Forum: General F-35 Forum

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.

F-16.net Sponsor

You might want to check your numbers again. The FY2013 USN budget shows the REC Flyaway at $54.4 million for the F-18E/F. Throw in a targeting pod (because it does not come with one) and it's about $56-57. The EA-18G came in at REC Flyaway $67 mil.

Now, as for the F-35C, it's projected to only cost about $10 mil more than the F-35A and since the REC Flyway for the F-35A is in the $70s that puts the F-35C in the $80s (at FRP).

Throw in the fact that you would need two F-18Es to do the job of one F-35C, if even then, you need to figure in that too.

I was actually referring to the below. Actual contract price divided by number of a/c = $42.7m each. Not budgeted figures but maybe next MYP could be more expensive.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s ... ;item=1442

As to F-35C pricing numbers, we all know that's a moving target at this point in time (until the actual contract materialises) and likely to be higher. I'm not so sure one needs 2 x F-18Es for each F-35C either.

Having said that, its not just about deep strike. On a CAP, an F-35C will have higher survivability than an F-18E when facing a Suk or a future stealth fighter. The possibility of a future aggressor stealth fighter alone justifies having a F-35. Even a more expensive one.

That's the problem of basing numbers off a single press release instead of looking at what is actually being spent.

Several things need to be taken into account when looking at fighter contracts:
1. Were there later changes and cost increases made?
2. Does it include all the equipment?
3. You never hear about the small stuff.

To answer #1, there have been many changes to the latest MYB F-18 purchase. Here they are in chronological order, starting with the initial buy (keep an eye on that "N00019-09-C-0019" as it's the contract number:

Quote:

Sep 28th, 2010: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $5,297,000,000 modification to convert the previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-09-C-0019) to a fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year contract. In addition, this modification provides for the procurement of 46 F/A-18E, 20 F/A-18F, and 58 EA-18G airframes for the Navy.

Dec 22nd, 2310: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded an $11,704,208 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee contract (N00019-09-C-0019) to provide non-recurring engineering in support of the F/A18E/F and EA-18G Multi-Year III procurement.

Feb 28th, 2011: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $29,500,000 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for the procurement of aircraft armament equipment for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft, including jumper bundles, pylon attach fittings, sensor well covers, adaptors, and plyons.

Mar 30th, 2011: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $40,000,000 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for non-recurring engineering services in support of the next generation advanced mission computer system for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Jun 13th, 2011: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $408,753,999 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for the full rate production and delivery of nine fiscal 2011 (LOT 35) F/A-18E aircraft in accordance with the aircraft variation in quantity clause.

Jul 13th, 2011: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $53,656,542 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for the procurement of aircraft armament equipment for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft, including jumper bundles, pylon attach fittings, sensor well covers, adaptors, pylons, and tooling.

Aug 30th, 2011: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $16,881,855 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, fixed-price -incentive contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for non-recurring and recurring engineering in support of Engineering Change Proposal 6213R2, “Trailing Edge Flap Honeycomb Redesign” of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Sep 15th, 2011: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $7,671,795 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for the procurement of F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment, to include: 174 station control units; 22 aerial refueling store (ARS) suspension lugs; 12 centerline feed through plates; 11 ARS air probes; 11 ARS fuel probes, six ALE-50 dispensers towed decoys; six ALE-50 chassis towed decoys; six ALE-50 protector towed decoys; four ALR-67 mounting base radar warning receivers; and four ALR-67 mounting retainers radar warning receivers.

Sep 15th, 2011: The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $7,331,483 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0019) to continue development of the new Advanced Mission Computer (AMC) Type 4 System for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. This modification will also begin the necessary customization of the AMC for use in Navy F-18 aircraft.

I could keep going, but you get the picture. The Initial contract is NEVER the final price.

To answer #2, the Engines are not part of the Boeing contract, just as they are not part of the F-35 contract.

The GE F414-GE-400 ongoing contract is number N00019-06-C-0088

Here are a few of those announcements:

Quote:

Mar 22nd, 2011: General Electric Aircraft Engines, Lynn, Mass., is being awarded a $246,520,390 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-06-C-0088) to exercise an option for 68 Lot 15 F414-GE-400 engines and device kits for the F/A-18E/F aircraft.

May 11th, 2011: General Electric Aircraft Engines, Lynn, Mass., is being awarded an $18,394,537 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-06-C-0088) for engineering and integrated logistics services in support of the F/A-18E/F F414-GE-400 engine.

May 12th, 2011: General Electric Co., Aircraft Engines Business Group, Lynn, Mass., is being awarded a $9,224,267 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-06-C-0088) for the procurement of one F414-GE-400 Spare Engine; eight combustion modules, seven fan modules, and one high pressure turbine module for the F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Aug 1, 2011: General Electric Aircraft Engines, Lynn, Mass., is being awarded a $71,484,930 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-06-C-0088) to exercise an option for the supplemental engine requirement to procure (18 ) F414-GE-400 engines and (18 ) F414-GE-400 engine device kits.

Nov 30th, 2011: General Electric Aircraft Engines, Lynn, Mass., is being awarded a $29,703,712 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-06-C-0088) for eight F414-GE-400 spare engines for the F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Then there is #3, the small stuff. Only contracts of over $5 mil appear on the http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/ site.

When you consider all these things, you will realize why you NEVER go by just the initial contract as budget numbers (especially covering past years) are much more accurate.

Just wanted to highlight that the same (additional contracts) would apply to the F-35C as well. Things such as engineering services/logistics/maintenance/spares may not be covered within the primary contract price. Rather than engaging in similar criticism forwarded by ignorant journos against F-35A calculations made by the canadian govt, or arguing to the last cent like bean counters, one might be tempted to suggest the primary contract price (which in the case of the F-18 MYP would be $5.29b) as a reasonable basis of comparison.

