By: Stan hyd
- 7th January 2010 at 10:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, the TV documentary showed Rafales with French cocards and that means, obviously, that USAF F-22's were fighting against French pilots, not against Rafales sold to some small hostile third-world country.
And that means, yes I repeat it, that for the US experts and USAF pilots who took part to this documentary that a war against an European nation is not a totally impossible option for the future.
And in this strategical situation, a European country equipped with F-35 would be basically defenseless.
war against a european nation is not totally impossible? The UK taking back the 13 colonies is not totally impossible either, we should get to work on testing our pilots just in case.
It was a crappy TV documentary that wanted to talk about how great american planes are (they are great btw) and they closed their eyes and stuck a pin in the superb french plane.
Trade stops wars, the EU is the largest trading block in the world and no european nation is a treat now or even in the future.
By: LowObservable
- 7th January 2010 at 16:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only 'turn-round' will be morons like Sweetman admitting that things in the F-35 program aren't (& neber were) as bad as they want to make them out to be.
The entire class is waiting for you to cite sources where LockMart has been more accurate in predicting flight-test progress than such "morons".
Until then, you're just another proof of Gabriel's Internet ****wad Theory.
New
Posts: 179
By: Tutpriduri
- 7th January 2010 at 16:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LRIP contracts are ALREADY BELOW projections! And the projected full rate production flyaway price of a F-35A (FY2014 dollars) is $70-75 million [~$58.7 million in FY2008 dollars :)]. That is LESS in FY2014 dollars than the Typhoon, Rafale or F/A-18E/F cost in FY2008 dollars!
Fantastic! I spilled coffee on my keyboard reading this. :(
New
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem
- 7th January 2010 at 20:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suggest you get your rose-tinted glasses with wrap-around straps, because you are still in a for a ride.
And just what is that supposed to show?
It sure DOES NOT show that the program is having anywhere near as much problems as some want you to believe.
***
Yes, every customer will pay flyaway price indeed, BUT PLUS development price. Even the US.
Wrong. The only ones paying development cost are the partner nations DEVELOPING IT. And development cost are SEPARATE COSTS!
The difference is that US already payed most of its program share through development, so far.
The only alternative is that US taxpayers cover the development price, for partner nations like Norway, f.e.
However, I'm pretty sure that even the least literate hill-billys will have to say a word or two about that.
Yes, THE US is paying the bulk of the developement costs. NOT EXPORT CUSTOMERS!!!
Pfcem, do you even realize what kind of syphilitic idea, you just came with?? :D
I mean, it's 101 economics. How can you give any (im)possible estimations about anything related to prices, when you have troubles with basics?
You are the one having problems with the basics, not me.
I am not giving any estimations about anything related to prices, THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING & BUILDING THE AIRCRAFT ARE! And unlike people pulling crap out of their rear end, THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING & BUILDING THE AIRCRAFT have the actual data AND HAVE DEVELOPED & BUILT AIRFRAFT BEFORE.
And with LRIP contracts coming in BELOW projections shows that their cost projections ARE NOT OUT OF WHACK & if anything a bit high.
By: Cola1973
- 7th January 2010 at 21:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong. The only ones paying development cost are the partner nations DEVELOPING IT. And development cost are SEPARATE COSTS!
It doesn't matter if they are booked together or separately. They both need to be payed, one way or another.
Output must be equal or larger than input, or the heads will roll.
Kid, this is how it goes in industry and trade. Where are you from?
Yes, THE US is paying the bulk of the developement costs. NOT EXPORT CUSTOMERS!!!
Pfcem, it doesn't matter. Someone must pay the bill. So, are you saying that US pays development alone and partners not??!! (*snicker* this will be funny)
By: SpudmanWP
- 8th January 2010 at 03:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Development costs are payed THE SAME YEAR they occur. When the F-35s are sold years later, the US Gov may, or may not, decide to add some cost into the model to get some of that back, but they DO NOT HAVE TO.
I do not have time to read the whole MOU, but I am sure it covers dev costs (which partner nations have already been paying).
New
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem
- 8th January 2010 at 05:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It doesn't matter if they are booked together or separately. They both need to be payed, one way or another.
Output must be equal or larger than input, or the heads will roll.
Kid, this is how it goes in industry and trade. Where are you from?
Yes it does matter & they ARE booked separately BECAUSE IT DOES MATTER.
