The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[RyanC]

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

You mean like Norway ordering 52 for $10B, which works out crudely to $192/m per Norwegian F-35?

Norway wants to get in early on the F-35 parade, and is paying a extreme premium. Most foreign customers are hoping that someone (cough, cough -- the USA) pays megabucks for the early Block Production runs, to get down unit costs...

 

[airfan1]

as JFC Fuller said, what's included in that price and if you buy LRIP's you pay more, obviously the 2018+ are the planes to buy

 

[airfan1]

My numbers are straight from the FY13 budget request, they are therefore the latest and most accurate to date. Not my problem if you don't like them.

Not to mention that the URF cost is in no way close to what the Gripen deal includes, you need Weapon System Unit Cost (which I provided and you ignored) plus some RTD&E.

I didn't ignore, weapon sys costs are in the APUC and the swiss wouldn't have to pay any R&D costs just the FMS price based on the urf cost of the year brought and a 3% fee

 

[DD]

To all those here who believe the JSF is a 'lifting body design'.

If there is such dependency on lift generated over the centre body of this aicraft, what happens to all that 'body lift' when the doors on the upper fuselage of the STOVL start travelling to open?

;D

 

[airfan1]

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.

it's not the cost of the f-35, it's that it is late that is the reason money is being spent life extending 4th gen

 

[DD]

Time is money but blowouts in both are consequences and not the causes which, put simply, may be put down to the monumental number of risks that have materialized in the JSF designs and the JSF Program, itself.

Many of these risks were identified by the LM/FWD Risk Management Group before they were effectively disbanded back in 2003!

 

[SpudmanWP]

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5113

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. – The short take-off and vertical landing variant of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter successfully completed a major prerequisite test for in-flight performance Aug. 15.

BF-2 completed the first air starts, which test the ability of the F-35’s propulsion system to restart during flight. Verifying the restart capability of the propulsion system is part of the initial flight test program for the F-35 and a prerequisite for high angle-of-attack testing, scheduled to start next year.

“High alpha, or angle-of-attack tests, are important for us to fully evaluate the aircraft’s handling characteristics and warfighting capability,” said Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly. “Maximizing the performance of the airplane around the very slow edges of the flight envelope is probably some of the most challenging testing we will conduct. After we get through it, we'll know a lot more about how this aircraft will perform during combat within visual range.”

Using multiple restart methods during the tests, BF-2 successfully completed 27 air starts at various altitudes. (Lockheed Martin photo by Michael D. Jackson)

More at the Jump

Big pic Here:
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/120808_O_GR159_001_1.jpg

 

[Triton]

Published on Aug 30, 2012 by LockheedMartinVideos

See how major components come together in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II factory at Air Force Plant 4 in Fort Worth, Texas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df_MHNkAVrw&feature=share&list=UUJWcF0ex7_doPdIQGbVpDsQ

 

[DD]

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

Does anyone know where this crazy (and stupid) notion came from?

Does anyone have a citation?

For starters, URFC is not the price of the aircraft, by a long way.

For example, the UNRFC is not included in the URFC and this is determined by amortising the non-recurring costs across the whole of the production run. Then there is that little issue of the published URF/UFC/WSUC/PUC and UPC figures in the SARs and the other reports to the US Congress being based on all the partner nation buys, including those of the US.

Sounds like more of the BS for which Tommy Burbage is now infamous.

 

[airfan1]

the details are in the SAR link I posted, but sounds like you are having a rant with out understanding that the annual URF is dependent on the number built in that year, the f-22 example is if the program is canceled, it will have no effect on the annual URF cost. it will impact on the PAUC or total program cost.
Also the partners and FMS are unaffected in the year purchased unit buy cost, whether there are 1,000 or 10,000 units built in total.

 

[airfan1]

I don't see the point you are trying to make, the sar report is quite clear

 

[airfan1]

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

 

[airfan1]

that is the LRIP 4 or 5 cost isn't it? it does make up the data for one year of a 30 year program.

this is the cost that includes R&D, mil construction, weapon sys cost etc
BY2012 $M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M

 

[airfan1]

mate this is the offical SAR, your $114.78 million seems to be a TY APUC for just the f-35A, if it includes spares

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

TY $M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy to year 2037
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $161 M includes R&D and milcon
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $137.4 M includes wpn sys and spares

BY2012 $M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M includes R&D and milcon
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M includes wpn sys and spares

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

 

[SpudmanWP]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the F-35A has also done Engine Airstarts as part of the intro to High AOA testing

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-high-aoa-flights-and-weapons-separation-tests-imminent-at-edwards-afb-375964/

So far this year, pilots at the isolated desert base have flown about 350 sorties, says Lt Col George Schwartz, director of the F-35 integrated test force and commander of the 461st Flight Test Squadron. Much of the activity has focused on high speed tests which have seen the F-35 being repeatedly pushed out to its maximum speed of Mach 1.6 and 700 knots calibrated airspeed-often fully laden with internal weapons.

