If South Korea’s order for 40 F-35s does indeed save the Pentagon about $2 billion, then each aircraft lowers Pentagon costs by $50 million. By the same logic, each lost order should increase the cost to the Pentagon by the same $50 million – not far off, by the way, from the $65 million unit cost that Lockheed continues to claim is the average unit cost of the aircraft.I've been waiting for someone to do this.
Following the same logic, we can now estimate how much the reduced orders by other customers have increased the price the Pentagon will pay for its F-35s.
A short look at recent changes in the foreign order book is thus instructive.
- United Kingdom:
Initially slated to buy 150 aircraft, the UK government has now amended its plans and will only buy 48 F-35Bs for its new aircraft carriers, any possible buy for the Royal Air Force being pushed off well into the future. At $50m each, the loss of 102 UK orders adds $5.1 billion to what the Pentagon will pay for its F-35s.
- Italy:
Italy initially planned to buy 130 F-35s, but this was reduced to 90 because of budget cuts. This is a loss of 40 orders, which will add $2 billion to the Pentagon’s F-35 bill.
- Netherlands:
The Dutch air force initially planned to buy 85 F-35s, but the current government has decided to reduce the number to 37, a loss of 48 orders and a price increase of $2.4 billion for the Pentagon.
- Canada:
Initially due to buy 65 F-35s, Canada has now reopened its new fighter replacement program. While the F-35 might still be selected, but in smaller numbers as there is a price cap on the program. For the time being Canada is no officially no longer a buyer, and the loss of its 65 orders translates into a cost increase of $3.25 billion for the Pentagon.
- Norway:
While it also initially planned to buy 85 F-35s, Norway has now decided it will buy only 52, a reduction of 33 and thus a cost increase of $1.65 billion for the Pentagon’s own F-35s.
So, in total, the program has so far lost 228 orders from the above international partners.
At $50m a pop, these cancellations have so far added $14.4 billion to the cost of the Pentagon’s own F-35s – something that Lockheed’s P.R. machine has failed to point out, even though it was quick to stress the $2 billion savings entailed by that future Korean order.
Pretty damning huh?
What say you now Jason Simmons?
(Note. If someone makes personal attacks against the author of the piece then I'll immediately delete your comments. I've done it, thought better and we're not going down that road. I won't let you make my same mistake).
Logic only works one way with F35 program. SK orders 40 jets, JSF saves $2 billion dollars and creates plenty of jobs. UK only has orders for firm 48 jets, it doesn't matter. Italy initially wanted 130, might order 90, it doesn't matter. Norway wanted 85, it only can afford 52, it doesn't matter....
ReplyDeleteLook how much X-47B has done in the past year, what has F35C done lately, it doesn't matter...
Logic and rational is a one way street when it comes to JSF....
The new plan quantities are no more reliable than the original, larger quantities.
ReplyDeleteConsidering what we know to date, including all the F-35 design, reliability and performance problems, as well as the fact that while development continues at a high pace ($2B this FY) it is years from completion, especially the massive amount of software required for this complex machine, as well as the tail hook problem of the Navy model, and other problems, so it is unlikely that F-35 development including test and evaluation will be completed this decade.
Meanwhile high production overhead continues to burden the unit cost of the low-rate production of F-35s. We don't know what the exact costs are, but we do know the current LRIP planes are budgets at about $200m. We do know that Pratt has paid Rolls-Royce an average of $25m each for the STOVL lift systems alone, for the last four lot buys.
Foreign buyers are aware of these problems and will react accordingly. Old and dear ally Canada is a prime example, with a likely JSF buy of zero. So look for other countries to zero out or severely limit their buys -- it's only a matter of time before the forecasted 730 foreign plane buy drops 'way down.
By the way, the program loss in the linked article should be 288, not 228, adding the individual losses. Another correction to the article -- "South Korea’s order for 40 F-35s" -- is incorrect. There has been no order.
Different topic but I know some of you didn't think much of the USAF B52 flight but it also looks like Japan and SK both had military? or civilian flights go thru without filing a flight plan. From what I have been reading from Chinese blogs, Chinese fan boys are pissed that their govt declared this zone and not done anything. It appears to me China miscalculated and lost face on this one, that's not good and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see an aggressive reaction now. Could turn nasty real quick...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-25144465
the chinese fan boys fell victim to military writers (or rather civilian writers who have no military experience) waking up to the chinese threat and overblowing a relatively minor occurence. an ADIZ is nothing new. we all have them. the UK, US, Australia, Japan, S. Korea...everyone has them. quite honestly i'm surprised that China is so late to this party....or rather more surprised that they've waited till now to make it an issue.
Deleteits an non factor. besides. the Chinese aren't stupid. they push people in the region much harder and its going to be full scale get ready for war...not the tiny steps we see.
I really doubt that China miscalculated. China has declared an ADIZ in the same general area where Japan imposed an ADIZ fifty years ago, and look at the publicity. So it's not going to turn nasty real quick. The Eastern mind doesn't work like the Western mind, for one thing, and patience is a virtue, no matter what the BBC thinks.
