Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23187
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Dec 2014, 00:14

Aahh this dissolution had me guffawing.... [from immediately above source]
"... It has been speculated in defence circles that the ultimate solution would be Solomonic... ...But let’s face it: Such a plan would be madness..."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Dec 2014, 06:49

One word...........LUDICROUS :doh:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23187
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Dec 2014, 19:03

Earlier on page 24 of this thread and in another post is the name Steve Fuhr - supposedly only a former miljet Canuk concerned citizen of the Great White UP trashing the F-35 - and I - in particular - wondered why. ALL IS REVEALED:

Earlier mentions: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=14129&p=207555&hilit=Fuhr#p207555
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=276812&hilit=Fuhr#p276812

AND NOW: (I'll not post any of this rubbish)
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/maj-stephe ... 02482.html
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post13 Dec 2014, 19:59

Seems he is about two years out of date in his information. Wonder what he will do when he finds out The Eurofighter and Rafale are both more expensive than the F-35 even without buying all the add on pods needed to bring them into an equal capability comparison?

More expensive, less capable. Hell of a deal!
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5950
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Dec 2014, 20:27

luke_sandoz wrote:Seems he is about two years out of date in his information. Wonder what he will do when he finds out The Eurofighter and Rafale are both more expensive than the F-35 even without buying all the add on pods needed to bring them into an equal capability comparison?

More expensive, less capable. Hell of a deal!


This is one of the reasons I am all for an open Canadian competition.

1. I want KPMG reports done on all competitors including Gripen NG even tho they withdrew, and published for the public
2. Open cost comparisons, including all fees and additional add ons (like the pods you mention)
3. To Further waste money, flyoffs. (event 1: 2 bombs+targeting, 2 AAMs, internal fuel only-- first to tank loses)
4. Comparison of offsets/industrial participation. preferably actual dollar amounts, and amount of jobs for duration.
5. RCAF allowed to openly share their thoughts, LOL "we really just want the F-35"
6. The number of aircraft that will need to be purchased based on their capability (IE 65 F-35, or 80 Super hornet)

And of course after the F-35 gets selected (again) I want the bill for all of the above shown to the Canadians. With a note that this is what they asked for and demanded, and that taxes will go up to pay for the competition. Youre welcome.
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2629
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post13 Dec 2014, 22:00

luke_sandoz wrote:Seems he is about two years out of date in his information. Wonder what he will do when he finds out The Eurofighter and Rafale are both more expensive than the F-35 even without buying all the add on pods needed to bring them into an equal capability comparison?

More expensive, less capable. Hell of a deal!


Same ole same ole.

Boeing has gotten away with that kind of sophistry on SH for the life of the program, quoting URFs that dont include the costs for an "as close to equivalent capability" as possible. They dont include the engines; they dont include the TPOD; they dont include the IDECM; they dont include the JHMCS, they dont include the System Capability Sets; and when they talk O&S they quote SAR data that uses things like the cost of JP-5 in FY2000 at 70ish cents a gallon.

If they aint lying, they aint tryin...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23187
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Dec 2014, 19:49

More strawman argumentation from the rumpledstilton:
Canada Backtracks On 2010 Fighter Claims Oh really?
22 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Weak & Spaced TechnoBabel

"...Canada should look at history. Just before the F-22 entered service, the U.S. Air Force road map for F-22 development included a Block 40 model with high-bandwidth satcoms, wide-field-of-view radar and the ability to hit time-critical targets. It was supposed to be in service around now, but the Air Force is still struggling to get something as basic as Link 16 transmit [checkers on the AV-8B below] on the aircraft. [Does not the F-35 have the apertures for SATCOM?]

One reason for the delay is that building anything that needs a new radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture into a stealth airplane is expensive. But the biggest drag on F-22 upgrades is that other demands have been made on the U.S. Air Force budget: the F-35 and its overruns and a large fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, for example.

Likewise, once the F-35 completes its initial development, its upgrades will compete for U.S. Air Force money with the Long Range Strike Bomber, two new nuclear missiles, new unmanned systems and even the next air combat fighter.

The path of spiral development is paved with good intentions, but that is not a universal problem. France has stayed close to the Rafale upgrade program that was defined in the early 2000s. Nobody is talking about any future manned fighters in France for a long time, so Dassault’s claim that Rafale will be around until 2050 is not to be dismissed. [And why cannot the F-35 do the same with large production run over many years with extra prodding from furriners?]

