Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

[_Anonymous_]

It's not LM, it is the 3 top guys in the Norwegian defence force. The take away is by what they count. it is similar to their F-16
"As described by three people, the Chief of Staff, the Chief of Test Flight, Tactics and Training, and the Chief of Logistics and Maintenance of the F-35 and F-16, the current flight hour costs for the F-35A were reported to be NOK 110.000 per hour, which is currently approximately EUR 11.000, including man-hours, maintenance, spare parts and fuel costs. Since the number is the lowest we had ever heard on the F-35, it naturally amazed us. That’s why I asked how its hourly cost compares to the F-16 still in use. The answer was convergent [among the three]: it is about the same size."

Just to acquaint you with certain facts of life out here , When someone posts a series of tweets & writes thread in capital letters , it usually means one logs on to Twitter to read the rest of it given the limitations of posting 5 tweets / post .

Alternatively it always helps to check the source irrespective of whether the said member may or may not have written thread in capital letters.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1460708212009836553

 

[randomradio]

The part I quoted, I don't know if you believe what you wrote, or just having fun.

Depends on what specifically.

11G performance and supercruise are obvious advantages in my book.

Next gen avionics too. Like GaN, when the F-35 is still stuck with GaAs. Also comes with all the stuff that was missing on the Rafale F3, but present on the F-35, like a patrol link, HMDS, radar-based EW etc. Plus new tech, like SDR. Possibility of conformal arrays, which will be a massive game-changer.

I got the $105 and 55, from this site. It seems to be the flyaway. After that it's weapons and such. Our Super Hornet landed at $250 each

SO WHERE IS THE SCAM? The reality of the NDA’s (now) controversial 2016 Rafale deal – Strategic Frontier

www.strategicfront.org

That link is this site actually. $105M is flyaway. $55M is simply the R&D cost of $2B on a per jet basis, it's obviously not part of the flyaway cost.

Anyway 9000/36 = $250M.

 

[randomradio]

What was included with that exactly? Did you actually look or just blurt out what you thought it was?

why aren't you using Poland, or the Swiss or other more recent examples?

A typical fighter contract would include the jet, spares, infrastructure, training and optimum number of weapons. Anything extra would normally come in a separate contract, typically when you wanna keep it a secret.

Poland and Swiss contracts are without R&D costs.

"stock" that they got to have a say in from the start because they were a member of the consortium who made special additions already. Very stupid for F-35 partner nations to not have any say in the development, wait until the aircraft are built, and then make special demands. Since India was not a part of any Rafale Consortium they have had to add them in later. You got it backwards. The F-35 has a Canopy bow to conform with UK standards for bird strike. The Canadian and Norwegian F-35s have equipment that was designed to withstand extreme cold from the start, etc. Thats "stock" in that its built in already, so you don't need some custom job. pretty smart eh?

That is far too small to consider air force specific. A stronger canopy, adding a drag chute etc aren't significant enough. The main areas would be electronics, like what the Israelis are doing. Or what India did with the Rafale. Our Rafale comes with airframe changes that adds new EW apertures.

So Norway is settled then?

Wasn't really a problem for me.

 

[Spitfire6]

The big twist here is actually of the LM spinning a yarn. The Finnish AF is operating on a tight budget - both in terms of CAP EX & OP EX as also emphasized by a Finnish member here, which means they can't afford miscalculations of the type demonstrated above assuming they can actually afford the F-35 with all it's bells & whistles & whether it actually fulfills it's needs which the Rafales can't .

LM is not Norway. Lots of operational costs get completely twisted and perverted by many, A Gripen is not just 4,700 dollar per hour. The American Army says its Blackhawks cost more to operate than that. the US has about a half dozen ways to measure operational costs and here we have maybe a dozen people that can actually verifiably and reliably compare aircraft costs in my entire country.

provided that Norway understands Norway this is an open and shut case. I have seen F-16 costs vary from 7,000 dollars to 32,000 dollars (US dollars) depending on how it is measured and who is doing the measuring.

The same is true of the USAF going ahead at least in as far as it's OP EX goes as the thread explains which is why there are strong rumours of the possibility of a 4.5G ++ single engine FA being developed & deployed by the end of this decade & a curtailment of further F-35 orders.

