F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Bird_Gunner45]

It'd be better to get a 12B$ 4th gen ?

Where are you getting those figures?  F-15SE is cheaper than a F-35, as are other fighters available (I can't confirm all). 

F35a- $107 million/jet
F-35b- $237.7 million per
F-35c- $236.8 million per

From what I've read we would be closer to a block C version (though this could be wrong)

Eurofighter- About 30 million GBP per (abotu$46.7 million Canadian dollars/system), though my source for this is somewhat dubious (google-fu)*

Gripen- $40-60 million per*

F15SE- $100 million/jet*

Based on the threat that you've described that requires us to have these jets we can assume that we dont require a stealth capability.  Domestically chasing away stray Bears or cessnas doesn't require stealth and performing at air shows**.  Expeditionary, we will be with a coalition who will maintain air superiority for the coalition but will not provide our ground forces with GBAD coverage.  Also, operational experience in Libya showed that Gen 4 aircraft had little difficulty operating in that environment with an air defence threat (though antiquated).  Operational experience in A-stan and iraq have shown the flexibilty and capabilities offered by UCAV.  The US is moving more towards UAS for strike as well, mixed with HIMARS and missiles.

So....for much less than a F-35 we can achieve our operational goals of having a fighter force to do what we need (which you haven't really proven What that is exactly).


*Anyone can feel free to update these figures with sources if the figures are out of date.

** air show comment= a joke.

 

[dapaterson]

Probability of needing that contingency money is baked in to their figure. Basically, the auditors think they'll need that contingency or they'd put in a higher figure.

No; the project office has said that, based on the assumptions and maturity of the plan, they need a greater amount of contingency that what is available.  The $9B is fixed; if push comes to shove, they'll buy less aircraft to stay within the $9B envelope.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

If you look at how they calculated the exact amount they think the project will need, they multiplied the magnitude of the different events that could cause cost over-runs by their probability. That lead to the final figure, which is about $800 million short, and they said that if they need any more they'll cut the number of aircraft ordered.

This is a normal way of calculating contingency funding, but also means that the contingency is almost always spent. Using their figures, that looks like around 9-10 aircraft to cover the unfunded portion of the contingency.

 

[WingsofFury]

Eurofighter- About 30 million GBP per (abotu$46.7 million Canadian dollars/system), though my source for this is somewhat dubious (google-fu)*

Gripen- $40-60 million per*

F15SE- $100 million/jet*

Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche III is 90M Euros, which would make it approximately $150M a copy.

The Gripen C/D is the cost that you noted, however, it is expected that SAAB will offer the Gripen NG for which there is no cost estimate at this time.

F-15SE - it hasn't even entered production and there is only 1 demonstrator made.  Nobody knows, not even Boeing, how much this plane will cost or if it will ever even be bought by anyone.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche III is 90M Euros, which would make it approximately $150M a copy.

The Gripen C/D is the cost that you noted, however, it is expected that SAAB will offer the Gripen NG for which there is no cost estimate at this time.

F-15SE - it hasn't even entered production and there is only 1 demonstrator made.  Nobody knows, not even Boeing, how much this plane will cost or if it will ever even be bought by anyone.

Do you have a source for the cost of the Eurofighter?

Either way, Gripen is much much cheaper as is the Eurofighter (depending on the model of the F 35 we were looking at)

 

[MilEME09]

The Gripen NG otherwise known as the E/F model Gripen is estimated at about $85 million per aircraft, way cheaper then the alternatives still not to mention built by a company for a arctic country. Already semi what we need built into the NG such as Sat com for arctic communication for instance. According to Saabs NG demo video looks like it has a lot that fits with what Canada could need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKlQyPOiRuE

 

[WingsofFury]

The Eurofighter was found in a German journal dd 17 June 2009. It is sourced on Wikipedia.

I'm sorry, but how is the unknown cost of a Gripen NG or the Eurofighter much much cheaper than the F-35A Canada is looking at?

These numbers are from the US DOD for FY2014.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Where are you getting those figures?  F-15SE is cheaper than a F-35, as are other fighters available (I can't confirm all). 

Let's see here.... (By the way, the F-15SE is even further than the JSF in terms of development)

F-35A: 85-90M$ (2012)
F-18E/F:  146M$ (2012)
Typhoon: 125M$ (2012)
F-15SE: 115M$ (2012) *
Rafale: 90M$ (2012)  **
Gripen NG: 140M$ (2012)

So, how does the JSF compare now?  Pretty much in the low end price-wise.

