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

Le prix d’achat des 36 avions F-35A proposés à la Suisse a déjà augmenté de +20%

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

The purchase price of the 36 F-35A aircraft offered to Switzerland has already increased by +20%.


On 30 June, following a call for tenders under the Air 2030 programme, Switzerland announced its intention to purchase 36 5th generation F-35A Lightning II aircraft from the US manufacturer Lockheed-Martin as well as five Patriot air defence batteries for 1.970 billion.

At the time of the announcement, the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport [DDPS] claimed that Lockheed-Martin's offer, taking into account the purchase of the 36 aircraft and their operating costs over 30 years [i.e. a total of CHF 15.5 billion], was CHF 2 billion lower than the second best offer in the evaluations made by Armasuisse.

Furthermore, he claimed that the F-35A had proven to be the "most effective" of the three other fighter aircraft in the running [Rafale, Eurofighter and F/A-18 Super Hornet, editor's note] "due to its significant technological lead" and its "innovative, high-performance and widely connected systems for airspace protection and surveillance".

However, the amounts announced are already out of date... Indeed, while the acquisition contract has just been finalised by the American authorities, the 36 F-35A are now offered to Bern for the sum of 6.035 billion Swiss francs. This significant increase of +20% would be linked to "current inflation forecasts up to 2031". :ROFLMAO:

In detail, it would cost 3.828 billion Swiss francs for the 36 F-35As, 1.927 billion for the "logistics package including ground equipment, replacement equipment, documentation, training and technical support provided by the manufacturer during the introduction period", 107 million for ammunition, 86 million "for systems for training and mission planning and evaluation", 82 million for "possible technical risks" and 5 million for "assumed cost increases".

A priori, these forecasts on future inflation do not concern the five Patriot batteries: their purchase price has hardly changed since last June, going from 1.970 to 1.987 billion Swiss francs...

As for the F-35A's operating costs, if they "turn out to be higher than expected until 2031, the United States will have to cover the costs in excess of the offer. Beyond that date, the DDPS will pay the difference. But the department has calculated the costs very conservatively. Moreover, the operating costs tend to decrease," explained Darko Savic, head of the "New Fighter Aircraft" project at Armasuisse.

As a reminder, Berne explains that the "relatively simple operation of the system and the information superiority of the F-35A lead to changes in the content of the training and change the ratio of flight hours to simulator hours". He added that the F-35A "requires about 20 per cent fewer flying hours than other candidates and almost 50 per cent fewer takeoffs and landings than the F/A-18 Hornet currently in service with the Swiss Air Force.

That said, the figures put forward by Switzerland are surprising... in Norway, which has to pay almost 9.5 billion euros for 52 F-35As, with an overall operating cost of 24 billion euros over 30 years. "Either Switzerland is underestimating its costs or Norway is paying too much," summarised the daily 20Minutes. But for the DDPS, "it is not clear which costs are included, or not, in each case.

In any case, Berne reminds us of the purchase of the F-35A and Patriot systems, "for the moment, the Letters of Offer and Acceptance [LOA] are unilateral, i.e. they have only been signed by the United States. These contracts will enter into force as soon as Switzerland has signed them in turn.

The Swiss government will most likely have to convince the electorate, which will be asked to vote on the F-35A purchase if opponents of the project manage to gather 100,000 signatures for a vote. A parliamentary commission has indicated that it intends to examine the "legality" of the procedure that led to the choice of the Lockheed-Martin aircraft.
 

F-35 program office announces a ‘strategic pause’ on new logistics system

By Valerie Insinna

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department is pausing its efforts to field replacement software for the F-35′s troubled logistics system due to a lack of funding, the head of the F-35 program office said Thursday.

In 2020, the F-35 program executive office announced plans to develop a replacement for the Lockheed Martin-made Autonomic Logistics Information System currently used by maintenance crews to perform functions such as ordering spare parts or logging repair work.

Known as the Operational Data Integrated Network, or ODIN, the new system would combine hardware produced by Lockheed with software coded by the government, allowing the Defense Department to retain more control over the system.

