some F35 info (2 Viewers)

And with all the fuss of the F-35 cost, Kuwait just bought 28 Eurofighters at 140 MILLION A PIECE!

Kuwait agrees to buy 28 Eurofighter Typhoons in multibillion euro deal | The National

Although this is from the LMCO site, let it be known that the DoD and press would have a field day if the numbers weren't accurate.

The most recently contracted unit costs for Low Rate Initial Production lot 7 (not including the engine) are:

F-35A: $98 million
F-35B: $104 million
F-35C: $116 million

An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today's dollars.

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

BTW the Price/Unit Cost for an F-35 engine (F135): $13.75 to $32.49 million (in FY 2015)

Pratt Whitney F135 Turbofan Engine | AeroWeb

So with that said the F-35A (probably the model that most foreign nations would buy) would cost between $112 to $131 million. An F-35B would cost $137 million (using the higher number of the engine cost). As previously posted, the cost of the F-22 is/ was $150 million if F/Y 2009 dollars.

In fairness Joe, the article says the list price is "about $140M". It does not say explicitly that Kuwait paid that figure. Such deals typically include a host of other items - spares provision, training services etc etc etc. - so we will likely never know what the actual price per airframe was. However, nobody ever pays list...right?

buffnut453 said:

In fairness Joe, the article says the list price is "about $140M". It does not say explicitly that Kuwait paid that figure. Such deals typically include a host of other items - spares provision, training services etc etc etc. - so we will likely never know what the actual price per airframe was. However, nobody ever pays list...right?

Click to expand...

Actually the $140 million per unit quote is straight from the article. It seems the total contract price is 8 Billion Euros which seems to account for sustainment and support. A second article shows unit cost between $98 and $125 million.

Middle East Eurofighter Typhoon Deal: Kuwait To Buy 28 Jets From Italy

Eurofighter closes in on €8bn Kuwait deal - FT.com

That same article talks about concurrency, which is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever read. All it does is keep money flowing when the product is unproven and hasn'r even met specs yet. If we haven't learned anything else, we HAVE ample evidence of the failure of concurrency.

GregP said:

That same article talks about concurrency, which is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever read. All it does is keep money flowing when the product is unproven and hasn'r even met specs yet. If we haven't learned anything else, we HAVE ample evidence of the failure of concurrency.

Click to expand...

I agree about the concurrency - it's what jacked up the cost of the F-35. But in this stage of the program (several hundred built, nearing operational status with the USAF and USMC, a second production line in Italy, Norway and several other nations taking delivery of their first birds, and finally the training of foreign pilots), I think this "product" has "met specs."

I hate to point this out Joe, but they still don't have a gun. It only recently fired one for the first time. The guns aren't expected to be operational until 2017, unles I read wrong.

Since people ARE stepping up, maybe it DOES perform. I suppose we'll see at some point.

I won't rail about it in here anymore, but will still wait for some good press from users other than the US Military. My bet is if a US pilot speaks out agianst it, he or she will probably get canned at this point. Really, all I want is an honest evaluation by someone who expects to be using it in combat. If a combat pilot likes it after testing it, and that includes within visual range since the ROE will almost always dictate that, then maybe we DO have something after all.

FLYBOYJ said:

And the beat goes on...

Lockheed wins preliminary deal worth up to $5.37 billion for more F-35s - Yahoo Finance

Click to expand...

Only 55 more F-35's for $5.37 billion!? What's $97,636,363.636 a piece? It's getting cheaper....ebay next?

GregP said:

I hate to point this out Joe, but they still don't have a gun. It only recently fired one for the first time. The guns aren't expected to be operational until 2017, unles I read wrong.

Since people ARE stepping up, maybe it DOES perform. I suppose we'll see at some point.

I won't rail about it in here anymore, but will still wait for some good press from users other than the US Military. My bet is if a US pilot speaks out agianst it, he or she will probably get canned at this point. Really, all I want is an honest evaluation by someone who expects to be using it in combat. If a combat pilot likes it after testing it, and that includes within visual range since the ROE will almost always dictate that, then maybe we DO have something after all.

