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

[Herciv]

Now are you gonna claim you know more than the makers of this system?"

That's what you are making here from the very beginning with Dassault.
I only take real world contract prices and I share them so that everyone can make it's own judgment.
Of course when you considered these prices you can ask yourself if this is the official figure from the US gov that are false or the one from LM and Raython (LM).

@Herciv as a Gripeneer I do not understand your obsession

Nice to see that you're obsessed by me ..

 

[Herciv]

The flyaway F-35A FMS ~$82m + 3.5% fms = $85m lot 15/16/17. lot 14 was $79+FMS

You perfectly know that this "flyaway" notion is nonoperative.
$85 million is an average price without engines, without training, without amunition, without shelters, without simulating facilities, without any modification, but with common development price to every costumers.
German F-35 price are what it seems the most real price.

 

[Panzerjager]

You're commiting a logical contresens.
Do you know that even an apple and an orange can me compare if you use the good criteria ? For example when I go to a shop I can compare the apple's price to an orange's price since both are use for my breakfast. Of course both have very different tastes and a very different way to grow.
WIth the same logic comparing rafale's and F-35's can very well be done If you add the mission they are made for.

I didn't bring up the apples to apples notion, your friend Random did. I said "go right ahead" Randomradio was the one demanding many of apples! you are not incorrect in the above other comparitive style but I am not the one being illogical here...

Any cost increase Rafale will face will be predictable. Cost overruns since the program began was only 4%. So Rafale customers get a stable and predictable increase in costs. Otoh, F-35's costs are still not decided. We still don't know what the upper limit is.

what do you think the "upper limit" could be? do you think it will be 1 billion dollars? or more modest increases of a few million dollars more per aircraft?

even if you want to say "we are not sure" there is still a limit of reasonability given past history to make predictions. For example a 10 percent increase in a 80 million dollar cost is not some black magic. We simply calculate the new number by adding 10 percent to 80 million to come up with 88 million . its not "who knows what that costs!?" its basic math and fairly predictable in fact even randomradio had an interesting thought on the overall stability of the F-35 program:

Trust me, neither the Pentagon nor LM have any issues with getting funding for the F-35. It was already established long ago that the program is too big to fail and that all promised jets will be bought. What they are struggling with it showing the work. What that means is it will affect their involvement in future programs, like NGAD.

You are telling us that at the same time the F-35 program is set regardless of cost until 2040 while also telling us we have no idea what an F-35 will cost tomorrow. decide which randomradio signal you want to believe I suppose.

Rafale runs into trouble because its a known high cost. While the F-35 is a lower- yes stable- cost that may have price increases. Think about Currency. a stable currency fluctuates but its not worth 1000 dollars one day, and 1 dollar the next day

"price stabilization" is not the problem. The problem for Rafale my friend is that the price stabilized at a higher number. it won't largely swing high OR LOW. And that is the issue. The F-35 MIGHT get more expensive, the Rafale by your own words is basically set. not higher or lower.

(if i was a betting man, I would bet on F-35 prices increasing, but largely not to a high degree or even an important one. not every F-35 will have to be converted to a block 4 the US Navy still flies block I super hornets, and the Gripen C and D will be around for a long time yet despite the E)

When people make "cost assumptions" they put in a range and then report the level of confidence they have in that range. to show my work my friend.

Aircraft A costs 8 billion dollars

Aircraft B costs 5 billion dollars but may increase in price from 5-20 percent. <---- that is the "range."

do we believe the cost of the F-35 will double? no that is silly. may it go up? possibly, but within a predictable range. You see this play out all the time even among the pessimists. its largely measurable and largely predictable. its not rapid fluctuations of unknown quantity.

even a 20 percent increase is still well under the cost of Aircraft A. when you say "we don't know what the upper limit is" yes we do its within a predictable range at this point. Even a block 4 conversion will cost a certain amount. we take that number and extrapolate.

you keep trying to "scare people" by telling them we have no idea what an F-35 costs. we know what F-35s cost there are well over a dozen contracts to look at, herciv will even tell you. and even if the cost estimates go up they will not go up into infinity or some unknown universe. its primitive my friend. you are attempting to create "fear uncertainty and doubt"

explained about 3 times. I don't know what a banana will cost when I go into the store, but I can accurately predict it won't be 100 dollars. I dont say "I have no idea what the upper limit of the cost of banana is" I better bring 1,000 dollars just in case.

Bottomline the Rafale cohort continues to say the F-35 costs will increase (probably accurate) but then their brains shut off and they think that a price increase invariably means more expensive than the Rafale. Whenever this subject comes up numbers are never mentioned, because if actual cost comparisons are included it all falls apart. It does not stop Rafale fans from whipping themselves into a frenzy over it.

or to say it in another way. If F-35A costs increase about 30 percent it will cost as much as a Rafale!

instead of telling us we have no idea what an F-35 costs, how about looking at how much more an F-35 cost would have to be to "Catch up" with its competitive peers. the Swiss said the F-35 was 2.2 billion dollars cheaper than the "next closest competitor" to acquire. What are the swiss supposed to do there? say "well it would be nice to try and save BILLIONS of dollars-- but we are not sure so we bought the airplane that we knew cost 2.2 billion dollars more?" how does one explain that? better to knowing spend more money than RISK spending less??