Another ongoing theme for the Edwards test pilots is maturity testing for the software required for the F-35 training mission currently underway at Eglin AFB, Florida. The test pilots at the base have also flown night aerial refueling missions and have completed all of the engine air starts required for the F-35A conventional take-off and landing variant (CTOL).

For the engine air start tests, the F-35 needed some modifications, one of which was the addition of a second cockpit pressurization system. The added pressurization system was necessary because the tests involved shutting down the jet's engine at high altitude. "We finished that up with two engine restarts at 40,000ft and 37,500ft," Schwartz says.
Though the air start sorties were challenging in a single-engine fighter, the testing was necessary in order to move onto exploring particularly difficult parts of the jet's flight envelope. "That allowed us to go into high AOA testing where we will start expanding the envelope from 20° AOA all the way up to 50° AOA," Schwartz says. "It's going to start probably in September."
Right now, engineers are in the final stages of attaching an anti-spin parachute to aircraft AF-4. "We've finished almost everything for that," Schwartz says. The next step will be to test deploying the chute during runway taxi trials in order to make sure it works properly.

Lots more at the JUMP

 

[airfan1]

mate the partners and FMS buy at the URF cost and have their own procurement and acquisition cost, the USA APUC is an indicator for their APUC but they don't give a dam what the PAUC is
a BY URF is the cost that the partners and FMS use and no one is saying the URF is the only cost.

you do know the difference between TY and BY $'s don't you

 

[airfan1]

"mate the partners and FMS buy at the URF cost and have their own procurement and acquisition cost the USA APUC is an indictaor for their APUC but they don't give a dam what the PAUC is
a BY URF is the cost that the partners and FMS use and no one is saying the URF is the only cost.

you do know the difference between TY and BY $'s don't you"

 

[airfan1]

there is no single package, each country has its own requirement, it's the reason why they use the URF price and if you are trying to use the USAF budget to try and squeese a partner and FMS out of it, try the wpn sys and spares cost, but it will be a TY cost to the year 2037, well after the partner buys and so once again it has no value, hense the BY cost

 

[airfan1]

no, the USAF TY WPN sys has very little to do with what the partners pay. as I said and explained
look, have a think for a while and make a single all inclusive post that I will answer, or this is going to go on for pages,

in my last post you may have missed this as you posted while I was editing
but it will be a TY cost to the year 2037, well after the partner buys and so once again it has no value, hense the BY cost

 

[airfan1]

the USAF TY budget has little to do with what the partners and FMS pay and don't tell me not to use UFC, tell the partners and FMS and the USG and most manufacturers

 

[airfan1]

looks like all I need to do is to copy paste from what I have already said
"and if you are trying to use the USAF budget to try and squeese a partner and FMS out of it, try the wpn sys and spares cost, but it will be a TY cost to the year 2037, well after the partner buys and so once again it has no value, hense the BY cost"

 

[airfan1]

you reali8se that most partners are just getting their trainers trained in USA and are going to do their own pilot and crew training, it kind of kills your point

 

[SpudmanWP]

While looking at the Nonrecurring & other costs in the latest budget, I noticed that it includes a lot that the Partners will not be paying for to the degree that the US is (if at all).

These include but are not limited to Full Motion Simulators, Post-SDD development costs, training equipment related to Eglin, MCAS Yuma, et al stand-up, etc.

The reason that I and many others look to URF to gauge the F-35's cost is that it is the closest metric to gauge LM's manufacturing efficiency and its learning curve. URF tends to be stable while the other costs vary wildly from year to year as new bases are brought online, new equipment is developed, etc.

We know that this is not the final cost, but it is the best to track the cost of the F-35 itself.