But because of a 42 percent cut to ODIN’s development and testing funding in fiscal year 2021, the program office has decided to take a “strategic pause” in ODIN’s software development effort, said Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, F-35 program executive officer.

“Despite all the positive activities, we underestimated the complexity of deprecating ALIS capabilities while migrating to ODIN and learned several important lessons,” Fick said in April 22 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.

For years, ALIS has ranked as one of the F-35 enterprise’s biggest headaches. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly documented problems, such as a bulky “deployable” version of ALIS that cannot connect to the internet or incorrectly signaling to maintainers that a plane is not mission capable due to incorrect data.

“We need to continue to improve the functionality of ALIS in the near term, as we ensure that the ODIN structure that we put into place, from a hardware perspective, from a data environment perspective, and from a software perspective, is what the users need,” Fick told lawmakers during the hearing.

In late 2020, the program office developed an ODIN user agreement and capability needs statement, which lays out what tasks ODIN needs to be able to accomplish and how the system should function, he said.

In addition, “The JPO and Lockheed Martin established a contract that captured data rights, frequent software deliveries, and proper data marking for modern software development,” Fick stated in testimony.


Fick’s testimony did not address when the program office intends to restart ODIN software development efforts, saying only that the JPO will update its plan based on available funding, inputs from the services and its finalized strategy for migrating from ALIS to ODIN.

However, ODIN hardware development is moving forward. Lockheed delivered the first hardware kit for testing at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in September.

“The new kit is 75 percent smaller, weighs 90 percent less than the current hardware, and is projected to be 30 percent cheaper. In addition to the smaller footprint, we are seeing significant performance improvements in ALIS such as data processing and synchronization times 2-3 times faster than ever seen before,” Fick wrote in testimony.

The program office plans to roll out additional kits this summer, which will save money by being able to host multiple squadrons on a single unit, Fick said. The Defense Department plans to invest $471 million into both ALIS and ODIN over the next five years.
 
The F-35 planes are priced for 2030. The price without inflation was $1b less. Remember the frog saying they went up $1b?
The rafale was flyaway $105. the modification was $55. Please don't BS
What is the standard of the F-35A that is supposed to be ordered in this tender?

More precisely, is it the one that has been tested or is it the block 4, post-TR3?

And if so, will a new engine be required, which the US industry claims is "necessary"?

Does the FOC version of the aircraft finally require new engines?
 
Manufacturing F35
Assembly line







Use of AR

Projected Work Instructions on the F-35 Lightning

Automation
Note despite the big talk, automation is not at the level used in commercial sector like automobile manufacturing. It’s possible that Chinese J20 line is more automated than F35.

Also KUKA is now owned by Chinese Midea group. So essentially US defence companies are using Chinese equipment’s to manufacture F35.

THE F-35 | Where the World's Most Advanced Fighter Jet is Built

Get A Behind The Scenes Look At How The F-35 Is Built

PS: compared to LM’s F35 assembly, HAL LCA line looks like Stone Age with almost all work done manually.
Wish AMCA manufacturing goes to TATA Aerospace as they have much more modern and automated infrastructure for commercial planes and has experience in modern automated manufacturing in Automobiles sector. Their Harrier/Safari/Punch assembly line is highly automated, close to South Korean and European Automakers.
 
The SH is way cheaper than either jet.
We have never actually seen it:

The two cheapest options now became the front-runners. The Super Hornet offer—for 36 fighters—was for $7.5 billion, while the Gripen offer cost $6 billion. The Rafale offer exceeded $8 billion.


Amazingly, these considerations did not deter their efforts. It took a trade dispute with Boeing over Bombardier, and the likely sticker shock of their policy ($6.4 billion for 18 Super Hornets versus $9.0 billion for 65 F-35As), to force a reconsideration.


In addition to the benefits, the F-35A also achieved by far the best result in terms of costs. Both procurement and operation are cheapest for this aircraft. The procurement costs at the time of the offers in February 2021 amount to CHF 5.068 billion. They are clearly within the specified financial volume of 6 billion francs that the electorate has decided. Even if the inflation is added up to the time of payment, the procurement costs are within the credit limit.