Development costs are payed by those involded in development - for the JSF that is the eight partner nations. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system - which is not only the eight partner nations but those nations which procure the F-35 at some point BUT WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH ITS DEVELOPEMENT.
Pfcem, it doesn't matter. Someone must pay the bill. So, are you saying that US pays development alone and partners not??!! (*snicker* this will be funny)
You have a SERIOUS reading comprehention problem. I have already posted MANY TIMES in several threads that development costs are payed by the eight partner nations. Developement costs ARE NOT added onto procurement costs, THEY ARE PAYED SEPARATELY.
By: Jwcook
- 8th January 2010 at 08:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And just what is that supposed to show?
It sure DOES NOT show that the program is having anywhere near as much problems as some want you to believe.
I am not giving any estimations about anything related to prices, THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING & BUILDING THE AIRCRAFT ARE! And unlike people pulling crap out of their rear end, THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING & BUILDING THE AIRCRAFT have the actual data AND HAVE DEVELOPED & BUILT AIRFRAFT BEFORE.
And with LRIP contracts coming in BELOW projections shows that their cost projections ARE NOT OUT OF WHACK & if anything a bit high.
2002 quote -
For Burbage and the JSF team, nothing is more sacred than a deadline. "If you can't control your schedule, the implication is that you can't control costs," he says. "And if you can't control costs, you won't keep the services interested in funding your program."
The critical deadline facing the JSF team is October 2005, when the Air Force expects to fly its JSF aircraft. To nail that date, the team must harness a program that encompasses 75% of the world's fighter-development industrial base.
Either there having more problems than you can believe or there is some kind of time warp/alternate reality issues interfering with LM's excellent track record such as the on time and on budget F-22 which has been flying 750 aircraft for the past decade:confused:
Someone is avoiding the issues.
Cheers
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 8th January 2010 at 09:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
are you trolling ? no the f-35 didnt fly in 2005, it flew in 2006
By: snafu352
- 8th January 2010 at 09:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
are you trolling ? no the f-35 didnt fly in 2005, it flew in 2006
That is not trolling.
It is merely stating facts inconvienient to the rose tinted spectacle brigade.
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 8th January 2010 at 09:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its pretty old news, when has a new aircraft ever been on-time
as has been just released, the seppo's are chucking an extra bucket of money at it, not a problem
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 8th January 2010 at 10:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes it does matter & they ARE booked separately BECAUSE IT DOES MATTER.
Development costs are payed by those involded in development - for the JSF that is the eight partner nations. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system - which is not only the eight partner nations but those nations which procure the F-35 at some point BUT WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH ITS DEVELOPEMENT.
Development is investment for future winnings, the R&D costs are paid in the same year and need to be covered by the eight partnering nations but they are expected to be paid back by future buyers. Buyers pay flyaway cost+part of R&D+margin. Like in every other industry where development cost is significant.
By: Jwcook
- 8th January 2010 at 10:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
are you trolling ? no the f-35 didnt fly in 2005, it flew in 2006
And has every single development milestone since then been extended?:rolleyes:.
Is it 1/3 the price of an F-22:eek:
The JSF is in quite a bit of trouble, it gets very wearisome to keep hearing LM's rosy outlook taken as gospel and repeated ad nauseam despite the facts. Look at LM share price drop, the big money is not confident, do you wonder why that is?
If the leaked delays are confirmed it does have an impact on costs and the in service dates which are supposed to be only ~18 months away and they can't fly powerpoint presentations.
I guess if you believe the LM's test schedule you'll believe LM's price estimates, that was the point I was trying to make and mentioning LM's past record as 'proof' its all going well is frankly ridiculous!.
There are other estimates of LM current JSF performance the JET report is one, the truth lies somewhere in between LM and JET, but my money and the big money is tilted far towards the JET report end.
My bet is there is some big JSF changes in the pipeline, so hold on, strap yourself in and enjoy the show.
By: Satorian
- 8th January 2010 at 10:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And just what is that supposed to show?
It sure DOES NOT show that the program is having anywhere near as much problems as some want you to believe.
It sure DOES show that the program is having more issues than LM and some forum warriors want you to believe.
As for your claim of unit production costs: Yeah, awesome. Never mind that they achieved that by being severly late. Had they been forced to be on schedule with their LRIP lots, the cost would have been never near that. And you end up paying the increased costs those delays incurred. LM definitely deserves a pat on the back for that.
