Forum: Program and politics

Quote:

Lockheed: F-35 Partners Won’t Suffer Unduly from Production Slowdown AIN Defense Perspective » February 17, 2012 by Chris Pocock

"...Under F-35 procurement procedures, the partners pay the same unit recurring flyaway cost as the U.S. for the aircraft that they order in each annual or (eventually) multi-year buy. Smaller order quantities should mean higher unit prices, but countering this trend, Scott told AIN, is the fact that “as we refine the supply chain and the production processes, the price will continue to reduce.”

Scott noted that six of the eight partners now have committed to or ordered aircraft. “They’re all in it together, and have been for 10 years now,” he said, referring to the system design and development phase in which all of them made contributions. These ranged from $2 billion from the UK, a Level 1 partner, to $1 billion from Italy and $800 million from the Dutch as Level 2 partners to $125 million to $175 million from the remainder, as Level 3 partners.

The British (three) and the Dutch (two) have already ordered aircraft, Scott noted. Australia (two) and Italy (four) are placing their first orders in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 6, and have already funded long-lead production items. Turkey is following in LRIP 7, and Norway (four) in LRIP 8. Canada and Denmark are the two partners who have yet to commit. The first deliveries to Israel and Japan will be from LRIP 8...."

[...]

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... n-slowdown

F-16.net Sponsor

JSF price bickering 28 Jun 2012

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... -bickering

"A Lockheed Martin official said last week that he believes the company will reduce the price of the three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the point that the F-35A will only cost $US70 million apiece, at least 10 percent lower than government estimates, because it doesn’t include costs for things like spares and support equipment.

Asked at a June 19 media event what the eventual price target is for the F-35, Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed vice president for F-35 business development, said “we still believe that the F-35A, with all the mission systems and all that, comes out to about $70 million in 2012 dollars.”

Michael Rein, a Lockheed spokesman, said later that while the company didn’t have similar targets for the Navy and Marine Corps variants, the price drop would be similar. That estimate includes the engine, according to Rein.

O’Bryan said his belief is based on the company’s estimates as well as the government’s in a Selected Acquisition Report.

However, the SAR lists the F-35A’s unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost at $US67.8 million plus $US10.9 million for the engine, or about $US9 million above the figure quoted by O’Bryan—Inside Defense"

An F-35 at $70 million or even $79 million seems like an outstanding price, especially in 2012 dollars. That's cheaper than a Typhoon at $95-130 million (not that there's anything wrong with a EF Typhoon) and about half the cost of an F-22 at about $150 million. I'm not sure if engines, radars, etc are included in the price of either of those other A/C.

@news,
everybody needs to pay URF, including DoD...not sure what's news about that.
Were partners supposed to pay a higher URF?

@stereospace,

Quote:

That's cheaper than a Typhoon at $95-130 million

Out of curiosity, do you actually know EF's URF cost, or you just type for the sake of typing?

There's always going to be price cost confusion in the media, governments and especially on message boards, eg with somebody taking an eventual, forward looking estimate for an URF cost in 2012 dollars and comparing it with a Total Flyaway Unit cost or Gross Unit Weapon System cost for another system in 2010 dollars, etc, etc.

It's really not that difficult to keep track of, but nonetheless it will be a recurring stumbling block when trying to discuss and debate costs.

One pretty much has to write that off reality and continually correct and refine the more accurate cost data of the day.

And with respect to any form of eventual $70m F-35A URF estimate coming from the manufacturer even still today, it has to be reminded that such forward-looking URF/Weapon sys estimates were not only significantly off during the F-22 estimate making days, but in regard to F-35, it is assuming extremely high annual buy rates starting around 2018-2019 (eg, with USAF buying around 80 units/yr) and assuming eventual total production in the expected 3,000 unit range. And in forward-looking austere budget environments, there really isn't much certain evidence that future military procurement budgets will be increasing under such sustained, high growth rates.

Well, once URF and Weapon system costs equalize at ~$70m or wherever, you'll be able to buy the F35 via Direct Commercial Sales from LM, like the F15 today from Boeing.
F16B50/52 URF cost was ~$26m, back in 2001.
By comparison EF Tranche2 is contracted at ~$57m URF cost, at a size of ~1/3 of F35's projected LRIP run...Tranche3 is anyone's guess at this point.

I find it strange that after several hundreds (thousands ??) of pages written on the subject, the basics still seem to be the problem.

cola wrote:

@stereospace,

Quote:

That's cheaper than a Typhoon at $95-130 million

Out of curiosity, do you actually know EF's URF cost, or you just type for the sake of typing?