You can have that coke now .

Strong rumors? well that changes everything.

 

[Optimist]

There would be R&D in part of the IAF cost. the enhancements came out to $55m each
"-IAF specific enhancements ** ( including improved hot an high performance, integration of Israeli systems and weapons) $2b"

 

[Spitfire6]

A typical fighter contract would include the jet, spares, infrastructure, training and optimum number of weapons. Anything extra would normally come in a separate contract, typically when you wanna keep it a secret.

did you actually look at the contract? yes or no? Because I have to warn you the Australian contract is not typical, and that is not exactly news because people have been assuming things since it was announced without actually looking into what is included.

Poland and Swiss contracts are without R&D costs.

how much have you decided that would add?

That is far too small to consider air force specific. A stronger canopy, adding a drag chute etc aren't significant enough.

I used those as very simple examples of what I am talking about, there are more from the start including classified things of course. you decided they didn't count despite the fact that F-35s do indeed have custom requirements built in from the start from the partner nations. Not to the extreme of Israel no. but most partners aren't having to have custom jobs because they were already done. no where near the costs needed to make a Rafale work for India.

 

[_Anonymous_]

LM is not Norway. Lots of operational costs get completely twisted and perverted by many, A Gripen is not just 4,700 dollar per hour. The American Army says its Blackhawks cost more to operate than that. the US has about a half dozen ways to measure operational costs and here we have maybe a dozen people that can actually verifiably and reliably compare aircraft costs in my entire country.

provided that Norway understands Norway this is an open and shut case. I have seen F-16 costs vary from 7,000 dollars to 32,000 dollars (US dollars) depending on how it is measured and who is doing the measuring.

Yes & what I've posted are the findings of one such study along with a critique .

Strong rumors? well that changes everything.

Don't know for sure nor do I care much . Just reporting what's the grapevine is like. Unlike you I've no dog in the fight .

 

[Spitfire6]

They are just as bad as GripenE fanboys

my god mate, those are fighting words! Are you trying to get doxxed?

 

[zinswinsin]

Gripen is a theory plane. At least F-35 and Rafale has been tested by many nations. Sweden and Brazil are the opposite of what I think of when it comes to elite military testing.

 

[Innominate]

Gripen is a theory plane. At least F-35 and Rafale has been tested by many nations. Sweden and Brazil are the opposite of what I think of when it comes to elite military testing.

Um... Have you been at the BF4C forum? GripenE is real to them even though it won't enter service until 2023 and be FOC until 2027.

 

[randomradio]

There would be R&D in part of the IAF cost. the enhancements came out to $55m each
"-IAF specific enhancements ** ( including improved hot an high performance, integration of Israeli systems and weapons) $2b"

Yeah, those are R&D costs.

You wanna install a HMDS onto the Rafale, the cost of the HMDS is in the $105M flyaway cost, the integration cost is in the $2B.

This is a very strange situation for Americans, but this is how it works between Europe and India. We want customisation. You buy a car in your lot, and you drive it home, but we take ours to a parts shop and pimp it up.

 

[randomradio]

did you actually look at the contract? yes or no? Because I have to warn you the Australian contract is not typical, and that is not exactly news because people have been assuming things since it was announced without actually looking into what is included.

Why? What's the extras you want added?

how much have you decided that would add?

Depends. The UK added $2B or so. Others, not so much. It's unclear what's the actual R&D spend on the program yet. India's was clearly written in the contract. So that's that.

I used those as very simple examples of what I am talking about, there are more from the start including classified things of course. you decided they didn't count despite the fact that F-35s do indeed have custom requirements built in from the start from the partner nations. Not to the extreme of Israel no. but most partners aren't having to have custom jobs because they were already done. no where near the costs needed to make a Rafale work for India.

Yeah, but those are partners. There will be some customisation, but the F-35 is still stock. Most of the stuff is common to all partners. It's not like the US got rid of the canopy the UK wanted on their own design, this is what I mean. Or it's not like the UK asked for a center stick while all others have side sticks. And so on. The US and all other partners are on one design, which is the stock design.

 

[Spitfire6]

Why? What's the extras you want added?

did you look at the contract and what is included in it?

