Forum: F-35 Lightning II

dwightlooi wrote:

LowObservable wrote:

The difference between a Gripen price and a JSF price is that the former is real and the latter is a projection.

Well, whatever the "advanced" Gripen is, it hasn't been built yet. So it is also a projection.

I think what the JSF program is trying to do is adopt the commercial airliner model of pricing. You do all your bargaining, negotiations, etc. and lock in your price in USD at the signing of the purchase agreement. This is regardless of whether you take early production aircraft which cost more to build or post-rampup airframes which cost less, and regardless of whether your currency goes up or down against the USD at the time of delivery when the bulk of the money is paid. Basically, L-M and Uncle Sam will try to present you with an average price based on their projections. They'll lose money on early birds, make more on later ones. Basically, you buy it like you buy a 787 or an A380. L-M and Uncle Sam will profit from any excess payment or eat the difference.

Dwight, given that the F-35 as a new territory all around, (imagine if USAF ordered 2,500 block 10 F-16s in 1978, spanning 25 yrs), it's hard to say what the initial selling dynamics will entail?

Maybe the first 100-200 production F-35s will be resold abroad by USAF right off the bat (per FMS), at a slight loss to Uncle Sam's trust fund? IMO, maybe 2-3 critical F-35 markets will be in play for recieving planes ASAP and at a competitive price, or bust?

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 601 Status: Offline

boff180 wrote:

Dwight, the avdanced gripen prototype was rolled out 2 weeks ago; looked quite a mean piece of kit.

Interesting note is this is not the only major contract going on in Europe. The Swiss are in the market to replace their F-5's. The contenders are the F-18E/F, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen Adv.... Boeing have just pulled out so its a three horse race.

Gripen is seen as the favourite even though its single engined due to its short-field capability.

Of note, the Norwegians have always liked a short field capability aircraft hence why the drag chute is installed on Norwegian Vipers.

Andy

dwightlooi wrote:

LowObservable wrote:

The difference between a Gripen price and a JSF price is that the former is real and the latter is a projection.

Well, whatever the "advanced" Gripen is, it hasn't been built yet. So it is also a projection.

I think what the JSF program is trying to do is adopt the commercial airliner model of pricing. You do all your bargaining, negotiations, etc. and lock in your price in USD at the signing of the purchase agreement. This is regardless of whether you take early production aircraft which cost more to build or post-rampup airframes which cost less, and regardless of whether your currency goes up or down against the USD at the time of delivery when the bulk of the money is paid. Basically, L-M and Uncle Sam will try to present you with an average price based on their projections. They'll lose money on early birds, make more on later ones. Basically, you buy it like you buy a 787 or an A380. L-M and Uncle Sam will profit from any excess payment or eat the difference.

If, Norway really wants short field take off performance. Seems like the STOVL F-35B would be ideal............ Exclamation

Very True, Corsair... it will come down to delivery time, imo, and cost. If the Gripen II and -35B could be delivered on the same schedule and on par cost, then I'd recommend the -35B being a back seat RNoAF general! Smile

But it looks like the Norges will want delivery by 2012-14 so that operational status could be by 2016? And the first 100 or so F-35Bs will be what, $150 million flyaway? $250 each, full contract? I could be totally off, just my rough estimates.

With an F-16-like internal fuel fraction, the F-35C empty weight, the F-35A wing, 2 x 1000 lb internal weapons and a large premium in purchase and operating cost, the F-35B is not that attractive unless you have to land on a small ship.
DL is right about the pricing plan. Of course, since we don't know what the cost is, to guarantee a price means that the US could end up losing money over the entire sale. If the contractors' losses were guaranteed by the USG, that's called a subsidy, and I gather from the caterwauling over tankers on the Hill that the US thinks subsidies are bad.

The F-35B STOVL will not be an option for Norway in any case. We have runways long enough for ordinary fighters to land and take of from, however a drag chute helps a lot on icy wintery runways or on more remote satelite fields.
Offcourse the price of the F-35B will also make this option very unatractive

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 601 Status: Offline

Boman wrote:

The F-35B STOVL will not be an option for Norway in any case. We have runways long enough for ordinary fighters to land and take of from, however a drag chute helps a lot on icy wintery runways or on more remote satelite fields.
Offcourse the price of the F-35B will also make this option very unatractive

Well, my point was a STOVL type like the F-35B would be perfect for countries that like the ability to take-off from road ways.........

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Tenders submitted by SAAB and Lockheed Martin to Norway