*F-15SE has not been built yet.  It has no customers.
** The 90M$ figure is approximative, since I do not have the numbers for the Indian contract. 

All others have been taken from actual prices countries paid for their aircraft, plus part & spares.  Do not fool yourself, most manufacturers advertise a low price, only to tell you that it doesn't include a radar, pylons, fuel tanks, EW equipment (or anything that is required to be a warplane).  The JSF price does include all this.

Another advantage of the JSF is that so many countries will buy it and there will be many built, making it very supportable.  It'll be a little like the F-16 I think.

Also, if you look at all those other platforms, they all ran into their fair share of issues, time and cost overrun, etc, etc.

 

[WingsofFury]

The Gripen NG otherwise known as the E/F model Gripen is estimated at about $85 million per aircraft, way cheaper then the alternatives still not to mention built by a company for a arctic country. Already semi what we need built into the NG such as Sat com for arctic communication for instance. According to Saabs NG demo video looks like it has a lot that fits with what Canada could need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKlQyPOiRuE

Way cheaper...in what sense?

And the F-35 will be able to communicate in the arctic...heesh.

Going by a video?  Sorry...but that doesn't help your argument.

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNtU0aRu7Co

 

[MilEME09]

Video alone? no its not a solid argument at all, however the NG is a major upgrade to an existing aircraft. the F-35 has had massive R&D investments that they seem to be tweeking as they build them, this costs more money to retrofit as they go. Production problems, delays and they way Lockheed is handling the development is my opinion is why the cost is growing more and more, not the planes fault but the people behind it. That said if delays keep up it will push back full production, meaning our deliveries come later, we need a new aircraft sooner rather then later, we can only extend the life of the F-18 so much before it becomes like the Starfighter and takeoff is aborted most of the time. The NG is preparing to enter production right now so if we can hop on it we can get a fixed delivery date which probably wont chance massively like the F-35 currently is.

 

[WingsofFury]

Video alone? no its not a solid argument at all, however the NG is a major upgrade to an existing aircraft. the F-35 has had massive R&D investments that they seem to be tweeking as they build them, this costs more money to retrofit as they go. Production problems, delays and they way Lockheed is handling the development is my opinion is why the cost is growing more and more, not the planes fault but the people behind it. That said if delays keep up it will push back full production, meaning our deliveries come later, we need a new aircraft sooner rather then later, we can only extend the life of the F-18 so much before it becomes like the Starfighter and takeoff is aborted most of the time. The NG is preparing to enter production right now so if we can hop on it we can get a fixed delivery date which probably wont chance massively like the F-35 currently is.

Everything that you state is the complete oppose of the information I posted above from the DOD - NOT Lockheed.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Going for the Gripen would be a huge step back from what we have right now.  In terms of capabilities especially

Also, any software upgrade to the aircraft (to put new weapons on for example) would be done for us.  For the JSF, it's all done for us and included in the price.  How many people do you think you need to hire to be in charge of the source code of the aircraft?  Is that accounted for in the price?

 

[HB_Pencil]

This is a broad Apples to Apples comparison with what would be reoccurring flyaway cost, all in 2012 dollars:

Gripen E- $105 million (Swiss AF Fixed contract price). It should be noted that even the Swiss are dubious about Saab's ability to deliver on their promises. Its quite likely that Canada would pay a higher price.

F/A-18E - $87~ million (Base cost $79 million X 3.8% (FMS fee) + 5.25 million (fixed research fee).) However the base cost will go up in the next few years with the end of Multiyear procurement III... maybe up to $85+ million. Also this is basically a 2005 version of the hornet without the  new AMC type 4 mission computer and upgraded ECM systems. Adding all of those would bring it to $6+million to base cost. Final cost may be up to 90

Eurofighter (Tranche III): $115 million (german estimates)

Rafale: $105~$131 million (French court of audit figures, 2010)  Rafale's costs are the least clear, but we know that from the Indian competition that the prices between it and the Eurofighter were probably within 15% of each other.

 

[WingsofFury]

This is a broad Apples to Apples comparison with what would be reoccurring flyaway cost, all in 2012 dollars:

Gripen E- $105 million (Swiss AF Fixed contract price).

