The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Good2Golf]

What is the true cost of the F-35? I have no idea if the figures in this article are accurate.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/trump-asks-boeing-to-price-out-advanced.html

The answer:  "It depends."

There isn't a single country that has paid the same price.  It depends on what each country negotiates and what each country has included in its respective in-service support package. 

Until a country commits and signs, identifies what the entire price of their respective package and how many airframes they procured, you will never know what a "true cost" of "an" F-35 is.  I've said it before and will repeat it..."per airframe" cost is not a meaningful number without realizing it is simply the math of an agreed upon package price averaged over airframes.

Regards
G2G

 

[AlexanderM]

The answer:  "It depends."

There isn't a single country that has paid the same price.  It depends on what each country negotiates and what each country has included in its respective in-service support package. 

Until a country commits and signs, identifies what the entire price of their respective package and how many airframes they procured, you will never know what a "true cost" of "an" F-35 is.  I've said it before and will repeat it..."per airframe" cost is not a meaningful number without realizing it is simply the math of an agreed upon package price averaged over airframes.

Regards
G2G

So the cost of the airframe and engine may be $102M, but then one must select the combat systems which may increase the price significantly? Do we have the cost breakdown for the combat systems? I would imagine it can get complicated.

 

[Kirkhill]

So the cost of the airframe and engine may be $102M, but then one must select the combat systems which may increase the price significantly? Do we have the cost breakdown for the combat systems? I would imagine it can get complicated.

Wouldn't that mean looking at all the bullets, bombs, missiles and rayguns that the vehicle might carry, now and in the future, considering first and foremost those that have already been tested and approved for carriage?

 

[AlexanderM]

Wouldn't that mean looking at all the bullets, bombs, missiles and rayguns that the vehicle might carry, now and in the future, considering first and foremost those that have already been tested and approved for carriage?

Combat systems as in Radar, computers, sensor fusion technology, etc, which I'm assuming is not included in the airframe and would be expensive. So the question would be, what is included in the airframe?

 

[Kirkhill]

Combat systems as in Radar, computers, sensor fusion technology, etc, which I'm assuming is not included in the airframe and would be expensive. So the question would be, what is included in the airframe?

And I think that brings us back to G2G's comment that it depends.

My understanding is that the "sensors" are "fused" with the airframe.  That is part of the charm of the beast.

For the competitors many of the same types of sensors are available as optional, ancillary devices that may, or may not, fuse with the rest of the aircraft and pilot and accompanying forces as well as the package that is represented by the F35.

 

[GR66]

I'd assume that the "combat systems" (radar and other sensors, etc.) and the software to run them ARE included in the airframe cost since they are integral to operating the aircraft (correct me if I'm wrong).  External "add-ons" (like sensor pods) I'm guessing would be extra.

I believe the additional costs that are variable between purchasers would be the in-service support for the aircraft once purchased.  I'm sure it must vary greatly depending on the expected lifespan of the aircraft, expected usage, planned availability rates, expected annual flying hours, etc.

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I will clarify.

 

[MarkOttawa]

One extra start-up cost is weapons--how many missiles, bombs, 25mm rounds does one buy?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I guess it depends on how many you intend to drop ... or shoot.

But seriously, not all ordnance becomes useless just because you buy a new plane. I think for the most part, the various loading points and bays in the new plane are designed to take existing ordinance, so whatever stocks we have or ongoing purchase programs for ordinance remain valid.

But overall, it goes back to what I have said wayyyyy back int the original Conservatives F-35 costs debacle thread: Our system of "acquisition project accounting" has to change so that the voters (and all other Canadians that either can't vote or won't) get accurate information and the various figures on (1) how much the acquisition of the actual piece of gear from the manufacturer costs, then, (2) the expected "associated" costs, such as ammunition, hangars, spare parts original buyout, conversion training, etc. , then, (3) the expected costs of operation of the new piece of gear in each year and finally, (4) how each one of those figures will affect each annual defence budget.

Those numbers let everyone discuss these matters intelligently, and avoids a lot of the politicking surrounding major acquisitions. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I guess it depends on how many you intend to drop ... or shoot.

But seriously, not all ordnance becomes useless just because you buy a new plane. I think for the most part, the various loading points and bays in the new plane are designed to take existing ordinance, so whatever stocks we have or ongoing purchase programs for ordinance remain valid.

But overall, it goes back to what I have said wayyyyy back int the original Conservatives F-35 costs debacle thread: Our system of "acquisition project accounting" has to change so that the voters (and all other Canadians that either can't vote or won't) get accurate information and the various figures on (1) how much the acquisition of the actual piece of gear from the manufacturer costs, then, (2) the expected "associated" costs, such as ammunition, hangars, spare parts original buyout, conversion training, etc. , then, (3) the expected costs of operation of the new piece of gear in each year and finally, (4) how each one of those figures will affect each annual defence budget.

Those numbers let everyone discuss these matters intelligently, and avoids a lot of the politicking surrounding major acquisitions.

Thumbs up on that OGBD.

But it also depends on our politicians playing fair and not doing their best to obscure the situation for their partisan advantage.

 

[dimsum]

But it also depends on our politicians playing fair and not doing their best to obscure the situation for their partisan advantage.

