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

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
All that talk of hangar space...
*shakes head*

Mission systems and aircraft performance will be paramount in any Air Force evaluation, but the ease of transition from the CF-188 to the Super Hornet may also earn Boeing points. In interviews with Skies at the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Replacement Squadron and at the Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Unit, both in Norfolk, Va., pilots and maintenance technicians described conversion programs from the F/A-18C to the E of about three months for pilots and four to six months for techs, depending on the systems.

“A lot of that training transfers one for one,” observed Traven, noting the similarity of most systems in the cockpit and throughout the aircraft.

Just as important, all the ground support equipment (GSE) and tooling is the same, meaning equipment at operating squadrons and forward bases would not need to be replaced. Both Traven and Barnes observed that while there was mention of infrastructure in the RFP, there was no discussion of the support systems and even runway lengths that might have to change with other aircraft. “I think that has been lost in this whole discussion,” said Traven.

“It is a big deal and I hope they are considering that in an appropriate manner,” added Barnes. “When you are already operating legacy Hornets, the requirement to get current maintainers and pilots up to speed on a Super Hornet is much less than it would be starting from scratch.”
 

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
Anglo-Saxons are extraordinary: not only do they not understand anything, but they mock those who do, and they are so self-satisfied that it gives them a sense of superiority that they think is shared by all onlookers, while they look like clowns.

French Projection is extraordinary.

The F-35's economies of scale is yet to be reached. You misunderstand, it's not just about the unit cost, it's about everything related to it, including spares production. Multiple lines have been built all across the West, and hasn't been recouped yet. Hell, even FRP hasn't begun and you have already accorded it the tagline of the cheapest fighter. I sincerely do not get that logic at all.

its called math. The Swiss can explain it to you. get your crayon out.

And no, the SH is not as capable as the F-35, and its upgrade will also not make it as or more capable than the F-35's future potential. It's simply cheaper. My entire argument is if Canada goes for the F-35, the decision will be based on capability, not cost. The SH is cheaper, but Canada can easily manipulate costs to make the F-35 look cheaper. The SH is cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and cheaper to upgrade,

That experience does not match Canada, nor the Swiss, or Denmark, nor the Australians. So once again we have my multiple set of real world examples that directly contradict your claims, and then you using the Rafale in india as model to explain why the Super Hornet reality is actually more expensive but for a good reason; because it costs less!

Boeing made their offer. We saw it. Stop gaslighting.

So all I'm saying is you can go for cheap or you can go for capability, but don't go around saying the F-35 is cheaper and more capable just yet. The F-35 has a long road to travel before costs actually come down to what is being promised in tenders. At the very least, it needs to begin FRP.

The contracts have already been signed, aircraft have been delivered. its reality and even out of FRP the F-35 is producing more aircraft in one year than the Super Hornet did in 4 years. by your own claim of economy of scale, this should be obvious.




Tsk, tsk, if you're comparing costs like that, then it's $5.23B for the 18 SHs with weapons and $6.5B for 32 F-35s without weapons.

Poland's $4.6B contract i
n a similar vein costs $143M, similar to Rafale's $138M. Whoa! How did that happen? See how quickly I could dismantle costs with just open source stuff?

But to be fair, Poland's $143M is for 32, whereas Rafale's at 72.
6.5 and 4.6 billion? make up your mind

Undeterred, the government likely searched for a way to circumvent the procurement process to preclude an F-35 purchase. It soon announced that Canada had a capability gap, which it used to justify the interim buy of 18 Boeing Super Hornets. The alleged gap was a scenario where the RCAF was unable to defend North America and NATO allies simultaneously. However, the entire policy was inconsistent with the Liberal party’s electoral claim that Canada needed a more domestically focused fighter force or that no other military arm was called upon to respond to such an unlikely contingency. Even more galling was how operating two fighter aircraft fleets would exacerbate their capability gap and could eventually render the RCAF unable to defend Canada due to a lack of qualified personnel.

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. The government’s response was to buy 35-year-old surplus and declared obsolete Australian Hornets to address their urgent capability gap while implementing a five year-competition process to replace the CF-18 fleet. The schedule illustrated further politicization, pushing back a potential decision well beyond the next federal election. Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands required on average two years to evaluate and select the F-35.


