F-35 not going to be cheap
-
The initial reactions to F-35 cost figures are now just filtering in. Israel is stunned by the US$200m price tag for each of the F-35A CTOL (conventional) fighters. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3823104&c=FEA&s=CVS Earlier, some observers have suggested that the US$5b price tag submitted to congress for 25 units may have been a life-time cost basis but apparently, this may not be so. Whilst the combat capability of the F-35 is not in question, some would question the cost-effectiveness when 4 sukhois can be procured by potential aggressors for every F-35. What does this mean for the RSAF? Replacing 3 sqns of F-5s with 72 F-35s (24 plane sqn) will cost US$14.4b or S$21.6b to S$26b (at exchange rates of S$1.5 to S$1.8 to US$1). This will take a huge chunk of the military budget considering the current budget is only ~S$10b a year. Translated, this could mean stretching the procurement over a longer period or accepting a smaller number per sqn. Alternatively, this could also mean another 2% GST rate hike over the course of the next 15 years or 1% over the next 30 years depending on how much the procurement can be stretched. Replacing 3 sqns of F-5s with 54 F-35s (18 plane sqn) will cost US$10.8b or S$16.2b to S$20b (at exchange rates of S$1.5 to S$1.8 to US$1). Alternatively, the RSAF could continue procuring another 24-48 F-15s (@~US$2-4b) and 36-18 F-35s (@US$7.2b-$3.6b) for a total package of US$9.2b-$7.6b respectively. If the latter, the RSAF may even opt to take the more expensive F-35B STOL variant (~US$250m per copy = US$4.5b-US$9b). This will provide off-airfield capability as well as operation via the current endurance LPDs or a future LHD. Such a purchase could also provide significant defensive A2A capability in the situation when the airfields are non operational. Whilst 18 F-35s might seem small, it should be noted that regional airforces do not have significant numbers of sukhois either. 48-72 F-15SGs aren't pushovers either. The above doesn't factor-in inflation. Considering ballooning plane cost, Mindef/DSTA might decide it is more worthwhile just to bite the bullet and procure the F-35 as quickly as possible to prevent inflationary cost pressures that plague most US procurement programmes. Judging by past mentality, military spending is not something that the current govt will take a risk on. Singaporeans should expect to face more tax increases in the near future.
-
I do not think there will be a 1-for-1 aircraft replacement for our F-5s. Neither the A-4SUs was replaced 1-for-1 with the F-15SGs (right? Correct me if i am wrong). Anyway, the Air Force has always been careful in making purchases, I doubt they will be the first in line to buy the aircrafts, so it might be likely that its costs might drop over time.
-
Even 48 aircraft 2 replace e 3 F-16 sqn & 1 sqn in e US for trainning will cost us like hell
-
all the money for such extravagant defense spending but none for the welfare of its people, im baffled by the priorities of the PAP and their policies.
-
With such an insane price tag, I think we'd be better off haggling with the yanks for a F-22 deal.
-
the europeans had a history of embargoing arms to israel, even when they've been paid for .... everything from brit tanks to mirage fighters ... the arab (palestinian) lobby is a lot stronger in europe than the states, the israelis doesn't have much of a choice really, than to buy US platforms (the defence aid from the US is just a sweetener) .... it's pretty much a captive market for the US, really ... but no worries ... people always say the jews are good business men eh ...
however ... we do not have such issues at all .... if the planes are too expensive ... then it's "Hello Typhoons" .... or "Hello Rafale" ...
-
if the F35s are so good, then we don't need as much planes for replacements of the F5s. I think they will buy first a handful - eg:12 and park them in US for training or whatever nots. also, it will be some time before Congress approves sale of this aircraft to allies. It will be a while yet.
-
good to see you here ! i followed your posts on defencetalk (or was it defence news ? forums)
but the article did mention this :
_______________________________________________________________-
______________________________________________________________
U.S. and Israeli sources say government liaisons are meeting or speaking almost daily in attempts to finalize a configuration for a program management review scheduled for mid-December. Once the two sides agree on an F-35I configuration, the U.S. government and prime contractor Lockheed Martin will be in a position to come up with a more reliable price.
