The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

What I am saying is that when Lockheed Martin went into marketing mode, it set cost, development, and delivery schedule expectations. Much of the criticism that is directed at the JSF program is of Lockheed Martin's and the JPO's making by over-promising, under-delivering, and downplaying program risks and technical complexity. Should the customer have known better and have been more skeptical of Lockheed Martin's promises?

You might want to check Boeing's track record. Last I checked, some of them are doing time for their shenanigans. I can only imagine the levels of hysteria we'd be hearing today had the X-32 been chosen.

So in other words, don't hate the playa; hate the game. :

Wow, what color were the glasses you read that with? I'm saying, if you're going to criticize LM at least take a look at what the alternative was. Or should we just stop buying fighters since nobody can meet your precognition requirements?

 

[GTX]

It will be interesting to see what happens in Canada if they proceed with a competitive and transparent program to replace their 138 McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet fighters.

And it will be predictable to see how the naysayers complain about it not being "a competitive and transparent program" when the F-35 is selected...as it WILL BE. :

 

[sferrin]

It will be interesting to see what happens in Canada if they proceed with a competitive and transparent program to replace their 138 McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet fighters.

And it will be predictable to see how the naysayers complain about it not being "a competitive and transparent program" when the F-35 is selected...as it WILL BE. :

Shhhh. Don't ruin the surprise.

 

[GTX]

Moving the discussion back here and thus away from the "F-X -- NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) -- F/A-XX" thread:

And? Are you telling me they're just sitting in a field not doing anything? Of course not. They're flying the hell out of them. So what's the problem? I hope you didn't think that the first F-35s out of the chute would be replacing line aircraft and THEN they'd decide to worry about developing training programs.

You should have read the rest of the post. There are now 100 F-35s, most of these will require an expensive retrofit programme to be kept in service, that is the problem and that is why the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) called it "Acquisition Malpractice" and even Vice Admiral Venlet, who at the time was PEO for the F-35 programme, said “Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation” in relation to concurrency.

Though it is interesting to note that Frank Kendall (as late as 28 Oct 2013) has also said:

While risks remain, progress on the F-35 program at this point has been adequate to support a decision to budget for increased rates…

so they aren't that concerned about concurrency now. In fact, to go further, he has also stated regarding costs:

Production costs in particular are coming down, becoming much more predictable, and they're following essentially the curve that we had anticipated.

and finally:

BOTTOM LINE – we are all encouraged by the progress, we are on sounder footing and our program is stabilizing. “F-35 is no longer one of my problem programs.

 

[GTX]

What I am using the quotes to show is that although Frank Kendall did make the "Acquisition Malpractice" back in early 2012, since then (late 2013) he has made positive comments regarding costs (which include concurrency elements) and has recommended further production. Surely, if this concurrency "Red Herring" (IMHO ) was such an issue, they would not be speaking of the F-35 in such positive tones now (exemplified by the later quotes I included).

 

[GTX]

It is a "Red Herring" (i.e. Something that draws attention away from the central issue) IMHO when people (including some some on this forum) use it, deliberately IMHO, to mislead others into thinking that the cost associated with it is extraordinarily large. As previously explained with some of the numbers being thrown around:

In the case of the F-35 … the reporting of this risk and the cost supposedly involved [with concurrency] has been blown out of proportion. Why do I say this? Well for one, the way these items have been costed does not reflect the way things happen in the real world. In much of the reporting the costs used for this are based upon each issue being corrected individually as a stand-alone event. In the real world though, you try to resolve as many issues as possible at the same time and often where possible at scheduled maintenance downtime. Think of it as though you were taking your car in to be serviced and at the same time wanted them to fix some minor squeaks and rotate and align the tyres. Where possible you try to get all of these things done at once. You certainly don’t have the car serviced on one day, schedule another session for the tyres on another day and lastly schedule each squeak/repair to be done on a separate day(s) yet again. However, with the concurrency costs reported to date for the F-35, that is just what people are expecting to happen!

 

[GTX]

I am not trying to "sweep it under the carpet". All I have say though is that it is being made out to be larger than it really is and that it is not something unique to the F-35.

 

[F-14D]

The problem is not that concurrency is something that only occurred with the F-35, it's the degree.

With most programs in the past, development was mostly complete before an aircraft was ordered into series production. Either it was ready for its initial level of operational duty or what was left was a limited number of "known unknowns", the solutions for which were understood and would be easily retrofitted into the few production aircraft built before they were on the line. This limited concurrency was acceptable because it made things work smoothly.

