2018 F-35 News and Discussion

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

By mentioning 2021 for a multi/year buy they are also putting the emphasis on the secured perspective for LM. I would guess that this could ease their yearly contract negotiation (did they reach an agreement already?).

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

I don't think this is a negotiating tactic (but it very well could be). Logically speaking, they have to begin talking about a multi year agreement so that they can negotiate one when they have the right authorizations to do so. Given that they are likely negotiating LRIP-11 and 12 concurrently (trying to wrap up 11 and ramp up work on 12) LRIP-15 is just likely one cycle away..

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/08/new-f-35-modernization-plan-could-come-with-hefty-16b-price-tag/

Because the U.S. share of development costs amounts to $7.2 billion, the United States could be left with a bill of about about $1 billion a year over that seven year period before procurement costs are factored in. Winter said that is “on par for post-development” costs for an upgrade program of this size.
“That estimate will most likely come down, most likely,” he told reporters after the hearing. “But I don’t guarantee anything.”

But i do understand the Congressional additional aircraft buy. That is not my point here. We are talking about FY-21 here. And that is directly linked to those present and future upgrade/modernization plans of F-35 program.
Those plans do run side-by-side with any Future Lot buy.

You said it yourself, there is not unlimited pockets for F-35 program.
Hense my call on further cost rise or perhaps a better term, unrealistic cost prospects on F-35.

You can call the different budgets from Lots buy, Additional Congress buy, or modernization cost three totally different things.. but they ALL adds up the a profound insane costly F-35 program.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

But i do understand the Congressional additional aircraft buy. That is not my point here. We are talking about FY-21 here. And that is directly linked to those present and future upgrade/modernization plans of F-35 program.
Those plans do run side-by-side with any Future Lot buy.

You are trying to connect two totally unrelated things. Let me try to break it down for you. In FY21 (i.e. late 2020) they may decide to kick of Multi-Year Procurement. MYP does not add more aircraft but is a contracting mechanism whereby you negotiate and sign contracts for multiple lots at the same time and as a result can negotiate for economies of scale. At the moment they are negotiating and buying the F-35, a year at a time.

Your second point was about the AF "reducing" while this is not what was being said. The AF was asked as to why, despite a 2-year budget deal, they stuck to their numbers that they had revealed in December of 2016. Their answer was that if they increase their F-35 from 48 to 60 earlier, they would have to buy block 3F aircraft and later pay to add hardware to them to bring them up to Block 4. As a result, they have to balance the number of aircraft they have to buy with the cost they have to pay in the 2020s so they intend on reaching that 60 or more in FY23 as the had revealed back in December of 2016. Also note that the difference was that they are now buying 54 aircraft in FY21 instead of 60 they had planned to buy in FY21 in 2015. Similarly, they plan to buy 54 aircraft in FY22 instead of 60 they had planned then. Only in FY23 they see themselves getting to 60 a year. So as a net, they intend to be 12 aircraft short vs where they claimed they'd like to be in their 2015 budget request. But in reality they are quite likely to exceed that number as the Congress has added and will likely keep adding aircraft.

You said it yourself, there is not unlimited pockets for F-35 program.
Hense my call on further cost rise or perhaps a better term, unrealistic cost prospects on F-35.

Current Lot URF stands at $94.5 for the CTOL (USAF) variant. LOT-11, if it holds steady with LRIP-9 --> LRIP-10 reduction could give us a target price of $89 Million URF for the CTOL variant. Remember that their target is to get to $80-85 Million URF by 2020 buy year so should be around that ballpark. The USN's buy rate has been known since December, 2017 when they presented their FY18 SAR.

You can call the different budgets from Lots buy, Additional Congress buy, or modernization cost three totally different things..

No they are not 3 totally different things. The congressional adds are included in the same production lots. The USAF cannot order aircraft, and neither can the President of the United States. They share their vision and request via the budget. Congress goes over the budget, makes amendments and authorizes it. Congressional appropriators then fund it after a reconciliation. The role of the executive (POTUS and through the WH the Pentagon and its services) is to develop a budget and to veto the NDAA if what is presented by the Congress is not to his/her liking. What the President or the services ask for is immaterial and what ultimately matters is what the enacted law of the land is (NDAA and what the appropriators appropriate). If the USAF requests 48 F-35As in 2018 and the Congress funds for 52, then the USAF get 52 aircraft from that Lot buy, not 48.

