here, to be against it, is to be against being a meaningful military player on the world stage PLUS having a credible air defense capability. While another type may address the latter, if JSF is scrapped over here, there will probably not be any other type (at least not for US-led deployments). That's the concern. It's not much different for Belgium, Denmark, Norway, or indeed Canada. Other than the UK, with the rest of Europe there's still some let's say "difficulty" having them commit meaningful capabilities to US-led "NATO-flagged" operations.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on May 14, 2012, 11:23:34 PM
The Dutch don't have to worry anymore!!  ;)
In the June 2012 edition of Combat Aircraft, there is an article called "How much does an F-35 cost?", along with four other sidebars about the JSF (although cost was not mentioned in any of those).
SO-- THE COST OF AN F-35 IS-- (in decreasing order, and in millions of US dollars)
197
148
135
130
120
118
110
70
69
40 to 50
I hope this ends the confusion once and for all!  :D
EVERY ONE OF THESE COST FIGURES WAS IN THE ARTICLE!
Through life cycle costs ranged from 618 to 769 per plane! (remember, this is in millions of US dollars)
Well, that simplifies things!
I'm glad that buying a car is not this complex!
Let's put two of those huge engines in a truly revolutionary plane!
Let's start now!

Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on May 15, 2012, 09:24:57 PM
Well, I've never seen a type having one price, so that's not really a problem. The problem arises when decision makers use old "best case" or just plainly the wrong figures for setting a budget or ruling out alternatives. Life cycle costs reduces the impact of the unit cost on the decision, but it's by nature a more unreliable figure. It's a good way to look at it, but it should be clear what you are talking about. If I remember correctly, the biggest problem in Canada was that the figure was based on 20 years, while politicians thought it was the figure for 30 years? That's bad.
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: shawn a on May 19, 2012, 01:32:12 AM
Hey, you Dutch folks, don't worry--be happy.
Those people in the same boat next to you--They're Canadians.
They're worrying about the cost of F-35s as well.
Us Americans don't worry-- we'll just cancel some program we've already spent billions on so we can then afford the F-35!   ::)
Title: Re: Dutch worry over F-35 costs
Post by: Webmaster on May 20, 2012, 04:56:01 PM
I guess you're right, it's just history repeating itself. Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen all have been in the same boat kind of. Even the Gripen was looking like Sweden's biggest mistake for a while, now it has put Sweden in the top exporters list.