Also, for all your harping on about intellectual honesty you go about comparing fighters prices from different currency zones without considering PPP adjustment to derive their respective costs again. Where's your much desired intellectual honesty in that?
Anyone still defending the way the JSF program is being run, and the leeway and sloth LM has been awarded, after another delay and cost increase as expected in the next budget as being just fine and claiming that everything is all dandy, deserves the title of "Black Knight".
By: Cola1973
- 8th January 2010 at 11:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes it does matter & they ARE booked separately BECAUSE IT DOES MATTER.
...hahahaha...Kid, get a brain...
Development costs are payed by those involded in development - for the JSF that is the eight partner nations. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system - which is not only the eight partner nations but those nations which procure the F-35 at some point BUT WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH ITS DEVELOPEMENT. You have a SERIOUS reading comprehention problem. I have already posted MANY TIMES in several threads that development costs are payed by the eight partner nations. Developement costs ARE NOT added onto procurement costs, THEY ARE PAYED SEPARATELY.
Who cares if they are payed separately, on not. Both (and more) bills still need to be payed.
Now, let's take AUS for example here. As a partner AUS contributes with $150m in the JSF program development phase, worth ~$50b.
This is about 0.3% of the development worth and therefore AUS F35s will cost flyaway price+program price-0.3%.
Now, if this by some miracle doesn't happen and US choose out of altruistic reasons to exempt AUS from paying development price, then someone else needs to pay the difference and that will be US taxpayers, no less.
By: Scorpion82
- 8th January 2010 at 11:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed the sheer ignorance of the fanboy brigade is astonishing. And woe those "naysayers" doubt LMs claims on schedule and cost, those wicked witches have to be burned for not "believing". And if just another delay is evident and the naysayers were once again confirmed in their anticipation, the ignorant fanboy trolls just adapt to the new reality and propose the next new revised schedule who becomes the gospel truth until the next delay being officially announced. Yeah yeah but everything is just fine and on track and LM "delivers", yes it does but when and at what price?
New
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack
- 8th January 2010 at 11:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...hahahaha...Kid, get a brain...
Now, let's take AUS for example here. As a partner AUS contributes with $150m in the JSF program development phase, worth ~$50b.
This is about 0.3% of the development worth and therefore AUS F35s will cost flyaway price+program price-0.3%.
Now, if this by some miracle doesn't happen and US choose out of altruistic reasons to exempt AUS from paying development price, then someone else needs to pay the difference and that will be US taxpayers, no less.
Do you think this will happen? :D
i know this is a waisted post, as you've been told this before
the us tax payer has always copped the r&d costs alone and usa sells at normal usa fly away costs to buyers, as per our fa-18f
this is the first partnership that usa has gone into, the partner costs have been paid, there is no further r&d costs to them
the sell price is the same fly away for usa and partners
now if you have a link that shows usg gets their r&d cost back, i'd like to see it, this will be a first in their procurement, otherwise you are just badly guessing
By: Sintra
- 8th January 2010 at 12:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i know this is a waisted post, as you've been told this before
the us tax payer has always copped the r&d costs alone and usa sells at normal usa fly away costs to buyers, as per our fa-18f
this is the first partnership that usa has gone into, the partner costs have been paid, there is no further r&d costs to them
the sell price is the same fly away for usa and partners
now if you have a link that shows usg gets their r&d cost back, i'd like to see it, this will be a first in their procurement, otherwise you are just badly guessing
Jackjack
Not quite, the FMS system levy´s a tax of 3,75% over every sale, then there were severall documented cases in wich a system was developed with money from foreign governments while at the same time the Pentagon ordered that same equipment for the US armed forces, the Juliet Hercules (Great Britain), and the Strike Eagle (Saudi Arabia), by example.
I have read the JSF MOU and the entire chapter (13) about third party sales (page 70 onwards) is so vague that it leaves room for any interpretation about this specific point (at least for me).
I have never seen any official document that states that a foreign military sales of "military flying tubes" "must" be made using the "Fly away cost" has the cost calculation base, but i have seen a few of them that the calcuted cost is so much higher than the Fly Away Cost that is present on the US DOD budget, that, even with logistical suport, training, documentation, etc, i do have some serious doubts that the "Unit Fly Away Cost" had anything to do with the final price.
I do have this idea that every sale is a diferent case, the bottom line might be very well the "FWC" plus the 3,75% FMS fee, but (by example) in cases were there´s no credible competition the profit margin seems to grow quite a bit.