DeleteHope you guys are right about new Chinese ADIZ.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, found a better English article about SKorea F35 purchase and difficulties, someone apparently didn't get the message from LMT or maybe he hasn't received his little envelope full of cash yet...
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/149821/korean-lawmakers-demand-renegotiation-of-f_35-buy.html
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) must adhere to the law -- no sales less then US costs. But what are US costs for F-235? Shhh -- It's a secret.
ReplyDeleteRepublic of Korea (ROK) has budgeted $9.3B = $155m ea for 60 or $232m ea for 40. (The US has budgeted $199m each for the CTOLs this fiscal year.)
The ROK plan is to start negotiations next year, based on the JCS decision on the F-35 to go with 40 to start. (The JCS took over decision-making from the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) after its F-18 decision. The Defense Ministry and the parliament are also factors.)
So this gets back to my statement above -- "There has been no order." And as I commented on Why the F-35 when it stenoed the Reuters piece and prattled about an "order" and "South Korea to buy 40 F-35s" --
"Other facts will also be revealed in negotiations. For example, the yonhap press release said: "The software configuration is expected to reach the initial operating capability around 2016, according to the U.S. Air Force." Of course we know that Block 3F software, with capabilities that are key to the F-35’s core mission‚ is running behind schedule and may not even be delivered until after 2017.
"So it's a long way to tipperary."
The F-35 program is now in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phase, intended to provide units for operational testing, not for operational use and certainly not for sale.
ReplyDeletefrom DODI 5000.02:
7. PRODUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT PHASE
(1) LRIP
(a) This effort is intended to result in completion of manufacturing development in order to ensure adequate and efficient manufacturing capability and to produce the minimum quantity necessary to provide production or production-representative articles for IOT&E, establish an initial production base for the system; and permit an orderly increase in the production rate for the system, sufficient to lead to full-rate production upon successful completion of operational (and live-fire, where applicable) testing.//
So governments which procure items out of LRIP and before operational testing are making a serious mistake, particularly with an overly expensive system with so many demonstrated shortcomings.
OK, So how does this reanimated F2 Brewster Buffalo do in a Top Gun or Red Flag type simulated combat against real enemy type aircraft?
ReplyDeleteADIZ? Hell, the US has one all around us overlapping those of many other nations.
It ain't serious until some airliner gets knocked down such as in Korean Air flight 007 then it gets blood on the Mike boat ramp serious.
That'd be the non-corrupt Giovanni de Briganti who is sponsored by Dassault and Eurofighter Typhoon wouldn't it Sol?
ReplyDeleteAny time you want to bring him into the equation is when I know you've truly lost your way. Go and look critically at his "opinion" pieces. His favourite trick is to divide the number of planes by total program cost in the case of the F-35 and only refer to platform cost for whatever alternative aircraft he is pimping. It is so obvious it is ridiculous.
So for F-35 you have to include platform cost, weapons, sensors, training platforms, infrastructure and development costs, fuel, spare parts, test equipment, publications etc and then divide the total number of aircraft by the total program cost. Which is how you get "F-35's cost $280m each" and other such ridiculous figures.
For the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon or anything from Russia/China - you only have the platform cost. A non-American fighter doesn't need such things as fuel, weapons, training platforms, test cells, runways, hangars etc. That's how you get low production rate aircraft appearing to cost $80-$100m each.
Of course one can hardly criticise too heavily, he is nothing more than a salesman afterall and he is just passing on the message his pay masters are asking him to.
The hilarious thing will be the day when L-M start paying him and watching you all criticise him subsequently thereafter when the F-35 is suddenly the greatest thing since sliced bread...
Meanwhile I'll happily continue to watch F-35 bag orders that Eurofighter, Dassault, Boeing and SAAB can only dream about and watch you all get continually frustrated and make up ever more ludicrous conspiracy theories as to why...
i can get how anyone can support the F-35 program. i've been there and done that. but you have to honestly admit that the claims coming from them have gone from the credible and easily defended to the now outrageous and nonsensical.
Deleteoriginally the discussion was all about the tech of the program.
if that's what you're basing your argument on then ok. debatable but doable. but the debate has moved on.
its now about costs. cost effectiveness. and in the case of the Marine Corps, whether or not it makes sense for aviation to take a front seat and everything else, including personnel to become secondary priorities.
in my opinion the F-35 is in the process of dangerously unbalancing the Marine Corps and remaking it into an air arm with an ineffective ground component.
in my mind that is unthinkable.
but it matches what is going on DoD wide. what are supporting structures are becoming the supported. and with little gain in combat effectiveness, with much danger to future missions and with a product in my opinion that will not hold up to emerging threats.
so if you can credibly show how the F-35 is cost and mission effective, then we'll talk, but as things stand this is just a glorified jobs program that WILL get sliced. have you watched Congress? they won't be able to do away with sequestration. that means the F-35 program will be cut. that means that the death spiral is here. that means that foreign air forces will buy fewer. that means that we have another bite at the f-22 apple.
"A non-American fighter doesn't need such things as fuel, weapons, training platforms, test cells, runways, hangars etc."