I make up whatever number best fits my argument. Isn't that what you're supposed to do???

Actually, I looked it up at wiki. Price varies by tranche. How about you? Do you work in Eurofighters contracts office and now you're going enlighten us noobs with price info no one else has access to?

stereospace wrote:

cola wrote:

@stereospace,

Quote:

That's cheaper than a Typhoon at $95-130 million

Out of curiosity, do you actually know EF's URF cost, or you just type for the sake of typing?

I make up whatever number best fits my argument. Isn't that what you're supposed to do???

Actually, I looked it up at wiki. Price varies by tranche. How about you? Do you work in Eurofighters contracts office and now you're going enlighten us noobs with price info no one else has access to?

As I recall, after a recent UK audit, the unit cost for a Typhoon was closer to $170m, so $95-130m is being generous.

stereospace wrote:

I make up whatever number best fits my argument. Isn't that what you're supposed to do???

No?
How about looking for facts, like this > http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter- ... tory.html?
EDIT: it was €55m ($73m) per plane not $, but still way below $95-130m.

@Wrightwing,
yes, but this is a program price, not URF cost.
F35A's current weapon system cost is higher than EF's program cost (including development and integration of all the bells and whistles).
F35B and C are even more expensive.

@Sterospace: The F-22 $150 mil includes everything, avionics and engines.

@Wrightwing: Was that $170 mil the acquisition or full program per unit cost?

So, a plane with AESA, DAS, and VLO costs about the same as the Typhoon?

Vastly superior A2G, a CV version and a STOVL version.

I've posted it before but I'll post it again. The contention that the Euro approach to aircraft is somehow cheaper or more cost effective is absurd.

Absurd?
EF's CPFH is roughly 60% that of what has been predicted for the F35 and EF's production run is roughly 1/4-1/5 of JSF's, which is a basis for all cost estimations.
Just LM's LRIP is as large as the entire EF's program...how's JSF cheaper, then?
It took 8 years for the entire EF fleet to do 130k hours, while USAF's F16s did over 100k hours only in 2010.

IMO, the only absurd idea around here is that anyone (including USA) will be able to afford F35.

Keep dreaming. You're on the same page as Bill Sweetman. You know that F-35 kills Rafale and Typhoon as programs and you don't like it.

There you go falling into nerd rage again...F35 isn't killing anything, except the budget.
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/budget/pbfy02.asp ...it's all there.
With current budget of $2.25t and F35's estimated CPFH of ~$35k, at current flying rates, AF can sustain ~200 F35s along the current (117) F22 numbers and the budget's gone.
What about the rest of the fleet (B1, B2, B52, etc.)?

cola wrote:

Absurd?
EF's CPFH is roughly 60% that of what has been predicted for the F35 and EF's production run is roughly 1/4-1/5 of JSF's, which is a basis for all cost estimations.
Just LM's LRIP is as large as the entire EF's program...how's JSF cheaper, then?
It took 8 years for the entire EF fleet to do 130k hours, while USAF's F16s did over 100k hours only in 2010.

IMO, the only absurd idea around here is that anyone (including USA) will be able to afford F35.

Frankly it is impossible that the Eurofighter has a same as or lower than CPFH the F-35: extremely unlikely given its a large heavy twin, and certainly not given the serious problems that the UK's NAO has continually raised about its operational cost. Its high use of composite structures and other unique metals really work against it in this respect.

One of the biggest discrepancies and problems between two cost estimates is how fuel is tabulated; price fluctuations and different models can account for the 30% of difference alone. A DoD comparison is fine because they use the same baselines, but when you start comparing data between the DoD and the UK (in different years no less), you're just opening yourself up to serious problems. That's even more true if you're comparing an estimate for a 2020+ CPFH ($5.00, $6.00 per gallon?), to a 2009 price (3.00 a gallon). Even between 2009 and 2012 there is a 25% increase in costs. This is something that is more apparent in the commercial world concerning future aircraft costs.

That's just one comparison. We don't know how well the ALIS system will operate in an F-35 in conjunction to the PBL, which has always been seen as the second most important way to drive the support costs down (after buying a common aircraft shared among 8 partners).

I think the biggest proof in the pudding is the UK and Italian future defense procurement. Basically the Eurofighter is seen as being unaffordable in the long term and will likely be retired early in the UK in favour of the F-35. If it was nearly as bad as you say, then they would be purchasing new-build Eurofighters instead because of the obvious price advantage. However no such example exists.

Forum: Program and politics

Partners pay same unit recurring flyaway cost as US