The F-35 is a multi-service product and will be the backbone of the combined US Tactical strike fighter fleet well into the 2030s and beyond..spending 1% a year (of R&D budget, not total budget) on keeping it modernized seems quite reasonable.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Hallow, as I requested earlier, please invest a little bit of time and try to add some value to the discussion (OR ELSE, what is even the point of posting?). Or at least, make an attempt at it.

The US and the International Partners have a need to modernize their aircraft over its entire lifetime. Neither your own technology/capability nor the abilities of your adversaries are static. Based on this need, they have identified a set of requirements which they seek to do in its next iteration, over a 7-year time frame. The requirements have been developed, delivered to the appropriate authorizers and been scrubbed once again based on the regular vetting process that has been set up to help them nail them down further. This has taken them longer than desired because of many reasons, an important one being the change of guard at the OSD and the fact that the defense department's top weapons buyer was not even sworn until last August (hence final clearence will be in June). Based on that, the program has selected these capabilities and is in the process of finalizing the final/definitive cost an schedule targets for the same. Along with the cost of developing these upgrades, the progam has also provided cost-data for retrofitting earlier aircraft to this standard, knowing full well that their job is to only provide an estimate, and not force each customer to do so on their schedule.

This is how all modern systems are developed i.e. based on first and formost, a modernization/upgrade requirement which has to then allign with cost and schedule. Once you modernize and develop those upgrades in a technical sense (engineer them, test them and evaluate them) you then break those into production and decide how much of your existing fleet needs to be brought up to those standards. This is true of all systems, and will continue to be true unless someone develops something so good that it never needs to be upgraded or enhanced over its lifetime. With the JSF it is more complicated and extensive becaucse the program has to address the needs of three different US customers, and 8 additional foreign partners not all of whom share the same weapons, sensor, software upgrade needs etc.. Additionally, at least one FMS customer has identified user-specific end item development or integration as the program develops its follow on modernization plans. The US may not use the Meteor, but the program has to build it into the FOM because a customer wants it. Same with Spear for the UK, JSM for Norway, and SOMJ for Turkey. The USN may want AARGM which the USAF, or any of the international partners may not end up needing or buying, but likewise the program has to develop, integrate and test this capability. The need for EOTS-NG may only be coming from some of the customers but they still have to design and develop a new sensor, intgerate it and cut it into production.

As far as the US, I can say that the costs are very reasonable for what they get in return..i.e. they pay roughly 1% of their entire Research Outlay, and get to modernize what will effectively become the bulk of their strike-fighter fleet. The partners (8 of them) too will get a pretty good deal and will contribute roughly 500 Million a year collectively. These upgrades will end up covering sensors, weapons, software, processors, communications, ALIS-upgrades, Simulator upgrades and other classified capabilities based on how much they can fit in given cost and schedule constraints and test equipment and infrastructure availability (the B-21 will be in testing around the same time as well). These data and estimates are for cost-to-complete of all the elements including the block OT&E.

How much money has France spent on the F3, F3R, and F4 standards for the Rafale for the very tiny fleet they operate? How much is India spending on customizing 36 Rafale's? Same with the USAF's F-22 Units..How much has Increment-3 cost in total (even though it was broken down into bite sized sub-programs) relative to the size of the fleet? Is it reasonable for India to spend €1.7 billion ($2 Billion) on Rafale customization for 3 squadron worth of aircraft, while unreasonable for 8 Nations (JSF partners minus the US) to spend $3.8 Billion on a 7-year developmental effort to modernize the capability of their aircraft?