 

[GTX]

I suggest some people here need to go back to Reply #1485 where I have provided a detailed explanation of the various costs referred to in relation to the F-35 (also applicable for other programs to a degree). The URF is not useless since all the other costs are built upon it. It is also the one least subject to misunderstood variables. It is also very dependent upon production quantities for some of the reasons I gave in both that reply and in Reply #1371. This is also not some sort of marketing spin or accounting BS on the part of Lockheed Martin or others. It is how the world really works.

 

[JFC Fuller]

you reali8se that most partners are just getting their trainers trained in USA and are going to do their own pilot and crew training, it kind of kills your point

LOL, so when their aircraft need maintenance they will just be flown to the US will they? Because obviously the JSF partner nations will not have any trained ground crew, hold any spares or any ground based maintenance equipment...

 

[airfan1]

you reali8se that most partners are just getting their trainers trained in USA and are going to do their own pilot and crew training, it kind of kills your point

LOL, so when their aircraft need maintenance they will just be flown to the US will they? Because obviously the JSF partner nations will not have any trained ground crew, hold any spares or any ground based maintenance equipment...

it kills your point about APUC / wpn sys, it is less than that spec
you really have no idea about the program, do you
australia will do everything here and it's said there is no need for the plane to return to the USA

 

[airfan1]

While looking at the Nonrecurring & other costs in the latest budget, I noticed that it includes a lot that the Partners will not be paying for to the degree that the US is (if at all).

These include but are not limited to Full Motion Simulators, Post-SDD development costs, training equipment related to Eglin, MCAS Yuma, et al stand-up, etc.

The reason that I and many others look to URF to gauge the F-35's cost is that it is the closest metric to gauge LM's manufacturing efficiency and its learning curve. URF tends to be stable while the other costs vary wildly from year to year as new bases are brought online, new equipment is developed, etc.

We know that this is not the final cost, but it is the best to track the cost of the F-35 itself.

spud, he had a dummy spit when it was shown the f-35 is cheaper than the rafale and typhoon, which is also backed up by italian statement.
it didn't help when I showed hin the swiss gripen was 90M and the f-35 was110m BY2012 APUC
since then he's just rambling and no facts will satisfy him, it's all "yes but" and throws out more stuff

 

[LowObservable]

The URF is not totally meaningless. For instance, it can be used to demonstrate that the Super Hornet is much cheaper than the F-35A will ever be (when you remember the engine, GTX), even if the F-35A attains its planned production rate and all goes according to plan, which so far it has not.

That is also an interesting fact because the SH is entirely comparable in size and complexity to the F-35A (yes, the JSF has EOTS, but the SH buy includes two-seaters), which blows some of the simplistic trash about learning curves out of the water.

On the other hand, all the elements that separate the URF from the total flyaway cost, and the total flyaway cost from the total procurement cost, are things that you need in order to operate the aircraft, whether you're the USAF, the Navy, the RAAF or the League of Women Voters. You need X number of full motion sims to support Y number of jets, and a set of peculiar ground support equipment (PGSE) for each aircraft.

In the US budget process, the URF-to-APUC relationship fluctuates a bit from year to year (particularly in periods of rapid rate change), and the Navy relationship is different from the AF relationship, probably because of the need for both land-based and sea-based support equipment.

Contrary to what Spudman is implying, military construction is not in the US aircraft procurement budget, whether in the SAR or in budget support documentation. And if he can show where the partners are intended to get a free ride with the US paying the entire bill for upgrade R&D, we'd all like to see that.

Now, where the URF is completely useless is in comparing costs to anything non-US, or to other US export deals, unless you can show that what you're comparing it to is indeed a URF or equivalent - that is, a bare bones price for an aircraft that lacks anything needed to operate it. So let's stop doing that, and get the Derp-O-Meter out of the red here.

 

[JFC Fuller]

it kills your point about APUC / wpn sys, it is less than that spec
you really have no idea about the program, do you
australia will do everything here and it's said there is no need for the plane to return to the USA

No it does not, so Australia will have to procure all the ground support equipment, and thus pay considerably more than the URF cost that you so obsessed with.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Contrary to what Spudman is implying, military construction is not in the US aircraft procurement budget, whether in the SAR or in budget support documentation.

I did not say the construction was included, just the tools, manuals, software, computers (F-35 specific), simulators, etc that it takes to support the F-35. You do not have to buy these every year (at the same rate as initial stand-up) so there is an artificial spike in nonrecurring costs every time a unit is stood up.

And if he can show where the partners are intended to get a free ride with the US paying the entire bill for upgrade R&D, we'd all like to see that.