One way or another, it seems Canada’s fighter procurement is headed for the competition that Ross and others maintained in 2010 would be a waste of time. If the Harper government had started a competition then, it would have a decision by now, and that does raise an interesting question. If Harper and his colleagues thought the F-35 was so great, why didn’t they want to prove it through an open contest?" [What is to prove?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada- ... ter-claims

Navy considers upgrading AV-8B jump jet with small-form-factor Link 16 MIDS terminals
22 Dec 2014 John Keller

"...Navy avionics experts have acknowledged that electronics miniaturization has yielded promising small-form-factor Link 16 terminal products, and it's time to find out any of them is suitable for the venerable AV-8B vertical- and short-takeoff jet fighter-bomber....

...The presolicitation issued on 26 Nov. (N6893615R0049) [ https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0 ] would authorize the AV-8B's original manufacturer, the Boeing Co., to conduct a technical demonstration to confirm if at least one of the available small-form-factor Link-16 products can be installed in the AV-8B using existing aircraft electrical power, antennas, and computer processing...."

Source: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... ink16.html
Attachments
SweetmanRumpleStiltSkinSpinStrawIntoGoldED.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5950
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Dec 2014, 23:10

spazsinbad wrote:More strawman argumentation from the rumpledstilton:
Canada Backtracks On 2010 Fighter Claims Oh really?
22 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Weak & Spaced TechnoBabel

"...Canada should look at history. Just before the F-22 entered service, the U.S. Air Force road map for F-22 development included a Block 40 model with high-bandwidth satcoms, wide-field-of-view radar and the ability to hit time-critical targets. It was supposed to be in service around now, but the Air Force is still struggling to get something as basic as Link 16 transmit [checkers on the AV-8B below] on the aircraft. [Does not the F-35 have the apertures for SATCOM?]

One reason for the delay is that building anything that needs a new radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture into a stealth airplane is expensive. But the biggest drag on F-22 upgrades is that other demands have been made on the U.S. Air Force budget: the F-35 and its overruns and a large fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, for example.

Likewise, once the F-35 completes its initial development, its upgrades will compete for U.S. Air Force money with the Long Range Strike Bomber, two new nuclear missiles, new unmanned systems and even the next air combat fighter.

The path of spiral development is paved with good intentions, but that is not a universal problem. France has stayed close to the Rafale upgrade program that was defined in the early 2000s. Nobody is talking about any future manned fighters in France for a long time, so Dassault’s claim that Rafale will be around until 2050 is not to be dismissed. [And why cannot the F-35 do the same with large production run over many years with extra prodding from furriners?]

One way or another, it seems Canada’s fighter procurement is headed for the competition that Ross and others maintained in 2010 would be a waste of time. If the Harper government had started a competition then, it would have a decision by now, and that does raise an interesting question. If Harper and his colleagues thought the F-35 was so great, why didn’t they want to prove it through an open contest?" [What is to prove?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada- ... ter-claims

Navy considers upgrading AV-8B jump jet with small-form-factor Link 16 MIDS terminals
22 Dec 2014 John Keller

"...Navy avionics experts have acknowledged that electronics miniaturization has yielded promising small-form-factor Link 16 terminal products, and it's time to find out any of them is suitable for the venerable AV-8B vertical- and short-takeoff jet fighter-bomber....

...The presolicitation issued on 26 Nov. (N6893615R0049) [ https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0 ] would authorize the AV-8B's original manufacturer, the Boeing Co., to conduct a technical demonstration to confirm if at least one of the available small-form-factor Link-16 products can be installed in the AV-8B using existing aircraft electrical power, antennas, and computer processing...."

Source: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... ink16.html



:roll: Bill does it again. What a joke

Again I'm all for an open competition, and I want all the numbers for F-35 competitors as well. I don't fear an open competition one bit. Canadians should though, because they are going to spend extra money and time to arrive at the same conclusion, and should they officially leave the JSF program in the interest of further "openness" and lose out on all the lucrative contracts thats on them.

I've kind of come to the conclusion at this point that no one can protect them from themselves, so if they want to take the longest most expensive and least beneficial path to the JSF, thats on them. And should they pick something else that's on them too.
Choose Crews
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Dec 2014, 07:42

XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:More strawman argumentation from the rumpledstilton:
Canada Backtracks On 2010 Fighter Claims Oh really?
22 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Weak & Spaced TechnoBabel

"...Canada should look at history. Just before the F-22 entered service, the U.S. Air Force road map for F-22 development included a Block 40 model with high-bandwidth satcoms, wide-field-of-view radar and the ability to hit time-critical targets. It was supposed to be in service around now, but the Air Force is still struggling to get something as basic as Link 16 transmit [checkers on the AV-8B below] on the aircraft. [Does not the F-35 have the apertures for SATCOM?]

