Since Pukin Dog isn't here, I'll post the pic in his place - it is a great-looking plane.
Posted on 12/03/2007 8:02:32 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Taxpayers may pay big F-35 costs
By BOB COX Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Monday, Dec 3, 2007
Foreign nations are in no rush to place orders for Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, and that threatens to push the planes' rising cost even higher and shrink future orders. The result is that one way or another U.S. taxpayers will likely shoulder most of the cost of getting the F-35 into production, with the bulk of foreign orders not coming until years from now, when jet prices will have dropped dramatically.
Lockheed and the Pentagon have been talking with representatives of the eight nations that have contributed $4 billion-plus to the Lightning II program about placing early orders for production in 2011-13, but the high price is a deterrent.
"Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes earlier unless we can help them mitigate the fact the earlier airplanes cost more," Tom Burbage, Lockheed executive vice president and F-35 program general manager, said in a recent interview.
Another U.S. ally, Israel, may be in a position to help out. Israeli defense officials have reportedly decided that they want to buy F-35s soon and are talking with the Pentagon and State Department.
Price might not be as big a concern for Israel because it would most likely pay for F-35s using its annual U.S. military-aid package. The Bush administration has already proposed boosting arms financing for Israel from $2.4 billion in 2008 to $3.1 billion in 2011-18.
The Lightning II was conceived a decade ago as a low-cost, multirole jet that would replace numerous older models for U.S. and foreign military services. Its versions -- conventional takeoff, short takeoff and carrier-based -- and low price were intended to attract foreign sales.
The Pentagon and Lockheed would like to land some early foreign F-35 orders. As the F-35's total development cost has increased from $30 billion in 2002 to an estimated $40 billion, the Pentagon has paid the bill in part by delaying some planned U.S. military orders.
That has in turn driven up the cost of producing the earliest aircraft when production rates are already low.
The problem is simple economics.
As production begins, each of the relatively few airplanes built is enormously expensive. Prices fall as more planes are made.
The Pentagon's 2008 budget contains about $2.8 billion for the Air Force and Marines to buy six F-35s each. That's about $233 million a plane, compared with $50 million for a modern F-16.
Costs come down as production rates go up, but Air Force budget documents indicate that even in 2013, each F-35 it buys will still cost about $100 million -- in 2006 dollars, not taking inflation into account.
Plans now call for production to begin on lots of 16 planes in 2009, 32 in 2010 and 47 in 2011, with all but a handful of planes, at most, for the Air Force and Marines. A surge in orders that would boost production to 118 planes is expected in 2012.
Lockheed and the Pentagon would dearly love to land some foreign orders for 2011 so a production increase could be ramped up more gradually and help bring down costs sooner.
If costs grow further, as they seem to inevitably do, even the U.S. armed forces could be tempted to delay purchases further, creating a chain reaction.
Ray Jaworoski, aerospace analyst for Forecast International, says the countries that have partnered with the U.S. on developing the F-35 need to begin replacing their aging fighter fleets in the next few years.
"The big question is, is that near-term potential going to translate into near-term orders?" said Jaworoski, adding that U.S. allies' political leaders may not be likely to expand defense spending enough to buy more expensive F-35s early.
"It seems likely that the [F-35 production] ramp-up is not going to be as steep" as Lockheed and the Pentagon would like, Jaworoski said.
Britain and the Netherlands will each buy a couple of planes early for testing and training, but at this point, few other early orders are likely.
Israel's desire to buy F-35s comes with its own complications. Israel, according to published reports, wants to get planes sooner than the U.S. wants to let them out of the country. Pentagon officials don't want F-35s leaving the U.S. until all planned testing has been completed.
Israel also wants to be able to outfit the planes with its own weapons and other systems, posing more political and technical issues that governments will have to work out.
"We're not planning on their jets right now," Burbage said. "But if they choose to buy, we could get a few of their jets into production" for delivery in 2013.
Other nonpartner nations, notably South Korea and Japan, are seen as potential F-35 buyers. Japan would like to buy Lockheed's F-22 fighters, but the U.S. has so far indicated that it is unwilling to sell that highly sophisticated jet to other nations.
"If they're barred from buying the F-22, the question is, where do they go?" Jaworoski said.
But even if the Japanese military bought F-35s, Jaworoski said, it may not do so soon enough to help boost near-term production rates.
F-35 LIGHTNING II
2008 defense spending
Procurement: 12 planes, $2.65 billion
Research and development: $3.5 billion
Planned production
Lot 1, 2006-09: two planes
Lot 2, 2007-10: 12 planes
Lot 3, 2008-11: 16 planes
Lot 4, 2009-12: 32 planes
Lot 5, 2010-13: 47 planes
Lot 6, 2011-14: 118 planes
Planned U.S. purchases
Air Force: 1,763
Navy and Marines: 680
Other countries' planned purchases
Great Britain: 138
Italy: 131
Australia: 100
Turkey: 100
Netherlands: 85
Canada: 60
Denmark: 48
Norway: 48
Total: 710
Source: Star-Telegram research
BOB COX, 817-390-7723
rcox@star-telegram.com
Hmmmmm, has the manufacturer ever heard of price elasticity? Cut the price and one sells more.