Click to expand...

Can I ask a dumb question - how are you going to differentiate between a combat pilot who really likes the aircraft and one who's simply saying positive things to toe the party line for fear of being canned? Seems like the criteria you're setting for yourself are impossible to achieve. Every time a pilot puts out a positive review, you have the opportunity to claim the he/she is simply being a mouthpiece for the Government. Seems like a no-win situation to me...or am I missing something?

It looks that the USMC is pretty happy with the aircraft but clearly that isn't enough to satisfy you. Conversely, the negative press on the F-35 programme has consistently been proven to manipulate the facts to generate a story, the "can't dogfight an F-16" being among the latest. I really want to understand what evidence will satisfy you that the aircraft actually works. If the US military holds an operationally realistic exercise and everyone praises the F-35, will you accept that or will you claim that the scenario was biased in favour of a positive outcome?

There have been numerous examples cited on this thread where sensationist press reporting has been countered by compelling evidence. Unfortunately, you seem to want proof of a negative - you won't accept that the aircraft is good until someone proves it isn't bad, but the people providing the proof you want are the military operators who, per your last post, can't be trusted. Please explain what will make you happy 'cos right now it seems nothing will.

Duplicate post.

GregP said:

I hate to point this out Joe, but they still don't have a gun. It only recently fired one for the first time. The guns aren't expected to be operational until 2017, unles I read wrong.

Click to expand...

Nope that's correct - and the gun is on schedule within the test profile (F-35A)

GregP said:

Since people ARE stepping up, maybe it DOES perform. I suppose we'll see at some point.

Click to expand...

The old saying, money talks!

GregP said:

I won't rail about it in here anymore, but will still wait for some good press from users other than the US Military. My bet is if a US pilot speaks out agianst it, he or she will probably get canned at this point.

Click to expand...

I doubt that for a number of reasons, mainly the whistleblower program within the USAF is pretty strong, especially if a woman brings up an ignored issue. I've been working with the USAF for 10 years and if a pilot has an issue with an MDS, their leadership is compelled to listen.

GregP said:

Really, all I want is an honest evaluation by someone who expects to be using it in combat. If a combat pilot likes it after testing it, and that includes within visual range since the ROE will almost always dictate that, then maybe we DO have something after all.

Click to expand...

I think it will come, after all it took the F-117 almost 2 years to get some good press. People were bagging on it without knowing what it looks like, I remember people saying it was the "Worse kept military secret." The armchairs were just as clueless then as they are now!

I'd say that would be an easy question. Any pilot whose country is seriously thinking about buying it but hasn't yet committed. They'd probably have one of their better pilots fly it and make a report to the defense miniters (or whomever). I'm also looking forward to seeing what it can do in multinational war games ... assuming we the public are even allowed to know the ROE.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around having some 2,400 F-35s and 177 F-22s and thinking the F-35 won't be required to act as a fighter within visual range. Somehow it just doesn't add up. I'm also wondering how we can possibly have bought 100+ of them and they can't shoot a gun yet. Somehow there's a logical diconnect in this situation.

Naturally, I think that if they can't get it to shoot a gun, then someone has sold us a boat load of crap, as far as the excuse why not. They've been putting guns on planes for about 100 years. To me, it's simple. Put in the gun and worry about the folding RAM door after you at least have the ability to shoot something. It's better to have a gun and not need it than the other way around, and the F-35 pilot cadre would already have some experience at shooting at targets by now.

It shouldn't take years to fit a gun, no matter what the issues are. And if the RAM material is so sensitive that we can't fit a gun easily, how do we expect to keep it functional in the field, should it ever have to deploy and actually shoot something?

All I'm really looking for is a realistic assessment. So far, everyone, including you, is either staunchly pro-F_35 or staunchly anti-F-35. I can't find any writeups by someone trying to do an honest assessment of the platform, and that worries me.

