The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[SOC]

They're going to fire F-35s out of MK41 VLS?

Don't give them any ideas :-X

So we have LO saying air defenses are nothing to worry about and F-22s have little utility and you saying Air defenses will dominate, but not an F-22 or B-2 with which is jsut above 200 aircraft total-- I didn't know we could destroy the super powers with around 200 aircraft and cruise missiles. Boy did I have it wrong!! Did I mention the SAMs can kill all stealth aircraft but not TLAMs? That makes total sense.

I said that a legacy IADS like you can find in Iran or the DPRK can be handled with either extant F-22s, TLAMs, or a combination of both. TLAMs aren't SAM-proof either, Iraq got some in 1991. As for destroying Russia or China, the point is that the F-35 isn't necessarily going to give you an edge because it's LO, and neither will the F-22. The F-22 represents the more survivable aircraft of the two to a degree thanks to its added speed/altitude advantage, but the B-2 represents the only really survivable platform right now in a truly modern IADS.

So, if you're (not you personally, but a US administration) going to keep bombing the smaller, dumber states, then the F-35 is overkill. Or, if you want to hit Russia or China, then you're either 1) ignorant of the economic and political realities preventing such an action in any realistic scenario (the US has the ignorance part down, hence the overzealous painting of China as this massive military apocalypse waiting to happen...gotta justify spending in the post-USSR world), or 2) ignoring the fact that the weapons those two conflicts would end up being fought with come from silos and not airfields anyway, unless you manage to pull off some sort of massively regionalized confrontation...which would likely be workable with the F-22/B-2/TLAM combo in the first place, using the B-2 to knock out IADS sensors before the F-22s and TLAMs saturate everything else.

We have really been overspending.

That's beside the point.

 

[sferrin]

What are your thoughts on JASSM's survivability? (Or the scrapped AGM-129 for that matter.)

 

[Sundog]

One question: If you are operating in the latest most advanced IADS theatre, why would you send an F-35 and not a UCAV? Or are we assuming UCAV's won't exist for the sake of argument? Or is it that we would need the F-35 to operate the UCAV directly or relay signals/commands to the UCAV covertly? I bring this up in regards to the level of LO "required" for the F-35.

 

[LowObservable]

Sundog - There is more than one way to skin a cat, as you gather.

An extreme-LO UCAV is one. Another suggestion is that small UAVs (ScanEagle/Integrator) could be used for targeting with time difference of arrival (TDOA) ESM, with the kill mechanism being a sub-launched missile with terminal guidance.

Another potential method is to have a four-ship of fighters with the ability to direct high-power jamming off-boresight. Two play "here, kitty, kitty" at the SAM's range limit while the others bore in at low level and deliver a pop-up attack with SDB or A2SM. Nothing like 12 or 16 incoming to give Pantsyr a difficult time.

 

[sferrin]

Sundog - There is more than one way to skin a cat, as you gather.

An extreme-LO UCAV is one. Another suggestion is that small UAVs (ScanEagle/Integrator) could be used for targeting with time difference of arrival (TDOA) ESM, with the kill mechanism being a sub-launched missile with terminal guidance.

Another potential method is to have a four-ship of fighters with the ability to direct high-power jamming off-boresight. Two play "here, kitty, kitty" at the SAM's range limit while the others bore in at low level and deliver a pop-up attack with SDB or A2SM. Nothing like 12 or 16 incoming to give Pantsyr a difficult time.

The latest TOR is pretty impressive. I still think the best thing for going after one of those (S-300/400 battery defended by TOR) would be with a missile with guided submunitions. Think something like an air-launched, boosted-ATACMS with guided 20lb submunitions flying a semi-ballistic profile and releasing the sub-munitions just out of S-400 range. 30 or 40 in each ATACMs and capable (just) of being carried on a pylon rated at 5000lbs (F-15E say, or even F-35). How small and cheap can they make a mm-wave radar? Use GPS/INS to get them "in the basket" and, assuming you could get it to work, a missile site has a bad day.