At the same time, the US government had given Canada the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) pricing for the 18 Super Hornets requested. According to the US State Department, the total price for these aircraft was $6.4 billion (Pugliese 2017); notably, the per unit cost for each aircraft was around $120 million (Confidential interview with the author), which was nearly double the per unit price suggested by the Liberals for these aircraft in their election platform (Liberal Party 2015a). The pricing was so dramatically higher than expected that DND sent a team to Washington to clarify the US offer.



After careful consideration in an externally validated process, it concluded that the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter dominated the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon in all four categories that were considered: military performance, acquisition and life-cycle costs, industrial benefits, and strategic considerations


According to the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report, the F/A-18E/F’s per unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically, the cost of the aircraft with no support equipment or spares), comes to US$82.88 million (fiscal year 2012). This does not include foreign military sales, or research and development fees levied on a program of this type. Adding these costs should bring the aircraft’s per unit cost to around US$90 million. At this cost, and with the Canadian government’s hard cap of C$9 billion for the acquisition phase, the RCAF’s potential Super Hornet fleet size will be less than 65 aircraft, and perhaps as few as 55.



The F-35 is also not subject to the same secondary costs as the Super Hornet. It carries all of its sensors and fuel internally and does not require external pods. Finally, as a JSF Partner Nation, Canada is not subject to FMS fees. Thus a true apples-to-apples comparison sees the F-35 at around $77 million and the Super Hornet at $75 million to $85 million. Other alternatives have been cited for even higher costs. Accordingly, no significant acquisition savings can be found by selecting another aircraft.

U.S. law prevents American manufacturers from selling such equipment for lower than what the U.S. government pays.



Budget documents from even a couple years ago show the Super Hornet being around 75 million for the US Navy. But 75 is less than 78! ha! no not really because the F-35 comes with sensors and hardpoints built into it from the start. The US or F-35 program probably should have come up for a new name or metric for this, because it costs another 10 million in pods for the Super hornet to be where F-35 is with targeting, IRST etc. And that is before we get into other needs like fuel tanks. the F-35 flies in ready for war mode, and maybe that is what the Americans should have done Flyaway cost and "combat ready" or "code one cost" Since it is against US law 22 U.S. Code § 2762 - Procurement for cash sales, available on the Legal Information Institute, 22 U.S. Code § 2762 - Procurement for cash sales to undersell the US military it would seem obvious once again that 65 million is a lie, its a lie for India as well. Even more obvious, the notion that F-18 operators save money switching to Super Hornets seems like a bit of a joke given the decisions we are seeing from F-18 operators. throw on the pile of things that never really work out when put under a microscope despite Boeing dazzling and polluting the public sphere

F-35 breaks a lot of the old rules and metrics, and the US has never found a way to make this clear in budget documents. Once F-35 went into the MYP phase it was over for SH, that was also a trick Super Hornet used early on to save money, it worked but then they had to move away from it. The Americans normally do an "annual budget" they go year by year. Multi year buys allow much higher volumes of production at lower costs because the guess work of what each new year brings is removed, and mass production flows and works better. economies of scale. you are right, random just not the way you thought. Boeing is still quoting costs like they are in the good old days, and they omit other costs and fees in their rhetoric. There is really only one specific case where the SH is cheaper, the USN which already has the SH sunk costs done, and has no interest in the F-35A, but competes SH against F-35C costs. the USN and their little sister service is the only group that buys F-35Cs. Export Super Hornets are a very different kind of thing, even when being adopted or evaluated by old hornet users. The Super Hornet started to "cool" just as the F-35 line got "hot" and here we are
 
That's how it works though, the real world.
The real world rejected the Super Hornet and the Rafale in Switzerland. all what is left is you insisting that your imagination is more powerful, and bitter French posts, from seething French posters, for as much as picdelamirand-oil said he couldn't wait to see the US collapse we seem to be watching the meltdown of the French psyche in real time. looking to be a great year for the F-35 with a trio of wins nearly back to back lining up. Rafale defeated in 2 of 3, a perfect score only being missed thanks to the French quitting early here. The best part is we have not even seen the height of French tears yet.
 