Ultimately, as the most modern weapon system, the F-35A can be assumed to have a technological lead well into the future. Given the intended useful life of 30 years, this is a major advantage over the other candidates.
• In product support , the F-35A achieved the highest rating due to its efficient operation and maintenance, advanced training and high security of supply during the entire service life. This is also due to the fact that the F-35A is produced in the largest number of units and is also used in Europe by the largest number of countries.
• The F-35A also shows the best result in cooperation . It offers extensive opportunities for collaboration in operations and broad access to data and technical resources.
• In direct offset , the concept of the F-35A does not achieve the best result at the time the offer is submitted. The offset obligation of 60 percent of the order value must be fully fulfilled no later than 4 years after the last delivery.
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.
The F-35A is also the cheapest aircraft of all providers in terms of operating costs. The total costs, which consist of procurement and operating costs, amount to around 15.5 billion Swiss francs over 30 years for the F-35A.
The difference to the second cheapest candidate is in the region of CHF 2 billion.


$80-90M (fictional) for F-35 vs $60-70M (real) for SH.
$25000 (fictional) for F-35 vs $18000 (real) for SH.

So yes, the SH is more expensive. :rolleyes:

The Swiss just said exactly that, mate. and not by a little either. you keep qouting numbers but then when we look at actual bids we find the Super Hornet is billions more in Switzerland. so look at (Real)


Er... yes. One's only beginning and is still running an unoptimised production line. The other's finishing up after having optimised the production line.


134_Deliveries-1024x512.jpg

this is from 2019 by the way.

pretty impressive for an unoptimized line. That happens all the time. you muddle through and build 134 fifth generation fighters in a year that is only 1 every 3 days, imagine if it was optimized.


The F-35 is yet to reach the red box. It was made for 250+ a year, not 150.

First I've heard of that, do you have a source?

You have the whole thing backwards. The Super Hornet is the one that makes all these great promises and then when put to the test, the costs are higher than originally claimed by Boeing. Happened in Canada. watched it first hand. You keep trying to convince me that it costs more, because its cheaper. you have no example so you talk about India and Rafale.

Screen-Shot-2016-05-12-at-10.05.37-AM.png


add Denmark to the Candians and Swiss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
All that talk of hangar space...
*shakes head*

Mission systems and aircraft performance will be paramount in any Air Force evaluation, but the ease of transition from the CF-188 to the Super Hornet may also earn Boeing points. In interviews with Skies at the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Replacement Squadron and at the Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Unit, both in Norfolk, Va., pilots and maintenance technicians described conversion programs from the F/A-18C to the E of about three months for pilots and four to six months for techs, depending on the systems.

“A lot of that training transfers one for one,” observed Traven, noting the similarity of most systems in the cockpit and throughout the aircraft.

Just as important, all the ground support equipment (GSE) and tooling is the same, meaning equipment at operating squadrons and forward bases would not need to be replaced. Both Traven and Barnes observed that while there was mention of infrastructure in the RFP, there was no discussion of the support systems and even runway lengths that might have to change with other aircraft. “I think that has been lost in this whole discussion,” said Traven.

“It is a big deal and I hope they are considering that in an appropriate manner,” added Barnes. “When you are already operating legacy Hornets, the requirement to get current maintainers and pilots up to speed on a Super Hornet is much less than it would be starting from scratch.”

Boeing has been beating that drum for over 10 years here. its right there with our 65 million dollar Super Hornets. I guess the Swiss saw right through this.

The RCAF intends to transition to a new training paradigm whereby we leverage the full potential of modern simulator training to decrease training cost, conserve airframe hours for combat aircraft and maximize combat airframe numbers. Essentially, we shift a lot more of the familiarization and routine stuff to jet trainers and sims. we currently have an entire squadron (410) of personnel and aircraft non-combat capable CF-188Bs devoted to transitioning pilots from jet trainers BAe Hawks to combat configured Hornets. That's a LOT of resources, given that we only have 4 fighter squadrons. The goal is to convert 410 back to a tactical unit. This is one of hindrances of Super Hornet. its renewing an improved 4th generation model. We would be stuck paying more money just to train. there is a reason 8 two seater F-18F were in Boeings failed 2017 proposal. This is another reason why comparing CPFH doesn't work. moving the training to Luke will save a lot of money over time this is the reason F-35 was and is preferred there are many reasons. some require a lot of explanation like the above. so again its easier to just point at recent evidence in place like Switzerland and likely Finland and then ask for proof on your end and watch you squirm.

we once again have "Blue skies" Boeing telling us how great their SH is and then watching even hornet nations not opt for it. the proof is in the pudding. not only do we have hornet nations explaining the differences, choosing the F-35, but then outright telling us the Super Hornet is more expensive too. The Swiss alone should end this entire debate, but its not just the Swiss.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
The Swiss just said exactly that, mate. and not by a little either. you keep qouting numbers but then when we look at actual bids we find the Super Hornet is billions more in Switzerland. so look at (Real)

With 20% less flight hours, it's easy to manipulate sustainment costs.