 

[quellish]

One question: If you are operating in the latest most advanced IADS theatre, why would you send an F-35 and not a UCAV?

Because all of your promising UCAV programs were killed because they might threaten another program?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

One question: If you are operating in the latest most advanced IADS theatre, why would you send an F-35 and not a UCAV?

Because all of your promising UCAV programs were killed because they might threaten another program?

Surely the F-35 is the one reason UCAVs aren't taking off so to speak.

 

[LowObservable]

Development of UCAVs is strongly affected by budgetary issues. Even nations that are not JSF partners want to bring their manned jets into the AESA/IRST/Meteor era before they spend money on JSF, and nations that are in JSF won't have spare money until 2025 at best. So there's no incentive to rush a high-risk technology.

On the other hand, there seems to be some potential in an ISR/strike (or armed ISR) platform that has better stealth characteristics than an F-22/F-35 and comes with the range/persistence advantage that goes with being subsonic. The difficult bits include communications and targeting. If you look at Neuron, it's interesting because it is fairly obvious that the goal is to go in on the basis of a SIGINT cue, from stand-off platforms, and then search the area of uncertainty for something that is thermally/visually distinctive.

Such as this for instance....

 

[sferrin]

One question: If you are operating in the latest most advanced IADS theatre, why would you send an F-35 and not a UCAV?

Because all of your promising UCAV programs were killed because they might threaten another program?

Which ones were killed?

 

[Dreamfighter]

Actually, it's quite possible that a fighter with F-35-level stealth will be able to get closer to a sensor without being detected, tracked and targeted than a reduced-RCS type with good onboard EW.

No, not quite possible; it is quite certain an F-35 with it's level of stealth (though < F-22's stealth-level) and advanced integrated EW-system (let's assume that one will work) will be able to get closer without being detected, tracked and targeted then a RCS-reduced fighter with good EW.


Btw, do you regard Rafales, Typhoons and Gripens as true RCS-reduced fighters?
It is not because f.e. someone added some RAM to intake-ducts, that these aircraft come close to jets designed from the outset with a (very) reduced RCS in mind.

The question is how big the difference is; whether it's worth the cost in money, other aspects of performance, or through-life and cross-mission adaptability; and whether, given the cost, there are better ways to do the mission.

When you're doubting the value of stealth that much, then the US should better get rid off their F-22s and (future) F-35s, and further develop & buy f.e. the F-15 Silent Eagle?

 

[Dreamfighter]

How does the F-35 perform Within Visual Range combat with adversary aircraft? Does the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) give the F-35 pilot an advantage? Is the F-35 outmatched Within Visual Range?

A famous Lockheed testpilot once compared flying the F-35 and flying the F-22 with surfing:
with the F-22 you're on the aftside of the surfboard, with the F-35 you're on the board's front-end.
According to Lockheed, the F-35 will be tested up to a max. of 50° angle of attack (during 2nd half of 2012), which sounds not bad to me for a non-TVC aircraft.

When the HMD gets operational, and the F-35's envelope gets fully expanded and testing has been mostly completed, operational evaluations are being made and results released, then we'll know.
Untill then, I think we can only speculate, regardless what figures about the aircraft have been released or are known (to be true).


Such speculation - as all the other speculation in this thread- could go on forever untill the F-35 has completed testing, issues are resolved, and the bird gets operational.
This whole pro/con-F-35 debate is getting ridiculous and childish, except with regard to the project-management and pricetag-topics.
Many "experts" posting in this thread seem often not much more evolved then 12-year old fanboys they proclaim not to be.

 

[quellish]

What a UCAV has the potential to give you is some realistic loiter time beyond what you would get from a TACTOM/JASSM type platform combined with better sensors. However, it's still a one trick pony- if part of that networked array of sensors finds your UCAV it is not coming home as it has no means of defending itself and can not run very fast.

- Why would it not be able to defend itself?
- Why would a UCAV be unable to fly as fast as a manned platform?

If that "networked array of sensors" found a manned fighter and was able to successfully engage it, that would not be coming home either.

