The following looks at various DSCA releases on potential FMS sales for the F-35.
Israeli aircraft are indirectly subsidised by the U.S. taxpayer, which, makes this legal money laundering.
All three countries listed below will get industry offsets with their deal.
Even after you calculate the FMS fees paid to Joint Strike Fighter nation countries for each FMS sale (based on partner level), you still have every expensive and unproven aircraft with little offered in the DSCA announcement.
Unlike many fairy-dust roll-away price quotes from the DOD F-35 JSF PO or Lockheed Martin, these aircraft at least come with jet engines.
F-35 FMS comparisons (PDF files):
Israel- 75 aircraft (if all options taken) for $15.2B - Acquisition price each: $202.6M
Japan- 42 aircraft (if all options taken) for $10B - Aquisition price each: $238M
S.Korea 60 aircraft for $10.8B - Acquistion price each $180M
DSCA may make a Singapore F-35 announcement in the coming days.
Best advice to the Joint Strike Fighter nations "best value club"? Make your F-35s FMS, after you have fully evaluated a working go-to-war jet.
For example: Canada. After a full evaluation of all contenders for their CF-18 replacement, and if the F-35 was picked as a winner (again, some years in the future when there is a working go-to-war F-35 to evaluate), they could sign up for an FMS F-35A deal. And, get better industry participation.
The same goes for Australia which it appears will end up with a mixed Super Hornet and F-35 fleet. Again, assuming the F-35 gets over major hurdles.
Another big problem for Canada and Australia? Trying to find the money to own and operate the aircraft. Difficult if the cost per flying hour of an F-35 is 3 to 4 times that of a legacy F-18.
6 comments:
Fortunately for Australia and Canada there are these awesome jets that the US Navy uses called Super Hornets that would meet their needs.
Unfortunately, it's likely the present day reality to consider the regrettable resignation from the official Partnership.
Wait for block IV to successfully complete IOT&E.
Verify results of said evaluation against required performance and operational specifications.
If within one's Procurement budget, and operational budget, for the number or aircraft required, then ink the deal and place an FMS order with maximal offsets.
A mature Block IV should be the baseline, just as it originally was intended for customers such as Norway. Block V should be the objective, but block IV should be good enough.
Assuming there will be previously unexpected delays in said actual mature block IV deliveries, commence immediate stopgap LEASE acquisitions or implement MLU options to bridge the gap.
Factor in these previously unexpected costs into any future 'offset' package negotiated with the contractor if/when inking the procurement deal.
Unfortunately, we're in reality land now, 2013-2020+, not fantasy land, 1998-2001.
God speed.
"Another big problem for Canada and Australia? Trying to find the money to own and operate the aircraft. Difficult if the cost per flying hour of an F-35 is 3 to 4 times that of a legacy F-18."
=> I don't know much about Canada's economics. But I do know Australia's is in big trouble for the long term, if we keep going with the Gillard Govt.
Just look at the illegal immigrant or border protection issue alone.
When LNP left in 2007: $85 million allocated budget for this area.
Currently, ALP is expect to allocate: $2.5 billion!
$2.5 billion is MORE than the entire budget of the Immigration Dept in 2007!
We won't know the exact numbers until Wayne Goose...I mean Wayne Swan releases their Federal Budget in May. (Some say its going to hit at least $3.5 billion).
"Japan- 42 aircraft (if all options taken) for $10B - Aquisition price each: $238M"
Highly doubtful that this one will ever come to pass.
Rather than address their real economic issues, Japan have embarked on yet another crusade to "break the back of deflation", by deliberately pursuing the most pro-inflationary course since Weimar Germany.
This won't end well for them.
They'll get a ruined currency (at a time when thanks to their nuclear phaseout they are having to buy expensive imported fossil fuel in huge amounts). Plus inflation. Plus not fixing their genuinely maladaptive policies and trends such as the demographic cliff.
Of course, when LockMart still have the totally broke Greeks officially on the list of eventual F-35 buyers, having the customer not able to actually fund the transaction seems to not be any barrier.
What about the totally broke Australians?
Good post, Anon 3:24.
The official strategy in Japan's latest pro-inflationary drive, is apparently to break the psychological barrier of the largely self-perpetuating deflationary cycle. Let's at least wish them well to finally crack this psychological component of their financial/economic issues in the near-term. Hopefully it will succeed.
Following that, it's probably their objective to stabilize, shift then change track and reverse the debt ratio too, via increased growth. That would be some pretty masterful econ-judo if they can pull it off.
Regarding Japan's Nuclear energy calculus, don't count that out yet. Reality has a way of changing fluctuating political perceptions in the long run. And that reality in the near-term might just be that the costs and risks of flipping back to nuclear (risk-mitigated and better regulated next time) will outweigh the negative anti-nuke perceptions. That and possibly some form of massive, Apollo-type 'self-generated' strategic renewable energy investment mission (a would-be economic-industrial boost in itself). We'll have to wait and see.
Regarding demographic cliff? Why not just clone one's way out of national demise with a 'hero boom', starting within the next 10 years?? That was a joke. Or, wait...
Regarding prudence of F-35 acquisition, it's officially in Japan's interest to do whatever it takes to stimulate their domestic aerospace industrial base, and thus desiring to mass produce sub-assemblies. On paper, it's not a bad plan, but I concur, it will likely not be the most economically viable or effective way to achieve that goal in all reality. Not to mention creating some relatively 'high risk' while waiting for a 'hopefully effective', reliable and maintainable fighter to replace their F-4.
We'll have to wait and see if/how that paradigm and game plan evolves over the next couple years.
Post a Comment