Look folks, I am convinced that F-35 won't be chosen in Finland. This is despite the fact that it has it's fans in Finland too.

One reason is that it is not suited for FAF's distributed operations. Look at the Hornet, FAF's current plane. It was a perfect match for FAF.

On the Finnish forum (where I am banned) they said that when FAF chose the Hornet, their available improvised airfields became twice as numerous. This is because the Hornet can take off from short runways - it is made for carrier ops. Now if they choose F-35, they will have to completely change the way they work and adopt a whole new doctrine.

This, and various other reasons, mean that it simply doesn't mean the requirements. This doesn't mean it's a bad plane. Maybe it's really good, I don't know and I don't care, but you can't shove a square peg into a round hole, at least not if there are options that are a better fit for the requirements.

Mind you, the demand for distributed operations comes from the political level. It is not even the Air Force that gets to decide how to do their stuff.

Many people here fail to see the point. It is not only about what is a "good" plane! It is about requirements!

What was Denmark's previous plane? F-16.
What was Norway's previous plane? F-16.
What was many other countries previous plane before the F35... it was the F-16.

Finland is not an F-16 user. F-16 was rejected in the previous round and F-18 was chosen. A carrier aircraft that suited Finland's needs perfectly.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Bon Plan
Look folks, I am convinced that F-35 won't be chosen in Finland. This is despite the fact that it has it's fans in Finland too.

One reason is that it is not suited for FAF's distributed operations. Look at the Hornet, FAF's current plane. It was a perfect match for FAF.

On the Finnish forum (where I am banned) they said that when FAF chose the Hornet, their available improvised airfields became twice as numerous. This is because the Hornet can take off from short runways - it is made for carrier ops. Now if they choose F-35, they will have to completely change the way they work and adopt a whole new doctrine.

This, and various other reasons, mean that it simply doesn't mean the requirements. This doesn't mean it's a bad plane. Maybe it's really good, I don't know and I don't care, but you can't shove a square peg into a round hole, at least not if there are options that are a better fit for the requirements.

Mind you, the demand for distributed operations comes from the political level. It is not even the Air Force that gets to decide how to do their stuff.

Many people here fail to see the point. It is not only about what is a "good" plane! It is about requirements!

What was Denmark's previous plane? F-16.
What was Norway's previous plane? F-16.
What was many other countries previous plane before the F35... it was the F-16.

Finland is not an F-16 user. F-16 was rejected in the previous round and F-18 was chosen. A carrier aircraft that suited Finland's needs perfectly.
You are wrong and in a couple of weeks you will find out how wrong you were. Finland will likely release a report like the Swiss citing it was way cheaper and obvious superior than F-18E and french plane and you will either accept the report or not accept it.

We already know how the french and french plane fanboys will react to Finland selecting the F-35 it's going to be funny and sad at the same time watching them live in another reality... don't be like the french and french plane fanboys accept that your nation knows what they are doing.

However I will say this if Finland selects the F-18E (a very small chance) just watch the french plane fanboys in here celebrate as a victory over the F-35 even if their plane wasn't selected. That will tell you how mental they are.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: _Anonymous_
We have never actually seen it:

The two cheapest options now became the front-runners. The Super Hornet offer—for 36 fighters—was for $7.5 billion, while the Gripen offer cost $6 billion. The Rafale offer exceeded $8 billion.


Amazingly, these considerations did not deter their efforts. It took a trade dispute with Boeing over Bombardier, and the likely sticker shock of their policy ($6.4 billion for 18 Super Hornets versus $9.0 billion for 65 F-35As), to force a reconsideration.


In addition to the benefits, the F-35A also achieved by far the best result in terms of costs. Both procurement and operation are cheapest for this aircraft. The procurement costs at the time of the offers in February 2021 amount to CHF 5.068 billion. They are clearly within the specified financial volume of 6 billion francs that the electorate has decided. Even if the inflation is added up to the time of payment, the procurement costs are within the credit limit.