"The Israelis were very aggressive in their demands, and their LoR was extremely extensive," the U.S. government source said. "The price estimate sent up to Congress was based on an educated guess of the total package. ... Now, they need to pick through the menu of options and separate the nice-to-have from the need-to-have."
Meanwhile, Lockheed executives have been doing their best to ease Israeli concerns while supporting government-to-government talks toward a JSF contract commitment.
In interviews here, company sources insist that Pentagon estimates to Congress unfairly misrepresented actual costs and that the flyaway price tag is not far removed from initial estimates. In a meeting last month with reporters here, Tom Burbage, Lockheed's vice president and general manager of the JSF program, estimated flyaway costs at $47 million in 2002 dollars or about $80 million in projected 2014 dollars.
"Remember, there are three distinct elements to this program," a company representative here said. "There's the baseline aircraft, there's infrastructure, and then you have to factor in all the nonrecurring development and integration costs associated with Israeli-unique systems."
He said of Pentagon cost estimates: "It doesn't mean it will cost that much, but just that it could cost that much."_______________________________________________________________-
__________________________________________________
i dont think the price is really that much. let me use an analogy :
the RFP is asking for how much to buy a entire f1 garage. cars, nuts, bolts , refueling crew and mechanics and engineers and all the other whatnot. inclusive of all the frills unnecessary stuff and whatnot. the unit cost per f1 car, is something altogether different.
could be the same issue here, total program costs vs unit flyaway costs. hints of media bias.
Guess there isnt much data out avaliable yet to reach a possible conclusion. it might be an orchestrated Israeli attempt at bargaining down the prices. Make enough noise and gather enough political attention and support and the Pro-Israel Lobby could have more ammunition to fight for more trade-offs
The price could be Inflated because the Israelis are probably intending to install a EW suite/custom specs for deep strike missions. (my speculation)
-
Yup, the article split the costs into 3 components and can be reduced with a re-configuration. As more FMS gets reported (which it will), it could give a better indication of general cost price. But the upper limit of US$200m including the kitchen sink (and probably gold plated taps) is still quite eye popping.
-
Wait until they finalize the price tag lar...
-
"I do not think there will be a 1-for-1 aircraft replacement for our F-5s. Neither the A-4SUs was replaced 1-for-1 with the F-15SGs" - gd4u
142 sqn probably operated less than 24 A4s and will now operate 24 F-15SGs. The F-15 has 2.5 times the payload of the A-4.
Earlier A4s sqns were replaced by the F-16C/D (20 per sqn).
F-5 sqns are less than 18 a/c per sqn. Whether the replacement sqn size will be 18, 24 or any other number will be dependent entirely on DSTA/Mindef procurement strategy.
1 F-35 is far more capable than 1 F-5 or the F-16 in which it was designed to replace. I would think the key is to continually improve capability rather than being static (in which case, it doesn't make sense to upgrade).
Its currently very flexible. Mindef could save cost by buying another 12 F-15s, split that with the earlier 24 to create 2 x 18 plane sqns and that replaces a F-5 sqn which only leaves another 2 to be replaced. Mindef could replace the 2 remaing sqns with only 1 F-35 sqn. We'll have to wait and see.
The last F-5 to enter service I believe was in 1989. That means that some of the F-5s could soldier on for another decade plus before expending airframe life.
-
IMHO its frakking expensive ....buy more gadget for F15...and newer AWACS and surveilance and please buy more frakking LEO..... also better spent more money on HUMINT too..... im still been teased with that mat slamat incident by my fellow malaysian workers...and my telinga cannot tahan.
-
The purpose of the F-35 is not really the payload factor but the "first day of war" factor.
What looks like an outlook of proliferation of advanced SAM systems, will require a more capable spear to penetrate and destroy them. Though the F-35 may be costlier, its capabilities will no doubt save more pilots from having to perform dangerous SAM killing tasks against more and more capable systems.
Imagine if our friends around us start receiving those double digit SA- systems... we're gonna be in for a hard time.
-
When our friends directly around us start receiving double digit SA sams, we'll start seeing more 110km ranged JSOW purchases.