Depends. The UK added $2B or so. Others, not so much. It's unclear what's the actual R&D spend on the program yet. India's was clearly written in the contract. So that's that.

ok so you don't know? we know the Swiss and the Poles didn't pay R&D. Well what would it add? "not so much"??

this has been enlightening.

Yeah, but those are partners. There will be some customisation, but the F-35 is still stock. Most of the stuff is common to all partners. It's not like the US got rid of the canopy the UK wanted on their own design, this is what I mean. Or it's not like the UK asked for a center stick while all others have side sticks. And so on. The US and all other partners are on one design, which is the stock design.

yes the stock design they had input in from the beginning. we can say that added to the F-35s "to do list" but it also meant no one had to shell out billions to make it effective in their operational environment. India gets to pay, and thank god Canada dodged that bullet. my 300 million dollar made in Quebec nightmare will never appear.

 

[randomradio]

did you look at the contract and what is included in it?

It doesn't matter. All American contracts are generic, published in the DSCA.

ok so you don't know? we know the Swiss and the Poles didn't pay R&D. Well what would it add? "not so much"??

this has been enlightening.

The only way to tell what Australia has spent is when they are made to reveal it sometime in the future. But the second tranche order of 58 jets is a telling number. Basically the F-35 for Australia costs more than the $198M per jet of the second tranche by default, since the first contract is generally bigger than the second on a per jet basis, due to the addition of a lot of initial set up costs.

No different from how the first IAF contract for 36 costs $250M each, but the second contract of 36 can cost less than $150M.

Egypt, first deal for 24 = $5.9B = $245M
Second deal for 30 = $4.5B = $150M

Australia, first deal = ???
Second deal for 58 = $11.5B = $198M

The Polish and Belgian deals did not include weapons. The Belgians are gonna buy weapons only next year.

yes the stock design they had input in from the beginning. we can say that added to the F-35s "to do list" but it also meant no one had to shell out billions to make it effective in their operational environment. India gets to pay, and thank god Canada dodged that bullet. my 300 million dollar made in Quebec nightmare will never appear.

Generally, what's fine for the US is fine for everyone else in the alliance, that's how it works. What's fine for Norway will be fine for Canada, and the same will be fine in Alaska as well. Typically customisation is necessary when your systems cannot talk to American systems, or when you simply don't like what's being delivered, like in the case of the Russians.

Do you really think if India buys the F-35, it's gonna be the stock version?

 

[Optimist]

Yeah, those are R&D costs.

You wanna install a HMDS onto the Rafale, the cost of the HMDS is in the $105M flyaway cost, the integration cost is in the $2B.

This is a very strange situation for Americans, but this is how it works between Europe and India. We want customisation. You buy a car in your lot, and you drive it home, but we take ours to a parts shop and pimp it up.

oh come on. The link says 105 is the same price as the French air force, they don't have a HMDS

 

[Optimist]

Poland and Swiss contracts are without R&D costs.

If you are going to tell people about the F-35. First you need to learn about FMS foreign military sales. The US charges 3.2% on FMS, that includes a small portion for R&D. It is effectively nothing and the US picks up most of the R&D bill.

 

[Spitfire6]

It doesn't matter. All American contracts are generic, published in the DSCA.

You can admit you don't know. its ok.

The only way to tell what Australia has spent is when they are made to reveal it sometime in the future. But the second tranche order of 58 jets is a telling number. Basically the F-35 for Australia costs more than the $198M per jet of the second tranche by default, since the first contract is generally bigger than the second on a per jet basis, due to the addition of a lot of initial set up costs.

Air6000, which is the Australia F-35 program, includes the cost of the whole endeavor including the cost of the airbase infrastructure. that is why it is not typical. You are using F-35 prices that don't align with most F-35 prices since the Australians do it a different way. You are using a bad model with costs that go beyond the aircraft purchase.

No different from how the first IAF contract for 36 costs $250M each, but the second contract of 36 can cost less than $150M.

that's expensive

 

[randomradio]

oh come on. The link says 105 is the same price as the French air force, they don't have a HMDS

No, the French AF price is much lesser than that.

The original price of the Rafale for MMRCA was $85.5M, presumably what the French pay, still likely more than what they pay.