Officially, they are saying prices will rise from Lot 15. But they haven't said when it will stabilise.

rising cost is not the same as unstable cost a lot of your complaints go beyond aircraft basics and enter into basic economic theory and basic economic language. You are frequently using the wrong words to describe things my friends. These words very much matter.

Stabilized costs does not mean Frozen costs.

stablized costs is the absence of large swings, not a static or frozen price (unchanging price). The next question becomes "define 'large'" I don't think most F-35 buyers are convinced the price is written in stone forever, but they do know its absent of large swings especially the late adopter like the countries you mention, and even the early adopters can tell you the price is predictable and has declined. The F-35 is a stable program by definition. I hate to break that to you my friend but even cost overages are essentially predictable and able to be modeled which is why you have even critical media pieces and government reports using actual numbers. even the GAO was able to calculate how much engine problems will add to the cost of the F-35 by 2030. You can't do that under an unstable costing model.

eventually you are going to have to acknowledge that while there are still some mysteries about the F-35 it is far less mysterious than it was even 5 years ago. I also don't understand how you can tell me they are going to build them until 2040 but have no idea how to predict what one will cost next year...

And different partners will have to pay different prices for upgrades. So first movers like Israel and Australia will end up paying more than Finland and Canada, and in some cases many of the jets will not even get the upgrades, rendering them useless for combat. So how do you cater for such things in the price?

not having the latest block does not mean "useless for combat" and not all F-35s are going to be needed for combat. at one point the Rafale crew will have to understand that there is a grey area between "not block 4" and Block 4.

The same people who say "its not 5th generation or nothing you LM shill!! There is a grey area!!" magically morph into black and white whenever the F-35 comes up. It can't be used in combat!! God I don't know why we deploy them and have them in combat units then. Do the pilots know they are in flying coffins or do they have their own wacky ideas that they are flying something that can kill things?

Btw, F-35 contracts were determined by removing 20% of its flight hours by offloading it into simulators.

Swiss decision rolls in F-35’s favour

Let’s begin by the obvious: Finland isn’t Switzerland, and HX isn’t AIR2030. It still would be wrong to say that the Swiss decision, and especially the way it was made, wouldn&#82…

corporalfrisk.com

Perhaps more worrying is how the aircraft became 3 billion euros cheaper to operate – by offloading flight hours into simulators. This is certainly one of those ‘Yes, but…’-arguments.

In other words, seems the Swiss have asked main operators about simulators versus real flight hours, and the USAF has returned with a 20% lower number compared to the USN, AdA, and LW.

Apparently, F-35's 150 hours per year were compared with 180 hours per year for other competitors to get a lower price.

So they have already artificially reduced the cost of the F-35 by pruning its flight hours. My guess is, they will increase it citing operational inefficiencies due to lack of real-world training in the future. 'Cause I doubt there's anything special about the F-35's simulators versus what others have. And even if there was, other competitors can build as good or better simulators in a very short time.

So, on a per hour basis, both service life and flying hours, the Rafale is obviously cheaper, even if the F-35 is cheaper on paper.

Youre switching the subject from purchasing and acquisition costs to operating costs. Stick to the subject friend, no need to change the subject.

 

[BMD]

https://www.prattwhitney.com/en/products/military-engines/f135/engine-core-upgrade

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686383826900312064

View: https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/1686383826900312064?s=20

BAE Systems – strategic contributor of electronic warfare for the F-35

Today’s warfighters require revolutionary technology to provide a competitive advantage over advanced threats, which continue to evolve at a rapid pace.

www.defensenews.com

BAE Systems is also under contract to design and deliver Block 4 EW capabilities for future F-35 aircraft, which will significantly upgrade and modernize AN/ASQ-239. Block 4 EW will improve sensing and signal-processing capabilities and boost the ability to detect low-observable threats and more threats simultaneously. Block 4 hardware is designed to rapidly evolve using incremental software updates that will enable future upgrades, accelerating the delivery of advanced capabilities to the global F-35 fleet.

 

[Panzerjager]

You perfectly know that this "flyaway" notion is nonoperative.

Flyaway by definition means with the engine because the airplane can "fly away" You have the definition wrong here my friend. Flyaway and not much else there is no support or spares or weapons etc. but the airplane + engine is flyaway. you can't "flyaway" without an engine

Wayback Machine

German F-35 price are what it seems the most real price

serious question. When you say things like this are you actually ignorant of what you speak of and just making an "innocent mistake" because you really don't know any better?

Or do you actually know this is not correct and then post it anyway under the hope no one notices?

the flyaway definition I can believe is an innocent mistake, the Germany assertion defies belief.

That's what you are making here from the very beginning with Dassault.
I only take real world contract prices and I share them so that everyone can make it's own judgment.
Of course when you considered these prices you can ask yourself if this is the official figure from the US gov that are false or the one from LM and Raython (LM).

you do realize that it doesn't matter right? You don't even know what youre trying to prove

Nice to see that you're obsessed by me ..

just hoping you learn to read, bud. really rooting for you!

 

[john0496]

The subject is a 8000 people company is able to create a plane that outsell the F35 in a year.
Deliveries are always on time, on spec, on budget. The highest quality in the world.
About the engine: Once you replace any part of it (any module actually) , you can restart the jet without any test on a bench, nor return in any factory. In wartime, its quite usefull isn't it ?

F35 will be a very good product, better than Rafale undoubtly, but the question is when...
If Dassault was F35's project leader, the situation would be much clearer about time, spec and budget and this is not because Dassault knows better the Dassault's developping tools used by LM

 

[Panzerjager]

The subject is a 8000 people company is able to create a plane that outsell the F35 in a year.

