Forum: General F-35 Forum

redbird87 wrote:

I'm from none of the above. If you are trying to claim that LM has stayed anywhere close to the original budget and IOC promises they made, you're sniffing some dangerous stuff. The Lockheed cool-aid drinkers on here are assuming if nothing else. LM has over promised and under delivered not once, not twice, but multiple times. So no, I do not think they have done a good job in any way shape or form at leveraging the economies of scale they promised. It's clear WAY too much effort and treasure went into getting the B model going, and this was to the detriment of the entire program. Simply because they have started to perform (under pressure of cancellation) after so many years of being over budget and woefully behind schedule, does not mean in total they have performed well at all. To the contrary, due to lack of competition and weak oversight, LM's performance to date has been D- at best. I'm not rooting against the production team. I hope they hit is out of the park from here on. But their past performance would indicate that this won't happen without intense pressure from the bill payers.

That is more of a reflection of uncertainties in how much work would have to be put into these new technologies than it is malfeasance. Development stages cost what they cost (and this one has cost a lot less than three separate ones would have). The question now is about per-unit costs.

F-16.net Sponsor

weasel1962 wrote:

Under MYP, each F-18E/F or EA-18 was bought at US$42.7m each. Lot 10 JASSM-ER was bought at ~US$1.1m each (US$22m) and Amraam (~US$0.5 to 1m each = US$20m) = ~US$85m. I doubt an unarmed FRP F-35C will hit US$85m in today's dollar pricing. Same thing with the F-18s which cost much more than its predecessors (F-8/A-4s etc).

No air force uses JASSM-ERs only (there aren't that many JASSM-ERs produced in any case and it can't deal with all threats) and a lot of sorties eg A2A can't be effected from stand-off ranges ie fixed CAP. The F-35C is designed to deal with next gen threats, unlike the F-18s which is rightly called a legacy platform.

Indeed. The DoD is building a stockpile of 100,000 JDAM kits. It a safe bet to,assume that 5Gen jets will have a far better chance of delivering these munitions to target and returning safely to base. JASSM variants have their purpose but they are limited in,quantity and expensive. Expect JDAMs to do the bulk of the damage.

SpudmanWP wrote:

I was not aware of that, have a source?

Hmm, there is a variety of vague sources. Here are two:

"Each production F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be delivered to the US Navy with an ATFLIR pod installed."

http://www.deagel.com/Navigation-and-Ta ... 47001.aspx

"The Pentagon yesterday awarded Boeing [BA] $69.4 million for the Navy's Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) program.

Boeing is responsible for integrating ATFLIR onto its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter. Raytheon [RTNA/RTNB] builds ATFLIR. The contract award represents the initiation of low-rate initial production for the program."

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-71842845.html

Boeing also purchases the AESA from Raytheon, and integrates it into new aircraft.

What is hard to discern is how the equipment is categorized/accounted, whether it is CFE or GFE, unlike the engines which are clearly GFE.

count_to_10 wrote:

redbird87 wrote:

I'm from none of the above. If you are trying to claim that LM has stayed anywhere close to the original budget and IOC promises they made, you're sniffing some dangerous stuff. The Lockheed cool-aid drinkers on here are assuming if nothing else. LM has over promised and under delivered not once, not twice, but multiple times. So no, I do not think they have done a good job in any way shape or form at leveraging the economies of scale they promised. It's clear WAY too much effort and treasure went into getting the B model going, and this was to the detriment of the entire program. Simply because they have started to perform (under pressure of cancellation) after so many years of being over budget and woefully behind schedule, does not mean in total they have performed well at all. To the contrary, due to lack of competition and weak oversight, LM's performance to date has been D- at best. I'm not rooting against the production team. I hope they hit is out of the park from here on. But their past performance would indicate that this won't happen without intense pressure from the bill payers.

That is more of a reflection of uncertainties in how much work would have to be put into these new technologies than it is malfeasance. Development stages cost what they cost (and this one has cost a lot less than three separate ones would have). The question now is about per-unit costs.

Speaking of Kool-Aid, which flavor are you drinking bird-man? Dude, see a doctor -- LM does not control the economies of scale -- the USG and the partner participants do. And contrary to what you 'believe', back in the 90s some very smart folks assessed the cost of doing three separate development programs before they embarked on JSF. Imagine that!! And 'per unit costs'? You should do some serious research before you shout at everyone around here about drinking Kool-Aid and such.

Some of us around here were flying jets and/or deeply involved in the requirements, design, development or testing of other programs before you were a gleam in your father's eye. You clearly have passion, now get yourself edumacated.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Navy admiral hints at jettisoning F-35 fighter