One reason for the delay is that building anything that needs a new radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture into a stealth airplane is expensive. But the biggest drag on F-22 upgrades is that other demands have been made on the U.S. Air Force budget: the F-35 and its overruns and a large fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, for example.

Likewise, once the F-35 completes its initial development, its upgrades will compete for U.S. Air Force money with the Long Range Strike Bomber, two new nuclear missiles, new unmanned systems and even the next air combat fighter.

The path of spiral development is paved with good intentions, but that is not a universal problem. France has stayed close to the Rafale upgrade program that was defined in the early 2000s. Nobody is talking about any future manned fighters in France for a long time, so Dassault’s claim that Rafale will be around until 2050 is not to be dismissed. [And why cannot the F-35 do the same with large production run over many years with extra prodding from furriners?]

One way or another, it seems Canada’s fighter procurement is headed for the competition that Ross and others maintained in 2010 would be a waste of time. If the Harper government had started a competition then, it would have a decision by now, and that does raise an interesting question. If Harper and his colleagues thought the F-35 was so great, why didn’t they want to prove it through an open contest?" [What is to prove?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada- ... ter-claims

Navy considers upgrading AV-8B jump jet with small-form-factor Link 16 MIDS terminals
22 Dec 2014 John Keller

"...Navy avionics experts have acknowledged that electronics miniaturization has yielded promising small-form-factor Link 16 terminal products, and it's time to find out any of them is suitable for the venerable AV-8B vertical- and short-takeoff jet fighter-bomber....

...The presolicitation issued on 26 Nov. (N6893615R0049) [ https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0 ] would authorize the AV-8B's original manufacturer, the Boeing Co., to conduct a technical demonstration to confirm if at least one of the available small-form-factor Link-16 products can be installed in the AV-8B using existing aircraft electrical power, antennas, and computer processing...."

Source: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... ink16.html



:roll: Bill does it again. What a joke

Again I'm all for an open competition, and I want all the numbers for F-35 competitors as well. I don't fear an open competition one bit. Canadians should though, because they are going to spend extra money and time to arrive at the same conclusion, and should they officially leave the JSF program in the interest of further "openness" and lose out on all the lucrative contracts thats on them.

I've kind of come to the conclusion at this point that no one can protect them from themselves, so if they want to take the longest most expensive and least beneficial path to the JSF, thats on them. And should they pick something else that's on them too.


I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5950
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Dec 2014, 15:51

Corsair1963 wrote:
I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:


Hell I would love just separate KPMG reports for all the contenders out to 42 years in the interest of fairness. At 2 million a pop each though, I don't know if we would see them. (maybe that first before an even more expensive competition?) One of the biggest mistakes the Canadian government made was not having other numbers to compare with other airplanes. So for Joe Q Public the F-35 costs 46 billion dollars, and Boeing is claiming their super hornet is 55 million. We don't have a KPMG Super Hornet report that shows its to be 42-50 billion over 42 years for example. Boeing has the advantage because they can make bold claims. Don't expect them to volunteer what a fleet of 65 F-18Es would cost Canada over 42 years...

They gave no comparison numbers! :bang:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post24 Dec 2014, 20:19

XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:


Hell I would love just separate KPMG reports for all the contenders out to 42 years in the interest of fairness. At 2 million a pop each though, I don't know if we would see them. (maybe that first before an even more expensive competition?) One of the biggest mistakes the Canadian government made was not having other numbers to compare with other airplanes. So for Joe Q Public the F-35 costs 46 billion dollars, and Boeing is claiming their super hornet is 55 million. We don't have a KPMG Super Hornet report that shows its to be 42-50 billion over 42 years for example. Boeing has the advantage because they can make bold claims. Don't expect them to volunteer what a fleet of 65 F-18Es would cost Canada over 42 years...

They gave no comparison numbers! :bang:


Think about it this way, if they knew their numbers were going to be better given current actual data as evidence for future projection, they would've gladly shown it.

Since they didn't bother to, especially when they have the records for the current F-18 Super Hornets and the older regular Hornets as evidence, there is probably a damn good reason why they aren't in a rush to volunteer those numbers.

Food for thought =D.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post24 Dec 2014, 23:40

XanderCrews wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:


Hell I would love just separate KPMG reports for all the contenders out to 42 years in the interest of fairness. At 2 million a pop each though, I don't know if we would see them. (maybe that first before an even more expensive competition?) One of the biggest mistakes the Canadian government made was not having other numbers to compare with other airplanes. So for Joe Q Public the F-35 costs 46 billion dollars, and Boeing is claiming their super hornet is 55 million. We don't have a KPMG Super Hornet report that shows its to be 42-50 billion over 42 years for example. Boeing has the advantage because they can make bold claims. Don't expect them to volunteer what a fleet of 65 F-18Es would cost Canada over 42 years...