Positive press spins don't make good fighters, and missing some spec doesn't make a bad fighter. It can even have a seemingly serious weakness and still be a good one, if a workaround can be found.

I'm undecided and can't find any thing to sway me one way or the other, not that it matters. Our path to the F-35 is rather obvious to any who pays attention. I'm just trying very hard to somehow feel good about it and can't yet do that. We'll still buy them since we made that decision years ago and rather obviously aren't going to let anything get in the way. It's not politically correct.

If we HAVE the facts and it IS a good plane, then we should put them in front of the public and be done with it. Not the performance (yet) but at least the facts that tell us how good it is. That we're still seeing pro and con articles makes me wonder whether we DO have the facts.

It doesn't make me want to trash the plane, it makes me want to find out.

As we get F-35 service time, I think the facts cannot be hidden very well, but they seem to be doing a good job of it so far.

If I were running a country and had the decision to make, I'd fly them all and make a choice. I wouldn't buy sight unseen or plane unflown. Perhaps the F-35 is the best attack plane out there. Not knowing for sure, I make no claim either way.

You haven't answered my question. You are automatically putting people into 2 buckets, either pro or against. You claim to want a "realistic assessment" but where on earth are you going to find that? There isn't an indicator out there that says "This is a Realistic Report" - you just have to judge it on the merits. Unfortunately, every time someone counters the extreme negative press, you automatically put us in the "staunchly pro" bucket.

I've been on record criticizing the need for the F-35B. I think it's a waste of time, effort and money that has no operational utility. For the other variants, I'll admit to being broadly in support of them in part because there isn't any viable alternative that can do everything the F-35 can do (other than retaining long-in-the-tooth existing platforms which are no more survivable). The early F-15s had a radar that was worse than the aircraft it was replacing, and yet it still entered service...but all that's forgotten in the mists of time and yet every issue with the F-35 that gets brought up DURING TESTING is grounds for cancelling the programme (at least that's the tenor I get from most of your posts).

Also, nobody has said that the F-35 won't operate in WVR conditions but rather that such an engagement ought (rightly, IMHO) to be of last resort. Again, negative critiques of the aircraft's performance hark back to the "can't dogfight an F-16" which was robustly debunked a few posts back. I'd also point out that the aircraft is still being tested and will continue to be tested throughout its life as modifications are implemented.

Finally, your comment "As we get F-35 service time, I think the facts cannot be hidden very well, but they seem to be doing a good job of it so far". Do you mean that the Government is deliberately hiding facts? Once again, what evidence will convince you that the aircraft works? You claim to be "on the fence" but I'm not detecting any acceptance of data or argument from anyone speaking up in favour of the aircraft because, clearly, we're all saps who just believe the official party line. Seems to me you're not looking for a realistic assessment at all, and even if you got one you wouldn't believe it unless it was filled with negativity.

Realistic assessments are occurring now, however verifiable, "independent" assessments will begin to flow as the type either gains runs in combat, or the results of joint exercises become known and are shared. Either the entire western military establishment is involved in some diabolical conspiracy to make the company wads of cash for the company for a dud lemon, or they will share realistic military appraisals of the capabilities and limits of the aircraft. In the case of the Australians and the US alliance partners this has been going on since at least the post Korean war period. not everything is one way traffic and not everything is written up as beer and skittles, I can assure you. There will be limits to this a/c, and far from hiding it, the military is and will be looking for those limits and capabilities

You hit it square on the head Buffnut.

I don't think the government is being forthcoming. I don't think the F-35 will do very well within visual range in dogfights, regardless of any dismissal of same by pro-F-35 people. It's been in development for 14 years for crying out loud, and it isn't even cleared to shoot the gun yet.

So ...if it IS doing great, then it should prove itself rather soon. All the clamor in here trying to convince people it is great is earwash. It will be great when it SHOWS itself to be great and not until. If you guys who like it so well are really convinced, then you shouldn't have any trouble at all letting it prove itself ... either it will or it won't. Why not let the chips fall where they may?

