Forum: General F-35 Forum

less than the 79 million USD currently paid for the Eurofighter Typhoon

Yes, it refers to T2.
T3 configuration is still vague (and we don't know what has been included in the contract), so I'm gonna refrain from making comments on it, but from what leaked so far it's still cheaper than F35's average URF.

But anyway, none of that matters since even if the F35 manages to sometimes somehow equal EF's average URF, it's gonna be on a 3k+ pieces production run, comparing to mere 600 in EF's case.
It's a five times difference, so what's your point?

Yes, it refers to T2.
T3 configuration is still vague (and we don't know what has been included in the contract), so I'm gonna refrain from making comments on it, but from what leaked so far it's still cheaper than F35's average URF.

But anyway, none of that matters since even if the F35 manages to sometimes somehow equal EF's average URF, it's gonna be on a 3k+ pieces production run, comparing to mere 600 in EF's case.
It's a five times difference, so what's your point?

The closest (and it is very close) analogy to the costs given in the NAO reports is unit flyaway costs. That number includes test, development, equipment and a bit of gas to fly. It also includes the engine.

No idea who you are, but you don't get basics.
Why posting then, in the first place?

Flyaway Cost (Rollaway, Sailaway, etc.) refers to the cost of procuring prime mission equipment (e.g., an aircraft, ship, tank, etc.). It is funded with Procurement appropriations and is part of the Investment cost category. Figure 1 shows that this term includes the WBS elements of Prime Mission Equipment, System Engineering/Program Management, System Test and Evaluation, Warranties, and Engineering Changes. (Note: DoD 5000.4-M defines flyaway cost as being funded out of the RDT&E and Procurement appropriations, but in practice, only the Procurement-funded portion of flyaway is considered relevant by decision-makers in DoD and in Congress.)

Look at the quote

http://theaviationist.com/2012/02/08/f35-typhoon/



I think that refers to the then year cost of T1/2 EF's not future T3 buys.

The July 2012 contract is for 112 T3A fighters at 9 billion Euro, which is $11.107 billion USD, which is $99 million per EF. Tranche 3a will not have the E_Scan AESA radar.

http://www.fast-air.co.uk/typhoon-block ... e-summary/

Back to the main topic - What would happen if the F35 got cancelled? After the tears, probably a lot more of this:

USAF planning F-15 modernization--pilots say displays need more work

By Dave Majumdar on August 17, 2012 10:06 PM

The USAF is modernizing its Boeing F-15 fleet--that includes both the C/D air superiority fighters and the multirole F-15E Strike Eagle.



The USAF is adding active electronically scanned array radar, new electronic warfare systems, and adding a new display computer to the jets amongst a host of other upgrades. The modifications are probably the first in a series of upgrades because the venerable fighter is going to be serving into the 2030s. Which is quite impressive considering the first F-15A prototype first flew on 27 July, 1972.

More at the jump:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... izati.html

No doubt the F-15 is still quite impressive. with all the upgrades planned or implemented, the F-15C will continue to be a very potent front line air superiority fighter for years to come. In fact, teamed with the F-22 it will probably be unbeatable in most air superiority scenarios.

As impressive as it is, no new build F-15s will be F-35 replacements. If the F-35 is cancelled it will be cancelled because of cost. New build F-15s will cost upwards of $100 million each even if built in numbers. Add to that the extra maintenance costs of a heavy fighter and the fact that the fighter shortfall, as described above is not for air superiority but for the air force as an F-16 and A-10 replacement. The answer will not be F-15.

The F-16 as good as it is would not be the answer either. It is too small and it is at the end of its life in terms of ability to be upgraded. Keep in mind cost would be driving this. The remaining F-16s would be relegated to the ANG and a small fleet of A-10s would be re-engined and retained.

The air force like the Navy would by Super Hornets. Lots of Super Hornets. Maybe the upgrade the engines, maybe they fix the wing ejectors but at the numbers they would be buying the unit price would be well below 50 million and both the Air Force and Navy would be able to recapitalize their TACair fleets. The AF would not like it but the money saved in both acquisition and operating costs would be huge.

The Marines would also operate F-18s along with a number of Harriers which would be kept flying by using spares from the UK Harrier buy.

Money drives everything.