The F-35 Thread

[Hummingbird]

Norwegian life time cost estimate = 5 billion pr. aircraft

kampflykontoret life time cost estimate 2.6 billion pr. aircraft

[HiJack]

Yes, I think that is the trend in all of Norways budget's ;) For example we live in a country that has the best and cleanest spring water in the world and the bottled plastic tasting water is a billion industry :)

 

EDIT: Just sale in Noway alone.

[Hummingbird]

Yes, I think that is the trend in all of Norways budget's ;) For example we live in a country that has the best and cleanest spring water in the world and the bottled plastic tasting water is a billion industry :)

 

EDIT: Just sale in Noway alone.

 

Of course the Norwegian economy has an influence but it shouldn't account for more than around 15-20% in difference, and certainly nowhere near double.

[HiJack]

Yes I guess you are right. Not good to say why Norway landed on the double cost of Denmark then, or Denmark maybe need some help with the numbers. Maybe they just plan to fly half the time?

[Hummingbird]

For comparison's sake the Dutch purchase price is listed as 40.7 billion DK (6.01 billion USD) for 37 aircraft, or 1.1 billion DK (162 million USD) pr. aircraft.

 

That's exactly double the procurement cost estimated by kampflykontoret.

[garrya]

Again it's not the scenarios its the figures used to gauge the performance of the aircraft IN said scenarios. We have absolutely no clue what figures they used.

Iam not quite sure what your point ? , while i agree that many things can mean by missions effectiveness . Something like survivability has quite clear meaning .Also , given that the report was done by the official gov , you can bet that they dont just use 1 or 2 number like internet fan boy but actually have computer simulation to assess aircraft performance.

 

 

Initial procurement price pr. plane as estimated by kampflykontoret:

F-18 = 813 million DK

F-35 = 550 million DK

 

VERSUS

 

Generally accepted fly away cost pr. aircraft:

F-18 = ~60 million USD (~410 million DK)

F-35 (without engine) = ~90 million USD (~612 million DK)

 

See the problem?

 

To sum it up for you somehow kampflykontoret arrived at a procurement cost for the F-35 that is LOWER than the fly away cost, where'as for the F-18 they arrived at a procurement cost roughly DOUBLE that of the fly away cost. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

 

As explained in the report, Super Hornet and Eurofighter acquisition cost included initial package of spares, support equipment and so on, which is normally prerequisite for starting to operate a new aircraft. By contrast, F-35 acquisition cost included bare airframes and nothing else. In F-35's maintenance model, national air forces only own the airframes and most spares are delivered 'on-need' basis ( there was still a requirement to establish a minimum baseline of spares but by having access to the global pool of spares they are able to reduce the overall cost) . Operators do not need to keep around large stores of spares but just buy what they need, when they need it. This is supposed to bring major savings in lifecycle costs, and the report is calculated under the assumption that it does. ..

 

The Danish report actually notes that Super Hornet has lower unit flyaway cost than F-35, and also lower "external maintenance" cost, whatever that refers to.

 

 

 

Moreover because the pentagon keep buying the F-35 so the cost will keep droping over years , according to recent estimation

The basic “flyaway” cost of a conventional Air Force F-35 model, which includes its engines, will drop to about $85 million by 2019 in current dollars at that time to about $100 million anticipated for the latest contract, Bogdan said

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/pentagon-chief-sells-lockheed-f-35-as-best-even-affordable-jet

 

About the cost of F-18F , it important to remember that what the US Pays for Super Hornets is not what other countries pay for them because there are FMS fees and R&D fees. Next these are all two seaters, which depending on whats included drive the price up more.

The RAAF paid just over US$100 mil per jet for the SH in 2008 at the height of SH production. 15 years later with inflation, a production rate a quarter of that in 2008, only two nations operating the type, a necessity to pay FMS fees and probably a more capable product , i dont think 122 mil USD is very unrealistic number .Compared to that F-35 will be at the height of production with probably 150 jets coming off the line a year, will have at least eight operating nations, the Danes are not liable for any FMS fees and the product will have been FOC with the primary customer for over three years.

