Forum: Program and politics

I did not say that the numbers would get down to the pre-gut numbers, just low enough to see the $112 range.

F-16.net Sponsor

http://news24.jp/nnn/news89031735.html

Japanese government will decide whether to go with the F-35 or with another jet by June 2012, which is the contract signing due date. If Japan cannot sign a contract by this date, then they will look for another jet.

I'm surprised they aren't signaling an indigenous development. What more to threaten F-35 than their own design?

madrat wrote:

I'm surprised they aren't signaling an indigenous development. What more to threaten F-35 than their own design?

They're working on the ATD-X. But they were working on it long before expressing an interest in the F-35 too, which strongly suggests it's not going well from either a capabilities or (more likely with Japan) cost standpoint. For them to just say they'll go back to ATD-X over a tiny cost increase in the F-35 would strain credibility.

madrat wrote:

I'm surprised they aren't signaling an indigenous development.

No money. The Japanese government is more bankrupt than the Greek government.

Pentagon sees price of F-35 rising, no Japan impact WASHINGTON, March 8 | Thu Mar 8, 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... logySector

"WASHINGTON, March 8 (Reuters) - The Navy admiral who heads the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program said a delay in U.S. orders for 179 of the new warplanes would increase the price per plane in the short term, with further details to be released later this month.

Vice Admiral David Venlet, the Pentagon's F-35 program chief, said he had assured Japan that its deal to buy the F-35 fighter would not be invalidated as result of the U.S. plans. "Their deal is firm," he told a defense conference hosted by Credit Suisse and defense consultant Jim McAleese."

Delay in US orders to raise F-35 price as partner nations follow suit 10 March 2012

http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?pa ... g=Americas

"...Japan is due to pay $121.62 million per fighter for an initial four F-35s scheduled for delivery by March 2017.

“We can look national leadership in the eye and say, ‘Your deal is good, with the (terms) that you were offered,’” Venlet said after his speech at the conference, referring to his conversations with Japanese leaders.

He said Washington was in talks with Singapore, South Korea and other countries about additional foreign military sales of the F-35, which would help offset delays in orders from the US and its international partners.

He said Israel had expressed interest in a second batch of planes beyond its first order for 19 fighters. “I know that that’s out there as an aspiration. We haven’t entered any detailed financial discussions with them on it,” he said.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the Marine Corps variant of the F-35, which can land vertically like a helicopter, was also seeing more foreign interest after being removed from a two-year “probation” a year ahead of schedule."

Initial order $121.62 million per F35 (4). Naysayers probably won’t notice this, or hardly ever will mention, a substantial lower price than the price of F35 LRIP 3 and LRIP 4.

Notice, the price lowered from over $200 million - $121 million. “Initial” price of the F35, not yet in full production (average price)
Compare this with the staggered prices, last ten years, of other jets as Typhoon, Rafale, F15, F18 E/F (and Gripens) in full production.
European average package deals (plus proposals): roughly some $160 million per jet (India, Swiss Brazil etc.)

The US postpones orders, as other level partners did, but the total number of US F35’s will be the same. This does or would not have to change the average price, long term, that much.

What’s more a concern, dropping numbers by level partners (except for Norway).
Canada: 65. Denmark: probably 30. Italy: 90. UK: ? Netherlands: ? Australia: (?)
As well as, hesitating and postponing orders by level partners drives the “initial” prices of the F35 up.

Although level partners are sceptical and critical about the price of the F35, they are responsible as well for a higher price of the F35.

Worst case, less F35’s:
o Canada: 15 (80-65)
o Italy: 41 (131-90)

o UK: 110 (160>50?)
o Netherlands: 25 (85-60?)
o Australia: 30 (100>70?)

Total: 261 F35’s

m wrote:

Initial order $121.62 million per F35 (4). Naysayers probably won’t notice this, or hardly ever will mention, a substantial lower price than the price of F35 LRIP 3 and LRIP 4.

Notice, the price lowered from over $200 million - $121 million. “Initial” price of the F35, not yet in full production (average price)
Compare this with the staggered prices, last ten years, of other jets as Typhoon, Rafale, F15, F18 E/F (and Gripens) in full production.
European average package deals (plus proposals): roughly some $160 million per jet (India, Swiss Brazil etc.)