At the same time, the US government had given Canada the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) pricing for the 18 Super Hornets requested. According to the US State Department, the total price for these aircraft was $6.4 billion (Pugliese 2017); notably, the per unit cost for each aircraft was around $120 million (Confidential interview with the author), which was nearly double the per unit price suggested by the Liberals for these aircraft in their election platform (Liberal Party 2015a). The pricing was so dramatically higher than expected that DND sent a team to Washington to clarify the US offer.



After careful consideration in an externally validated process, it concluded that the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter dominated the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon in all four categories that were considered: military performance, acquisition and life-cycle costs, industrial benefits, and strategic considerations


According to the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report, the F/A-18E/F’s per unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically, the cost of the aircraft with no support equipment or spares), comes to US$82.88 million (fiscal year 2012). This does not include foreign military sales, or research and development fees levied on a program of this type. Adding these costs should bring the aircraft’s per unit cost to around US$90 million. At this cost, and with the Canadian government’s hard cap of C$9 billion for the acquisition phase, the RCAF’s potential Super Hornet fleet size will be less than 65 aircraft, and perhaps as few as 55.



The F-35 is also not subject to the same secondary costs as the Super Hornet. It carries all of its sensors and fuel internally and does not require external pods. Finally, as a JSF Partner Nation, Canada is not subject to FMS fees. Thus a true apples-to-apples comparison sees the F-35 at around $77 million and the Super Hornet at $75 million to $85 million. Other alternatives have been cited for even higher costs. Accordingly, no significant acquisition savings can be found by selecting another aircraft.

U.S. law prevents American manufacturers from selling such equipment for lower than what the U.S. government pays.



Budget documents from even a couple years ago show the Super Hornet being around 75 million for the US Navy. But 75 is less than 78! ha! no not really because the F-35 comes with sensors and hardpoints built into it from the start. The US or F-35 program probably should have come up for a new name or metric for this, because it costs another 10 million in pods for the Super hornet to be where F-35 is with targeting, IRST etc. And that is before we get into other needs like fuel tanks. the F-35 flies in ready for war mode, and maybe that is what the Americans should have done Flyaway cost and "combat ready" or "code one cost" Since it is against US law 22 U.S. Code § 2762 - Procurement for cash sales, available on the Legal Information Institute, 22 U.S. Code § 2762 - Procurement for cash sales to undersell the US military it would seem obvious once again that 65 million is a lie, its a lie for India as well. Even more obvious, the notion that F-18 operators save money switching to Super Hornets seems like a bit of a joke given the decisions we are seeing from F-18 operators. throw on the pile of things that never really work out when put under a microscope despite Boeing dazzling and polluting the public sphere

F-35 breaks a lot of the old rules and metrics, and the US has never found a way to make this clear in budget documents. Once F-35 went into the MYP phase it was over for SH, that was also a trick Super Hornet used early on to save money, it worked but then they had to move away from it. The Americans normally do an "annual budget" they go year by year. Multi year buys allow much higher volumes of production at lower costs because the guess work of what each new year brings is removed, and mass production flows and works better. economies of scale. you are right, random just not the way you thought. Boeing is still quoting costs like they are in the good old days, and they omit other costs and fees in their rhetoric. There is really only one specific case where the SH is cheaper, the USN which already has the SH sunk costs done, and has no interest in the F-35A, but competes SH against F-35C costs. the USN and their little sister service is the only group that buys F-35Cs. Export Super Hornets are a very different kind of thing, even when being adopted or evaluated by old hornet users. The Super Hornet started to "cool" just as the F-35 line got "hot" and here we are

Whole lot of words, no analysis. 'Cause you are not capable of analysing costs.

Look up the Danish costs you posted, the operating cost for the SH was lower than the F-35's.

As for this so-called "combar ready" version, the additions are peanuts for the SH. 100K for the ALE-55 and $1M for a Litening/Sniper pod.
 
No no. Hornet was a perfect fit for the FAF. I mean really perfect, both politically and operationally.