The other problem with UCAVs is their reliance on external data which mean they are almost always transmitting or receiving

I think you are confusing an autonomous vehicle with an RPV. A UCAV need not be "always transmitting or receiving".
For example:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-05zzi.html

 

[JFC Fuller]

- Why would it not be able to defend itself?
- Why would a UCAV be unable to fly as fast as a manned platform?

If that "networked array of sensors" found a manned fighter and was able to successfully engage it, that would not be coming home either.

I think you are confusing an autonomous vehicle with an RPV. A UCAV need not be "always transmitting or receiving".
For example:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-05zzi.html

I was referring specifically to the UCAV LowObservable outlined, a subsonic extreme VLO platform. Such platforms are not going to have the comprehensive EW suite of something like an F-35 and will certainly lack the agility. If you make it supersonic it will lose a lot of the VLO and endurance advantages that LowObservable was talking about.

As for the X-45A, like most UAS it can do some elements of its mission autonomously but it is still fundamentally an RPV, we are a long way from a fully autonomous combat platform, especially one that can match the integrated sensor and EW capabilities of the F-35.

 

[quellish]

I was referring specifically to the UCAV LowObservable outlined, a subsonic extreme VLO platform. Such platforms are not going to have the comprehensive EW suite of something like an F-35 and will certainly lack the agility. If you make it supersonic it will lose a lot of the VLO and endurance advantages that LowObservable was talking about.

As for the X-45A, like most UAS it can do some elements of its mission autonomously but it is still fundamentally an RPV, we are a long way from a fully autonomous combat platform, especially one that can match the integrated sensor and EW capabilities of the F-35.

What does it need agility for? And why would it be limited? The X-47A, for instance, used some of the innovative control surfaces developed during the ICE/FATE studies and was quite agile. As far as speed, a supersonic UCAV is certainly possible, and supersonic speeds do not necessarily mean compromised survivability.
There is also no reason that a UCAV would not have a competent EW suite, and in fact this is something the air force was interested in using UCAVs for.

The X-45A was quite autonomous, that was the primary thrust of the program. The final stages of the flight test program demonstrated an autonomous mission where the "pilot" only gave attack consent.

 

[JFC Fuller]

What does it need agility for? And why would it be limited? The X-47A, for instance, used some of the innovative control surfaces developed during the ICE/FATE studies and was quite agile. As far as speed, a supersonic UCAV is certainly possible, and supersonic speeds do not necessarily mean compromised survivability.

I never said supersonic speeds meant compromised survivability, I said it meant a comparatively reduced loiter time. X47B may be quite agile, but as agile as an F-22 or F-35? Agility aids survivability, that is ehy its useful.

There is also no reason that a UCAV would not have a competent EW suite, and in fact this is something the air force was interested in using UCAVs for.

Yes there is, thus far nobody has managed to create a fully automated EW suite that can undertake fully comprehensive EW attack, I am sure it will be done one day but it has not yet.

The X-45A was quite autonomous, that was the primary thrust of the program. The final stages of the flight test program demonstrated an autonomous mission where the "pilot" only gave attack consent.

Quite autonomous is not fully autonomous, and X-5A did not integrate the multitude of sensors, flight profiles, and effectors that come with the F-35.

 

[quellish]

Quite autonomous is not fully autonomous, and X-5A did not integrate the multitude of sensors, flight profiles, and effectors that come with the F-35.

An F-35 pilot is bound by his rules of engagement. He has assigned targets to hit, and has some leeway in how he hits them. If he has to deviate from his ROE, he needs to get approval from higher in his chain of command.

A pair of X-45As flew a strike mission, determined which assets would hit which targets and how, and weapons release was approved by a human on the ground.

In either case, any greater degree of autonomy would be venturing outside of the legal framework in which the military operates.

There is no reason that any (or all) of the senors the F-35 carries could not be implemented on a UCAV.
The X-47A had 6 control surfaces and was a tailless aircraft. The F-35, I believe, also has 6 control surfaces. Neither uses thrust vectoring for maneuver.

Yes there is, thus far nobody has managed to create a fully automated EW suite that can undertake fully comprehensive EW attack, I am sure it will be done one day but it has not yet.

