"Combined," says Venlet, those factors "make it impossible to give you any [O&S] number that is something to build on, going forward."Sheesh
[...]
Makes me truly wonder at the obliviousness to facts that allows the tinkerbells of this world to continually spew their nonsense about the magnificence of the F35.
Even if it does (eventually) get as good as they pray it does, surely they must see that other platforms will also be there and there abouts by that time. Add in the costs over the extended development period and that primary objective of affordability has just gone sailing right out of the window.
Any politician who tells you they know the cost and production schedule of the F-35 is out and out lying their ass off.
Update: DND Weighs In
14 comments:
Did you see the CPAC special on the F-35? I thought it was pretty balanced but is a long way from being a ringing endorsement of the plane
You do realize the link refers specifically to the F-35B/C which are the carrier and VTOL variants and not the F-35A Canada is buying. So far testing on the F-35A is ahead of the targets. Also the cost comparisons are of an estimate of future costs on a new aircraft versus past costs on an older one.
One could have made the identical comparison when we bought F-18's to replace CF-101/CF-105 and the CF-5, all of which cost less to buy and operate.
Problem is that development of fighter acft is at a transitionary point. There are no new non steathy fighters coming down the pipeline. The Grippons, Rafale,Eurofighter and Super Hornet are all 20 years into their development. If we want to buy something that is going to last for 30 odd years it must be cutting edge right now and you cannot bolt stealth onto an aircraft sometime in the future as a retro fit. In inflated dollars the F35 is no more expensive than our F18 buy back in the 1980s.
The F-35 main role requiring stealth is "first day of war" initial strike through and against heavy and effective (layered) air defences (think the two Gulf Wars). But I'll wager that within 10-15 years that role will be taken over by stealthy UCAVs along with cruise missiles that already do it. So the main rationale for the F-35 (and a role Canada is not likely to engage in anyway) vanishes.
And SH (aka Rhino) improvements are on the way:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:adc73ae3-8cf4-49af-95d9-e057d1a5df97
"Rhino's Revenge
Boeing says that the Super Hornet improvement package quietly rolled out at Farnborough last year, and manifest in mock-up modifications attached to an F/A-18E at this week's 500th-aircraft rollout, is aimed at international customers. And it has the inoffensive name of "International Roadmap Options" -- it's not the Ultra Hornet, Silent Hornet or (heavens, no) the Block 3.
(Someone asked Navy program manager Capt Mark Darrah in St Louis about comparisons with the F-35. He almost physically recoiled and refused point-blank to comment. I half expected him to pull out a crucifix and a squirt-gun and spray his questioner with holy water. Sensible guy.).."
Mark
Ottawa
I'm a bit sceptical as to whether we really need stealth, and tend to think that building either the Typhoon II or the Gripen here in Canada under licence might be the better idea. Not to mention that a mere 65 aircraft is far to few for our needs. Bloody hell at one time we had about 300 fighters based in Europe and about the same number at home.
Perhaps the US role is "first day", but we tend to use our aircraft in places like Kosovo, Libya, Iraq etc where there is an ongoing operation and the primary threats are shoulder mounted on vehicle mounted missiles and radar guided anti-aircraft guns. That's an environment where stealth, both radar and infrared, is what might let our pilots come home in one piece.
Its true you can not bolt stealth on. The F-18E/F is a twin engine plane and on first roll-out is about $14 million cheaper (for older technology). You'll make that up in fuel consumption over thirty years, and on the first engine swap-out.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/12/16/awx_12_16_2010_p0-277980.xml&headline=JSF%20LRIP%20IV%20Cost%20Targets%20Released&next=10
A government source says that the if the target per-unit prices are achieved, the cost is on a steep downward curve - reducing by more than $100 million since the first lot - for the CTOL version, which is competing in the international market.
According to a government source, the prices for LRIPs 1-3 are:
LRIP 1 - CTOL - $221.2 million,
LRIP 2 - CTOL - 161.7 million; Stovl (first purchase) $160.7,
LRIP 3 - CTOL - $128.2 million: Stovl $128 million.
The LRIP IV buy doubles Lockheed’s F-35 backlog, and Burbage says that each time the quantity ordered doubles, the per-unit price will decrease by 25-28 percent. Ultimately, Lockheed plans to sell at least 3,100 of the single-engine stealthy fighters, and officials hope to achieve an average recurring flyaway cost of about $60 million per CTOL unit.
Many of Lockheed’s smaller F-35 subcontractors are already under fixed-price arrangements, but negotiations must still be done on LRIP IV with BAE and Northrop Grumman, the top two industrial partners on the airframe portion of the program.
Talks for LRIP IV are nascent, but Burbage says he hopes to have a contract for this next lot by June.
I don't understand the fear and loathing that some folks have toward this platform. We can all find articles to support out own prejudices. Here is mine, what can I say, I hope the fly away costs do come down to $60 mil per CTOL Again, that is without the engine in the price quote. Who knows what the actual per engine cost would be on production but I think the per engine cost on these LRIPs are around $12 - 15 mil.
Yep, if you buy into new and untested technology you have the opportunity to both gain and get burned. I guess that is why we are only Tier 3 partners, already having spent upwards of $500 mil to sit at the meetings.
Interestingly enough, in the same Aviation Week article the F/A-18 E/F is quoted at $42.7 mil without the engines. Best guess I can get per engine is from older 2007 articles quoting prices between $3.5 and $4 mil per engine. This would be production prices as the F/A-18s are well past R & D phase and into life cycle upgrades already.
It does seem that if you ask six experts, you get seven opinions on the flyaway price. Ask 'em again next month, and they'll each say the price has gone up yet again. So for the sake of discussion, let's agree the F-35 is simply too expensive, due to the unneeded whistles and bells. I'm curious, what aircraft DO you -Paul, Mark and other well informed, insightful folks here- think is a better buy, and why?
Hold a blinking, fair, competition. Meanwhile, also using Paul's link and more:
"F-35: US, Dutch Updates"
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=206
Mark
Ottawa
Dec. 2010, superseded.
Mark
Ottawa
Your short answer makes no sense. Yes, the article was written in 2010. It has not been superseded... the facts above are facts of the first three LRIPs. Do you dispute the numbers above?
What is a fair competition? Who determines the requirements? Do you think that the C-17/C-130J purchase has been a bad decision because there was no competition even though the media clamoured for the A-400?
The CF can do anything it wants and it will always be wrong to someone.
So, who determines the requirements Mark, the media? You? Me? Should we let Byers and Staples form a committee? Lord knows we can't expect the fighter jocks to pick something sensible and cheap, right?
If I might weigh in quickly. The F-15 Silent Eagle, or simply F-15E's would be a great option. Cheaper than F-35's, greater range, payload, etc. Avionics and stealth might not be quite up to F-35 standards, but still a phenomenal, time tested aircraft, and still the best fighter in the air, excluding the F-22 of course.
And considering the type of wars Canada is fighting, and is likely to fight in the future, what of taking some of that cash slated for fighters and putting it into highly capable UAV's. 10 Reaper UAV's could be had for the price of a single JSF. Take the money for 10 JSFs and you've got a venerable swarm of Reapers.
More background to DND statement here:
"F-35: DND Concedes Cost Rise"
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=207
Mark
Ottawa
Post a Comment