Forum: General F-35 Forum

hb_pencil pointed to this news item in the 'F-35 Questions' thread but worth repeating here: [http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16210.html]

Lockheed Once Again Predicts Lower F-35 Cost Oct 3, 2011 By Amy Butler

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... -35%20Cost

"...The F-35s in low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 4 are expected to exceed their contracted cost target, but fall below the negotiated ceiling price...

The LRIP 4 per-unit cost targets are as follows:

• $111.6 million for the conventional takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) version;

• $109.4 million for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) aircraft;

• $142.9 for the first production carrier variant (CV).

Though final estimates are not yet in, Burbage says the company is already working to reduce the cost of these LRIP 4 units...."

F-16.net Sponsor

*Sigh*

Same old same old. Lockheed paints a rosy picture and very favorable estimates on a product that has yet to be completed... 30% finished if the article stated it correctly. And the long history of the F-35's development has shown it typically ends up being far above Lockheed's projections by a significant margin.

Who knows... maybe this new prediction will be true for once. I know F-35 lovers will be trusting in everything that comes from Lockheed, even after they're proven false.

Edit: Don't mistake my cynicism for some desire to have this fighter fail for no reason whatsoever. Considering the terrible situation the US fighter force has been left because they invested everything into a single product, the last thing I'd want is for that one program to go to hell and see hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars go to waste. So you'd understand why I'd be skeptical about this new projection when all past projections have thus far not been encouraging.

Spazs, not trying to be a smartaz$ on this as I'm truly still not clear on LRIP-4's finer print... but is it verified that the STOVL estimate 'target' listed is based on the engine included??

Another uncertainty I still have if anyone can follow up on it and correct me... but if I remember back to earlier LRIP-4 media stories, was there some sort of condition factored into these REC flyaway 'estimates' being contingent on so many expected FRP rates and/or contingent on an expected 'Total' Program purchase?

In other words, if that is accurate (and I admit I could be confusing this point with some other deal), then might these LRIP-4 jets have to be either penalized or fee-added on the back-end if it turns out in a couple yrs or so that FRP rates are to be substantially reduced, along with the estimated total Program production too?

I guess another follow-up question I and others might have (not posed to you directly Spazs, but in general) along this same line... is if DoD/Congress will be on the hook penalty-wise in anyway, if for some reason FRP rates and total US service buys are reduced going forward?? And if so to whatever degree, is Congress as a body aware of this at this stage, or is it public info? Thanks in advance and I will of course hope that I'm incorrect on these assertions/misunderstandings.

Why did the brits selected the C over the B then? wasnt the charlies supposed to be cheaper?

Those LRIP-4 cost above are only LM's part, ie everything but the engine. When the engine is included the B is more than the A.

The reason that the B is cheaper than the A/C for LRIP-4 is that there are so many being made vs the A/C. Once we get to FRP you will see that the A is the cheapest (engine included) followed by the C and the B.

oh ok, thx for the explanation. Smile

The Brits' choice between B and C isn't just about the cost of the planes. B is slightly more mechanically complex so there could be a bit of a difference in support costs there, but the big issues are that C has more range & payload but requires a specially equipped and thus more expensive aircraft carrier. The switch from B to C is controversial in the UK right now because it appears as if the decision was made based only on comparison between planes, without consideration of the expense of building a new ship or modifying a current one. They still might switch back.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Oct 08, 2011 - 09:29 AM; edited 2 times in total

delvo, the UK need to switch back to F-35B soon though. What a sad story the RN FAA story has become these days but they will recover. RN FAA Leaders in Harrier development and then potentially F-35B innovation - the SRVL for example - all their STOVL experience and knowledge wiped out overnight.

Pilotasso wrote:

Why did the brits selected the C over the B then? wasnt the charlies supposed to be cheaper?

Take a look at the number of Bravos built compared to the number of charlies. The lower the production rate, the higher the price for parts.

Why not take a look before the Brits made the change from B to C?

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Lockheed Once Again Predicts Lower F-35 Cost 03 Oct 2011