In the case of the F-35 it was ordered into production while extensive parts of development and testing were not complete or in some cases even started. The versions ordered in each batch were to the configuration of where they thought the plane would end up at the time of order. As a result, an unprecedented number of aircraft were built at the same time testing was still ongoing to determine how they should be built. That's why we'll probably end up with 150 aircraft that will need to be returned for major work to get them to a fully operational configuration. This will be very expensive, because these won't be minor updates.

In my mind, this occurred for three reasons.

First, in our arrogance it was assumed that the F-35 development wouldn't experience the level of normal problems that most aircraft encounter in development. Lockheed itself was saying this in past years when countering criticism arguing that the history of previous development programs didn't apply. The Program Office was echoing the same. The F-35 hasn't encountered an abnormal number of problems, it's just that we were not making provisions for them.

2nd, the glacial pace at which we now do development and testing, partly for political and financial reasons and partly because the goals of testing have changed, now means that if we waited until we achieved the historical level of development where we ordered aircraft into production in the past, we wouldn't get operational aircraft for a long, loooong (almost as long as this sentence) time.

Third, in order to deliver these at a cost anywhere close to what was promised the program is dependent on achieving production rates not seen since Vietnam. So, there was substantial pressure to start cranking them out at higher rates as soon as they could, to get to those rates as soon as possible.

Again, it's not that concurrency is unique to the F-35 or that the concept of concurrency itself that is a problem, it's the degree to which it is occurring in the program structure that is biting us.

 

[GTX]

...As a result, an unprecedented number of aircraft were built at the same time testing was still ongoing to determine how they should be built...

Do you really believe the modifications will be that significant? Seriously?

... That's why we'll probably end up with 150 aircraft that will need to be returned for major work to get them to a fully operational configuration. This will be very expensive, because these won't be minor updates..

I am curious as to what updates people are expecting? This is not going to be a case of wing changes or the like. In fact, most updates will be software driven.

 

[F-14D]

...As a result, an unprecedented number of aircraft were built at the same time testing was still ongoing to determine how they should be built...

Do you really believe the modifications will be that significant? Seriously?

... That's why we'll probably end up with 150 aircraft that will need to be returned for major work to get them to a fully operational configuration. This will be very expensive, because these won't be minor updates..

I am curious as to what updates people are expecting? This is not going to be a case of wing changes or the like. In fact, most updates will be software driven.

Lesse here, all the F-35Cs built and under contract for delivery in the next few years are going to have to come back for the modifications to enable them to actually land on a carrier, a feature USN considers highly desirable, All F-35Bs in the same boat are going to have the pilot entry/exit system modified. I believe there are wing mods coming to improve flow, and there are changes to the flight control system, etc.

While there are also changes in the flight control system coming as we learn more, they aren't just a matter of loading a CD or tape. Tn the F-35, like the F-22, everything is software driven. Unlike previous aircraft, you can't just pop in a CD or tape. Major changes (as opposed to incremental revisions or updates of the properly functioning baseline software) require getting into the guts of the aircraft and updating multiple interdependent systems.

Again, the F-35 isn't experiencing difficulties at a higher level than previous aircraft. But in its case as changes are done to bring it to baseline functionality a very large number of aircraft will have to be brought back and have the work done. In previous times, that many aircraft wouldn't have been built until things were worked out. We're going to have more F-35s delivered before testing and development is completed and therefore need modification than the entire fighter strike force of the RCAF.

That will take money and time. Even if it only cost $5 million per, we're still going to spend over $1/2 billion to bring planes to where they were supposed to be in the first place.

Again, despite what the press says, it's not that the F-35 is having an inordinate number of issues or with concurrency per se. It's that the amount of concurrency in this program that's an issue

 

[GTX]

Lesse here, all the F-35Cs built and under contract for delivery in the next few years are going to have to come back for the modifications to enable them to actually land on a carrier, a feature USN considers highly desirable, All F-35Bs in the same boat are going to have the pilot entry/exit system modified. I believe there are wing mods coming to improve flow, and there are changes to the flight control system, etc.

Proof?

 

[kcran567]

Another underlying cause of this insane situation with the f-35 is being dependent on only 2 "too big to let fail" fighter contractors. This is what happens when the biggest sharks eat up all the smaller sharks. Look how many aircraft companies there were after WW2 and see where we are today in comparison, there is you're underlying problem no real competition. What are we supposed to do now GTX and other pro f-35 supporters? Cancel the f-35? Of course not. It should be cancelled but we are stuck with a great offer we can't refuse from Lockheed, so there you are.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What are we supposed to do now GTX and other pro f-35 supporters?