I never said I'd cancel it due to its performance (that's still classified). I said I wouldn't swallow the price, and I wouldn't. When it DOES have to attack and when it DOES have to be fighter, we'll see what happens. If you guys are right, we'll be fine and that's a good outcome.

If it falls on its face as a fighter, then I will be shown to be correct in questioning a force with 2,400 attack planes and 177 fighters. Just seems STUPID; it's never worked before ... why should it work now? Whether the F-35 stubs its toe as a fighter or does just fine will come out and we'll all find out within a few hours of one another. Personally, I hope it succeeds because that will lead to the least expensive option since we're buying it regardless of controversy.

I'd rather have it succeed than buy another fighter because we were too stupid to do it right this time. At this time I'm officially neutral on it. I hope to be persuaded by its actions and performance in the real world to be a fan.

Funny, I like the idea of a supersonic STOVL best of the three and that's the one you don't like. Go figure. I thought the Harrier was a good asset and have been looking forward to having that capability back in the arsenal for the Marines.

GregP said:

...Whether the F-35 stubs its toe as a fighter or does just fine will come out and we'll all find out within a few hours of one another...

Click to expand...

The F-35 is not a fighter, the F-35 is a strike aircraft with fighting capabilities.

The F-22 is a fighter. The F-22 flies top cover while the F-35 conducts it's business.

This is nothing new. The F4F flew top cover while the SBD conducts it's business.

F4F - fighter, SBD - strike aircraft with fighter capabilities.

GrauGeist said:

The F-35 is not a fighter, the F-35 is a strike aircraft with fighting capabilities.

The F-22 is a fighter. The F-22 flies top cover while the F-35 conducts it's business.

Click to expand...

Why not then concentrate on one aircraft then, with F-35's as fighters covering other '35's making the mess?

Do you actually need both the -22 and the -35, or is more like when you can't decide between two things....'f*ck it, let's buy both'...

Isn't the Typhoon the same, an 'F/A' aircraft, or is it a pure fighter? You know how it is lads, I'm stuck in the 60's!

Is the -22', a fighter with attack capabilities?

Is this with more than one aircraft today, with more and more countries going for one type, with multiple capabilities, more a question of aviation industry alive?

Will it end up like car industry, several manufacturers building the same cars, they just change badges?

Compared to today and 50 years ago, how many independent aircraft manufacturers do you have left, would you say that is had a negative impact on the industry?

Sorry gentlemen, too much (if that's possible) coffee!

Lucky13 said:

Do you actually need both the -22 and the -35, or is more like when you can't decide between two things....'f*ck it, let's buy both'...

Click to expand...

FLASHBACK 1978 F-15 AND F-16!

From Wiki...

"Experiences in the Vietnam War revealed the need for air superiority fighters and better air-to-air training for fighter pilots. Based on his experiences in the Korean War and as a fighter tactics instructor in the early 1960s Colonel John Boyd with mathematician Thomas Christie developed the Energy–maneuverability theory to model a fighter aircraft's performance in combat. Boyd's work called for a small, lightweight aircraft that could maneuver with the minimum possible energy loss, and which also incorporated an increased thrust-to-weight ratio. In the late 1960s, Boyd gathered a group of like-minded innovators that became known as the Fighter Mafia and in 1969 they secured Department of Defense funding for General Dynamics and Northrop to study design concepts based on the theory.

Air Force F-X proponents remained hostile to the concept because they perceived it as a threat to the F-15 program. However, the Air Force's leadership understood that its budget would not allow it to purchase enough F-15 aircraft to satisfy all of its missions."



History repeats itself!

GregP said:

I'm still trying to wrap my head around having some 2,400 F-35s and 177 F-22s and thinking the F-35 won't be required to act as a fighter within visual range. Somehow it just doesn't add up. I'm also wondering how we can possibly have bought 100+ of them and they can't shoot a gun yet. Somehow there's a logical diconnect in this situation.