Regarding a MYP, this was expected post Milestone C approval and will be the case. There is a reason they are aiming for FY21 as the program is expected to come out of IOT&E in FY19 or by early FY20 at the latest. It would be highly atypical and fiscally irresponsible to not acquire the F-35 via the MYP route given the sheer number of aircraft the DOD is buying. This is how all aircraft or weapon systems are purchased that have their production runs expected to last multiple years. This is how the Navy bought the F-18s for example and how the Air Force purchased its F-16s. Even ships and submarines are purchased via a MYP. In fact, the largest MYP the DOD runs is for the Virginia Class SSN.

https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?aid=78ed480b-c25b-4b9f-a080-eefaf50f403e

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

Lockheed F-35 Cost Stabilizes at $406 Billion, Pentagon Says

The Pentagon’s estimated cost to develop and purchase Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet, the costliest U.S. weapons program, has stabilized for now, according to a new report to Congress.

The total acquisition cost for the advanced fighter is projected at $406.1 billion, virtually unchanged from the $406.5 billion estimated last year, according to the Defense Department’s latest Selected Acquisition Report, which will be sent to Congress this week. The projections were obtained in advance by Bloomberg News.

Within the total -- which includes research, development and initial support such as spare parts and military construction -- the estimated cost to procure 2,456 U.S. aircraft has ticked down to $345.4 billion from $346.1 billion, or a 0.2 percent decline.

That’s good news for the F-35, which has wide support in Congress but a past marred by cost overruns. Last year, the annual acquisition report on major weapons estimated that costs would rise about 7 percent to $406.5 billion after several years of declining projections.


More at the link
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-13/lockheed-f-35-cost-stabilizes-at-406-billion-pentagon-says

I'll give more details as they are released.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

^ The article must have been rough on Tony ;)

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Within the total -- which includes research, development and initial support such as spare parts and military construction -- the estimated cost to procure 2,456 U.S. aircraft has ticked down to $345.4 billion from $346.1 billion, or a 0.2 percent decline.

That comes to an average of around $158-$165 Million per Unit (CTOL, STOVL and CV) including R&D and MILCON (comparable to PAUC). For comparison, the Super Hornet PAUC was estimated to be around $83 Million in 2000$s. In TY$ this would be probably closer to $90 Million. Keep in mind that the SH was a derivative of the Hornet and thus its R&D cost is not reflective of a clean sheet aircraft, let alone one which is producing 3 variants for 3 distinct applications. It would be interesting to see what 4+ gen. operators in the West end up paying (PAUC) for their operational fleets and what that is as a percentage of their overall defense spending or acquisition budgets. Any one have an accurate number on the total budgeted by France for the Rafale (R&D, Procurement, MILCON etc) or the UK with the Typhoon?

http://vervanging-f16.rekenkamer.nl/sites/default/files//images/JSF_figuur_240g-engels.png

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

I've broken down Dassault Rafale PAUC equivalent several times, searching back on what I've previously posted:

212 million in 2011 dollars. That obviously does not include RBE2 AESA backfitting, and was based on 286 aircraft produced for France.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Thanks FBW! We would then need to find out the procurement/acquisition budget for France to see what %age of it the Rafale consumes and likewise for other operators in order to develop a relative comparison on the impact of modern fighter acquisition on total National Security budgets and defense acquisition specificly . Perhaps Halloween or others could chip in but I'll try to see what I can find as well.

Although I defer to Sintra or others for more recent assessment of Typhoon's PAUC to the UK and other development partners the, link below, from 2011, puts the cost to develop and buy (UK) at around $170 Million/Unit. I'm not sure whether this includes any MILCON.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1011755.pdf

As a reference, the UK had allocated around $12 Billion pounds to procurement (including infrastructure) in 2017.

A crude way of looking at this is that based on US's FY19 budget outlay, the entire JSF procurement program will require 28 months of procurement funding if the budget were to be exclusively dedicated to buying the 2,456 aircraft. Using the UK and Typhoon as an example, the UK would have spent roughly 20 months of its procurement budget on buying the 160 Typhoons. Of course none of this accounts for budget increase or time-frame. Things look much different when you add R&D to the mix. The program as a whole (RDT&E/Procurement/MILCON) consumes roughly 20 months of US combined R&D and Procurement spending using the same concept. The UK would have spent 23 months worth of R&D and procurement money to develop and buy its Typhoon fleet.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Any one have an accurate number on the total budgeted by France for the Rafale (R&D, Procurement, MILCON etc) or the UK with the Typhoon?

Uk Typhoon.