The French assured me many times that just because an airplane sells that does not mean anything That is how the F-35 can sell like it does but the French Psyche remains intact. I will show my friend;

F-35 sells="That means nothing"
F-35 sells ="That means nothing"
F-35 sells= "That means nothing"
Rafale sells ="Take that F-35! People would not be buying if Rafale is not great!"

do sales matter? With F-35? no! With Rafale? OUI!!

About the engine: Once you replace any part of it (any module actually) , you can restart the jet without any test on a bench, nor return in any factory. In wartime, its quite usefull isn't it ?

I have bad news. All engines must be routinely inspected, tested, ground run, changed, and overhauled as a matter of basic safety and best practices. Aircraft with 2 engines twice as many checks, runs, inspections, changes, overhauls etc In wartime, its quite usefull isn't it ? There are good reasons to have 2 engines, but it is not without its own cost, Mirage 2000 man will tell you same thing. Even very reliable engine like F414 has lifespan, phased and timed inspections etc.

for ECU very simple F135 hits overhaul interval. send to factory they add new module, test, send back to unit. Same thing as done now with any other aircraft engine with big level maintaince requirement. just a matter of phasing everything in when its time to overhaul. they will still find a way to make a mess out of it, but then they will fix the backlog and life will go on except for the French who will tell me for years that it will never work right again, because french believe once something is broke, it is broken forever.

F35 will be a very good product, better than Rafale undoubtly, but the question is when...

2019

If Dassault was F35's project leader, the situation would be much clearer about time, spec and budget and this is not because Dassault knows better the Dassault's developping tools used by LM

you should consider putting Dassault in charge of nuclear energy and any other french anything that struggles. No worry for F-35 my friend! Use Dassault talents at home!! Such perfect company! Fix france soon!

Dassault's biggest advantage is that it doesn't have to work with the American procurement system which can't even get a basic tanker like KC-46 correct. The T-7 is already getting delayed even with all the help from Saab! If F-35 was the first time this happens, ok. Bad F-35! But it happens with nearly every airplane project. I think many French think LM is given a much more free hand than it is.

I must thank Dassault for not making French F-35 and instead letting America win so much. he would have done so good, but decide "no i rather sell to croatia a little!"

 

[Panzerjager]

If you remove the 10 billion for armaments from the F-35 contract,

I'm looking at the DSCA papers which are for F-35 alone that I posted:

"The total estimated cost is $10.4 billion." nothing has been "removed" because no weapons are in this authorization note. its nearly a perfect example of F-35s alone. I say nearly perfect, because with no contract signed, we can't see the difference between the estimate and what the UAE would pay.

"This notice of a potential sale is required by law. The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded."

Finland's F-35 DSCA note had a 12.5 billion dollar high estimated ceiling and then the actual Finn contract when for over 2.5 billion less.

I can remove the 2 billion for helicopters and the 2 billion for armaments from the Rafale contract.

completes fair, although I will laugh at that amount for the helicopters still.

And now what is more credible 2 billion for 12 helicopters and all the support that implies

are you sure you want the answer to that? 12 helicopters for 2 billion dollars? Australia bought 40 Blackhawks for less. as the next section proves, you would be suspicious that costs are being hidden in such unreal "helicopter" costs:

or 10 billion for armaments instead of 2 billion? The real cost is being hidden in a very non-expert way, isn't it?

yes my friend, hidden in plain sight for those who have basic reading comprehension. The French are always on the lookout for the "real" F-35 costs because the ones they keep finding are so hard to accept.

• Denial.
• Anger.
• Bargaining. <---- "the real cost is hidden somewhere!"
• Depression.
• Acceptance.

I do not think there are "hidden" Rafale costs in the helicopters for the record, I just think Rafales are naturally above F-35 prices. which is bad considering what Rafale fans say about F-35 costs. Once you are passed the depression stage, you can move onto acceptance and we can move onto a new subject like "Sure the Rafale costs more! but it costs less to operate!!" Which will be a whole new set of fun. Or maybe we can play detective and we can try and wonder and think about how LM was left completely alone to do all its own SDD testing with no intervention by any military, DOT&E or any government agency at all as you are trying to tell us

 

[Panzerjager]

And now what is more credible 2 billion for 12 helicopters and all the support that implies or 10 billion for armaments instead of 2 billion? The real cost is being hidden in a very non-expert way, isn't it?

"The announcement likely comes as a breath of fresh air for Airbus Helicopters. In May 2023, the United Arab Emirates said it canceled a deal with Airbus to procure 12 units of H225M Caracal multirole helicopters, a contract valued at around €800 million ($880.6 million)."

Netherlands buys Caracal helicopters to replace Cougars - AeroTime

The Dutch Ministry of Defense opts to replace its aging fleet of 12 Cougar helicopters with 14 new Airbus H225M Caracal helicopters.

www.aerotime.aero

 

[Panzerjager]

You are messing up the game. It is to tease the fanboys, not decimate them.

They should have left their lies about Gripen E/F out of this. then I would not be so quick to see what else they are on about.

your are a funny guy Herciv

What is even funnier is when a fellow Frenchman calls you out for posting rubbish.

Le F-35

www.air-defense.net

my friend, the entire article is stupid. What is sad is that the people here who wish to remain credible do not see through the stupidity of the entire post. I laughed myself silly at it. The flaws in the entire thing are obvious from a country mile. I am shocked that they posted it if they wanted to be taken seriously.