Anothers point is that for F-18 , the cost is quite fragmented , for example since there's no IRST, thy probably need to add the cost for including one in external form. And to carry enough fuel to match the F-35A in mission range they probably add the cost in pylons needed. Probably the standard 3 tank config, we can throw in used 330 US gal tanks for free but anything bigger has to be bought.

 

[ame]http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FA-18E_F-SAR_31_DEC_2011.pdf[/ame]

 

Huh? Germany IS the producer of the EF.

Sorry when i said producer , i dont mean the country but the company

 

~30 billion vs ~60 billion = double.

:huh:didnt Norwean buy alot more F-35 though ? they plan to bought something like 52 jet as i remember Edited May 24, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

To be fair , fighter cost seem to fluctuate significantly depending on what country buying them

First, it is important to note that all fiscal figures are in 2012 U.S. Dollars, to eliminate inflation and exchange-rate variances. The last reliable cost data for the F/A-18E is from 2013, as the U.S. has only procured the electronic warfare variant (EA-18G) since then. Congressional reporting stated each aircraft’s cost as $62 million, but this has increased since. Boeing has cut the Super Hornet’s production rate from three aircraft to two, and it is currently slated to cease production in 2017. Consequently, its flyaway cost could be as high as $72 million. Moreover, the Super Hornet’s flyaway price does not include several essential elements, such as sensor pods and external fuel tanks. These are all considered basic equipment for even our current CF-18s and the average cost for a set is $6.9 million. Finally, Canada would incur a $6.1 million Foreign Military Sales (FMS) charge on each aircraft. Added together, the Super Hornet’s true cost is between $75 million and $85 million. The F-35’s flyaway cost is estimated to be approximately $77 million for an aircraft delivered in or after 2020 (the price for the bulk of Canada’s purchases), not $175 million as claimed. There is high confidence in these figures. The Join Strike Fighter (JSF) program has met its acquisition cost targets for the past five years, according to U.S. Congress documentation. This is partly due to large economies of scale. In the next three years, as many F-35s will be produced as all of its competitors combined; or one aircraft every four days in 2018. The F-35 is also not subject to the same secondary costs as the Super Hornet. It carries all of its sensors and fuel internally and does not require external pods. Finally, as a JSF Partner Nation, Canada is not subject to FMS fees. Thus a true apples-to-apples comparison sees the F-35 at around $77 million and the Super Hornet at $75 million to $85 million. Other alternatives have been cited for even higher costs. Accordingly, no significant acquisition savings can be found by selecting another aircraft. The life-cycle accounting and operational considerations tells a similar story. The largest cost driver for operations is personnel salaries and fuel costs, which are roughly equivalent for the various competitors. The United States military believes that any cost variance with the F-35 will be offset by lower sortie requirements to maintain readiness and conduct operations, due to new simulator technologies and advanced capabilities. This efficiency can be understood in a comparison with the Super Hornet

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22069

 

Wikileaks basically had several Cables that indicate that the decision was made prior to the bid being launched

Can you post the link here ?

Edited May 24, 2016 by garrya

[tflash]

By contrast, F-35 acquisition cost included bare airframes and nothing else. In F-35's maintenance model, national air forces only own the airframes and most spares are delivered 'on-need' basis ( there was still a requirement to establish a minimum baseline of spares but by having access to the global pool of spares they are able to reduce the overall cost) . Operators do not need to keep around large stores of spares but just buy what they need, when they need it. This is supposed to bring major savings in lifecycle costs, and the report is calculated under the assumption that it does. ..

 

Not sure this will all work as supposed!

Edited May 24, 2016 by tflash
simplfied a little

[Hummingbird]

Iam not quite sure what your point ? , while i agree that many things can mean by missions effectiveness . Something like survivability has quite clear meaning .Also , given that the report was done by the official gov , you can bet that they dont just use 1 or 2 number like internet fan boy but actually have computer simulation to assess aircraft performance.