When we see 150/200km ranged 48N6/48N6E2 missiles or commonly known as S-300 PMU-1/2s entering service, then we'll see approval for 300km ranged ATACMs, SLAM-ER, powered JSOWs or non-ER JASSMs. Anything above, MTCR restricted.
SAMs will always have a disadvantage over airlaunched weapons. SAMs have to wait for aircraft to enter no-kill zone. A2G weapons can fire at extreme range since ground vehicles aren't going to move much in the 1-2 minutes it takes for A2G weapons to reach target.
Don't need a F-35 to do those missions in the first day of war. What we need F-35s to do most is to shoot down any pesky suks/migs.
-
Looks like the most expensive F-35 will be more expensive than the most expensive F-22....
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/CHOKE11198.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Duels%20Congress%20To%20F-22%20Standstill&channel=defense
-
However, the no frills price is cheaper than the Gripen NG. US$2.5b for 48 aircraft = $52m per a/c. This means US$3.7b for 72 aircraft. Definitely a lot more cheaper than the original number.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3830999&c=AME&s=AIR
Very likely RSAF will adopt the no-frills version.
Good thing is that the munitions, electronic pods and other devices for the F-15 can be used for the F-35. That saves cost.
-
No worry.Poor SG will not buy new toy on the shelf.
They will only buy tested platforms!!
Do u think SG cant afford to buy
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) High-Speed Surface Ship, USA
SSK Gotland Class (Type A19) Attack Submarine, Sweden
so called latest and future technology stuff?
New platform come with higher risks!!
Let other use it first!!
Dunt buy the cool stuff!!
Buy the tested stuff!!
-
Cost of the Israeli version will be a likely concern to us, if previous incarnations of our fighters are to be used as reference.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Hello, dumb lion ... We have already said that SG will not be 1st in line to buy F35s. And that once, Israel and other countries ( UK wld be 2nd to buy) bought it ... it will become 'tried and tested' .... and it will also be around tt time where we probably start procuring new planes ...
Also, aren't SAR21, SPH Primus and LWSPH, etc, also NEW, and that NOT TRIED and TESTED in ur own words ??? -
technically it would be US first coutry to buy it. Norway the first country to confirm purchase.
the israeli request was a RFP for more information i think
-
actually f35 worth ma... better den fling f15s and f16s all the old planes used by others so long liao...
-
Actually, low rate production already started last year. First lot was 2 CTOL aircraft in July 2007. Second lot was for 12 aircraft (6 CTOL for USAF, 6 STOVL for USMC). Third lot was for 8 CTOL, 8 STOVL and 2 more for UK STOVL or 18 aircraft. Both lot 2 and 3 (partial long lead) awarded may this year. Before this I think there are already 17 pre-production aircraft.
Israel's approval was likely for LRIP aircraft (which is normally more exp). Lot 2 was $2.2b for 12 which comes up to $183m each.
SG if purchases will likely be 11th in line after US, UK being level 1 partner so get 1st choice. Italy and Dutch are level 2 so 2nd in line. Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark will follow as level 3. Israel is 10th but trying to buy its way up the queue.
SG, like Israel, only SCP so have to wait. Others outside will have to wait even longer or like Israel pay more.
-
If we get the Israeli-spec version, chances are we will be allowed to purchase alongside them in a single tranche.
But the cost is prohibitive, and now the RSAF is not making a firm decision yet. Previous Pentagon reports that show us potentially getting a 100-ship fleet could become inaccurate.
-
Still too early to tell. 4 x 24 or 5 x 20 are possible combos. Don't forget F-35 is meant to be replacement for F-16 and RSAF has 3 sqn (in addition to the 3 F-5s). At 5 years every sqn, it'd take 25 years to complete 5 sqn replacement.
If US$2.5b per 48 for norway is the guide, then it is possible RSAF will go for a mostly "no frills" version which is within the affordable range (S$1b per 12).
Can always upgrade to "frilled" version when needed (and when there is available funds). 1 x 24 plane sqn of "frilled" version to every 3 x 18 plane sqn of suks should be sufficient for A2A (taking into account serviceability).
-
Speaking of funds, with the financial crisis going on, SAF might have a pretty tight year in 2009.