I did enjoy the part where it said the enemy could "hide" in thunderstorms. Yes, such a classic military tactic. hiding in a thunder storm. If the enemy attacks through a hurricane or tornado they will be even more "protected." let us hope the enemy is not so smart to "outwit" us in such a way. the brilliance is almost too much. If there is anything we know about ships, airplanes, and land vehicles, even humans it is that they operate best in severe weather, and lightning especially. its just wonderful for communications as well. I take one look at the Russian incursion into Ukraine and say "you know what would have been an even smarter move? doing the invasion in a giant country-sized lightning storm that hopefully lasts for months on end" of course! just attack in a lightning storm! I often thought "I would have waited for the weather to be much worse, then attacked ukraine!"

there is some historical precedent: Grand Armee "hid" in Russian blizzards, the French elites fought in a storm of longbow arrows at Agincourt. etc

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

I'm looking at the DSCA papers which are for F-35 alone that I posted:

"The total estimated cost is $10.4 billion." nothing has been "removed" because no weapons are in this authorization note. its nearly a perfect example of F-35s alone. I say nearly perfect, because with no contract signed, we can't see the difference between the estimate and what the UAE would pay.

But in fact a contract has been signed:

UAE confirms it inked $23 billion deal to buy F-35 jets, drones from U.S.​

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United Arab Emirates confirmed that it signed agreements with the United States on former President Donald Trump’s last full day in office to purchase up to 50 F-35 jets, 18 armed drones and other defense equipment in a deal worth $23 billion.

The embassy said the contracts included as many as 50 F-35A fighters valued at $10.4 billion, 18 MQ-9B drones valued at $2.97 billion, and various munitions valued at $10 billion.

 

[randomradio]

I didn't bring up the apples to apples notion, your friend Random did. I said "go right ahead" Randomradio was the one demanding many of apples! you are not incorrect in the above other comparitive style but I am not the one being illogical here...


what do you think the "upper limit" could be? do you think it will be 1 billion dollars? or more modest increases of a few million dollars more per aircraft?

even if you want to say "we are not sure" there is still a limit of reasonability given past history to make predictions. For example a 10 percent increase in a 80 million dollar cost is not some black magic. We simply calculate the new number by adding 10 percent to 80 million to come up with 88 million . its not "who knows what that costs!?" its basic math and fairly predictable in fact even randomradio had an interesting thought on the overall stability of the F-35 program:



You are telling us that at the same time the F-35 program is set regardless of cost until 2040 while also telling us we have no idea what an F-35 will cost tomorrow. decide which randomradio signal you want to believe I suppose.

Rafale runs into trouble because its a known high cost. While the F-35 is a lower- yes stable- cost that may have price increases. Think about Currency. a stable currency fluctuates but its not worth 1000 dollars one day, and 1 dollar the next day

"price stabilization" is not the problem. The problem for Rafale my friend is that the price stabilized at a higher number. it won't largely swing high OR LOW. And that is the issue. The F-35 MIGHT get more expensive, the Rafale by your own words is basically set. not higher or lower.

(if i was a betting man, I would bet on F-35 prices increasing, but largely not to a high degree or even an important one. not every F-35 will have to be converted to a block 4 the US Navy still flies block I super hornets, and the Gripen C and D will be around for a long time yet despite the E)

When people make "cost assumptions" they put in a range and then report the level of confidence they have in that range. to show my work my friend.

Aircraft A costs 8 billion dollars

Aircraft B costs 5 billion dollars but may increase in price from 5-20 percent. <---- that is the "range."

do we believe the cost of the F-35 will double? no that is silly. may it go up? possibly, but within a predictable range. You see this play out all the time even among the pessimists. its largely measurable and largely predictable. its not rapid fluctuations of unknown quantity.

even a 20 percent increase is still well under the cost of Aircraft A. when you say "we don't know what the upper limit is" yes we do its within a predictable range at this point. Even a block 4 conversion will cost a certain amount. we take that number and extrapolate.

you keep trying to "scare people" by telling them we have no idea what an F-35 costs. we know what F-35s cost there are well over a dozen contracts to look at, herciv will even tell you. and even if the cost estimates go up they will not go up into infinity or some unknown universe. its primitive my friend. you are attempting to create "fear uncertainty and doubt"

explained about 3 times. I don't know what a banana will cost when I go into the store, but I can accurately predict it won't be 100 dollars. I dont say "I have no idea what the upper limit of the cost of banana is" I better bring 1,000 dollars just in case.

Bottomline the Rafale cohort continues to say the F-35 costs will increase (probably accurate) but then their brains shut off and they think that a price increase invariably means more expensive than the Rafale. Whenever this subject comes up numbers are never mentioned, because if actual cost comparisons are included it all falls apart. It does not stop Rafale fans from whipping themselves into a frenzy over it.

or to say it in another way. If F-35A costs increase about 30 percent it will cost as much as a Rafale!

instead of telling us we have no idea what an F-35 costs, how about looking at how much more an F-35 cost would have to be to "Catch up" with its competitive peers. the Swiss said the F-35 was 2.2 billion dollars cheaper than the "next closest competitor" to acquire. What are the swiss supposed to do there? say "well it would be nice to try and save BILLIONS of dollars-- but we are not sure so we bought the airplane that we knew cost 2.2 billion dollars more?" how does one explain that? better to knowing spend more money than RISK spending less??




rising cost is not the same as unstable cost a lot of your complaints go beyond aircraft basics and enter into basic economic theory and basic economic language. You are frequently using the wrong words to describe things my friends. These words very much matter.