There are fully automated defensive EW suites (ALQ-213, etc). To do the same for offensive EW is a trivial engineering exercise, but again, this is equivalent to a weapons release.

Between 50% and 80% of a modern combat aircraft's life is spent flying for pilot training. Each hour of flight burns N gallons of fuel, requires X hours of maintenance on the ground, by Y number of people. This is where a not insignificant portion of an aircraft's life cycle costs come from.
An autonomous aircraft does not need to fly as many of those hours or incur all of those costs.

 

[LowObservable]

Dreamfighter:

It is quite certain an F-35 with it's level of stealth (though < F-22's stealth-level) and advanced integrated EW-system (let's assume that one will work) will be able to get closer without being detected, tracked and targeted then a RCS-reduced fighter with good EW.

Your certainty may be excessive. If the F-35's EW system is passive except for X-band in the front sector, it's entirely conceivable that an RCS-reduced fighter (that is, one without comprehensive LO-shaping, but with hot-spots treated) that has a multi-band EW suite will have equivalent survivability. Particularly as some counter-stealth measures may not greatly improve a defense system's performance against more conventional threats.

When you're doubting the value of stealth that much, then the US should better get rid off their F-22s and (future) F-35s, and further develop & buy f.e. the F-15 Silent Eagle?

F-22 costs have already forced the retention and upgrading of F-15s and F-35 costs are forcing the retention and upgrading of F-16s. So, willy-nilly, the USAF is heading for a mixed fleet. The next question is just what the mix should be.

 

[RyanC]

Agility aids survivability, that is ehy its useful.

To a point, as the Imperial Japanese Navy found out with the A6M.

 

[airfan1]

I think the price of the f-35 estimates are shown to be affordable, it's time you let it go LO

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf

BY2012 $M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M

Average F-35A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M

 

[AeroFranz]

Here we go again.

 

[LowObservable]

AF - Exactly.

Of course "affordable" is the output of a formula with two inputs, to wit: how much money you have and how much something costs.

You might argue that air forces could choose to shrink in numbers as aircraft get more capable (and more expensive). The problem is that many of them are getting close to a practical minimum size - the USAF could possibly contract to 1000 first line fighters, but the Netherlands can't shrink to 25.

 

[LowObservable]

True, RC - The A6M was highly lethal in the hands of a very skilled pilot, and survivable insofar as skilled pilots did not get hit very often. What threw the IJN's plans off course was the fact that, in carrier warfare, air combat was not the only way to lose pilots. I believe that Saburo Sakai notes (somewhere in Samurai) that the new pilots replacing those lost at Midway and around Guadalcanal were far inferior to many who had been washed-out in pre-war training.

To JFC's point: The range at which an AAM can be launched with a high Pk is strongly affected by the target's ability to maneuver, because every maneuver changes the AAM's predicted interception point.

 

[airfan1]

[removed comment on other forum member -Admin]
The Swiss government agreed in November to buy 22 of the aircraft for 3.1 billion Swiss francs ($3.2 billion). or $90M each
F-35 A - $78 URF $110 apuc

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
Rafale C (EUR 51.8) $ 62.1 (EUR 113.2) $ 135.8 Air force single-seat (inc VAT)
Rafale M (EUR 56.6) $ 67.9 (EUR 121.4) $ 145.7 Naval version (inc VAT)
JAS-39C Gripen (Poland bid) $ 68.9 (SEK 552.9) $ 76.07 Swedish version (inc VAT)
F-18E Super Hornet $ 78.4 $ 95.3 MYP II contract
Eurofighter (Germany) (EUR 85.7) $ 102.8 (EUR 118.3) $ 141.9 Tranche 2, Dec. 2003 prices
F-15E Strike Eagle $ 108.2 Not significant FY06 order
Eurofighter Typhoon (UK) (GBP 64.8) $ 118.6

 

[Sundog]

[removed comment on other forum member -Admin]
The Swiss government agreed in November to buy 22 of the aircraft for 3.1 billion Swiss francs ($3.2 billion). or $90M each
F-35 A - $78 URF $110 apuc