They gave no comparison numbers! :bang:

"Cost" is a complex issue.

An F/A-18E costs $55m if the Navy goes to the spares warehouse and grabs engines, radar and certain avionics as Government Furnished Equipment. Also they can use ground equipment and spares from existing squadrons. Each jet costs around $80m for the US Navy, spares and standard equipment included.

One of the factors is mission available rate and spare parts availability. The US Navy requires a certain mission available rate from the F/A-18s, and keeps enough spares on the carrier to maintain the jets at that rate. The classic example is spare engines. An airwing only has a certain number of spare engines, and if they come up short, mission availability goes down. An F414 is around $4.5m each, and that limits on the number of spare engines.

If another operator flies less hours and can accept a lower mission available rate, the costs decrease. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 (in service) would be pretty similar in reliability. F/A-18E/Fs need RAM coating servicing too, so that is not exclusive to the F-35. The F/A-18E/F CPFH is pretty close to the F/A-18A-D as increased fuel burn offset maintenance improvements. I'd be surprised if the F-35A is substantially more expensive than a F/A-18E to operate from a land base.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post25 Dec 2014, 18:03

neurotech wrote:"Cost" is a complex issue.

An F/A-18E costs $55m if the Navy goes to the spares warehouse and grabs engines, radar and certain avionics as Government Furnished Equipment. Also they can use ground equipment and spares from existing squadrons. Each jet costs around $80m for the US Navy, spares and standard equipment included.

One of the factors is mission available rate and spare parts availability. The US Navy requires a certain mission available rate from the F/A-18s, and keeps enough spares on the carrier to maintain the jets at that rate. The classic example is spare engines. An airwing only has a certain number of spare engines, and if they come up short, mission availability goes down. An F414 is around $4.5m each, and that limits on the number of spare engines.

If another operator flies less hours and can accept a lower mission available rate, the costs decrease. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 (in service) would be pretty similar in reliability. F/A-18E/Fs need RAM coating servicing too, so that is not exclusive to the F-35. The F/A-18E/F CPFH is pretty close to the F/A-18A-D as increased fuel burn offset maintenance improvements. I'd be surprised if the F-35A is substantially more expensive than a F/A-18E to operate from a land base.


Apples to apples please: GWSUC for F-35A in FY14 is $167.5M, *forecast* to be $104.8 in FY19, and $121.1M for a total buy of 1,763 units for USAF service, assuming a buy rate of 60 starting at FRP. If the Super Hornet / Growler was purchased in those numbers, its unit cost number would be similar to when it was under a MYP agreement. For reference, GWSUC for E/F in FY13 (no order in FY14) is $70.5M, and $77.2M for 563 programmed units - pretty solid numbers since E/F procurement almost complete (for now.) Meanwhile, F-35C FY14 GWSUC is $264.7M, again *forecast* to be $135.6 in FY19, and $147.2 for 336 at program completion. Growler FY13 GWSUC was $80.6M, FY14 (no MYP) GWSUC $91.2M, and the GWSUC for the programmed run of 135 (does not include the 15 additional units added for FY15) is $100.1M.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post25 Dec 2014, 21:26

XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:More strawman argumentation from the rumpledstilton:
Canada Backtracks On 2010 Fighter Claims Oh really?
22 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Weak & Spaced TechnoBabel

"...Canada should look at history. Just before the F-22 entered service, the U.S. Air Force road map for F-22 development included a Block 40 model with high-bandwidth satcoms, wide-field-of-view radar and the ability to hit time-critical targets. It was supposed to be in service around now, but the Air Force is still struggling to get something as basic as Link 16 transmit [checkers on the AV-8B below] on the aircraft. [Does not the F-35 have the apertures for SATCOM?]

One reason for the delay is that building anything that needs a new radio-frequency or electro-optical aperture into a stealth airplane is expensive. But the biggest drag on F-22 upgrades is that other demands have been made on the U.S. Air Force budget: the F-35 and its overruns and a large fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, for example.

Likewise, once the F-35 completes its initial development, its upgrades will compete for U.S. Air Force money with the Long Range Strike Bomber, two new nuclear missiles, new unmanned systems and even the next air combat fighter.

The path of spiral development is paved with good intentions, but that is not a universal problem. France has stayed close to the Rafale upgrade program that was defined in the early 2000s. Nobody is talking about any future manned fighters in France for a long time, so Dassault’s claim that Rafale will be around until 2050 is not to be dismissed. [And why cannot the F-35 do the same with large production run over many years with extra prodding from furriners?]