Let's calculate that as well, shall we?

F-35
Procurement + sustainment = 5 + 10.5 = 15.5 CHF (we know all three)

2nd place
Procurement + sustainment = 17.5 CHF (we know only the total)

If we assume the F-35 doesn't have the 20% advantage, the sustainment cost would actually rise by 2.1B, so that's 12.6B, with the total being 17.6. So the 2nd place jet would win without the price manipulation, even if the difference is only 0.1B.

First I've heard of that, do you have a source?

From 1 per day, ie, 350+ a year at its peak, to 250 per year to now 175 per year.

"The United Kingdom's participation in F-35 Operational Test and Evaluation, and the associated commitment to purchase F-35s in early production lots, help ensure production stability as we move from the current assembly rate of one aircraft per month to our goal of one per day," said Matt Maxwell, Lockheed Martin director for F-35 Low Rate Initial Production.

Yeah, that's LM's website, all right.

So that's as far as promises go.

6.5 and 4.6 billion? make up your mind

F-35:
DSCA = $6.5B without weapons
Actual contract = $4.6B without weapons

SH:
DSCA = $5.23B with weapons
Actual contract = XX never happened

you have no example so you talk about India and Rafale.

'Cause the breakup is available, which the Europeans have conveniently not revealed. And with the publicly available breakup, I proved how close the Rafale's cost is versus the F-35's.

View attachment 21917

add Denmark to the Candians and Swiss.

There you go, that's how Denmark manipulated prices. They decided 28 F-35s are good enough to compete with 38 SHs. No way can the SH beat a 10-jet difference.

Guess how they came to that conclusion? The F-35 does 8000 hours, the SH B2 does 6000 hours. So for some total number of hours, they need 38 SHs to match those many hours that can be done by 28 F-35s.

F-35 = 28 x 8000 = 224000
SH = 38 x 6000 = 228000

But then, based on the link I posted before, the SH B3 does 10000 hours, for the navy version, will be more for the AF version.
So 228000/10000 = 28 jets

With 38 SHs, which costs them DKK 26.8B, that's 70M per jet. But with just 28 jets, the sustainment cost would come down to 19.75B. And a cursory look says 19.75B comfortably beats the F-35's 24.9B, ie, 89M per jet.

Yeah, the Denmark result proves that the sustainment cost of the SH at $3B is significantly lesser than the F-35's at $3.76.

As for procurement, for whatever reason the F-35 costs $82M, ie, the same cost as what the USAF pays, whereas the SH costs $122M, ie, the same cost as what the USN pays for 2 SHs. Oh, yeah, so realistic. Now even you gotta agree that it's messed up.

Boeing claims the actual cost of the SH is $78M.

At $78M for 28, with a $3B sustainment cost, the Danish would have gotten the SH at $5.2B, while the F-35 would have been $6B.

Can you see the manipulation? This is more than enough to prove the SH B3 is cheaper than the F-35.

To sum it up, the Swiss reduced the F-35's flight hours by 20% and the Danish reduced the SH's service life by 40%. So let's see what the Canadians do to manipulate the F-35's price, if they do so.

You have no argument though. Canada already benefits from the Hornet infrastructure and training, so the prices of the SH will be even lower. Apart from the lower prices, Boeing has also promised significant amounts of ToT and offsets. So the F-35's only advantage is capability. If Canada keeps the tender fair, the SH will win, quite easily.
 

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
With 20% less flight hours, it's easy to manipulate sustainment costs.

Let's calculate that as well, shall we?

F-35
Procurement + sustainment = 5 + 10.5 = 15.5 CHF (we know all three)

2nd place
Procurement + sustainment = 17.5 CHF (we know only the total)

If we assume the F-35 doesn't have the 20% advantage, the sustainment cost would actually rise by 2.1B, so that's 12.6B, with the total being 17.6. So the 2nd place jet would win without the price manipulation, even if the difference is only 0.1B.


assume whatever you like. Your continued argument is that if thing were drastically different the Super Hornet would cost less. This destroys your own argument. it also assumes standard costs throughout, when I have emphasized several times that Super Hornet costs will increase when the Navy retires their large fleet after beating it to death on its carriers.

From 1 per day, ie, 350+ a year at its peak, to 250 per year to now 175 per year.

"The United Kingdom's participation in F-35 Operational Test and Evaluation, and the associated commitment to purchase F-35s in early production lots, help ensure production stability as we move from the current assembly rate of one aircraft per month to our goal of one per day," said Matt Maxwell, Lockheed Martin director for F-35 Low Rate Initial Production.

Yeah, that's LM's website, all right.

So that's as far as promises go.

I had never heard that before or its never been claimed since. Seeing as 10 years have passed and the program was rebaselined in 2010, I don't think that data applies anyway.


F-35:
DSCA = $6.5B without weapons
Actual contract = $4.6B without weapons

SH:
DSCA = $5.23B with weapons
Actual contract = XX never happened

Think about that real hard for a second. and see what conclusions you can draw.

'Cause the breakup is available, which the Europeans have conveniently not revealed. And with the publicly available breakup, I proved how close the Rafale's cost is versus the F-35's.

you attempted to change the subject when you couldn't prove your claim with Super hornet and F-35. attempted to apply the Rafale model to the Super hornet and called it proof.

There you go, that's how Denmark manipulated prices. They decided 28 F-35s are good enough to compete with 38 SHs. No way can the SH beat a 10-jet difference.

Guess how they came to that conclusion? The F-35 does 8000 hours, the SH B2 does 6000 hours. So for some total number of hours, they need 38 SHs to match those many hours that can be done by 28 F-35s.

F-35 = 28 x 8000 = 224000
SH = 38 x 6000 = 228000

But then, based on the link I posted before, the SH B3 does 10000 hours, for the navy version, will be more for the AF version.
So 228000/10000 = 28 jets

you can do the math on the 28 vs 38 and still see. Divide and see what you come up with.
With 38 SHs, which costs them DKK 26.8B, that's 70M per jet. But with just 28 jets, the sustainment cost would come down to 19.75B. And a cursory look says 19.75B comfortably beats the F-35's 24.9B, ie, 89M per jet.

Yeah, the Denmark result proves that the sustainment cost of the SH at $3B is significantly lesser than the F-35's at $3.76.

As for procurement, for whatever reason the F-35 costs $82M, ie, the same cost as what the USAF pays, whereas the SH costs $122M, ie, the same cost as what the USN pays for 2 SHs. Oh, yeah, so realistic. Now even you gotta agree that it's messed up.

what the US Navy pays is not what anyone else pays, and I've seen Boeing not only lie on costs to us, but to others. They constantly use the US Navy costs and then when it comes to exports the price skyrockets. We have actually had more stable costs and cost models from LM.

At $78M for 28, with a $3B sustainment cost, the Danish would have gotten the SH at $5.2B, while the F-35 would have been $6B.

Can you see the manipulation? This is more than enough to prove the SH B3 is cheaper than the F-35.

To sum it up, the Swiss reduced the F-35's flight hours by 20% and the Danish reduced the SH's service life by 40%. So let's see what the Canadians do to manipulate the F-35's price, if they do so.

Don't have do much actually. The truth kills Super Hornets. Denmark was back when Boeing tried to fight back, Canada put the dagger in them the next year. now they are sweet like little lambs when they lose.

Boeing claims the actual cost of the SH is $78M.

oh darn so not 65 million they told us for years? God I really trusted them too.


You have no argument though. Canada already benefits from the Hornet infrastructure and training, so the prices of the SH will be even lower. Apart from the lower prices, Boeing has also promised significant amounts of ToT and offsets. So the F-35's only advantage is capability. If Canada keeps the tender fair, the SH will win, quite easily.
no it wouldn't which is why Canada remains in the JSF program, but never committed after Boeing showed the real cost. More to point you forget quality. even if the Super hornet was cheaper and it is not, we don't have the money to buy cheap and inferior things and you acknowledge that the Super hornet simply doesn't compare to the F-35 anyway. This boils down to you altering numbers to create proof, while I will simply continue to point to the past competitions, and note that the Super Hornet has never won a competition even in F-18 nations despite all the legendary "savings" we never see.
 

suryakiran

Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
793
971
Bangalore
@Optimist @Spitfire6

I think, random is alluding to the following in his calculations...

a. Capex is sunk and complete for the SH from a prodn perspective. This is a known quantity. lower costs because opex is only incurred.
b. for the f35, the capex upper limit is unknown. Hence, it is very difficult to estimate true cost.

I believe this is what he is trying to put across. Anyways, please continue. Good to read the f-35 perspective also on this forum, which was missing earlier.
 

WHOHE

Banned
Jun 23, 2021
432
228
California
UK ‘absolutely committed’ to buying more than 48 F-35 jets

The United Kingdom has made it “absolutely clear” that it will be purchasing more than 48 F-35 jets, according to a senior defence minister.

At a recent session of the Defence Committee. focussing on the Royal Navy, it was stated by Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, that: “As you know, we are going to acquire 48. We have made it absolutely clear that we will be acquiring more. We have committed to have 48 in service by 2025, and we will be acquiring more. We have set that out in the IR. We will set out the exact numbers in 2025.

The 138 number is still there. That is a defined number and we are looking at keeping these aircraft carriers in operation for a very long period of time. I am not dismissing that number either. We know that we have 48 to which we are committed, and we know that we will buy more beyond that.”

How many are expected?

The former First Sea Lord said during a webcast earlier this year that the UK intends to purchase ‘around 60’ F-35B jets and then ‘maybe more up to around 80’ for four deployable squadrons.

A defence insider informed the UK Defence Journal of a live webcast given today by the First Sea Lord.

“The First Sea Lord has just said 60 F-35, then maybe more up to around 80 for 4 deployable squadrons.”...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
139
102
Australia
@Optimist @Spitfire6

I think, random is alluding to the following in his calculations...

a. Capex is sunk and complete for the SH from a prodn perspective. This is a known quantity. lower costs because opex is only incurred.
b. for the f35, the capex upper limit is unknown. Hence, it is very difficult to estimate true cost.

I believe this is what he is trying to put across. Anyways, please continue. Good to read the f-35 perspective also on this forum, which was missing earlier.
The SH $65 is a BY $ program base year was 2000. It has little relevance to the current TY$, year it was purchased, then year dollar. You also have to add radar and helmet. These are gov provided. Then pods, the IR in the tank is 7 million. Boeing is presenting the minimum cost they can.

For our 24 Super Hornet in 2007, our flyaway cost was $103 million. "Australia 5/2/2007, 24 [planes for] 2474.0. The Program Office has a Foreign Military Sales case with Australia for 24 F/A-18F aircraft. This case was implemented for acquisition and initial support."

Full cost was $6b for 24 or average AU$250
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spitfire6

Herciv

Active member
Nov 30, 2017
148
148
FRANCE
USASPENDING will help everyone to know the real price :
106 billion (Aircraft procurment Airforces) + 31 billion (Navy+USMC) for more or less 700 f-35 = 137 billion US $
137 billions / 700 = 195 millions / Aircraft
That the real figures paid directly by the JPO to LM (at the exception of any other F-35 related company for example PW) since the beginning.
 
Last edited:

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
2,075
905
France
What are you 12 years old? Do I have to think for you? Lets see... The Meteor came way before the Aim-260 and Meteor was British and wanted their missile on the F-35. Now was that so hard to figure out? :rolleyes:

Ok. To use a 12 years old message is the only way to be understood by a typical american citizen.
Meteor is not British. They paid the bigger share but : The seeker is a direct derivative of the MICA one. The engine is German, using a french technology. The frame is, indeed, British : a US AMRAAM copy.
 

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
139
102
Australia
USASPENDING will help everyone to know the real price :
106 billion (Aircraft procurment Airforces) + 31 billion (Navy+USMC) for more or less 700 f-35 = 137 billion US $
137 billions / 700 = 195 millions / Aircraft
That the real figures paid directly by the JPO to LM (at the exception of any other F-35 related company for example PW) since the beginning.
What are you doing? Have you got the right link? "F-35 LIGHTNING II JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF) LOW RATE INITIAL PRODUCTION (LRIP) LOT 6 ADVANCE ACQUISITION CONTRACT"


For the Acquisition cost.
Try this 2,456 planes divided into $321449.3 million for 2012$ = $130.8 million



1637842891146.png
 
Last edited:

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
USASPENDING will help everyone to know the real price :
106 billion (Aircraft procurment Airforces) + 31 billion (Navy+USMC) for more or less 700 f-35 = 137 billion US $
137 billions / 700 = 195 millions / Aircraft
That the real figures paid directly by the JPO to LM (at the exception of any other F-35 related company for example PW) since the beginning.

including the always more costly F-35B and F-35C across all the more expensive LRIP lots? That is a magnificent average price in that case.
 

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
139
102
Australia
Up to lot 6? I don't know what the troll is up to. "The first batch of F-35As cost $221 million apiece"
 
Last edited:

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
I still don't get why you haven't yet understood this.