 

My point is that we have no clue what figures they assigned each type in terms of stealth, weapons capability & effectiveness, performance, sensors etc., i.e. all the things that determine how well each aircraft will perform in the scenario devised by the office. We know absolutely nothing about what figures they used here, and frankly neither does at least Boeing or EF.

 

 

As explained in the report, Super Hornet and Eurofighter acquisition cost included initial package of spares, support equipment and so on, which is normally prerequisite for starting to operate a new aircraft. By contrast, F-35 acquisition cost included bare airframes and nothing else. In F-35's maintenance model, national air forces only own the airframes and most spares are delivered 'on-need' basis ( there was still a requirement to establish a minimum baseline of spares but by having access to the global pool of spares they are able to reduce the overall cost) . Operators do not need to keep around large stores of spares but just buy what they need, when they need it. This is supposed to bring major savings in lifecycle costs, and the report is calculated under the assumption that it does. ..

 

The Danish report actually notes that Super Hornet has lower unit flyaway cost than F-35, and also lower "external maintenance" cost, whatever that refers to.

 

Are we reading the same report?

[ame]http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf[/ame]

 

 

Moreover because the pentagon keep buying the F-35 so the cost will keep droping over years , according to recent estimation

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/pentagon-chief-sells-lockheed-f-35-as-best-even-affordable-jet

 

About the cost of F-18F , it important to remember that what the US Pays for Super Hornets is not what other countries pay for them because there are FMS fees and R&D fees. Next these are all two seaters, which depending on whats included drive the price up more.

The RAAF paid just over US$100 mil per jet for the SH in 2008 at the height of SH production. 15 years later with inflation, a production rate a quarter of that in 2008, only two nations operating the type, a necessity to pay FMS fees and probably a more capable product , i dont think 122 mil USD is very unrealistic number .Compared to that F-35 will be at the height of production with probably 150 jets coming off the line a year, will have at least eight operating nations, the Danes are not liable for any FMS fees and the product will have been FOC with the primary customer for over three years.

Anothers point is that for F-18 , the cost is quite fragmented , for example since there's no IRST, thy probably need to add the cost for including one in external form. And to carry enough fuel to match the F-35A in mission range they probably add the cost in pylons needed. Probably the standard 3 tank config, we can throw in used 330 US gal tanks for free but anything bigger has to be bought.

 

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FA-18E_F-SAR_31_DEC_2011.pdf

r

 

Well you certainly buy into that, but there are many who don't, and for a good reason: How many of its initial goals have LM met so far? Esp. financial ones.

 

The answer is none.

 

It then doesn't make things much better when kampflykontoret somehow arrives at a procurement price that is below the commonly agreed fly away cost. (FYI that's an impossibility)

[HiJack]

Interesting interview

https://www.facebook.com/gizmodo/videos/10154201867643967/

[garrya]

My point is that we have no clue what figures they assigned each type in terms of stealth, weapons capability & effectiveness, performance, sensors etc., i.e. all the things that determine how well each aircraft will perform in the scenario devised by the office.

Products specification will be provided by manufacturers of said products.

 

We know absolutely nothing about what figures they used here, and frankly neither does at least Boeing or EF.

that a very extraordinary claim, unless you have some evidence to back it up, it really just personal opinion. It pretty unlikely for the bidder not to know/understand the assessment process of their products

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well you certainly buy into that, but there are many who don't, and for a good reason: How many of its initial goals have LM met so far? Esp. financial ones.

 

The answer is none.

You meant to say that LM didn't meet any of the initial goal at all? come on that is absolutely nonsense.

while i agree that F-35 got more expensive than initially expected but that happened to the Raf and Typhoon too, hardly something uncommon.