They’re just waiting for us to kick Iranian/Syrian butt and see the 100 - 1 kill ratio. Then the orders will come in.
naaahhhh.......can’t do that.......makes too much sense....
No stealth planes to anybody, even our allies.
I miss Pukin Dog and his well-known love for the F-35. :)
And I want to see one MSM story, just one, feeling for the poor taxpayer of, say, education budgets, or welfare payments. Apparently those kinds of tax payments don’t hurt at all.
Of course they do. Having the most advanced plane should cost more. If they want to wait until their possible enemies have a significant advantage over them first, that is their choice as well. They could probably really save some money and buy some used F-4 at an even bigger discount.
It's not that simple with military contracting. It's not like you can sell these things to just anybody with the cash...
YES...what YOU SAID! PROTECTION of our borders and our culture and our lives is the FIRST responsibility of government.....not giving handouts to individuals.....
Grumman’s F-20 Tigershark bargain all over again? Try to sell a more affordable, less shiny toy to our allies, are we? As the sheiks and elected dictators once preferred the F-16 to the F-20, are they now spurning the F-35?
“Try-ING to sell”, I meant.
Since Pukin Dog isn't here, I'll post the pic in his place - it is a great-looking plane.
ping
What happened to Pukin? The great April 07 “not a purge?”
From what I can tell, that’s what happened. Too many not-unkind words about “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Supported”.
But without antigrav
it’s still an archaic smoke screen.
I miss Pukin’s experience, insight and fighter pilot flash as well. Always think of his posts when the F-35 is discussed in present tense. Never got to read his finale. Hope he returns.
ping
He probably went to Wide Awakes where many Rino Rudy supporters moved after the purge which wasn’t.
naaahhhh.......can’t do that.......makes too much sense....
Great idea. Sell at a huge loss and make it up in volume (by selling even more units at a huge loss). Not the best business model.
what.....ya mean buy it for a dollar, sell it for 99 cents and make up the difference in volume does not work?
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Expenses fall. Prices don't necessarily need to follow.
I can tell you that the American public does not know just how badly we need this and the Raptor. It will cost us a lot, but they are the last manned fighters we will ever have and our fleets of F-16 and F-15 are fast passing their design life and will become inordinately expensive to keep up.
Some of them will last us a while longer, but not under the use rates we fly them now. Same could be said of all KC-135 and C-130E/H/H2 and even H3 aircraft.
The F-35 is a fine aircraft, more flexible than the F-22 and more than sufficient for most of these nations' needs.
“Hmmmmm, has the manufacturer ever heard of price elasticity? Cut the price and one sells more.”
That works for very high volume production. What they’re talking about is called the ‘learning curve’. Each airframe coming off the line costs slightly less to build than the ones before. This doesn’t matter much when you’re talking production runs of millions but when the total run is limited to a few thousand, it can mean a bunch of money.
The law on foreign military sales says that we will charge the other countries our costs plus administrative fees. If the costs futher out on the run are lower, then we have to charge them the lower price.
The A-10 is a great plane and will keep on flying, but the way ground support is performed is going to change. High-risk targets will be dealt with using UAVs, medium risk by B-1s and B-2 with huge bundles of GPS-guided bombs on their racks, and low-risk targets by cargo planes with pallet-loads of bombs, or converted to gunships...
If the USAF would place the order for 500 planes in 2011, the problem would be solved.
How long have the 52’s been in service
Well you don't honestly expect a journalist to comprehend the difference between costs and prices, do you?
I was going to mention that B-52s are rather expensive to maintain today, but cut it out for brevity’s sake. So are KC-135s. They’re falling apart. But nothing was ever built in sufficient numbers to replace them, so B-52s are now slated to go to 2040 (90 years)!
Also, B-52s would not be flown into a serious air defense today, except perhaps in long-range standoff. B-17s could have been flown in Iraq after its defenses had been neutralized...that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have been replaced.
We are not going to keep our edge over Russia/China/etc. flying 90-year-old aircraft and a handful of unaffordable modern ones. Yes I understand that prices go down with volume but if we’re not buying that volume.
Development progressed faster and the aircraft were cheaper in real dollars when there were multiple manufacturers and multiple smaller contracts, instead of these monstrous F-111-style all-purpose-aircraft ones lasting decades and costing hundreds of billions of development dollars that have characterized post-1980s aircraft procurement. You would have thought that the benefits of competition vs. monopoly (ok duopoly) would have been recognized by now.
It is funny.
Someone was subcontracted by Lockheed I believe to make Solid CAD Models of the old Saab Drakken for analysis. Look at the Plan-Form of the F16-XL and it is almost a Double-Delta like the Drakken.
John Dyke also used it in his Dyke Delta, I'd say it is a configuration way ahead of it's time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.