Stabilized costs does not mean Frozen costs.

stablized costs is the absence of large swings, not a static or frozen price (unchanging price). The next question becomes "define 'large'" I don't think most F-35 buyers are convinced the price is written in stone forever, but they do know its absent of large swings especially the late adopter like the countries you mention, and even the early adopters can tell you the price is predictable and has declined. The F-35 is a stable program by definition. I hate to break that to you my friend but even cost overages are essentially predictable and able to be modeled which is why you have even critical media pieces and government reports using actual numbers. even the GAO was able to calculate how much engine problems will add to the cost of the F-35 by 2030. You can't do that under an unstable costing model.

eventually you are going to have to acknowledge that while there are still some mysteries about the F-35 it is far less mysterious than it was even 5 years ago. I also don't understand how you can tell me they are going to build them until 2040 but have no idea how to predict what one will cost next year...





not having the latest block does not mean "useless for combat" and not all F-35s are going to be needed for combat. at one point the Rafale crew will have to understand that there is a grey area between "not block 4" and Block 4.

The same people who say "its not 5th generation or nothing you LM shill!! There is a grey area!!" magically morph into black and white whenever the F-35 comes up. It can't be used in combat!! God I don't know why we deploy them and have them in combat units then. Do the pilots know they are in flying coffins or do they have their own wacky ideas that they are flying something that can kill things?

The F-35s costs are not stabilised, it can climb to much higher numbers if necessary. If there was an upper limit, they would have announced it.

Youre switching the subject from purchasing and acquisition costs to operating costs. Stick to the subject friend, no need to change the subject.

No, the competitions were decided on life cycle costs. And then they reduced flight hours by 20% to artificially lower lifecycle costs using prices that are not concrete.

Rafale's ecosystem was built around a 300-jet order, whereas F-35's is built around 3000+. Rafale's exceeded its order book by twice that number, whereas the F-35 is at less than half today. Rafale's orderbook could still rise phenomenally riding on the back of future Indian and Saudi deals too.

The paper F-35's prices are definitely lower than the real world Rafale's prices. Today Dassault cannot artificially lower flying hours by 20%. So the F-35 will win on that advantage alone. Which is why I said we need to wait for competitions in the future on more neutral grounds than Europe to see how the two jets compare, by then both jets would be at the peak of their capabilities and the F-35's prices would have stabilised.

 

[randomradio]

https://www.prattwhitney.com/en/products/military-engines/f135/engine-core-upgrade

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686383826900312064

View: https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/1686383826900312064?s=20

BAE Systems – strategic contributor of electronic warfare for the F-35

Today’s warfighters require revolutionary technology to provide a competitive advantage over advanced threats, which continue to evolve at a rapid pace.

www.defensenews.com

I prefer the AETP. The USAF needs more capability, not price control.

 

[Herciv]

Flyaway by definition means with the engine because the airplane can "fly away" You have the definition wrong here my friend. Flyaway and not much else there is no support or spares or weapons etc. but the airplane + engine is flyaway. you can't "flyaway" without an engine

Innocent question. Have you really understood why i say that Flyaway is no more operative. Do you knwo that even development were priced to each client in LRIP 15, 16 and 17 ?

 

[Herciv]

Flyaway by definition means with the engine because the airplane can "fly away" You have the definition wrong here my friend. Flyaway and not much else there is no support or spares or weapons etc. but the airplane + engine is flyaway. you can't "flyaway" without an engine

OK The contract N0001920C0009 is not flyaway since you have to add the N0001920C0011 contract for the engines
Then the real flyaway price is more than $100 millions.

 

[Panzerjager]

But in fact a contract has been signed:

UAE confirms it inked $23 billion deal to buy F-35 jets, drones from U.S.​

And I said "They told us that they didn't like being taken for fools and that they would never buy an F-35."

ahhh my friend, so you were lying to @Optimist all along? The contract was in fact signed? or did they lie to you and you repeated it here?

"never buy"
"signed contract"

pick 1 my friend!

The embassy said the contracts included as many as 50 F-35A fighters valued at $10.4 billion, 18 MQ-9B drones valued at $2.97 billion, and various munitions valued at $10 billion.

I didn't know the contract was signed. Pickleoil told us the UAE was big mad and would not tolerate the US price?? no matter, just another lie. hopefully everyone recognized your casual dishonesty.

sadly "23 billion" wont tell us much because its the DSCA estimate number repeated is the "Value" the story there uses. not any real contract price. and the DSCA costs were specific to the F-35. We know more about the F-35 cost estimates in the UAE than you knew about the "2 billion dollars" in helicopters that turned out to be 990 million dollars??