The US postpones orders, as other level partners did, but the total number of US F35’s will be the same. This does or would not have to change the average price, long term, that much.

What’s more a concern, dropping numbers by level partners (except for Norway).
Canada: 65. Denmark: probably 30. Italy: 90. UK: ? Netherlands: ? Australia: (?)
As well as, hesitating and postponing orders by level partners drives the “initial” prices of the F35 up.

Although level partners are sceptical and critical about the price of the F35, they are responsible as well for a higher price of the F35.

Worst case, less F35’s:
o Canada: 15 (80-65)
o Italy: 41 (131-90)

o UK: 110 (160>50?)
o Netherlands: 25 (85-60?)
o Australia: 30 (100>70?)

Total: 261 F35’s

The Japan price of $121.62M for the F-35A quoted from the article doesn't give a source, but it appears to be a Flyaway Unit Cost number. For reference sake, FUC for the Super Hornet: FY2013 is $65.274M - about half as much.

m wrote:

Worst case, less F35’s:
o Canada: 15 (80-65)

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean by this...please elaborate.

hotrampphotography wrote:

m wrote:

Worst case, less F35’s:
o Canada: 15 (80-65)

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean by this...please elaborate.

Did not search, in my mind the Canadian number in 2002/2003 was 80.
Probably 65? In that case, sorry for mentioning a wrong number.

m wrote:

Did not search, in my mind the Canadian number in 2002/2003 was 80.
Probably 65? In that case, sorry for mentioning a wrong number.

Number has always been 65, with the option of further acquisitions should they become necessary. Canada's inclusion as one of the partner countries will guarantee a lower price for future acquisitions than countries which are not.

hotrampphotography wrote:

Canada's inclusion as one of the partner countries will guarantee a lower price for future acquisitions than countries which are not.

Not that sure level partners, who did not made such a inclusion, will have to pay a higher price?
Will have to search, but somewhere in a Dutch letter thought I have read this wasn’t the case.
because development costs, future developments costs and etc. have been paid.

But may be you are right? In that case, suppose the Dutch situation is not different from Canada.
In the Dutch letter 2002 was mentioned, the number to be ordered depends on the situation, conflicts, in the world as well.

To my opinion, the numbers F35 in Canada, as well as in other (smaller) countries, are that low, next 40-50 years, extra F35’s still will have to be ordered.
Suppose loosing at least one jet per year in Canada, as well as in the Netherlands, can be expected?
With a possibly equal number (some 60?) there will be 40 left, within 20 years flying. Canada: 45

How likely is it that Japan would rescind it's F-35 order? The linked article examines the jet deal in the context of the US-Japan strategic relationship and shows how it serves their mutual interests for the deal to push through.. It's going to take a lot more than a squabble over a price increase to derail the deal.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... g-arms-buy

Last December, Tokyo announced that it would purchase Lockheed-Martin's F-35 Lightning II as its next-generation jet fighter. In doing so, it disappointed BAE Systems, the European maker of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which had hoped to win the $4.7 billion contract itself. For a while, it seemed as though it might. The Lockheed deal had its downsides: Initially, Japanese firms would have played no role in producing the new jets; likewise, they would not have had access to the secret technologies used in the F-35's design. It was not until Lockheed agreed to allow domestic contractors to participate in building the new jets and share some top-secret technologies that Japan decided to make the deal. In retrospect, that move should never have been in much doubt. The contract closely follows Japanese defense policy precedent: acquiring the most advanced American military hardware available under licensing agreements, producing that hardware in Japan to boost the economy, and keeping the U.S.-Japan alliance tight, positing Japan as a buffer between the United States and the region's major powers...

None of these reasons, however, changes the fact that the United States and Japan share a common interest in the region --countering China -- and that a strong U.S.-Japanese alliance, bolstered by Japan's procurement of highly advanced weapons from the United States, is the most effective check on Chinese expansion in the region. As long as the two countries' regional interests continue dovetail, that strategic logic will win out.

Forum: Program and politics

F-35s for Japan