Canada and the F-35

**Liberty** · 09 Apr 11,, 11:28

Should Canada buy the F-35 in spite of the increasing costs? It sounds like only the Conservative party is the only major party running in this election who still supports their acquisition. What are your thoughts?

**Officer of Engineers** · 09 Apr 11,, 12:42

What other birds are there?

**cr9527** · 09 Apr 11,, 17:16

Originally Posted by Liberty

Should Canada buy the F-35 in spite of the increasing costs? It sounds like only the Conservative party is the only major party running in this election who still supports their acquisition. What are your thoughts?

cost also isn't increasing by that much. Latest estimate for 2016's cost is @ 85 million and dropping year after year.

**Jimmy** · 09 Apr 11,, 19:07

It was supposed to be in the 30s, "reasonable" estimates that included expected overruns were in the 50s and 60s.

**highsea** · 09 Apr 11,, 19:25

Lockheed is beating the estimates consistently now.

Lot 4 was 31 frames for total $3.9 Billion- that includes the $400 Million advance money from Lot 3 for long lead items. 17 of those frames being STOVL variant and 4 were carrier variant. Not going to try to calculate Lot 4 flyaway because there other things in that contract -manufacturing support materials, flight test and other mission equipment, etc.

Lockheed is estimating $60 mil flyaway cost in 2010 dollars for Air Force variant.

**highsea** · 09 Apr 11,, 20:12

I would add this Jimmy- the confidence levels within the program are going up fast. They got about 1000 more flight test hours in last year than they expected to. I anticipate the USAF will downgrade their cost estimates this year. If not this year, then almost certainly next.

It's a little funky the way they project costs- they are considering F-22 overruns in their estimates on F-35. Lockheed doesn't have to do that, and as the program matures, the AF estimates will get better.

If Lockheed is on target, that $60 Mil is about the same as a new build F-16 would be. That's not a bad deal considering you are getting a 5th generation fighter with all the targeting pods, etc. included in the price (those were extras on the Viper).

**Chogy** · 09 Apr 11,, 20:15

Remember the forever wait on the F-22? Look at what resulted.

The F-35 is going to be a world-beater, a great fighter aircraft. A worthy successor to the F-16. Good things do take time. And @$60 million ea., the cost per jet will be well below the F-15, when adjusted for inflation.

**highsea** · 09 Apr 11,, 20:38

Originally Posted by Chogy

Remember the forever wait on the F-22? Look at what resulted.

And the Raptor was never allowed to go into full rate production. My god, that's the most expensive way you can build something. It's like every frame is a prototype when it comes to the manufacturing cost.

You spend a week or two setting something up, getting it dialed in and bought off, then a day and a half to run the parts and you tear it all down until next year.

One year procurements, no idea if you are going to make them again or how many. No money for more shipsets, so you can't even run the parts and put them in the warehouse till next year.

When I was running KC-135 landing gears we had a whole warehouse full of forgings. You setup the machine and you ran for two years before you tore it down.

Huge difference in the cost of things, how many you can make at a time.

**Loke** · 09 Apr 11,, 21:50

Originally Posted by cr9527

cost also isn't increasing by that much. Latest estimate for 2016's cost is @ 85 million and dropping year after year.

Norway pays 800 million NOK per plane (delivery 2016).

With an projected exchange rate of 6.45 that's 124 million USD per plane. With today's exchange rate it's 148 million USD per plane.

With logistics and a couple of years of operation we pay 4.8 billion NOK, 186 million USD per plane (assuming a 6.45 exchange rate).

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4325.html

**Jimmy** · 10 Apr 11,, 03:36

Originally Posted by highsea

I would add this Jimmy- the confidence levels within the program are going up fast. They got about 1000 more flight test hours in last year than they expected to. I anticipate the USAF will downgrade their cost estimates this year. If not this year, then almost certainly next.

It's a little funky the way they project costs- they are considering F-22 overruns in their estimates on F-35. Lockheed doesn't have to do that, and as the program matures, the AF estimates will get better.

If Lockheed is on target, that $60 Mil is about the same as a new build F-16 would be. That's not a bad deal considering you are getting a 5th generation fighter with all the targeting pods, etc. included in the price (those were extras on the Viper).

I have no doubt the F-35 will be a fantastic aircraft. I think DOD was wrong in how they handled the F-22 based on their hopes and dreams of what the F-35 could be.

**Chunder** · 10 Apr 11,, 04:04

Originally Posted by Jimmy

I have no doubt the F-35 will be a fantastic aircraft. I think DOD was wrong in how they handled the F-22 based on their hopes and dreams of what the F-35 could be.

I don't, the Navy lost it's A-12 and had to sell the super as an upgrade, the marines went without an update,. Instead the DOD got a Stateside hanger queen. Therefor the primary deployable offensive air arm only has the F-35 to place their fifth gen hopes on, with the Marines slogging a 1980's airframe because it wanted a harrier replacement... Lets say you double the numbers of F-22's purchased, how many F-15's were ever deployed in ODS, or OIF?

One hell of a price operationally so you can have a silver spoon at one hell of a cost to operationally in capability gap to other services.

**Chunder** · 10 Apr 11,, 04:11

I just think it would be good, if the DoD would get it's development wants right. It's easier to develop for a flat top then apply the platform to land based, that develop land based, and find that platform can't do vice versa.

**Jimmy** · 10 Apr 11,, 16:17

Originally Posted by Chunder

I don't, the Navy lost it's A-12 and had to sell the super as an upgrade, the marines went without an update,. Instead the DOD got a Stateside hanger queen. Therefor the primary deployable offensive air arm only has the F-35 to place their fifth gen hopes on, with the Marines slogging a 1980's airframe because it wanted a harrier replacement... Lets say you double the numbers of F-22's purchased, how many F-15's were ever deployed in ODS, or OIF?

One hell of a price operationally so you can have a silver spoon at one hell of a cost to operationally in capability gap to other services.

A wing of F-15s deployed almost overnight when Desert Shield kicked off. F-15s accounted for all but 3 USAF kills in Desert Storm. Hundreds of Bear/Blackjack intercepts around the Arctic Circle. The F-15C was a FANTASTICALLY successful fighter, and we're replacing it at less than 1:4. And that decision was based on using F-35s, except we're ordering fewer of those, too.

**cr9527** · 10 Apr 11,, 18:41

Originally Posted by Loke

Norway pays 800 million NOK per plane (delivery 2016).

With an projected exchange rate of 6.45 that's 124 million USD per plane. With today's exchange rate it's 148 million USD per plane.

With logistics and a couple of years of operation we pay 4.8 billion NOK, 186 million USD per plane (assuming a 6.45 exchange rate).

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4325.html

You gotto look at the cost breakdowns.

8 billion USD for 56 planes includes a whole bunch of other things including infrastructure, spares, etc.

**Loke** · 10 Apr 11,, 21:56

Originally Posted by cr9527

You gotto look at the cost breakdowns.

8 billion USD for 56 planes includes a whole bunch of other things including infrastructure, spares, etc.

Yes of course I was just pointing out that Norway has ordered the first 4, with delivery in 2016 at a unit price of approx. 124 million USD. This does not include infrastructure, spares. etc. As stated those are for training and will be based in the US.

It remains to be seen what we will pay for 56 planes.