I can't help but notice you were off by over 1 billion dollars while accusing the US of hiding costs in other expenses? how curious my friend. and of course you told us the UAE was done with the US? This is typical where some make 3+3=9 and then scream that there is something afoot when the reality it that you seem to confuse yourselfs with your own bad theories and poor takes. ironically you are guilty of what you accused the F-35 of doing. hiding costs. my friend I don't see anything serious here, the DSCA is pretty clear cut and it aligns with other DSCAs we have seen that outline what is included. even more helpful the DSCA did 3 seperate approvals. one for drones, one for F-35, one for weapons:

United Arab Emirates – Munitions, Sustainment and Support | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

The Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has requested to buy eight hundred two (802) AIM-120C8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); sixteen (16) AIM-120C8 AMRAAM guidance sections spares; two thousand four (2,004) MK-82 500LB General Purpose (GP) Bombs; seventy-two (72) MK-82 Inert 500LB GP Bombs; one thousand (1,000) MK-84 2,000LB GP Bombs; one thousand two (1,002) MK-83 1,000LB GP Bombs; two thousand five hundred (2,500) Small Diameter Bomb Increment 1 (SDB-1), GBU-39/B, with CNU-659/E Container; eight (8) GBU-39 SDB-1 Guided Test Vehicles; two thousand (2,000) KMU-572 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kit for 500LB Bombs; one thousand (1,000) KMU-556 JDAM Tail Kit for 2,000LB Bombs; one thousand (1,000) KMU-559 JDAM Tail Kit for 1,000LB Bombs; four thousand (4,000) FMU-139 Fuze systems; six hundred fifty (650) AGM-154C Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOWs); fifty (50) AGM-154E Joint Stand Off Weapons – Extended Range (JSOW-ER); one hundred fifty (150) AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) Tactical Missiles; six (6) CATM-88 AARGM CATMs. Also included are six (6) JSOW-C AGM-154C Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); six (6) JSOW-ER AGM-154E CATMs; ARD 446-1B and ARD 863-1A1W Impulse Cartridges; JSOW-C Dummy Air Training Missiles (DATM); JSOW-C Captive Flight Vehicles (CFVs); JSOW-ER DATMs; JSOW-ER CFVs; PGU-23/U training ammunition, encryption devices and keying equipment for test missiles (not for export); Laser Illuminated Target Detector, DSU-38A/B; software delivery and support; AIM-120C Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) and Airborne Instrumented Units (AIU) Telemetry Sections; missile containers; munitions components; aircraft test and integration support; containers; mission planning; munitions security, storage and training; facility design, construction and quality standards; weapon operational flight program software development; transportation; tools and test equipment; support equipment; spare and repair parts; weapons and aircraft integration support and test equipment; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment, devices and software; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; site surveys; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $10.0 billion.

The tipoff is that all DSCA's are done with the highest possible estimated value assigned, so that there can't be any price overruns and the process would have to start over again. in the "signed 23 billion contract" they are using the highest possible values as provided by the DSCA so it was not going to be "23 billion dollars" the DSCA never goes at or under. only over. it also would have been easier to "hide costs" by putting them all in one giant approval for the full 23 billion, yet they did not. I learned about the DSCA "high estimate" when sparring with F-35 boys over prices. They were using Super Hornet and F-16 "High estimates" as the "real cost" years back to make the F-35 prices look better, and one day I scrolled down and saw the explanation my friend.

FMS for UAE F-35 is another clue. under FMS the weapons are "sold" to the US government who then oversee the delivery and add 4 percent fees. the US military and government act as a "middle man" as opposed to "direct sales" where weapons are bought straight from the company.

The F-35 is not cheap, its not a gripen, but I do not understand the largely French? desire to try and inflate the cost further other than being sensitive and defensive. Even cherry picking the UAE as an example fall short.

post the French data for the Rafale sale to UAE. minus the 2 billion, I'm sorry LOL 990 million for the (canceled) helicopter contract. How strange that the Americans can account for everything but suddenly a billion + dollars has gone missing for the French and we don't look too hard about that? The helictoper contract cancelation happened 3 months ago, and the number was no secret. I once again ask if you are making "innocent mistakes" and did not know, or as has been seen before playing a double game and lying as needed. For some reason herciv's investigative skills can't find the DSCAs for the UAE nor can he find any data about the french deal in the UAE. its almost like you guys don't even bother to look into anything else except the F-35 and what else you can invent. This is typical where some make 3+3=9 and then scream that there is something afoot when the reality it that you seem to confuse yourselfs with your own bad theories and poor takes. you manage to confuse yourselves and then call it a conspiracy. its like you trying to catch the "real" person who keeps making your underwear dirty. I suspect it is you my friend, but continue the search because when you put it on last week, it was clean!

The F-35s costs are not stabilised, it can climb to much higher numbers if necessary. If there was an upper limit, they would have announced it.

The definition of "Stable" is not frozen, it means immune from "large swings." Even you said the program was fully funded and secure (note that word) until 2040. even under stable pricing costs can rise within a limit of stability. how one can announce an "upper limit" when the First LRIP F-35s were over 200 million dollars and the lastest ones are less than half that? and again you are using decriptive words like "much higher" how much? There are costing models that leave some wiggle room for cot growth but its pretty predictable and that is why they are making announcements of batches of F-35s a few years at at time. you are allowed to believe what you want, but by every other measure its a stable program.

my friend ya keep confusing the possibility of additional costs cropping up (which is indeed possible) with being "unstable," when what it means is that there could be nominal price increases. For some this is an atrocity of the highest order. For others its the acknowledgement that there may be price increases on an aircraft that is already far less money to start with. I think buyers are aware of this already too.

No, the competitions were decided on life cycle costs. And then they reduced flight hours by 20% to artificially lower lifecycle costs using prices that are not concrete.