 

 

It then doesn't make things much better when kampflykontoret somehow arrives at a procurement price that is below the commonly agreed fly away cost. (FYI that's an impossibility)

 

iam sorry but just because something "commonly agreed" by the public doesn't suddenly make it a fact. No offense but most of the time the public don't even understand the basics of what they talking about.

Moreover as i have quoted from the official :

The basic “flyaway” cost of a conventional Air Force F-35 model, which includes its engines, will drop to about $85 million by 2019 in current dollars at that time to about $100 million anticipated for the latest contract, Bogdan said

[Hummingbird]

Just in:

 

The Danish Ministry of Defense has revised its initial calculations and now states that Denmark will need 43 F-35's instead of the previously stated 28 to cover its military assignments.

[Svend_Dellepude]

Where does it say this?

[Hummingbird]

Where does it say this?

 

http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2016-06-08-notat-danmark-kan-faa-brug-for-43-og-ikke-27-kampfly

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Well, looks like not so much. They agreed to buy 28 as of now.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/06/09/denmark-f35-buy-official-lockheed-terma-joint-strike-fighter/85640718/

[Hummingbird]

Well, looks like not so much. They agreed to buy 28 as of now.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/06/09/denmark-f35-buy-official-lockheed-terma-joint-strike-fighter/85640718/

 

Nothing is official in regards to the numbers being bought yet, we only have a recommendation from kampflykontoret of 28 aircraft whilst the government only wants to buy 27. Now the ministry of defense says kampflykontoret's estimates are unrealistic and that we will need 43 instead of 28 aircraft to cover our needs.

 

This whole thing is just beginning...

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Nothing is official in regards to the numbers being bought yet, we only have a recommendation from kampflykontoret of 28 aircraft whilst the government only wants to buy 27. Now the ministry of defense says kampflykontoret's estimates are unrealistic and that we will need 43 instead of 28 aircraft to cover our needs.

 

This whole thing is just beginning...

 

Out of curiosity, how large is you F-16 fleet?

[Hummingbird]

Out of curiosity, how large is you F-16 fleet?

 

We bought 77 in total, and today we're at an alltime low in terms of the number being operationally active which is 30 or 31 IIRC. (One crashed recently)

 

In other words we're already running on fumes when it comes to covering our own needs.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Pilotasso]

Did all the former 46 F-16's just ran out of airframe hours?

[Hummingbird]

Did all the former 46 F-16's just ran out of airframe hours?

 

Setting aside accidents I think that's pretty much the deal yeah. We have 60 officially in service, but only 30 or 31 are operational today, the rest are just used for parts basically.

 

Also it should be noted that in 2003 we estimated that we would need at least 48 F-35's to replace our fleet of F-16's, which numbered 48 operational and ~20 grounded examples at that time AFAIK.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Furthermore 5 of the 27 F-35's that the government wants to buy will never touch Danish soil as they will be permanently used as training aircraft at Nellis AFB.

 

In other words we will then at best have 22 aircraft ready & operational at all times - wishful thinking according to most, and experts around the world are understandably scratching their heads regarding this.

 

IMHO the Danish government has made a fool of itself with this whole choosing process and I very much fear how seriously foreign (esp. european) companies are going to take us in the future.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Seaeagle]

Nothing is official in regards to the numbers being bought yet, we only have a recommendation from kampflykontoret of 28 aircraft whilst the government only wants to buy 27. Now the ministry of defense says kampflykontoret's estimates are unrealistic and that we will need 43 instead of 28 aircraft to cover our needs.

 

This whole thing is just beginning...

 

Have to disagree with you there.

 

The speaker for the Conservative party(which has insisted on more airframes all along) asked the MoD to re-assess the number of aircraft required for maintaining current operational level based on more realistic numbers(Norwegian estimates) regarding annual flight hours per F-35, as well as current working conditions for pilots and ground crews - the answer from the MoD was that the requirement then called for 43 airframes.

 

However, a majority in Parliament(Conservatives excluded) has backed the government's proposal for the purchase of 27 F-35s - so it is official.

