Interesting because for years LM was pushing this deception:
Yes, that the F-35 would cost 20pc less to operate and sustain compared to an F-16.
Bogdan says his number is "preliminary".
With little operational testing on such an incomplete aircraft, I am sure it is.
Consider that TR-2 hardware with Block 3 software (the final aircraft configuration before full-rate production) needs a lot of work. That is: real operational testing with working mission systems.
This was also part of Bogdan's Dutch brief:
(click image to make larger)
6 comments:
I'd get that in writing.
Perhaps make a deal with DoD that any operational costs over that figure will be split 50/50, if Parliament will accept?
If one is being asked of course to take excessive risk in buying and committing to the lot, sight unseen?
The price didn't happen by a long way.
Can you post the link to the dutch slide?
You know ANON, you are on too something. Put that in writing that F35 is only 10% more expensive to operate and see if US DOD goes for it. It would be pretty interesting what their reaction would be. I am sure they would come up with a bunch of nonsense excuses why they couldn't put it on paper and no way would agree to split the costs if they are above 10%.
Kind of like damages that Boeing or Airbus has to pay to airlines when their product doesn't meet contractual performance targets or when they are grounded and not providing revenue....why can't countries like Canada or Australia,etc do the same thing?
So it's 70% over budget, 7 years overdue, operational cost at least 37% higher then promissed. It under performs not only to its own goals but also against threats it's said to fight.
And it can not yet go to war...
GL & HF
According to their old base scenario the numbers still should be fairly accurate. To demonstrate what i mean:
Comparative strike packages
As we clearly can see you need roughly 12 F16C to do the task you can do with 4 F35. (I wonder how they came to that conclusion...)
According to Janes we get a benchmark cpfh of 7k for the F16 and 21 for the F35.
If you now note that the charts + Bogdan claim it's normalized or relative numbers we are dealing with then the only logical conclusion has to be that they assume more F16s for the same task and thus the F35 can be "cheaper".
This sort of calculations are the standard and are also the way the Swiss evaluate the Gripen C lease.
Over 40 F5 will be replaced by a lease of 11 Gripen C and it still is considered a "cheaper" alternative as the capability/cost increases.
Just my 5 cents. At least it makes my calculus work out and it fits the assumptions from Janes etc very well.
I don't know who the hell they think they're kidding; the F-35 already costs $51143/hour to fly, and given the fact that the F-35's development is still in it's infancy, the production model will cost vastly more than that.
Meanwhile, an F-16C costs about $5000/hour to fly; a JAS-39C Gripen costs closer to $2000/hour.
Post a Comment