Rafale's ecosystem was built around a 300-jet order, whereas F-35's is built around 3000+. Rafale's exceeded its order book by twice that number, whereas the F-35 is at less than half today. Rafale's orderbook could still rise phenomenally riding on the back of future Indian and Saudi deals too.

The paper F-35's prices are definitely lower than the real world Rafale's prices. Today Dassault cannot artificially lower flying hours by 20%. So the F-35 will win on that advantage alone. Which is why I said we need to wait for competitions in the future on more neutral grounds than Europe to see how the two jets compare, by then both jets would be at the peak of their capabilities and the F-35's prices would have stabilised.

you tried to change the subject. We are talking about acquisition costs and my friend we are once again not talking about which aircraft is the most "stable priced on paper" but instead which costs more. The Rafale costs more not only on paper but in real life. We know this because F-35s would have to cost 1 billion dollars or even more in these contracts to be at Rafale costs.

My friend. you still cannot tell the difference between what something costs and price stability, and you believe that if a price is unstable then it must be more costly than the competition. That is not how it works. your worry is that th F-35 price is so unstable it might actually cost as much as a Rafale. And I must laugh. "sure the F-35s paper prices are definietely lower" Thank you my friend. Truly thank you. and please note that the Swiss did seperate acquisition costs and operating costs in their selection critiria. They are 2 seperate things and even if the F-35 flew as many hours as the Rafale in the Swiss selection we are talking about Acquisitions and not operating costs.

You seem to have real problems putting seperations into many subjects, they just kind of all blob together my friend. I will say for my part that F-35 prices may go up, but the Rafale is so expensive in its "Stable price" that the F-35 will likely come under price compared to Rafale even with increases, because the increases must be very large. The Swiss will have to pay another 1.5 billion to be even with most closest competitior

 

[Panzerjager]

Innocent question. Have you really understood why i say that Flyaway is no more operative. Do you knwo that even development were priced to each client in LRIP 15, 16 and 17 ?

I pointed out that flyaway didn't mean what you thought by definition

OK The contract N0001920C0009 is not flyaway since you have to add the N0001920C0011 contract for the engines
Then the real flyaway price is more than $100 millions.

that would really mean something if all those prices were only for the aircraft in a flyaway configuration. even you conceded there were spare parts involved, and of course they typically order spare engines. more engines than aircraft unless you are trying to tell us some F-35s are flying away with an extra engine attached. you think you are being really smart but my friend, but looking at your posts that is clearly not the case.

did you want to answer my question about if you know you are lying when you post or if like the above you just don't understand? I think it is sometimes both. How strange that you can scan contract website but can't be bothered to see what Canada and Germany is buying along with F-35 brother

 

[Herciv]

even you conceded there were spare parts involved, and of course they typically order spare engines.

The only conceded point i have made is that flyaway price is not operative since everyone have to buy spare, and that LM lie on the notion of flyaway because they have never communicate a price with engine, only a flyawaywithoutengine price.

 

[Panzerjager]

In any case, if we'd won Belgium or Switzerland we wouldn't have been able to produce them without sacrificing other exports, and if we'd won Finland we'd have lost the United Arab Emirates because they were offended when they compared the Finnish price of the F-35 with the price you were offering them. They told us that they didn't like being taken for fools and that they would never buy an F-35.

But in fact a contract has been signed:

UAE confirms it inked $23 billion deal to buy F-35 jets, drones from U.S.​

fascinating.

The only conceded point i have made is that flyaway price is not operative since everyone have to buy spare, and that LM lie on the notion of flyaway because they have never communicate a price with engine, only a flyawaywithoutengine price.

I don't see how that is possible and LM's assertion is confirmed by the Pentagon:

Lord said acquisition and sustainment and the F-35 Joint Program Office are "laser-focused" on reducing costs for the aircraft, bringing up quality, and achieving timely deliveries.

"We will reach a unit recurring flyaway cost-per-aircraft target of $80 million for a U.S. Air Force F-35A price, by Lot 13 — which is one lot earlier than planned," she said. "A significant milestone for the department."

Ellen M. Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, announced yesterday's agreement between DOD and aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin during a briefing today at the Pentagon.

2019. Pre covid. but the price has been confirmed by official sources outside of LM.

F-35 costs have been declining. That’s about to change.

The lower quantity of purchased fighters, the pandemic and the addition of more capabilities will cause the price of an F-35 to rise in the coming lots.

www.defensenews.com

even LM admits the prices are going to go up for many reasons but they are not what you are claiming here.

Lockheed Martin has announced finalizing pricing on a long-delayed, three-year order for up to 398 F-35 airframes worth $30 billion, while admitting falling short of the company’s 2022 delivery goal.

The signing of the three-year contract completes a three-year-long, marathon negotiating process between Lockheed and the Joint Program Office (JPO), but still leaves questions hovering around the final price of each of the three variants as annual production volume begins to decline.

The final price tag on each variant will remain a mystery until the JPO completes a separate round of contract talks with Pratt & Whitney, the F-35 engine supplier, a Lockheed spokeswoman says.

The F135 engine generally consumes about 18-19% of the overall flyaway cost of the F-35A. If that trend remains consistent, the cost of an F-35A ordered in Lot 15 would rise to about $82-83 million each, reflecting a 5-6.5% increase over F-35A flyaway costs in Lot 14. Lockheed says the airframe will cost about $69-70 million each during the new, three-year ordering period.