The most recent official (and exact) numbers available publicly that i am aware are here (choose the "Appendices and project summary sheets (pdf - 1795KB)" and go to page 170): https://www.nao.org.uk/report/major-projects-report-2015-and-the-equipment-plan-2015-to-2025/

The "Readers Digest" of it his 18189 million pounds to develop, acquire and upgrade (till P3E), 160 airframes (no sustainment, training, etc).

Cheers

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Thanks Sintra! This comes to roughly $159 Million PAUC (not sure whether this includes any program specific MILCON or facility upgrade). F-35's FY18 SAR had a PAUC of $131.4 Million (Average of A, B and C variants) in 2012 dollars or $164 Million in TY$.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

To be fair, Rafale PAUC comparison suffers from higher Euro compared to the dollar then. Using the 2014 French Senat numbers of ~160 million Euro PAUC equivalent (19.6% VAT). Wouldn’t be surprised if Rafale program acquisition cost was higher than UK Typhoon costs though. Development costs shouldered by one nation, clear upgrade roadmap, and all aircraft (I believe) brought to F3 standard in cost projection. Can only imagine Typhoon development cost if tranche 1 were (or could be) modernized to a tranche 2 or 3.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

F-35 Lightning II, USS Wasp (LHD 1), Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121

Attachments

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

I've broken down Dassault Rafale PAUC equivalent several times, searching back on what I've previously posted:

212 million in 2011 dollars. That obviously does not include RBE2 AESA backfitting, and was based on 286 aircraft produced for France.

That included everything within F3. F3R and future F4 are not included in original program.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

That included everything within F3. F3R and future F4 are not included in original program.

No, not according to the report. F3 standard. If you have documentation to support information to the contrary please share. And not “somebody in the know told me”, because the estimate made at the time was clear what was included.

Even the production slowdown was estimated to add over a billion Euro to program costs since those estimates, now we have a production increase for the next few years. You want to guess how these changes to production rate will impact program costs?

Member for

16 years 11 months

Posts: 402

Anybody knows which existing amphibious assault ship platforms (LHD, LHA, LPH...) the F-35B could use?

I don't mean here on using a flight deck only, but rather ships' elevators and hangars.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

IIRC the F-35B is only headed to the LHD/LHA.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 4,168

No, not according to the report. F3 standard

I think someone got lost in translation. Could you link that report please?

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

http://www.senat.fr/rap/a16-142-8/a16-142-820.html

For the record, the target of the Rafale program was in the previous LPM, for 2008-2013, of 286 aircraft. With this target, the total cost of the program for the State represented 46,6 billion euros under the economic conditions cost of the factors of 2015. According to the information gathered by your rapporteurs for opinion60 (*), this target must be re-examined later, in particular according to the observed attrition, the use of the aircraft and the number of Mirage 2000 remaining (M2000-5 and M2000D), to respect the format of 225 aircraft defined in 2013.
- Work related to the new F3R standard, whose development was launched at the end of 2013. This standard makes it possible for the Rafale F3R operation: development work, testing and instrumentation;
he development of the Rafale F4 standard, according to the LPM, must be ordered in 2018. This new standard will include an upgrade of the active antenna radar detection software and the electronic countermeasures of the aircraft; the weapon-carrying capacity will also be increased, so that the successor of the MICA (Interception, Combat and Self-Defense Missile, see below) can be installed. The objective is to have a fleet of which all aircraft would eventually have the same standard, which would facilitate both logistical support and training of pilots. In order to preserve the skills of the industrial design offices, your draftsmen would like to see the idea of anticipating 2017 the notification of the development contract of this F4 standard.

In other words, 46.6 billion based on the previous estimates from the 2008-2013 plan in 2015 cost factors. The development for F3R was started after the 2013 plan. The contracts for F4 hadn't even been awarded yet.

Look back on previous estimates, the estimated program costs did not include future standards and upgrades:
https://www.senat.fr/rap/a04-077-7/a04-077-74.html
(program costs in 2004= 35 billion, which BTW included 294 aircraft delivered by 2015. The program added about 6 billion Euro in program costs between 2004-2015 after taking inflation into account.)

https://www.senat.fr/rap/a12-150-8/a12-150-81.pdf