F/A-18E - $87~ million (Base cost $79 million X 3.8% (FMS fee) + 5.25 million (fixed research fee).) However the base cost will go up in the next few years with the end of Multiyear procurement III... maybe up to $85+ million. Also this is basically a 2005 version of the hornet without the  new AMC type 4 mission computer and upgraded ECM systems. Adding all of those would bring it to $6+million to base cost. Final cost may be up to 90

Eurofighter (Tranche III): $115 million (german estimates)

Rafale: $105 million (French court of audit figures, 2010)

Thanks for the accurate numbers.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Video alone? no its not a solid argument at all, however the NG is a major upgrade to an existing aircraft. the F-35 has had massive R&D investments that they seem to be tweeking as they build them, this costs more money to retrofit as they go. Production problems, delays and they way Lockheed is handling the development is my opinion is why the cost is growing more and more, not the planes fault but the people behind it. That said if delays keep up it will push back full production, meaning our deliveries come later, we need a new aircraft sooner rather then later, we can only extend the life of the F-18 so much before it becomes like the Starfighter and takeoff is aborted most of the time. The NG is preparing to enter production right now so if we can hop on it we can get a fixed delivery date which probably wont chance massively like the F-35 currently is.

Over 70% of the NG's systems exist on paper, and its not likely to get into service before 2018, if not 2020. Saab has completely over promised and under delivered with the aircraft: They stated its unit cost would be $50 million: its now $105 million. They stated its operational cost (in front of a 2010 parliamentary committee no less) was $5000 dollars per hour: its officially $10,000 by saab's figures, and $20,000 by the Swiss government figures. This is all part of the reason why they may lose their only customer for the aircraft: 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/swiss-parliament-committee-votes-to-suspend-gripen-jet-purchase.html

 

[Quirky]

Which after all the discussions I don't think anyone wants to see.  Fewer airframes in my feeble mind mean less capability no matter which way the cake is sliced.

We are getting by just fine with 20 CF-18's per squadron right now, there is no need to have more F-35s then that IMO. Seeing how the F-35 is more capable than the CF-18 it replaces I don't understand why people think 65 is not enough. With the way attrition is going right now we can barely handle 20, in the west anyway.

Speaking of Eurofighter prices, etc... This article from '11 doesn't paint a pretty picture of the platform.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/

The Gripen NG otherwise known as the E/F model Gripen is estimated at about $85 million per aircraft, way cheaper then the alternatives still not to mention built by a company for a arctic country. Already semi what we need built into the NG such as Sat com for arctic communication for instance. According to Saabs NG demo video looks like it has a lot that fits with what Canada could need.

The Gripen NG is nothing but a paper airplane right now and is about 20 years late to the party. The JSF was estimated at $65m a peice remember, look how that turned out. I don't believe the Gripen NG can be developed, built, tested and finalized for that price by 2016/17 when Canada signs onto something. The NG has almost no customers and the Swiss are considering another look at it, if they cancel I believe its the end of the program.

Looks like HB beat me to it.

 

[dapaterson]

Over 70% of the NG's systems exist on paper, and its not likely to get into service before 2018, if not 2020. Saab has completely over promised and under delivered with the aircraft: They stated its unit cost would be $50 million: its now $105 million. They stated its operational cost (in front of a 2010 parliamentary committee no less) was $5000 dollars per hour: its officially $10,000 by saab's figures, and $20,000 by the Swiss government figures. This is all part of the reason why they may lose their only customer for the aircraft: 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/swiss-parliament-committee-votes-to-suspend-gripen-jet-purchase.html

On the other hand, if we gave Saab the millions we're giving to JSF that isn't counted as a cost against the NGFC, we'd probably get a better price and help them produce a better aircraft.  As well, economies of scale would come into play as the number of aircraft would increase.  Or does that only work for Lock Mart?

Not to say that Gripen or Gripen NG is necessarily what we need.  But our "cost" for the F-35 is being understated by our contributions to the JSF program - which is definitely a material amount.  Conveniently overlooked, but material.

 

[Kirkhill]

Scale of the buy for Gripens and Eurofighters - hundreds each from a large number of small buyers
Scale of the buy for F-35 - thousands from one buyer

The Rafale?  Tens.

 

[MarkOttawa]

But see the F-35A cost figures here, p. 63:
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130408-079.pdf

For the 19 planes for FY 2013 and 2014:

"...
Flyaway Unit Cost (Units in Millions)...153.114  152.304...

Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost...176.448  176.535... 
(Units in Millions)"


Go figure.

Mark Collins