Realise the situation isn't half as bad as you paint it to be. Or even 25% as bad, 10%... The F-35 partners and customers are going to get the most lethal fighter in the world at a bargain price. It will be a few years late and a few % over price but nothing isn't critical.

 

[Arjen]

It will be a few years late and a few % over price but nothing isn't critical.

In 2002, the Dutch decided to become level 2 partners in the JSF project. Funds were reserved for replacing Dutch F-16s - this funding has never been subject to cuts, the 4.5 billion euros reserved for F-16 replacement is the inflation-corrected amount reserved in 2002.

Since then, the Dutch have spent something close to one billion euros on F-35 development.

In 2002, the Dutch expected their 4.5 billion (that's the inflation corrected amount of the 2002 numbers) to not only buy them level 2 SDD-partnership, but also 85 F-35s. The number 85 has often appeared in Pentagon and LM publicity material about how many F-35s were expected to be ordered for export, suggesting Dutch expectations weren't considered completely unrealistic at the time.

Now we know better: a few months ago, the Dutch expected the same money to buy partnership and 37 F-35s - including the two aircraft already ordered.

37 aircraft, not 85. That's less than half. A cut of over 56% in fleet size, on a budget that never was cut. That translates to rather more than 'a few % over price'.

 

[Thorvic]

What are we supposed to do now GTX and other pro f-35 supporters?

Realise the situation isn't half as bad as you paint it to be. Or even 25% as bad, 10%... The F-35 partners and customers are going to get the most lethal fighter in the world at a bargain price. It will be a few years late and a few % over price but nothing isn't critical.

Why do they get dibs on F-22's then ? as that the most lethal

F-35 has yet to be determined as to where it fits into the Fighter pecking order, should be a decent interceptor and an excellent strike aircraft.

 

[LowObservable]

AG - nothing isn't critical.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]That's reassuring. [/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Arjen - Exactly. Remind me, didn't someone tell the Netherlands that they could have 85 fighters within budget on a fixed-price deal? [/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]

 

[sferrin]

Another underlying cause of this insane situation with the f-35 is being dependent on only 2 "too big to let fail" fighter contractors. This is what happens when the biggest sharks eat up all the smaller sharks. Look how many aircraft companies there were after WW2 and see where we are today in comparison, there is you're underlying problem no real competition. What are we supposed to do now GTX and other pro f-35 supporters? Cancel the f-35? Of course not. It should be cancelled but we are stuck with a great offer we can't refuse from Lockheed, so there you are.

You might want to examine WHY that happened.

 

[Arjen]

Remind me, didn't someone tell the Netherlands that they could have 85 fighters within budget on a fixed-price deal?

Someone being SAAB, offering Gripen NG, in 2008. The Dutch refused.

Fast forward to 2013, no talk of cutting the F-16 replacement budget, but one of many proposed austerity measures is to force the Dutch Navy to put its unfinished Joint Support Ship Karel Doorman up for sale. Desperation at work. One month later, new coalition partners convince the ruling coalition this is an exceptionally stupid notion, and other bits of the Defence budget are cut.

The Netherlands are disarming, much to the satisfaction of some - but still spending about the same on defence, to the satisfaction of none.

 

[bobbymike]

Another underlying cause of this insane situation with the f-35 is being dependent on only 2 "too big to let fail" fighter contractors. This is what happens when the biggest sharks eat up all the smaller sharks. Look how many aircraft companies there were after WW2 and see where we are today in comparison, there is you're underlying problem no real competition. What are we supposed to do now GTX and other pro f-35 supporters? Cancel the f-35? Of course not. It should be cancelled but we are stuck with a great offer we can't refuse from Lockheed, so there you are.

WWII when we spent 50% of GDP on defense, equivelant to $8.5 Trillion today. Heck I would be happy to go back to post WWII averages of ~6% of GDP or just over $1 Trillion just think an extra $500 billion to spend!!

 

[Triton]

Extended interview with Pierre Sprey on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) news program The Fifth Estate on November 24, 2012:

http://youtu.be/mxDSiwqM2nw

 

[GTX]

 

[GTX]

Another underlying cause of this insane situation with the f-35 is being dependent on only 2 "too big to let fail" fighter contractors. This is what happens when the biggest sharks eat up all the smaller sharks. Look how many aircraft companies there were after WW2 and see where we are today in comparison, there is you're underlying problem no real competition. What are we supposed to do now GTX and other pro f-35 supporters? Cancel the f-35? Of course not. It should be cancelled but we are stuck with a great offer we can't refuse from Lockheed, so there you are.

