Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth assembly plant officials announced Wednesday that the company is ready to roll out a test version of the F-35C Lightning II Navy aircraft. This is the latest version of the F-35 joint-strike fighter that is slated to be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2012.

The first test plane will debut on July 28, 2009, with flight testing scheduled to begin later this year.

The latest F-35C version is designed to accommodate Naval air forces and features catapult take-off abilities as well as an arrested landing mechanism to accommodate the needs of Naval aviators landing on aircraft carriers.

The F-35C is the third installment of the strike fighter and costs $60 million per aircraft, according to John Kent, a spokesman for the F-35C program. The $60 million price tag is based on 2002 cost estimates and is likely to be adjusted for inflation when the planes are eventually delivered to the Navy, the company spokesman said.

Assembly of the F-35Cs will take place at the company's Fort Worth assembly plant, which will add an unknown amount of production jobs, with peak employment levels expected to coincide with the aircraft's peak production levels in 2015 and 2016, Kent said.

Production model deliveries of the Navy aircraft will be delivered in 2012.

Kent said the Navy and Marine Corps. plan to buy approximately 680 airplanes. The Marines will be using the second version of the F-35: the F-35B. About half of the aircraft delivered to the two military agencies will be in the F-35C format.

F-16.net Sponsor

even with an inflation adjustment it shouldn't top 75 or 80 so its still a bargain compared to legacy platforms. more good news.

Just gotta get the production line up and running full steam........... Applause

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

solomon wrote:

even with an inflation adjustment it shouldn't top 75 or 80 so its still a bargain compared to legacy platforms. more good news.

your assumptions are way too conservative. 60M from FY'02 is already 71M as of FY'08. with the inevitable cuts and delays this program will undergo, it will easily pass 80M when it enters FRP, maybe even LRIP.

fretmarks wrote:

solomon wrote:

even with an inflation adjustment it shouldn't top 75 or 80 so its still a bargain compared to legacy platforms. more good news.

your assumptions are way too conservative. 60M from FY'02 is already 71M as of FY'08. with the inevitable cuts and delays this program will undergo, it will easily pass 80M when it enters FRP, maybe even LRIP.

Again, another monkey see monkey do comment. You don't understand why the other programs had cuts and delays or the differences with the F-35 program. But just in case you are asserting without any kind of back up that the F-35 will exceed its inflation adjusted price. Why can't it get cheaper or stay consistent? What support do you have specific to the F-35 program to justify your assertion? Let me help you. You don't have anything except a WAG in the dark.

-DA

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

DarthAmerica wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

solomon wrote:

even with an inflation adjustment it shouldn't top 75 or 80 so its still a bargain compared to legacy platforms. more good news.

your assumptions are way too conservative. 60M from FY'02 is already 71M as of FY'08. with the inevitable cuts and delays this program will undergo, it will easily pass 80M when it enters FRP, maybe even LRIP.

Again, another monkey see monkey do comment. You don't understand why the other programs had cuts and delays or the differences with the F-35 program. But just in case you are asserting without any kind of back up that the F-35 will exceed its inflation adjusted price. Why can't it get cheaper or stay consistent? What support do you have specific to the F-35 program to justify your assertion? Let me help you. You don't have anything except a WAG in the dark.

-DA

DA, i don't want to get into another word war with you again.

what's wrong with my post anyway? with the spending trend/restructure going on within the pentagon/DoD, cuts will inevitably happen. delays are already suffered, albeit not that significant now, it will accumulate as the program matures. i mentioned delays to emphasize my point re: inflation. the 60M price is, as of FY'02. that's 71M as of last year. by the time the program goes into FRP, it will definitely be higher than that (rules of inflation).

i didn't mean any ill remarks about the f-35. cuts and delays are not bad, per se. IMHO, these are inevitable especially with a program as large and ambitious as the joint strike fighter. and as what you have repeatedly stated in the f-22 boards, threats are just not there. i think f-35 cuts is a logical scenario.

you over-reacted to my statements and your remarks are simply uncalled for. we may have disagreement re: f-22, but i think i can safely say we agree re: f-35. i believe that the f-35 still have to prove itself and i don't have any doubts whatsoever that it will, in due time. when is that time? well, we all could just guess (or wait).

Well, let me restate....an F-15K costs 105mill according to Defense Industry Daily....The F-16 Block 60 costs around 80 mill according to the Jerusalem Post. If the F-35 even lands between those two costs figures then the problem regarding stealth and affordability has been solved.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 6361059607
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sou ... ers-02276/

I just don't think the facts support you Fretmarks!