One way or another, it seems Canada’s fighter procurement is headed for the competition that Ross and others maintained in 2010 would be a waste of time. If the Harper government had started a competition then, it would have a decision by now, and that does raise an interesting question. If Harper and his colleagues thought the F-35 was so great, why didn’t they want to prove it through an open contest?" [What is to prove?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/canada- ... ter-claims

Navy considers upgrading AV-8B jump jet with small-form-factor Link 16 MIDS terminals
22 Dec 2014 John Keller

"...Navy avionics experts have acknowledged that electronics miniaturization has yielded promising small-form-factor Link 16 terminal products, and it's time to find out any of them is suitable for the venerable AV-8B vertical- and short-takeoff jet fighter-bomber....

...The presolicitation issued on 26 Nov. (N6893615R0049) [ https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0 ] would authorize the AV-8B's original manufacturer, the Boeing Co., to conduct a technical demonstration to confirm if at least one of the available small-form-factor Link-16 products can be installed in the AV-8B using existing aircraft electrical power, antennas, and computer processing...."

Source: http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/ar ... ink16.html



:roll: Bill does it again. What a joke

Again I'm all for an open competition, and I want all the numbers for F-35 competitors as well. I don't fear an open competition one bit. Canadians should though, because they are going to spend extra money and time to arrive at the same conclusion, and should they officially leave the JSF program in the interest of further "openness" and lose out on all the lucrative contracts thats on them.



I am also for an open competition. As I say bring on all comers! Then after the F-35 wins hands down. Then let's go after the Liberals in Canada that made the F-35's selection such a wasted controversy! Then as they say "let the chips fall as they may". :wink:

What can one say about AviationFail, that hasn't already been said? Their review of 12 Military Aircraft highlights In 2014, just reinforces it.

"Brazil Signs for Gripen
Brazil signed a contract in October for 36 Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen NGs for delivery in 2019-24, with the potential to increase to 108 aircraft by 2032. Brazil will help develop the two-seat -F and integrate its own missiles on the Gripen.."

"F-35 Misses Debut
A fire caused by an engine failure in an F-35A in June forced a grounding that caused the Joint Strike Fighter to miss its international debut at two major events in the U.K."

http://aviationweek.com/CombatAircraft2 ... es-1241031
Aussie fanboy
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2629
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post25 Dec 2014, 22:03

maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:"Cost" is a complex issue.

An F/A-18E costs $55m if the Navy goes to the spares warehouse and grabs engines, radar and certain avionics as Government Furnished Equipment. Also they can use ground equipment and spares from existing squadrons. Each jet costs around $80m for the US Navy, spares and standard equipment included.

One of the factors is mission available rate and spare parts availability. The US Navy requires a certain mission available rate from the F/A-18s, and keeps enough spares on the carrier to maintain the jets at that rate. The classic example is spare engines. An airwing only has a certain number of spare engines, and if they come up short, mission availability goes down. An F414 is around $4.5m each, and that limits on the number of spare engines.

If another operator flies less hours and can accept a lower mission available rate, the costs decrease. F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 (in service) would be pretty similar in reliability. F/A-18E/Fs need RAM coating servicing too, so that is not exclusive to the F-35. The F/A-18E/F CPFH is pretty close to the F/A-18A-D as increased fuel burn offset maintenance improvements. I'd be surprised if the F-35A is substantially more expensive than a F/A-18E to operate from a land base.


Apples to apples please: GWSUC for F-35A in FY14 is $167.5M, *forecast* to be $104.8 in FY19, and $121.1M for a total buy of 1,763 units for USAF service, assuming a buy rate of 60 starting at FRP. If the Super Hornet / Growler was purchased in those numbers, its unit cost number would be similar to when it was under a MYP agreement. For reference, GWSUC for E/F in FY13 (no order in FY14) is $70.5M, and $77.2M for 563 programmed units - pretty solid numbers since E/F procurement almost complete (for now.) Meanwhile, F-35C FY14 GWSUC is $264.7M, again *forecast* to be $135.6 in FY19, and $147.2 for 336 at program completion. Growler FY13 GWSUC was $80.6M, FY14 (no MYP) GWSUC $91.2M, and the GWSUC for the programmed run of 135 (does not include the 15 additional units added for FY15) is $100.1M.


Oh puleez...save it for those who dont know any better.

Your SH or G numbers are all CFE and therefore do not include the engines, the radar, DECM, TPOD, helmet and the SCS in the baseline URF. That's before we ever get to an APUC or PAUC. Your Growler numbers also do not include the ALQs.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: magitsu and 12 guests