I have some oceanfront property for sale in Saskatchewan that I think you'd love  >

 

[Kirkhill]

I have some oceanfront property for sale in Saskatchewan that I think you'd love  >

To sleep, perchance to dream.  [

And by the way - spent way too much time in Saskatchewan.

 

[Good2Golf]

I have some oceanfront property for sale in Saskatchewan that I think you'd love  >

I did skiing and sailing in Saskatchewan, but the beaches were not quite as nice as the Caribbean...

 

[daftandbarmy]

I did skiing and sailing in Saskatchewan, but the beaches were not quite as nice as the Caribbean...

Wait until after the 'Big One' hits in BC

 

[MarkOttawa]

Sen. John McCain wants 58 more Super Hornets, 16 more Growlers for USN (p. 13 PDF):
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/25bff0ec-481e-466a-843f-68ba5619e6d8/restoring-american-power-7.pdf

Mark Collins

 

[CBH99]

The US really is Rome before the fall...

One of the quotes in the article references the damage that has been done to the US Military in the past 8 years due to such severe budget cuts.  This isn't true.  The US defense budget, as it stands now, is larger than it ever was even under President Bush.

The decline in US military power is brutally overstated, and is the fault of none other than US military leadership. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I guess it depends on how many you intend to drop ... or shoot.

But seriously, not all ordnance becomes useless just because you buy a new plane. I think for the most part, the various loading points and bays in the new plane are designed to take existing ordinance, so whatever stocks we have or ongoing purchase programs for ordinance remain valid.

But overall, it goes back to what I have said wayyyyy back int the original Conservatives F-35 costs debacle thread: Our system of "acquisition project accounting" has to change so that the voters (and all other Canadians that either can't vote or won't) get accurate information and the various figures on (1) how much the acquisition of the actual piece of gear from the manufacturer costs, then, (2) the expected "associated" costs, such as ammunition, hangars, spare parts original buyout, conversion training, etc. , then, (3) the expected costs of operation of the new piece of gear in each year and finally, (4) how each one of those figures will affect each annual defence budget.

Those numbers let everyone discuss these matters intelligently, and avoids a lot of the politicking surrounding major acquisitions.

I infer that the internal weapons stores may constrain which weapons may be carried and that if a future weapon does not fit or can't handle the interior temperatures then it would have to be hung on a outside pylon. So with the adoption of the F35, the pressure will be that any design of a future weapon should fit those bays. It may be a non-issue with the miniaturization of electronics.

 

[MarkOttawa]

CBC scare headline is service life cost--talks underway with US gov't, Boeing:

Stopgap Super Hornet purchase could have $5B to $7B price tag
Canada aims to begin receiving U.S.-made fighter jets by 2019

The Trudeau government has begun talks with Washington about the sole-source purchase of up to 18 Super Hornet jet fighters.

The measure, intended as a stopgap solution to ease pressure on the air force's aging fleet of CF-18s, could cost taxpayers between $5 billion and $7 billion over the lifetime of the aircraft, according to data circulating within the Department of National Defence and shared with CBC News by sources who insisted upon anonymity.

The figures are only preliminary, but they are backed up by U.S. congressional budget information.

CBC News was granted rare, extraordinary access to officials and facilities belonging to Boeing, the U.S. manufacturer of the Super Hornet, and to the U.S. navy's principal air base where the fighters operate and train. During that visit, Boeing officials confirmed Canada has begun talks with the Pentagon to buy the planes.

The decision to buy 18 warplanes in a sole-source deal, originally announced last fall, is meant to address what the Liberal government describes as an urgent "capability gap."..

There are questions about what kind of deal Canada will get on the Super Hornets, especially with the new U.S. administration.

A final agreement, which requires congressional approval, will take about a year to negotiate, but CBC News has learned the Liberal government has already signalled it would like to see the first aircraft arrive in 2019, which would coincide with the next election.

A Boeing official, when asked, confirmed both the timeline and anticipated delivery date, and said the company is currently waiting for formal, written notice — known as a letter of request — from the Canadian government, which will be submitted to the U.S. Pentagon within the next few weeks.

Dan Gillian, Boeing's vice-president of the F-18 programs, said the company is looking at how production of Canadian jets can be slotted alongside existing orders from the U.S. navy and Kuwait. Boeing currently produces two Super Hornets a month.

"We think we can build all of those airplanes in time to meet the customer demands," said Gillan. "We may have to increase production rate, but that is very doable."..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-super-hornets-1.3956306

A rather confused account of unit costs follows.  For the real current ballpark see this from US Navy (at end of story):

...the Navy’s revised list...includ[es] $2.3 billion for 24 additional F/A-18 Super Hornets...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/light-attack-fighter-work-f-35-top-revised-usaf-wish-list

US dollars, you do the arithmetic.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

Roughly 3 billion canadian for 24 jets that would be. Still a lot of money but that doesnt sound like 5 to 7 to me.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkOttawa]

MilEME09: As my post noted $5/$7 billion was service life cost.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

MilEME09: As my post noted $5/$7 billion was service life cost.

Mark
Ottawa

Ack, missed that line, why does the media love service life cost so much? 7 billion over the 40 years we will use them doesnt sound so bad.......

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk