F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.
The price is without propulsion because that's how it's done.

The LRIP IV Airframe contract has been signed and the propulsion contract will soon be.

They may have done this because of the planned choice between the F135 and F136.
 
B3LA said:
How come the troubled STOVL version is lower or equal in price to its other siblings ?
Will the price difference show up with the propulsion ?

Cheers,
Click to expand...

I wish posters wouldn't post defense spending bills until the final House-Senate bills have gone through conference and are approved... One ends up wasting time discussing a non final bill...
 
B3LA said:
Reading the latest project update:

Lockheed F-35 Program Faces $1 Billion Cut in U.S. Senate Spending Measure - Bloomberg

Two things strikes me.

WHY is the price without propulsion ?
Is it because that some customers will supply their own engine ? - No.
Is it because there are options to choose from ? - Not at this time and probably never.

It's like buying a house without a roof...
Is there a reason for this annoying LM behavior, other than reaching a total price that is too high ?

How come the troubled STOVL version is lower or equal in price to its other siblings ?
Will the price difference show up with the propulsion ?

Cheers,
Click to expand...


These are the contract prices for L-M to build F-35 aircraft under LRIP IV.

L-M does not manufacture either the F135 or F136 however. Pratt and Whitney and GE/RR do respectfully.

It doesn't make much business sense to me to include the contract price for the engines in L-M's contract when they'll have to negotiate a different contract with a different company to actually purchase the engines...
 
Sea Toby said:
I wish posters wouldn't post defense spending bills until the final House-Senate bills have gone through conference and are approved... One ends up wasting time discussing a non final bill...
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, but it does give us something to discuss in the meantime...


:coffee
 
Sea Toby said:
I wish posters wouldn't post defense spending bills until the final House-Senate bills have gone through conference and are approved... One ends up wasting time discussing a non final bill...
Click to expand...

Sir Toby !
I was not discussing the where and when’s of the proposed cuts.
My question was regarding the way the pricing of the F-35 was presented.

I can now understand that the price is divided into airframe and propulsion due to the
different providers during the development phase, but once the F-35 is released for full production, should not the propulsion part be handled as a subcontractor to LM so that LM gains the total overall responsibility and ownership of the final product?

I have personal experience when responsibilities are not clear and problems wind up between the chairs as the subcontractors blame each other...
 
[QUOTE:weasel1962]

Now you are confusing funds budgeted for FY 2010 with the defense authorizations and appropriations for FY 2011. 30 aircraft were appropriated for FY 2010, with either 35 or 42 aircraft for FY 2011 depending upon whether the Senate or the House bill numbers are finally decided during conference...

With the passage of the continuing resolution by both houses, its very possible authorizations and appropriations will be finally decided with the new Congress next year, four months late of the FY start... The continuing resolution pays for operations, not new equipment. or construction...

Last year I got excited with the possibility of another Great Lakes icebreaker, which the House passed and the Senate didn't. Unfortunately, the icebreaker didn't get through conference... While the House usually has the power of funding more than the Senate, the Senate has more of the power of oversight... When the Senate asked and got an icebreaking tug moved to the Great Lakes from Maine New England operations, the need for another Great Lakes icebreaker died... The tug from Erie, PA was moved to Maine...
 
Sea Toby said:
[QUOTE:weasel1962]

Now you are confusing funds budgeted for FY 2010 with the defense authorizations and appropriations for FY 2011. 30 aircraft were appropriated for FY 2010, with either 35 or 42 aircraft for FY 2011 depending upon whether the Senate or the House bill numbers are finally decided during conference...

With the passage of the continuing resolution by both houses, its very possible authorizations and appropriations will be finally decided with the new Congress next year, four months late of the FY start... The continuing resolution pays for operations, not new equipment. or construction...

Last year I got excited with the possibility of another Great Lakes icebreaker, which the House passed and the Senate didn't. Unfortunately, the icebreaker didn't get through conference... While the House usually has the power of funding more than the Senate, the Senate has more of the power of oversight... When the Senate asked and got an icebreaking tug moved to the Great Lakes from Maine New England operations, the need for another Great Lakes icebreaker died... The tug from Erie, PA was moved to Maine...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. Wasn't sure whether this was a retrospective cut.