My point being that the primary contract price of the FRP F-35C will be...... anyone's guess at this moment and more than likely to be US$80+m PUC. It could easily justify geogen's numbers but more importantly, doesn't support his contention. It highlights the fallacy of looking at solely economics of a narrow scenario to justify or debunk the F-35. If no one buys a more expensive aircraft, people will still be using the triplane (probably now armed with amraams) as its principal fighter aircraft.

The F-18E/F may in some circumstances match the role of the F-35C e.g. using JASSM-ERs including in terms of cost. But overall, it will not be cost-effective in other roles such as dealing with suks or next gen fighter threats. Hence the F-35C is required. Same thing when arguing the case for the F-22. It wasn't just economics that killed it but the fact that the fighter role/focus made it redundant. Purely my opinion so people are free to disagree.

[quote="count_to_10"]

popcorn wrote:

Outsourcing production to other companies will require setting up separate production lines and bureaucracies to run them.The additional costs involved would not be justifiable.

I agree totally in principal, but to date, Lockheed has shown virtually no ability to leverage the economies of scale that you all are talking about. Conversely, it seems like taking on all three variants is bogging things down. It might be in their best interest to outsource the C variant production to someone with a lot more carrier experience. Since Northrop (Grumman) is already a partner in the F-35, that would be the logical choice to me.

Quote:

Right. Any other manufacturer would have to demonstrate that they could produce the same product at a lower price, which would only really be possible if LM was really padding it's numbers. But it would be an answer to the "LM has a monopoly on fighter production" people, even just as a threat.

Agreed.

@weasel1962: I noticed that you missed that the Boeing contract did not include the engines, again. We don't go by a single contract announcement for a reason, it's highly inaccurate. and does not cover the whole plane. In the FY2013 contract, GFE (Government Funded Equipment) accounted for $2.7mil and the engines are $9.6mil ($12.3 mil for the E/F total & $14 on the G). Should Boeing get a pass on these costs when calculating the total?

At $12M a pair for E/F you only save a token over buying one F135. You could almost argue an F135-powered F-18 Super Hornet is better affordable-wise in the long run for the fleet.

Last edited by popcorn on Jul 24, 2012 - 01:21 AM; edited 1 time in total

redbird87 wrote:

I agree totally in principal, but to date, Lockheed has shown virtually no ability to leverage the economies of scale that you all are talking about. Conversely, it seems like taking on all three variants is bogging things down. It might be in their best interest to outsource the C variant production to someone with a lot more carrier experience. Since Northrop (Grumman) is already a partner in the F-35, that would be the logical choice to me.
.

Really? You think it will be cheaper if LM built 3 separate production lines, one of each variant? The jets are pensive, no doubt as all fast jets,are but would be even more so without the commonality factor e.g, one machine to build the different wings vs multiple machines,.. . Ramping up production of new jet which incorporate fixes already identified would realize the sought for economies of scale. Even at reduced,LRIPs, the program production costs,are trending quite favorably..just build more jets faster.

SpudmanWP wrote:

You might want to check your numbers again. The FY2013 USN budget shows the REC Flyaway at $54.4 million for the F-18E/F. Throw in a targeting pod (because it does not come with one) and it's about $56-57. The EA-18G came in at REC Flyaway $67 mil.

Now, as for the F-35C, it's projected to only cost about $10 mil more than the F-35A and since the REC Flyway for the F-35A is in the $70s that puts the F-35C in the $80s (at FRP).

Throw in the fact that you would need two F-18Es to do the job of one F-35C, if even then, you need to figure in that too.

AT-FLIR - the targeting "pod" on new build F/A-18E/Fs - is contractor furnished equipment, thus already included in REC Flyaway.

I was not aware of that, have a source?

[quote="redbird87"]

count_to_10 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Outsourcing production to other companies will require setting up separate production lines and bureaucracies to run them.The additional costs involved would not be justifiable.

I agree totally in principal, but to date, Lockheed has shown virtually no ability to leverage the economies of scale that you all are talking about. Conversely, it seems like taking on all three variants is bogging things down. It might be in their best interest to outsource the C variant production to someone with a lot more carrier experience. Since Northrop (Grumman) is already a partner in the F-35, that would be the logical choice to me.

Quote:

Right. Any other manufacturer would have to demonstrate that they could produce the same product at a lower price, which would only really be possible if LM was really padding it's numbers. But it would be an answer to the "LM has a monopoly on fighter production" people, even just as a threat.

Agreed.

LM not leveraging economies of scale?? What reality distortion field are you living in? St Louis maybe? Or perhaps Lemoore, Whidbey or Oceana...? The USG took 179 jets (roughly $20B) out of the F-35 buy during the last budget cycle. Is that what they call economies of scale at the institution of higher learning that you gradgeeated from? Rolling Eyes

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.

Pentagon Sends New Quadrennial Review to Congress Jul. 27, 2012 By PAUL McLEARY

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... /307270002

"On July 20, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent the Pentagon’s latest Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review (QRMR) to the Senate and House Armed Services committees for review.

A copy of the 14-page document, obtained by Defense News...

...The document is light on platform specifics, but does reiterate several “key investments” that will remain somewhat immune to budget maneuverings.

Special Operations Forces top the list, with growth expected in MH-47G helicopters and MC-130J aircraft, as well as expanding the pool of logistics and communications enablers. Airborne ISR capabilities such as MQ-1/9 Predator/Reaper unmanned systems also receive a nod, as does the F-35, new long-range bomber development..."

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Navy admiral hints at jettisoning F-35 fighter