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

solomon wrote:

I just don't think the facts support you Fretmarks!

facts regarding what? inflation and cuts?

so you're saying there will be no more inflation factor from now til f-35 FRP?

so you're saying there will be no f-35 cuts? do you honestly believe that?

all i ever said was about inflation and cuts. again, i don't mean any ill remarks pertaining to the f-35. in a fact i'm a firm believer of the program, and that in time, it will prove itself. i just mentioned a logical scenario re: price increase due to inflation in general.

fretmarks wrote:

solomon wrote:

I just don't think the facts support you Fretmarks!

facts regarding what? inflation and cuts?

so you're saying there will be no more inflation factor from now til f-35 FRP?

so you're saying there will be no f-35 cuts? do you honestly believe that?

all i ever said was about inflation and cuts. again, i don't mean any ill remarks pertaining to the f-35. in a fact i'm a firm believer of the program, and that in time, it will prove itself. i just mentioned a logical scenario re: price increase due to inflation in general.

What you insinuated was price increase, not inflation. 2002 inflation adjusted 60 million is fine. You said that it would go well above that. You also said it would be cut. You said all this as matter of fact and that is not accurate posting. It's error or bias. Which one?

-DA

DA, everything gets more expensive as time goes on. It's as certain as clockwork. Whether it's inflation, materials markups, or whatever, the vast majority of products increase in cost over time. This is basic economics (and yes, I did take that course in college). And the problem is you really see it over a prolonged period of time. Because this is a year by year program, slowly but surely cost will rise. Actually, now that the F-22 is gone, the faster we get this plane in production, the better. It'll be cheaper in the long run that way.

Tinito_16 wrote:

DA, everything gets more expensive as time goes on. It's as certain as clockwork. Whether it's inflation, materials markups, or whatever, the vast majority of products increase in cost over time. This is basic economics (and yes, I did take that course in college). And the problem is you really see it over a prolonged period of time. Because this is a year by year program, slowly but surely cost will rise. Actually, now that the F-22 is gone, the faster we get this plane in production, the better. It'll be cheaper in the long run that way.

Explain the cost of a computer today compared to 10 years ago. Things do not necessarily get more expensive. I deal with cost issues every day. When you are dealing with production lines things get cheaper as your production efficiency improves or you modify the AVL.

-DA

Its totally based on demand DA, as well as development time. Look at OLED displays vs. LCD's. Your talking about using the same technology from 10 years ago and improving on it. Yes it will get cheaper. A computer today is not what it was 10 years ago. Same as any tech that moves forward. We now have multi-core processors, DDRAM, DMA drives vs. ATA drives. Now we are dealing with AESA vs. pulse-doppler radar, HMD VS. HUD and reg. helmet, etc.... no need to elaborate. If you want something from 10 years ago, of course its cheaper, but today's state of the art is gonna cost you. Please give a better answer. I expect better from you.

cywolf32 wrote:

Its totally based on demand DA, as well as development time. Look at OLED displays vs. LCD's. Your talking about using the same technology from 10 years ago and improving on it. Yes it will get cheaper. A computer today is not what it was 10 years ago. Same as any tech that moves forward. We now have multi-core processors, DDRAM, DMA drives vs. ATA drives. Now we are dealing with AESA vs. pulse-doppler radar, HMD VS. HUD and reg. helmet, etc.... no need to elaborate. If you want something from 10 years ago, of course its cheaper, but today's state of the art is gonna cost you. Please give a better answer. I expect better from you.

No, I'm not talking about a RAM chip circa 1999 bout today. I'm talking about RAM circa 1999 vs RAM circa 2009. The 2009 RAM is much cheaper and more powerful. That's just the technology. When we also look at the manufacturing process, that gets cheaper too. We we are talking about a few hundred units, not as big a deal. But when you get up into the several thousand range such as the proposed F-35 orders. Then you have a lot of opportunity to improve on your cost. And do not forget that its not just cost of components. Lets say that improved F135 engine that requires .25 the maint of the stock F135 comes out. The purchase price may be higher, but you save on O&S cost with will be a far greater savings.

So I'm not talking about something from 10 years ago. I'm talking about something today that does the same thing that something of 10 years ago used to do.

-DA

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

DarthAmerica wrote:

What you insinuated was price increase, not inflation. 2002 inflation adjusted 60 million is fine. You said that it would go well above that.

i said there will be price increase DUE to inflation. i can't believe anybody can misinterpret that.

DarthAmerica wrote:

You also said it would be cut. You said all this as matter of fact and that is not accurate posting. It's error or bias. Which one?

it will be cut due to defense spending restructuring AND, as youre battlecry against more raptors, THREATS are just not there. if you say that there will not be any cuts in the f-35, i can boldly say that you're the one who's biased.

if inflation will not play a part in future f-35 price increase, then fine, my error, but i highly doubt that. again, 60M of FY'02 is 71M of FY'08. add 6 more years and you could have a ballpark of where the f-35 price is going.

if cuts will not happen, then fine, my error, but i highly doubt that. the spending trend in DoD has inclinations on f-35 cuts.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Lockheed ready to introduce the F-35C