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
Rafale C (EUR 51.8) $ 62.1 (EUR 113.2) $ 135.8 Air force single-seat (inc VAT)
Rafale M (EUR 56.6) $ 67.9 (EUR 121.4) $ 145.7 Naval version (inc VAT)
JAS-39C Gripen (Poland bid) $ 68.9 (SEK 552.9) $ 76.07 Swedish version (inc VAT)
F-18E Super Hornet $ 78.4 $ 95.3 MYP II contract
Eurofighter (Germany) (EUR 85.7) $ 102.8 (EUR 118.3) $ 141.9 Tranche 2, Dec. 2003 prices
F-15E Strike Eagle $ 108.2 Not significant FY06 order
Eurofighter Typhoon (UK) (GBP 64.8) $ 118.6

You left out operating costs which aren't insubstantial.

 

[airfan1]

Sundog, you can add the operating costs if you wish

JFC, well the gripen and f-35 is current
did you open and read the pdf ? if you don't agree put up better numbers than defense-aerospace

 

[LowObservable]

People - There is no point engaging anyone who will introduce dubious six-year-old "data" into a forum which is generally known for its intelligence, and who can't even accuse someone of being a "hack journo" and spell it correctly.

Anyone who does not realize at this point that every nation has its own way of budgeting its military purchases, and that there is no global MIL-STD for pricing export sales, belongs on the fankiddy forums, not here.

In any event, Airfan is threadjacking, given the title.

 

[airfan1]

so all you could come up with from the following in a typo? very telling and it was you that introduced stealth cost into this topic
[removed comment on other forum member -Admin]
The Swiss government agreed in November to buy 22 of the aircraft for 3.1 billion Swiss francs ($3.2 billion). or $90M each
F-35 A - $78 URF $110 apuc"

 

[Arjen]

so all you could come up with from the following in a typo? very telling and it was you that introduced stealth cost into this topic
[removed comment on other forum member -Admin]
The Swiss government agreed in November to buy 22 of the aircraft for 3.1 billion Swiss francs ($3.2 billion). or $90M each
F-35 A - $78 URF $110 apuc"

Sferrin introduced stealth in this thread in reply#2. In my book, that makes discussing stealth cost only logical.

Let's not forget one of the requirements is stealth. That pretty much eliminates well, all of those alternatives. Shouldn't the thread be about *viable* alternatives else everybody could just use F-4s.

The Gripen numbers: from Defense Industry Daily:

Aug 28/12: Contract terms. The Swiss government reveals the details of their Gripen deal. Their 22 planes will all be single-seat JAS-39Es, delivered from 2018-2021 at a firm-fixed-price cost of CHF 3.126 billion (currently $3.27 billion). That total is guaranteed by the Swedish government, and includes mission planning systems, initial spares and support, training, and certification.

What do your various figures take into account? Please specify.

You have made eight entries by now, three of them allude to LO's character. I find that telling.

The Bar has another thread:
The F-35 No Holds Barred topic. It was created to contain in one F-35 thread a long-running dispute between various SPF factions and other interested parties. I suggest you take another look at it.

 

[airfan1]

the quote of LO is what I was replying to
"I would also submit that the idea that every combat aircraft has to be stealthy is one that the US has been chasing for a long time, with a singular and expensive lack of success, so it is not exactly smart to take that as a going-in position, unless you have some brilliant idea about how to make an all-stealth fleet affordable."

APUC price in 2012$ of $110m includes what you quoted in gripen's $90m

 

[Arjen]

the quote of LO is what I was replying to
"I would also submit that the idea that every combat aircraft has to be stealthy is one that the US has been chasing for a long time, with a singular and expensive lack of success, so it is not exactly smart to take that as a going-in position, unless you have some brilliant idea about how to make an all-stealth fleet affordable."

... and I replied to "it was you [LO] that introduced stealth cost into this topic" with "Sferrin introduced stealth in this thread in reply#2. In my book, that makes discussing stealth cost only logical." Would you care to comment, or do you want to take another dig at LO? I have to admit there is no dedicated thread for that. We are drifting further off-topic, by the way.