So somehow the consolidation of the US Aerospace Industry (something which has been going on for decades) is the fault of Lockheed Martin and the F-35? Damn them to hell for starting this long range monopolistic plan all those decades ago... B)

 

[GTX]

Fast forward to 2013, no talk of cutting the F-16 replacement budget, but one of many proposed austerity measures is to force the Dutch Navy to put its unfinished Joint Support Ship Karel Doorman up for sale. Desperation at work. One month later, new coalition partners convince the ruling coalition this is an exceptionally stupid notion, and other bits of the Defence budget are cut.

The Netherlands are disarming, much to the satisfaction of some - but still spending about the same on defence, to the satisfaction of none.

And how much has the the Global Financial Crisis and the European debt crisis also affected the Dutch plans... :

 

[GTX]

What are we supposed to do now GTX and other pro f-35 supporters?

Realise the situation isn't half as bad as you paint it to be. Or even 25% as bad, 10%... The F-35 partners and customers are going to get the most lethal fighter in the world at a bargain price. It will be a few years late and a few % over price but nothing isn't critical.

Exactly!

 

[GTX]

What I am trying to point out is that the F-35 seems to be getting the blame for all these other cuts…maybe there is more to the issue though than just the F-35.

 

[F-14D]

Lesse here, all the F-35Cs built and under contract for delivery in the next few years are going to have to come back for the modifications to enable them to actually land on a carrier, a feature USN considers highly desirable, All F-35Bs in the same boat are going to have the pilot entry/exit system modified. I believe there are wing mods coming to improve flow, and there are changes to the flight control system, etc.

Proof?

Try the web, the US Navy, Lockheed, the JSF Program Office, trade publications, the GAO, etc.

In the two examples I cited, the F-35C's tailhook design (and it;s more than just the hook itself) is such that it doesn't catch the wire, which certainly makes carrier landings a nail biting experience. All F-35Cs under contract will be built with the old hook design until the contract is modified (which is in itself an expensive process), which can cause a renegotiation of prices (because the gov't signed off on the old design). Then existing F-35Cs will have to have the old arresting design removed and the new one installed where possible.

For the Marines, they specified a self-deploying ingress/egress system for the pilot, reflecting their desire to minimize ground personnel when forward deployed (Rafale has one). However, because of weight issues this has to be removed. So existing F-35Bs will have to have that corrected.

These kind of things aren't unique to the F-35 (well, the tailhook issue may be). What's unique is how many airframes are going to be reworked. That is a function of the program's degree of concurrency.

 

[GTX]

Try the web, the US Navy, Lockheed, the JSF Program Office, trade publications, the GAO, etc.

So you can't point to specific examples to justify your claims? Just sweeping generalisations... :

In the two examples I cited, the F-35C's tailhook design (and it;s more than just the hook itself) is such that it doesn't catch the wire, which certainly makes carrier landings a nail biting experience. All F-35Cs under contract will be built with the old hook design until the contract is modified (which is in itself an expensive process), which can cause a renegotiation of prices (because the gov't signed off on the old design). Then existing F-35Cs will have to have the old arresting design removed and the new one installed where possible.

I guess you have never heard of a revision change to contracts etc? Most contracts (including those in the F-35 world) already include provision for this...

You seriously think the 340 F-35Cs planned to date will all be built to the original standard and then have to be reworked…even those built 10+ years from now? Seriously?

 

[Arjen]

What I am trying to point out is that the F-35 seems to be getting the blame for all these other cuts…maybe there is more to the issue though than just the F-35.

The point is that the Dutch air force is getting at most 37 F-35s for the same amount (inflation corrected) that was thought to be sufficient for 85 F-35s in 2002.

Meanwhile, other defence items are cut, to maintain funding for an ever dwindling number of F-35s. At 37 F-35s, quite possibly less, the Algemene Rekenkamer (accounting chamber) has expressed serious doubts about the air force's ability to fulfil its duties.

 

[GTX]

Meanwhile, other defence items are cut, to maintain funding for an ever dwindling number of F-35s.

And I would question whether that is a fair assessment…despite what some may wish to say, the F-35 is not the only thing affecting the Dutch Defence Budget. To place the blame for all the woes of the Dutch (or any other) economy at the feet of the F-35 is ridiculous.