Deletehehehe, looking at the funding cuts of many European militaries, this bit is becoming quite true.
Well mate you said the South Korean order was the instigator of the death spiral for a while too, but obviously now that situation has changed, your opinion hasn't you simply justify it another way using other factoids.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is that even with the threat of sequestration 70 odd F-35 aircraft are being ordered every year at present and that number IS going to increase under FRP. ANY other program in the world would kill for actual production rates like that. If Typhoon, Super Hornet or Gripen bag a single order for 70 aircraft their respective manufacturers will be screaming their brilliance to the heavens, yet JSF which is consistently selling these numbers year in year out now, isn't succeeding apparently? It's a bizarre situation to the say the least!
Order fewer airframes your costs go up. The economics aren't complicated. Ask Giovanni himself if you can get an honest answer out of him (which you won't). Ask him how it is that Dassault can produce 11 Rafales a year cheaper under a contract designed to simply keep them in business than a company building 70+ airframes a year or more? The true answer is: they don't. He just fudges figures to try to make it look to the uninformed like they do.
It can't be done in a Western democracy and in places where it might be able to be done, the build quality of those figthers is equivalent to the deficiencies you identified in the T-90 series in your tank thread.
Wanna know why Mercedes are more expensive than Hyundais? It's the quality, attention to detail AND relative build numbers...
Giovanni just hates the F35, just like Bill Sweet man. I simply can no longer take him seriously.
DeleteThe Rafale production line will probably close in 2019, barring the Indian order, which if not signed in stone by 2016, will fall through. The Rafale costs at least 80 million USD, and the Typhoon, with NO Aesa radar, is over 100 million. The Gripen isn't doing so good, with 22 going to Switzerland in 2021 or so, and maybe 60 to Sweden, if there aren't any cuts, and knowing Swedish politicians, there will be.
The Typhoon line, barring new export orders, will shut in 2017. This mean, by 202p, only a Swedish F16 knockoff will be in production, vs a 5th generation stealth fighter.
The EU nations simply don't have the cash to develop 5th gen aircraft.
It will take France 5 YEARS to take delivery of 35 Rafales.....
11 jets a year should be embarrassing.
The Typhoon is overpriced, and still has no AESA.
in my mind you're mixing apples and oranges. the F-35 deal has never been done before and from all appearances will never be done again. you can talk about numbers built but they're hardly "go to war" air frames and in most circumstances would be labeled as test aircraft. the only difference is that this program has been accelerated to attempt to avoid the F-22's fate.
Deleteit won't happen though.
the F-35 is more about jobs than capabilities. and that is where the Gripen and the Typhoon and the Rafale are mostly missing out. if they could have guaranteed the same sweetheart deals that the F-35 then you would see more bought. it isn't happening and to be quite honest Lockheed is slicing its own throat on the alter of globalization.
that's what the F-35 program is based on but they fail to see the other side of that concept. all those allied countries are getting advanced tech to build advanced fighters for free.
Lockheed Martin is about to reduce itself because of greed . i'm not on anyones payroll but i've crossed the rubicon.
they have SOME decent people working there but as far as the aeronautics department, i hate their guts. if you can't see the fraud inside this program then its because you refuse to see it.
Speaking of go to war capability, the UK only had 12 or so Typhoons with A2G capability, and maybe 8 pilots trained for the mission in 2011.
DeleteThe Typhoon only got full "go to war" capability with Tranche 3 aircraft, which are just now being produced.
Hell, ONLY Tranche 3 Typhoons can use CFTs....
i'm becoming a bit annoyed at the comparison to the Typhoon. i'm not a fan of that airplane. the author brings it in because he was talking about it in comparison but for our discussions it irrelevant.
Deletethe F-35 is suppose to be the premier multi-role airplane on the market place. its suppose to be able to fight and win against all comers.
it can't. i'm pissed. it costs too much. i'm pissed. its not delivering what its suppose to. i'm pissed.
There has been no South Korean order. There has been a decision by the ROK JCS that favors a "stealth" airplane.
ReplyDeleteRegarding cost, current LRIP F-35's are budgeted at about $200 million per plane. Nobody even knows what the final JSF configuration is because the plane is still in development, which is budgeted at $1.8 billion this fiscal year. As I commented above, LRIP units are intended for operational testing. Therefore unit costs in production can't be known at this time.
When will operational testing start? The Block 3F software are critical for operational testing of this flying computer. When will the twenty-four million line of software be ready? The DOT&E testified in June: "It is possible all the military capability now associated with the Block 3F versions of JSF will not be provided for operational testing in 2018."
So operational testing may start in five or six or seven years. Meanwhile there have been serious design, quality, reliability and performance shortcomings reported this year in development testing.
Given all this, any country is stupid to consider, and especially stupid to order, F-35s at this time. But South Korea hasn't ordered any yet, so we can't call them stupid yet.
Tells all you need to know about the flim-flam F35 pricing.
ReplyDeletehttp://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/alphabet-soup-paucs-apucs-urfs-cost-variances-and-other-pricing-dodges/#ixzz2VFqhiLWj