According to the MOU, each partner is putting up about $4.2 million per F-35 on Post-SDD development. However, how they fit that into their respective budgets will differ from country to country. The US is choosing to add it to the Nonrecurring costs now rather than pay for it later or have it as a separate line item.

 

[airfan1]

LO, the SH URF in 2012 yr dollars is about $60m plus IR pods (and maybe gov provided stuff)
the full production f-35 in 2012 year dollars is about URF 70m all up

it's time you stopped your nonsense

 

[airfan1]

it kills your point about APUC / wpn sys, it is less than that spec
you really have no idea about the program, do you
australia will do everything here and it's said there is no need for the plane to return to the USA

No it does not, so Australia will have to procure all the ground support equipment, and thus pay considerably more than the URF cost that you so obsessed with.

again who said australia wont pay more than the URF in total? what I said is that the USA APUC and PAUC wont be the price australia pays for our APUC and PAUC, for a start we pay a SDD of 1.5m per unit, not the USA SDD of about 20m per unit

 

[airfan1]

Contrary to what Spudman is implying, military construction is not in the US aircraft procurement budget, whether in the SAR or in budget support documentation.

I did not say the construction was included, just the tools, manuals, software, computers (F-35 specific), simulators, etc that it takes to support the F-35. You do not have to buy these every year (at the same rate as initial stand-up) so there is an artificial spike in nonrecurring costs every time a unit is stood up.

And if he can show where the partners are intended to get a free ride with the US paying the entire bill for upgrade R&D, we'd all like to see that.

According to the MOU, each partner is putting up about $4.2 million per F-35 on Post-SDD development. However, how they fit that into their respective budgets will differ from country to country. The US is choosing to add it to the Nonrecurring costs now rather than pay for it later or have it as a separate line item.

spud with the upgrades post sdd, the total cost of the 2 year software or 4 year software and hardware is divided by the number of platforms and each pays for the number of platform they have, with the MOU I think it explains it and the 4.2m maybe an upto or something because there is no real cost at this stage, unless I have the wrong end of the stick re upgrades

 

[SpudmanWP]

Yes and No.


The 4.2 is the cap cost for the development only and does not cover the actual upgrading of the existing fighters.

 

[LowObservable]

LO, the SH URF in 2012 yr dollars is about $60m plus IR pods (and maybe gov provided stuff)
the full production f-35 in 2012 year dollars is about URF 70m all up

"About" is one big weasel word. Actual delta is almost 30 per cent (with F-35A as the base). Oh, and detail what you mean by maybe gov provided stuff.

 

[DD]

That was an interesting flurry of some 30 or so posts.

Still didn't answer the question particularly since the 'production learning curves' on which the projected costs and, therefore, the average cost figures for the JSF are based are not an annual thingy.

Still would be interested to see answers to the question posed back at #1700 from all those here who believe the JSF is a 'lifting body design', that is:

If there is such dependency on lift generated over the centre body of the JSF aircraft, what happens to all that 'body lift' when the doors on the upper fuselage of the STOVL start travelling to open?

;D

 

[SpudmanWP]

When the upper doors of the B begin to open, it is in transition mode and lift is not an issue.

 

[DD]

When the upper doors of the B begin to open, it is in transition mode and list is not an issue.

So what you are saying is that the STOVL Lift System is already providing vertical force (i.e. lift) before the doors start transitioning (i.e. opening) and spoiling (i.e. dumping) any 'body lift'.

Is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying, Spudman?

 

[SpudmanWP]

No, what I am saying is that the amount of lift is important to the F-35's turning ability which itself is not important when transitioning to STOVL mode.

 

[DD]

No, what I am saying is that the amount of lift is important to the F-35's turning ability which itself is not important when transitioning to STOVL mode.

Spudman, isn't lift important in all phases for flight?

Isn't lift how an aircraft stays airborne?

To be correct, your answer to both these questions should be a resounding, "Yes!".

This is particularly the case when close to the ground and at low speed for reasons that I would have thought you would be well aware; the relationships between speed, angle of attack and aerodynamic lift & drag being what they are.

Why do you think all the airborne build up testing for the STOVL was done up and away?

Looks like you need to chase out a few more of your demons of stupidity by reading up on basic aerodynamics.

Even though you haven't answered the original question correctly, thanks for the response.

If you wish to try again, suggest you read up on 'body lift' design and also what a wing spoiler is and how it works.