Posts: 7
By: Sharif_Ahmed - 7th January 2010 at 08:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
good fighter for its money.
Posts: 604
By: Stan hyd - 7th January 2010 at 10:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
war against a european nation is not totally impossible? The UK taking back the 13 colonies is not totally impossible either, we should get to work on testing our pilots just in case.
It was a crappy TV documentary that wanted to talk about how great american planes are (they are great btw) and they closed their eyes and stuck a pin in the superb french plane.
Trade stops wars, the EU is the largest trading block in the world and no european nation is a treat now or even in the future.
Posts: 959
By: LowObservable - 7th January 2010 at 16:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The entire class is waiting for you to cite sources where LockMart has been more accurate in predicting flight-test progress than such "morons".
Until then, you're just another proof of Gabriel's Internet ****wad Theory.
Posts: 179
By: Tutpriduri - 7th January 2010 at 16:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fantastic! I spilled coffee on my keyboard reading this. :(
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 7th January 2010 at 20:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And just what is that supposed to show?
It sure DOES NOT show that the program is having anywhere near as much problems as some want you to believe.
***
Wrong. The only ones paying development cost are the partner nations DEVELOPING IT. And development cost are SEPARATE COSTS!
Yes, THE US is paying the bulk of the developement costs. NOT EXPORT CUSTOMERS!!!
You are the one having problems with the basics, not me.
I am not giving any estimations about anything related to prices, THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING & BUILDING THE AIRCRAFT ARE! And unlike people pulling crap out of their rear end, THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING & BUILDING THE AIRCRAFT have the actual data AND HAVE DEVELOPED & BUILT AIRFRAFT BEFORE.
And with LRIP contracts coming in BELOW projections shows that their cost projections ARE NOT OUT OF WHACK & if anything a bit high.
Posts: 1,206
By: Cola1973 - 7th January 2010 at 21:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It doesn't matter if they are booked together or separately. They both need to be payed, one way or another.
Output must be equal or larger than input, or the heads will roll.
Kid, this is how it goes in industry and trade. Where are you from?
Pfcem, it doesn't matter. Someone must pay the bill. So, are you saying that US pays development alone and partners not??!! (*snicker* this will be funny)
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 8th January 2010 at 03:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Development costs are payed THE SAME YEAR they occur. When the F-35s are sold years later, the US Gov may, or may not, decide to add some cost into the model to get some of that back, but they DO NOT HAVE TO.
I do not have time to read the whole MOU, but I am sure it covers dev costs (which partner nations have already been paying).
Posts: 1,426
By: pfcem - 8th January 2010 at 05:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes it does matter & they ARE booked separately BECAUSE IT DOES MATTER.
Development costs are payed by those involded in development - for the JSF that is the eight partner nations. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system - which is not only the eight partner nations but those nations which procure the F-35 at some point BUT WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH ITS DEVELOPEMENT.
You have a SERIOUS reading comprehention problem. I have already posted MANY TIMES in several threads that development costs are payed by the eight partner nations. Developement costs ARE NOT added onto procurement costs, THEY ARE PAYED SEPARATELY.
Posts: 1,067
By: Jwcook - 8th January 2010 at 08:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
2002 quote -
Either there having more problems than you can believe or there is some kind of time warp/alternate reality issues interfering with LM's excellent track record such as the on time and on budget F-22 which has been flying 750 aircraft for the past decade:confused:
Someone is avoiding the issues.
Cheers
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 8th January 2010 at 09:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
are you trolling ? no the f-35 didnt fly in 2005, it flew in 2006
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 8th January 2010 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the F-35 has its schedule delayed three times already according to this article:
http://www.military.com/news/article/report-f35-behind-schedule-and-over-budget.html
and it seems that another delay was added these days:
http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=1373&thisSection=military
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 8th January 2010 at 09:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is not trolling.
It is merely stating facts inconvienient to the rose tinted spectacle brigade.
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 8th January 2010 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its pretty old news, when has a new aircraft ever been on-time
as has been just released, the seppo's are chucking an extra bucket of money at it, not a problem
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 8th January 2010 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Development is investment for future winnings, the R&D costs are paid in the same year and need to be covered by the eight partnering nations but they are expected to be paid back by future buyers. Buyers pay flyaway cost+part of R&D+margin. Like in every other industry where development cost is significant.Posts: 1,067
By: Jwcook - 8th January 2010 at 10:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And has every single development milestone since then been extended?:rolleyes:.