 

[airfan1]

and I was pointing out that LO view seemed distorted because "stealth cost" is affordable if one considers the gripen affordable

 

[Arjen]

Without providing any meaningful numbers, that is a gratuitous statement.

 

[airfan1]

I'm pretty sure $90m and $110m are meaningful numbers, given it's the stated cost of the platform, spares and training. Unless you want to put forward the proposition of a 13k lb gripen weight like 5th gen light, so to have similar fuel operation costs?

 

[airfan1]

you told me what the gripen cost included and I told you that that corresponds to the APUC cost specs. you will need to explain why you think this is not meaningful.
the gripen is about 13k lb weight, a 5th gen of similar weight would have similar operational cost, if that's important to you

 

[JFC Fuller]

you told me what the gripen cost included and I told you that that corresponds to the APUC cost specs. you will need to explain why you think this is not meaningful.
the gripen is about 13k lb weight, a 5th gen of similar weight would have similar operational cost, if that's important to you

I have already explained, because you have no idea exactly what provision of training and spares the two contracts include, you don't know the durations or the planning assumptions behind each provision. Without the exact contracts you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, $110 million is wrong anyway, FY13 USAF budget lists the 2013 F-35 weapons system unit cost as $181.462 million, even the highly speculative to complete weapons system unit cost (average of the post 2017 estimated costs) is $114.78 million. The Swiss number is also weapons system unit cost (unknown precisely what this is) plus the shared RTD&E cost of the Gripen E/F, as a reference point FY13 RTD&E for the F-35 is $2.7 billion for just 1 year.

 

[airfan1]

you told me what the gripen cost included and I told you that that corresponds to the APUC cost specs. you will need to explain why you think this is not meaningful.
the gripen is about 13k lb weight, a 5th gen of similar weight would have similar operational cost, if that's important to you

I have already explained, because you have no idea exactly what provision of training and spares the two contracts include, you don't know the durations or the planning assumptions behind each provision. Without the exact contracts you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, $110 million is wrong anyway, FY13 USAF budget lists the 2013 F-35 weapons system unit cost as $181.462 million, even the highly speculative to complete weapons system unit cost (average of the post 2017 estimated costs) is $114.78 million. The Swiss number is also weapons system unit cost (unknown precisely what this is) plus the shared RTD&E cost of the Gripen E/F, as a reference point FY13 RTD&E for the F-35 is $2.7 billion for just 1 year.

I was being generous with the APUC of $110 because it is for the combined A,B,C ..the A by its self would be cheaper.
if you don't think a stated procurement price including spares and training isn't comparable, I take it you wont ever compare the price of platforms in future

the $110 is BY dollars not the LRIP 4 price, also the swiss wouldn't pay any R&D costs for the f-35 but would pay a 3% FMS fee
BY / base year 2012 dollars for the average cost, I could use just the full rate production like the 90m for the gripen is and that would give a cheaper price. the URF in 2018 is $73m and not $78
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf

BY2012 $M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M

Average F-35A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M

 

[RyanC]

I think the price of the f-35 estimates are shown to be affordable, it's time you let it go LO

<snip>

Average F-35A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M

You do realise that you'll only get that $90m/average per plane if the original production numbers are actually met?

Your own link says that the URF costs assume the production of somewhere between 2,458 and 2,443 aircraft for the US Military, with 19 x Foreign Military Sales A/C and 697 x International Partner A/C included.

What happens if total production is truncated down to about 600~ or less for all customers?

 

[airfan1]

the URF is dependant on the annual number being built not the total number

 

[RyanC]

the URF is dependant on the annual number being built not the total number

Sure, just keep imagining that the U.S. Military is going to buy 2,400+ F-35s, what with the coming budget implosion...

 

[airfan1]

the 2018 URF cost will be $73m if 500 or a million are built over the years


your numbers are fine for the LRIP price but they mean nothing to what the partners and Foreign military sales will pay for a 2018+ plane