COLUMN: MMRCA, The Right Choice For The Wrong Reasons - Livefist

By Admiral Arun PrakashMedia reports that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has asked two of the six aspirants for the ongoing Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition to extend the validity of their quotes would seem a clear indication that these two; the French Dassault Rafale and the...

www.livefistdefence.com

MiG-35 ($ 45 m), F-16 ($60 m), F/A-18 ($60.5 m), Gripen ($82.2 m), Rafale ($ 85.5 m) and Typhoon ($124 m).

The 105M is French cost plus extras to bring it up to MMRCA specs plus 5+ years' inflation, which Dassault likely provided a large discount on. The 55M is purely the cost of R&D. All future Rafales of the same version will not include the 55M, only the 105M, 'cause it's a one-time payment.

HMDS is like 200k apiece. The main cost should mainly include integration of external systems since the Rafale's integration cost on pylons is far more expensive than it's the case for other jets. The cost for active cancellation. The overall R&D costs will keep increasing as we add more stuff to it over the course of its life.

How much does it cost to add weapons to the F-35?

The Ministry of Defence has revealed the cost of adding ASRAAM and SPEAR-3 missiles as well as Paveway IV guided bombs to the F-35B.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

“The estimated costs of integrating ASRAAM, Paveway IV and SPEAR Cap 3 weapons onto the F-35 Lightning are as follows: ASRAAM: £47 million, Paveway IV: £103 million, SPEAR Cap 3: £170 million.”

That's £320M or $430M, without the Meteor. None of this goes into unit flyaway costs. This is a never-ending thing.

If you are going to tell people about the F-35. First you need to learn about FMS foreign military sales. The US charges 3.2% on FMS, that includes a small portion for R&D. It is effectively nothing and the US picks up most of the R&D bill.

That's something else entirely. We paid a lot more than that when we got the P-8I customised.

The F-35 isn't a simple FMS contract. All partners have different costs. Export customers pay different costs. And so on.

 

[Optimist]

You need to look at the contract and some are hard to decipher.
There was also pilot training, weapons and spares, a 10 year engine service agreement and sims for example, in that $250 a tail for the Supers. One thing I am certain of. An equal Rafale-Super buy, the super would be cheaper. The F-35 is cheaper than the Super.

 

[Optimist]

No, the French AF price is much lesser than that.

The original price of the Rafale for MMRCA was $85.5M, presumably what the French pay, still likely more than what they pay.

COLUMN: MMRCA, The Right Choice For The Wrong Reasons - Livefist

By Admiral Arun PrakashMedia reports that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has asked two of the six aspirants for the ongoing Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition to extend the validity of their quotes would seem a clear indication that these two; the French Dassault Rafale and the...

www.livefistdefence.com

MiG-35 ($ 45 m), F-16 ($60 m), F/A-18 ($60.5 m), Gripen ($82.2 m), Rafale ($ 85.5 m) and Typhoon ($124 m).

The 105M is French cost plus extras to bring it up to MMRCA specs plus 5+ years' inflation, which Dassault likely provided a large discount on. The 55M is purely the cost of R&D. All future Rafales of the same version will not include the 55M, only the 105M, 'cause it's a one-time payment.

HMDS is like 200k apiece. The main cost should mainly include integration of external systems since the Rafale's integration cost on pylons is far more expensive than it's the case for other jets. The cost for active cancellation. The overall R&D costs will keep increasing as we add more stuff to it over the course of its life.

How much does it cost to add weapons to the F-35?

The Ministry of Defence has revealed the cost of adding ASRAAM and SPEAR-3 missiles as well as Paveway IV guided bombs to the F-35B.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

“The estimated costs of integrating ASRAAM, Paveway IV and SPEAR Cap 3 weapons onto the F-35 Lightning are as follows: ASRAAM: £47 million, Paveway IV: £103 million, SPEAR Cap 3: £170 million.”

That's £320M or $430M, without the Meteor. None of this goes into unit flyaway costs. This is a never-ending thing.



That's something else entirely. We paid a lot more than that when we got the P-8I customised.

The F-35 isn't a simple FMS contract. All partners have different costs. Export customers pay different costs. And so on.

So you are a fanboy and not serious. Rafale $85 LOL, you made that up. I won't try to explain anything to you again.