Is it 1/3 the price of an F-22:eek:
The JSF is in quite a bit of trouble, it gets very wearisome to keep hearing LM's rosy outlook taken as gospel and repeated ad nauseam despite the facts. Look at LM share price drop, the big money is not confident, do you wonder why that is?
If the leaked delays are confirmed it does have an impact on costs and the in service dates which are supposed to be only ~18 months away and they can't fly powerpoint presentations.
I guess if you believe the LM's test schedule you'll believe LM's price estimates, that was the point I was trying to make and mentioning LM's past record as 'proof' its all going well is frankly ridiculous!.
There are other estimates of LM current JSF performance the JET report is one, the truth lies somewhere in between LM and JET, but my money and the big money is tilted far towards the JET report end.
My bet is there is some big JSF changes in the pipeline, so hold on, strap yourself in and enjoy the show.
Cheers
John
Posts: 753
By: Satorian - 8th January 2010 at 10:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It sure DOES show that the program is having more issues than LM and some forum warriors want you to believe.
As for your claim of unit production costs: Yeah, awesome. Never mind that they achieved that by being severly late. Had they been forced to be on schedule with their LRIP lots, the cost would have been never near that. And you end up paying the increased costs those delays incurred. LM definitely deserves a pat on the back for that.
Also, for all your harping on about intellectual honesty you go about comparing fighters prices from different currency zones without considering PPP adjustment to derive their respective costs again. Where's your much desired intellectual honesty in that?
Anyone still defending the way the JSF program is being run, and the leeway and sloth LM has been awarded, after another delay and cost increase as expected in the next budget as being just fine and claiming that everything is all dandy, deserves the title of "Black Knight".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Posts: 1,206
By: Cola1973 - 8th January 2010 at 11:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...hahahaha...Kid, get a brain...
Who cares if they are payed separately, on not. Both (and more) bills still need to be payed.
Now, let's take AUS for example here. As a partner AUS contributes with $150m in the JSF program development phase, worth ~$50b.
This is about 0.3% of the development worth and therefore AUS F35s will cost flyaway price+program price-0.3%.
Now, if this by some miracle doesn't happen and US choose out of altruistic reasons to exempt AUS from paying development price, then someone else needs to pay the difference and that will be US taxpayers, no less.
Do you think this will happen? :D
Posts: 4,461
By: Scorpion82 - 8th January 2010 at 11:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed the sheer ignorance of the fanboy brigade is astonishing. And woe those "naysayers" doubt LMs claims on schedule and cost, those wicked witches have to be burned for not "believing". And if just another delay is evident and the naysayers were once again confirmed in their anticipation, the ignorant fanboy trolls just adapt to the new reality and propose the next new revised schedule who becomes the gospel truth until the next delay being officially announced. Yeah yeah but everything is just fine and on track and LM "delivers", yes it does but when and at what price?
Posts: 1,741
By: jackjack - 8th January 2010 at 11:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i know this is a waisted post, as you've been told this before
the us tax payer has always copped the r&d costs alone and usa sells at normal usa fly away costs to buyers, as per our fa-18f
this is the first partnership that usa has gone into, the partner costs have been paid, there is no further r&d costs to them
the sell price is the same fly away for usa and partners
now if you have a link that shows usg gets their r&d cost back, i'd like to see it, this will be a first in their procurement, otherwise you are just badly guessing
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 8th January 2010 at 12:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jackjack
Not quite, the FMS system levy´s a tax of 3,75% over every sale, then there were severall documented cases in wich a system was developed with money from foreign governments while at the same time the Pentagon ordered that same equipment for the US armed forces, the Juliet Hercules (Great Britain), and the Strike Eagle (Saudi Arabia), by example.
I have read the JSF MOU and the entire chapter (13) about third party sales (page 70 onwards) is so vague that it leaves room for any interpretation about this specific point (at least for me).
I have never seen any official document that states that a foreign military sales of "military flying tubes" "must" be made using the "Fly away cost" has the cost calculation base, but i have seen a few of them that the calcuted cost is so much higher than the Fly Away Cost that is present on the US DOD budget, that, even with logistical suport, training, documentation, etc, i do have some serious doubts that the "Unit Fly Away Cost" had anything to do with the final price.
I do have this idea that every sale is a diferent case, the bottom line might be very well the "FWC" plus the 3,75% FMS fee, but (by example) in cases were there´s no credible competition the profit margin seems to grow quite a bit.
Cheers