F-35A is an ill fit operationally and a dubious fit politically.
 
No no. Hornet was a perfect fit for the FAF. I mean really perfect, both politically and operationally.

F-35A is an ill fit operationally and a dubious fit politically.
If distributed operations is a necessity, won’t JAS-39 Gripen E would make much more sense to Finland considering it’s specifically designed for another country with almost same threat assessment and geography ie Sweden.
 
You are wrong and in a couple of weeks you will find out how wrong you were. Finland will likely release a report like the Swiss citing it was way cheaper and obvious superior than F-18E and french plane and you will either accept the report or not accept it.

We already know how the french and french plane fanboys will react to Finland selecting the F-35 it's going to be funny and sad at the same time watching them live in another reality... don't be like the french and french plane fanboys accept that your nation knows what they are doing.

However I will say this if Finland selects the F-18E (a very small chance) just watch the french plane fanboys in here celebrate as a victory over the F-35 even if their plane wasn't selected. That will tell you how mental they are.
As usual an urchin seated half the world away in a trailer park in San Diego knows more about the FAF's requirements & politics in Finland than a Finn himself.

One of the reasons I log in here is to see random experts blithely pronounce on the requirements of another nation & it's wisdom - usually 7 seas away, it's evaluation techniques & it's local politics all on the basis of surfing the net without having set foot in that country ever.

Lived experience of the natives there tracking these requirements since years obviously counts for zilch . When caught out, shift goalposts, obfuscate, deny & scream your way thru. After all, What's the use of reading about Goebbels if we aren't going to put his methods to use?
 
If distributed operations is a necessity, won’t JAS-39 Gripen E would make much more sense to Finland considering it’s specifically designed for another country with almost same threat assessment and geography ie Sweden.
You have spoken with great wisdom and eloquence.

Super Hornet would also be good in this regard. It can use some of the systems that the old Hornets used also.

And how about Rafale M? We don't know if the French offer includes "marine" Rafales.
 
Look folks, I am convinced that F-35 won't be chosen in Finland. This is despite the fact that it has it's fans in Finland too.

One reason is that it is not suited for FAF's distributed operations. Look at the Hornet, FAF's current plane. It was a perfect match for FAF.

On the Finnish forum (where I am banned) they said that when FAF chose the Hornet, their available improvised airfields became twice as numerous. This is because the Hornet can take off from short runways - it is made for carrier ops. Now if they choose F-35, they will have to completely change the way they work and adopt a whole new doctrine.

This, and various other reasons, mean that it simply doesn't mean the requirements. This doesn't mean it's a bad plane. Maybe it's really good, I don't know and I don't care, but you can't shove a square peg into a round hole, at least not if there are options that are a better fit for the requirements.

Mind you, the demand for distributed operations comes from the political level. It is not even the Air Force that gets to decide how to do their stuff.

Many people here fail to see the point. It is not only about what is a "good" plane! It is about requirements!

What was Denmark's previous plane? F-16.
What was Norway's previous plane? F-16.
What was many other countries previous plane before the F35... it was the F-16.

Finland is not an F-16 user. F-16 was rejected in the previous round and F-18 was chosen. A carrier aircraft that suited Finland's needs perfectly.

Considering your requirement for distributed operations, both the F-35A and Rafale are more or less equally suited for such operations. The only exception is the F-35 will need longer runways, as is the case in Norway, for peacetime operations. But that shouldn't be reason enough for the F-35 to be rejected because the aircraft can use its ABs to take off on short runways.
 
You have spoken with great wisdom and eloquence.

Super Hornet would also be good in this regard. It can use some of the systems that the old Hornets used also.

And how about Rafale M? We don't know if the French offer includes "marine" Rafales.
Don’t know much about that but if Finland is not planning for operating an Aircraft Carrier, Rafale-M won’t make much sense to them as it’s a carrier based modification of Rafale.

And F35 is much more capable than F18 in almost every aspect except price maybe and in 10-15 years down the line, Super Hornets will become obsolete design and very expensive to maintain and update (unlike F35 which is modern design and has excellent growth potential owing to large user base).