 

[sferrin]

Lesse here, all the F-35Cs built and under contract for delivery in the next few years are going to have to come back for the modifications to enable them to actually land on a carrier, a feature USN considers highly desirable,

http://news.usni.org/2013/12/23/navys-f-35-starts-new-tailhook-tests

"Lockheed and the Joint Strike Fighter program office ultimately traced the problem back to the shape of the hook and a faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command. The solution was to reshape the hook point and adjust the system’s hold-down damper, which helps prevent the hook from bouncing around upon touchdown."

"Arrested recoveries at sea should take place onboard the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) in the first part of 2014 according to Lockheed officials. However, while the current plan calls for the F-35 to perform its sea-trials onboard the Nimitz, it could be another ship depending on the availability of carriers at the time."

 

[F-14D]

Try the web, the US Navy, Lockheed, the JSF Program Office, trade publications, the GAO, etc.

So you can't point to specific examples to justify your claims? Just sweeping generalisations... :

In the two examples I cited, the F-35C's tailhook design (and it;s more than just the hook itself) is such that it doesn't catch the wire, which certainly makes carrier landings a nail biting experience. All F-35Cs under contract will be built with the old hook design until the contract is modified (which is in itself an expensive process), which can cause a renegotiation of prices (because the gov't signed off on the old design). Then existing F-35Cs will have to have the old arresting design removed and the new one installed where possible.

I guess you have never heard of a revision change to contracts etc? Most contracts (including those in the F-35 world) already include provision for this...

You seriously think the 480 F-35Cs planned to date will all be built to the original standard and then have to be reworked…even those built 10 years from now? Seriously?

I'm not sure why this is becoming so controversial :-?

The issue is that in the case of the F-35, production was started earlier than it was in previous programs, before the normal amount of testing was complete . As a result, a much larger number of aircraft will be built and delivered and will have to be modified in order to meet the minimum acceptable standard. In previous programs, there wasn't this degree of overlap, now called concurrency. The price of that concurrency is greater costs due to modifying more aircraft.

Yes, I am well acquainted with contract revisions, each of which have to be negotiated, priced and accepted (why do you think it takes us so long to do anything?).

No, I don't think F-35Cs at the end of the run will be exactly the same as those at the beginning, but we're not talking about evolved F-35Cs with new capabilites, we're talking about the baseline at the front end. BTW, where did the 480 F-35Cs come from? Even if we add the 80 Cs the Marines were ordered to buy to the Navy order of 260, that still comes up 140 short.

 

[GTX]

Yes, I am well acquainted with contract revisions, each of which have to be negotiated, priced and accepted (why do you think it takes us so long to do anything?).

It doesn't always take so long or require significant cost changes. For instance, a change in shape of the hook could be very minimal in cost difference...despite the 'doom and gloom' predictions of some. :

No, I don't think F-35Cs at the end of the run will be exactly the same as those at the beginning, but we're not talking about evolved F-35Cs with new capabilites, we're talking about the baseline at the front end. ...

Neither am I. I am simply referring to the baseline changes (such as the tail hook you raised). The changes will be introduced into production well before the production ends. In fact, I would predict such changes to be finalised in the next year or so.

BTW, where did the 480 F-35Cs come from

Sorry, typo on my part - I blame the heat here today (40C) . Corrected now to reflect the latest program of record numbers. It still doesn't alter the point I was making though.

 

[GTX]

BTW, to date there have only been some 26 F-35Cs formally ordered or production started on long lead items (up to and including LRIP8) and certainly less actually completed and delivered (roughly 7 if I am correct). Therefore, we aren't necessarily talking large quantities requiring modification even if (and that's a big "if") the supposed modifications were major.


Now to put these numbers in some context, that's between ~2% and ~7% or total planned production...hardly significant.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In 2002, the Dutch decided to become level 2 partners in the JSF project. Funds were reserved for replacing Dutch F-16s - this funding has never been subject to cuts, the 4.5 billion euros reserved for F-16 replacement is the inflation-corrected amount reserved in 2002.

Since then, the Dutch have spent something close to one billion euros on F-35 development.

In 2002, the Dutch expected their 4.5 billion (that's the inflation corrected amount of the 2002 numbers) to not only buy them level 2 SDD-partnership, but also 85 F-35s. The number 85 has often appeared in Pentagon and LM publicity material about how many F-35s were expected to be ordered for export, suggesting Dutch expectations weren't considered completely unrealistic at the time.