So as mentioned, next FY will see 2 -Bs and 5 -As deleted from Lot V if this goes ahead.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-12-14/pdf/CREC-2010-12-14-pt1-PgS9278-5.pdf#page=180

Interesting to see 2 -Bs = $391.5m whilst 5 -As = $608.5m.

Proposed F-35A funding = $3.09b, B funding = $1.855b and C funding = $1.65b

Other observations
$205m for Israeli iron dome funding
No funding for next gen tanker
Increased funding for JDAMs
 
Will JDRADM be passed operational by the time Australia receives it's first F-35. Would be advantageous?

Any opinions?

Thanks.
:)
 
JDRADM will not likely go IOC before 2018, so I think that the first AUS F-35s will have the AIM-120D (or D+ with a new motor).
 
Just a question about F-35 ordinance.

I know that Australia is contributing to the development of the Kongsberg & LM JSM and this will be on board.

But will the JDRADM be passed operational by the time the first Australian F-35 is commissioned?

Any opinions?

Thanks.
:)
 
Paul OZ said:
Just a question about F-35 ordinance.

I know that Australia is contributing to the development of the Kongsberg & LM JSM and this will be on board.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. Australia spent some money to see if the Kongsberg NSM could be carried and launched by the F-35A. No involved in its development or the JSM. But such a weapon could be a contender for the JSF maritime strike missile requirement.
 
Aussie Digger said:
GPS satellites are the ones doing the transmitting. The F-35 is receiving that signal. That signal can indeed be intercepted (otherwise GPS wouldn't work) but firing an anti-radiation missile wouldn't do much good towards the F-35 unless IT is transmitting.

F-35 and F-22 also operate what is know as LPI (low probability of intercept) radars. They are not impossible to intercept, it's just very unlikely and by the time you probably do, you will more than likely have a weapon from them going terminal on you...

That is the main point of the low observability features of these aircraft and other platforms that are considered "stealth". It gives them a large advantage in detecting, tracking and engaging you, before you can do the same to them.

At least that is the idea. Still the score of weapons (air launched) successfully engaging when launched by stealth to weapons successfully engaging stealth is about 10,000 successful engagements FROM stealth against 1 AGAINST stealth.

Pretty good odds, huh?
Click to expand...

But how would the satellite know where to transmit that signal if the F-35 isn't giving feedback? How would the satellite know where the F-35 is if the F-35 isn't transmitting something to it?
 
dingyibvs said:
But how would the satellite know where to transmit that signal if the F-35 isn't giving feedback? How would the satellite know where the F-35 is if the F-35 isn't transmitting something to it?
Click to expand...

Google it ? GPS receivers are called receivers for a very good reason, they receive the signals sent out by the GPS Sats and triangulate the receiver positions from there
 
Abraham Gubler said:
No they aren't. Australia spent some money to see if the Kongsberg NSM could be carried and launched by the F-35A. No involved in its development or the JSM. But such a weapon could be a contender for the JSF maritime strike missile requirement.
Click to expand...

I meant that Australia was contributing money. For the rest, I made an assumption by reading between the lines. I made a ass out of me.....and me!

I'll read a bit more next time and keep to the facts.

Thanks for the correction.
 
dingyibvs said:
But how would the satellite know where to transmit that signal if the F-35 isn't giving feedback? How would the satellite know where the F-35 is if the F-35 isn't transmitting something to it?
Click to expand...

The satelites are always transmitting everywere , the GPS reciever uses atleast 2 (preferably 3) satelites to calculate its position.

it calculates its position by the strength of the transmission and the location of the satelites, It Recieves this information transmits nothing back
 
SASWanabe said:
The satelites are always transmitting everywere , the GPS reciever uses atleast 2 (preferably 3) satelites to calculate its position.

it calculates its position by the strength of the transmission and the location of the satelites, It Recieves this information transmits nothing back
Click to expand...

Ah, i see, thank you very much!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top