Click to expand...

There were supposed to be many more F-22s built but the program was ended by this administration. Let me ask you Greg, how many "intercepts" do you think were done over the years that ultimately resulted in VR aerial combat?!?! Just to add to this, up until 9-11 many of the domestic intercepts were done with unarmed aircraft!!!

GregP said:

It shouldn't take years to fit a gun, no matter what the issues are. And if the RAM material is so sensitive that we can't fit a gun easily, how do we expect to keep it functional in the field, should it ever have to deploy and actually shoot something?

Click to expand...

Sorry Greg, there are some engineers and program managers who are a lot smarter than you and I who have seen otherwise. The application of a gun in this aircraft is being carefully planned and thought out and is following a schedule set by LMCO AND THE CUSTOMER! I would rather have the time spent to properly develop the system than rush it out the door to satisfy the skeptical and less educated aviation public.

GregP said:

I can't find any writeups by someone trying to do an honest assessment of the platform, and that worries me.

Click to expand...

Well the fact that just about everything said by Sprey and the Rand Report has been shown to be BS should probably tell you something.

GregP said:

Positive press spins don't make good fighters, and missing some spec doesn't make a bad fighter. It can even have a seemingly serious weakness and still be a good one, if a workaround can be found.

Click to expand...

"Missing Specs"?!?!? Can you enlighten us with what specs you think are "missing"? I'm sure the USAF IG would want to know that!!!

BTW there were 114 F-35s built a year ago.

"Over 145 F-35s have been built and delivered. After seven successive production lots, key manufacturing processes have been refined in preparation for a steady ramp-up of output. A total of 88 F-35s are currently under construction at Lockheed Martin's plant in Fort Worth, and 110 are being produced worldwide."

Here's the article from Forbes Magazine;

Forbes Welcome

Since the F-35 was and IS being sold as strike-fighter, I'd say it had better be able to be a fighter. If it can't ... we have bought a turkey, pure and simple. I have no idea where you were 14 - 17 years ago when the F-35 was being hyped, but fighter was at the top of the list ... it was a STRIKE-FIGHTER and is still being marketed as such. That means fighter when the strike part is done.

If it can't, we've been sold a load of crap and have been lied to. If that is the case, stop making them now, scrap what we have, and start over with some decent leadership. If that is not the case, then make that fact public with proof from an international war game with non-restrictive ROE and a public outcome.

Don't TELL me; SHOW me or quiet down about it. As amply stated earlier, make your case. Not with development crap; with combat success or combat war game success ... with decent ROE. Since we have 100+ of them; they SHOULD be able to perform NOW. If they can't, stop the expense NOW. If they can, then full speed ahead.

I have no preference but hate the not knowing part of it. Meeting test milestones is meaningless. Success against modern enemies looking for you and knowing you are coming makes your case easily. I think the British or French could easily field a force of modern enemies. So could India, Russia, Japan, Spain, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Korea, etc. Try a war game with Brazil or South Africa or others.

See what it can really do and go with what you find out. If we're good to go, then GO. If we're not, regroup and make a new plan.

Simple and easy ... unless you already know the outcome will be bad and are desperate to spend the money while you can and nobody knows better. I don't claim we're there, but am getting closer to thinking it every day we don't know for sure while I cringe at the money we are expending.

Spare me the "we're on track." It's been 14+ years. Put up or shut up. I'm not in Congress but, if I were, my patience would be wearing VERY thin and Eurofighters would start to look mighty good about now. So would Sukhois.

Prove it or cancel it, and do it immediately.

Instead, we'll probably see more delays and phased-in capability expansion ... other words for more of the same delaying tactics. It makes a potentially good aircraft seem like a bad one, and nobody seemingly wants to really find out.

Saw two in formation shooting approach with at least one go-around into Pensacola NAS. Noisy, powerful engine.