Now we know better: a few months ago, the Dutch expected the same money to buy partnership and 37 F-35s - including the two aircraft already ordered.

37 aircraft, not 85. That's less than half. A cut of over 56% in fleet size, on a budget that never was cut. That translates to rather more than 'a few % over price'.

This is total nonsense. Firstly the Dutch only paid USD 800 m for their Level II partnership. This is a fixed price and the growth in SDD cost is borne entirely by the USA not the partners.

That 4.5 billion Euros you claim works out to be around 2.5 billon USD in 2002 minus the SDD costs. If the Dutch think they could by 87 F-35s at $30 million per unit all up procurement costs (including all the support and training gear) they are smoking Amsterdam’s finest. The F-35 has always been marketed as a fly away per unit cost of around $50m in 2002 dollars.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A quick look at some news reporting indicates that the Dutch have always separated the cost of developing, testing, buying and sustaining the F-35 in service. In 2008 they were quoting a 5.67 billion Euro price to JUST buy 85 F-35s.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/netherlands-decides-to-join-jsf-evaluation-team-222123/


This cost would strongly align with a 4.5 billion Euro estimate in 2002 to buy 85 units. It would also appear to be just fly away cost as they were also talking about a much larger cost to support/sustain the aircraft.


It is worth pointing out that the inflation in the Euro in the Netherlands from 2002 to 2008 means that the actual price increase of the F-35 is 5.16b (4.5b in 2002 Euros) to 5.67b or a growth of just under 10% inflation adjusted.

 

[sferrin]

BTW, to date there have only been some 26 F-35Cs formally ordered or production started on long lead items (up to and including LRIP8) and certainly less actually completed and delivered (roughly 7 if I am correct). Therefore, we aren't necessarily talking large quantities requiring modification even if (and that's a big "if") the supposed modifications were major.


Now to put these numbers in some context, that's between ~2% and ~7% or total planned production...hardly significant.

Could be something as simple as a hook swap and software change.

 

[LowObservable]

Not $50 million - see p 31.


http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/249301.pdf

 

[Dragon029]

So they were working off 1996 estimates?

 

[Arjen]

despite what some may wish to say, the F-35 is not the only thing affecting the Dutch Defence Budget. To place the blame for all the woes of the Dutch (or any other) economy at the feet of the F-35 is ridiculous.

I don't remember blaming the F-35 for all the woes of the Dutch, or even blaming the F-35 for all the woes of Dutch defence. Abraham Gubler stated F-35 procurement had only gone up by 'a few %' - which now also includes more than doubling in price, if the money reserved for 85 aircraft in 2002 now buys you 37.

A quick look at some news reporting indicates that the Dutch have always separated the cost of developing, testing, buying and sustaining the F-35 in service. In 2008 they were quoting a 5.67 billion Euro price to JUST buy 85 F-35s.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/netherlands-decides-to-join-jsf-evaluation-team-222123/

I concede the 4.5 billion was just for procurement of the aircraft, not for SDD participation.
In 2008 SAAB made a fixed price offer of 85 Gripen NG at 4.8 billion euros.

As AG already says, that was in 2008, six years after the original plan was for 4.5 billion to buy 85 aircraft (not 87, AG adds the two SDD aircraft which were already included in the 85). Even the Dutch MoD admitted prices had gone up considerably as early as 2008, but by 2013 they had to own up: 4.5 billion euros buys the Dutch 35 aircraft (37 if the two SDD-aircraft are included). The two SDD-aircraft were procured with money from a budget separate from the SDD-budget, hence my quote of something close to a billion euros being spent on development. A billion spent on development AND testing.
The Dutch MoD did quote 5.67 billion for 85 F-35s, but parliament balked at raising the F-16 replacement budget by that much.

As for people thinking in 2002 that 85 F-35s could be bought for 4.5 billion euros would indicate their use of Amsterdam's finest being unrealistic: those would include the people at the US DoD and LM who persistently claimed a prospective sale of 85 aircraft to the Dutch, with the Dutch F-16 replacement budget a known quantity.

 

[LowObservable]

When was the EUR4.5 billion set? That would have been about $4.2 billion in 2001, and flyaway for 85 aircraft would have been $3.1 billion - not unrealistic. Later in the decade the price would have gone up but the Euro was trading higher.


I suggest that the scent of burning Cannabis sativa might be better traced to the people who signed off on a $37 million (Base02) flyaway.