Rafale for 18 jets = $5.4B. Per jet = $300M
Add 18 more jets = $2.6B. Per jet for 18+18 = $222M

Second batch of 18 jets = $3.6B. Needs an additional base, $1B. Per jet for 36+18 = $214M
Add 18 more jets = $2.6B. Per jet for 54+18 = $197M

Do you see how prices dropped from $300M for 18 to $197M for 72? That's 4 squadrons in 2 bases. Pretty much the same as what Canada wants.

🐯Rafales are not super hornets, Canada is not India. A 🐣child's guide🐨 to explaining the obvious, and why using proper models matter🐰
$60-70M (real) for SH.

Boeing claims the actual cost of the SH is $78M.

You two should talk. the "real" price jumped 18 - 8 million dollars in just one post from you both. The 78 million there is actually from the US DOD actually too as I look. Can you believe some people still think Super Hornets are between 60-70 million? its almost like they never actually looked. They just repeated what Boeing said over and over like unthinking automatons some of them even repeated this trope in public. So even as The American Defense Dept. told us the actual flyaway was 78 million back in 2016, we still had Canadian officials saying it was only 65 million. How crazy would it be though if people on the internet were still claiming that in 2021? 5 years after it had been debunked? embarrassing really. At least one of you is paying attention.

Can't wait to see what the next post brings oh no!

The SH $65 is a BY $ program base year was 2000. It has little relevance to the current TY$, year it was purchased, then year dollar. You also have to add radar and helmet. These are gov provided. Then pods, the IR in the tank is 7 million. Boeing is presenting the minimum cost they can.

For our 24 Super Hornet in 2007, our flyaway cost was $103 million. "Australia 5/2/2007, 24 [planes for] 2474.0. The Program Office has a Foreign Military Sales case with Australia for 24 F/A-18F aircraft. This case was implemented for acquisition and initial support."

Full cost was $6b for 24 or average AU$250
He is going to tell you how buying 72 Rafales would have brought the price down for the RAAF now, mate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Optimist

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
could describe this sub very well.

in life one must avoid going in circles.
For me its a time warp. Having people tell me the super Hornet is invariably cheaper even when it demonstrably costs more, and we will somehow get deals not even the US Navy gets, its like being back in 2013 the old 65 million dollar super hornet that no one ever sees is still out there somewhere... immune to reality and inflation. The 65 million dollar Super Hornet is the ultimate stealth because no one has ever really seen one. I had someone tell me we would get a special deal on Super Hornet since we got our CF-18s from Boeing before, I told him I thought we got CF-18 from McDonnell Douglas and he asked me who that was.
 

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
Rafale for 18 jets = $5.4B. Per jet = $300M
Add 18 more jets = $2.6B. Per jet for 18+18 = $222M

Second batch of 18 jets = $3.6B. Needs an additional base, $1B. Per jet for 36+18 = $214M
Add 18 more jets = $2.6B. Per jet for 54+18 = $197M

Do you see how prices dropped from $300M for 18 to $197M for 72? That's 4 squadrons in 2 bases. Pretty much the same as what Canada wants.
two buttons.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
2,075
905
France
UK ‘absolutely committed’ to buying more than 48 F-35 jets

The United Kingdom has made it “absolutely clear” that it will be purchasing more than 48 F-35 jets, according to a senior defence minister.

At a recent session of the Defence Committee. focussing on the Royal Navy, it was stated by Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, that: “As you know, we are going to acquire 48. We have made it absolutely clear that we will be acquiring more. We have committed to have 48 in service by 2025, and we will be acquiring more. We have set that out in the IR. We will set out the exact numbers in 2025.

The 138 number is still there. That is a defined number and we are looking at keeping these aircraft carriers in operation for a very long period of time. I am not dismissing that number either. We know that we have 48 to which we are committed, and we know that we will buy more beyond that.”

How many are expected?

The former First Sea Lord said during a webcast earlier this year that the UK intends to purchase ‘around 60’ F-35B jets and then ‘maybe more up to around 80’ for four deployable squadrons.

A defence insider informed the UK Defence Journal of a live webcast given today by the First Sea Lord.

“The First Sea Lord has just said 60 F-35, then maybe more up to around 80 for 4 deployable squadrons.”...
138 still there? humm humm....
The final figure will be far less. 60 to 80 seems more reasonable.
-Where is the Canadian inked deal?

-Nowhere

-OK OK....