Lockheed Reveals Big F-35 Airframe Order, Admits Delivery Setback | Aviation Week Network

The final price will remain unsettled until the JPO completes a separate round of contract talks with Pratt & Whitney, the F-35 engine supplier.

aviationweek.com

F-35 cost increase of 5-6 percent its much closer to 80 million than it is to over 100 million plus. 3+3=6. and my friend LMs number are supported by official sources as you would say "Certified" even lockheed admits a price increase, but its fairly modest. LM specified here that the difference between airframe and flyaway costs. My friend, you must make up your mind. On one hand LM is a ruthless cartel that is taking over the world through hidden and unfair methods of the highest crimes defying all authority and misappropaiting illegally tens of billions of dollars with the help of the entire US government, and every F-35 buying government. On the other hand you believe you can solve this mystery with an open website that the evil syndicate "just forgot" to scrub clean like they magically did with all the 5th generation propoanda that no one can find now.

you said LM was lying about flyaway costs. The above shows they are not, and they specify airframe and engine and then give an estimate within the percentage specified which you say they "never" do.

LM lie on the notion of flyaway because they have never communicate a price with engine, only a flyawaywithoutengine price.

I am student. look for 2 minutes and find them saying thing you say LM "never communicate." simple. right there. 2 minutes on search engine.

if LM is guilty of what you say, it will take someone much smarter than you to catch them you somehow think you are on the tracks of master criminals who left their misgivings in plain sight, and the GAO and DOT&E missed what you can see all the way from France. you are a child playing "police man". and not even you and your friend pic can keep your stories straight yourselves. You are not doing anything other than spinning into endless circles so you have something to do. I think you try to limit what you find to keep fun police game going for you

 

[Innominate]

fascinating.


I don't see how that is possible and LM's assertion is confirmed by the Pentagon:

Lord said acquisition and sustainment and the F-35 Joint Program Office are "laser-focused" on reducing costs for the aircraft, bringing up quality, and achieving timely deliveries.

"We will reach a unit recurring flyaway cost-per-aircraft target of $80 million for a U.S. Air Force F-35A price, by Lot 13 — which is one lot earlier than planned," she said. "A significant milestone for the department."

Ellen M. Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, announced yesterday's agreement between DOD and aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin during a briefing today at the Pentagon.

2019. Pre covid. but the price has been confirmed by official sources outside of LM.

F-35 costs have been declining. That’s about to change.

The lower quantity of purchased fighters, the pandemic and the addition of more capabilities will cause the price of an F-35 to rise in the coming lots.

www.defensenews.com

even LM admits the prices are going to go up for many reasons but they are not what you are claiming here.

Lockheed Martin has announced finalizing pricing on a long-delayed, three-year order for up to 398 F-35 airframes worth $30 billion, while admitting falling short of the company’s 2022 delivery goal.

The signing of the three-year contract completes a three-year-long, marathon negotiating process between Lockheed and the Joint Program Office (JPO), but still leaves questions hovering around the final price of each of the three variants as annual production volume begins to decline.

The final price tag on each variant will remain a mystery until the JPO completes a separate round of contract talks with Pratt & Whitney, the F-35 engine supplier, a Lockheed spokeswoman says.

The F135 engine generally consumes about 18-19% of the overall flyaway cost of the F-35A. If that trend remains consistent, the cost of an F-35A ordered in Lot 15 would rise to about $82-83 million each, reflecting a 5-6.5% increase over F-35A flyaway costs in Lot 14. Lockheed says the airframe will cost about $69-70 million each during the new, three-year ordering period.

Lockheed Reveals Big F-35 Airframe Order, Admits Delivery Setback | Aviation Week Network

The final price will remain unsettled until the JPO completes a separate round of contract talks with Pratt & Whitney, the F-35 engine supplier.

aviationweek.com

F-35 cost increase of 5-6 percent its much closer to 80 million than it is to over 100 million plus. 3+3=6. and my friend LMs number are supported by official sources as you would say "Certified" even lockheed admits a price increase, but its fairly modest. LM specified here that the difference between airframe and flyaway costs. My friend, you must make up your mind. On one hand LM is a ruthless cartel that is taking over the world through hidden and unfair methods of the highest crimes defying all authority and misappropaiting illegally tens of billions of dollars with the help of the entire US government, and every F-35 buying government. On the other hand you believe you can solve this mystery with an open website that the evil syndicate "just forgot" to scrub clean like they magically did with all the 5th generation propoanda that no one can find now.

you said LM was lying about flyaway costs. The above shows they are not, and they specify airframe and engine and then give an estimate within the percentage specified which you say they "never" do.



I am student. look for 2 minutes and find them saying thing you say LM "never communicate." simple. right there. 2 minutes on search engine.

if LM is guilty of what you say, it will take someone much smarter than you to catch them you somehow think you are on the tracks of master criminals who left their misgivings in plain sight, and the GAO and DOT&E missed what you can see all the way from France. you are a child playing "police man". and not even you and your friend pic can keep your stories straight yourselves. You are not doing anything other than spinning into endless circles so you have something to do. I think you try to limit what you find to keep fun police game going for you

It really doesn't matter to herciv how much and how bad you slap him with facts he'll keep going with his lies because he knows there's a few out there and in here that will believe his BS. Many want to hear lies instead of the truth. Herciv used to get owned so bad with facts at f16dotnet that sometimes it made me wonder if it wasn't abuse but the guy would keep coming back for more that I started to think he enjoyed such abuse and maybe would wear a gimp suit every time he logged on at f16dotnet.