 

The agreement has some elastics in terms of the actual number though - after delivery of 21 airframes, it will be assessed whether the aircraft have met expectations/were delivered on time and, based on this, whether to purchase the last 6. On the other hand, it also opens up for purchasing more(than the 27) airframes in case the operational requirement changes later on.

[Hummingbird]

Have to disagree with you there.

 

The speaker for the Conservative party(which has insisted on more airframes all along) asked the MoD to re-assess the number of aircraft required for maintaining current operational level based on more realistic numbers(Norwegian estimates) regarding annual flight hours per F-35, as well as current working conditions for pilots and ground crews - the answer from the MoD was that the requirement then called for 43 airframes.

 

However, a majority in Parliament(Conservatives excluded) has backed the government's proposal for the purchase of 27 F-35s - so it is official.

 

The agreement has some elastics in terms of the actual number though - after delivery of 21 airframes, it will be assessed whether the aircraft have met expectations/were delivered on time and, based on this, whether to purchase the last 6. On the other hand, it also opens up for purchasing more(than the 27) airframes in case the operational requirement changes later on.

 

Well that's actually what I meant: that the final number is still far from determined and according to the MoD will most likely wind up at around 40 aircraft if we are to be able to cover our own needs on top of international operations. In short: the only thing we know is that a minimum of 27 will be bought if all goes to plan, and only 22 of those will be available for use by the RDAF :)

 

This is a far cry from the initial 58 F-16's we bought back in 1975, and that was a fighter meant primarily for fast intercepts & border patrol, i.e. a tool primarily for defense. Whilst today we're buying a small amount of stealthy first in strike fighters, i.e. a tool primarily meant for the offense. I can understand some are scratching their heads about this and also wouldn't be surprised if Russia feels a tad bit provoked :P

[Seaeagle]

Well that's actually what I meant: that the final number is still far from determined and according to the MoD will most likely wind up at around 40 aircraft if we are to be able to cover our own needs on top of international operations. In short: the only thing we know is that a minimum of 27 will be bought if all goes to plan, and only 22 of those will be available for use by the RDAF :)

 

Yes but any decision regarding the number(fewer or more) is likely not going to be addressed until 21 aircraft have been delivered, which according to the procurement plan(2021-2027) could be some 10 years from now.

 

This is a far cry from the initial 58 F-16's we bought back in 1975, and that was a fighter meant primarily for fast intercepts & border patrol, i.e. a tool primarily for defense. Whilst today we're buying a small amount of stealthy first in strike fighters, i.e. a tool primarily meant for the offense.

 

Agreed - and it is also a far cry from the number(52) that Norway felt was necessary for their operational needs(which are very comparable to Danish ones).

 

You cannot help to suspect that overly optimistic expectations about the F-35 were chosen deliberately in order to keep the required number of airframes unrealistically low(thus making the F-35 look more competitive price-wise) - then some 10 years from now when that number proves inadequate, you can always cite unforeseen changes in operational needs to justify buying more airframes.....i.e. when the choice of type has long since become irrevocable :)

 

I can understand some are scratching their heads about this

 

See above :) . I personally never had any doubt that the choice for the F-35 was a foregone conclusion - as far as I was concerned, the only interesting aspect of the selection process was how they would go about making the F-35 look like the "best buy" for a tight defense budget......I guess we know now :D

 

... and also wouldn't be surprised if Russia feels a tad bit provoked :P

 

Somehow I doubt Russia cares much about a few Danish fighter jets :)

[Hummingbird]

Pretty much agree all the way through SeaEagle :)

 

Somehow I doubt Russia cares much about a few Danish fighter jets :)

 

Hehe I was more thinking along the lines of all the new nations that are getting the F-35 combined, not just Denmark, because pretty much all of them are switching from a defensive to an offensive fighter which I think Russia might be abit concerned about :)

Edited June 11, 2016 by Hummingbird