Australian Superbug deal may be cancelled?

[BUFF 8]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/axe-to...8949675365.html

[Guest Saganuay82]

Sounds like almost every military aircraft purchase here before the last government came in.

[JediMaster 451]

Until they're delivered any contract can be cancelled.

 

What surprises me is the numbers. How can 4x as many F-35s only cost 2x as much? $250,000,000 per Super Hornet??!?! That's got to be like 3x what they're supposed to cost. Or is that with full life cycle costs? If so, then they're comparing the cost of 24 Superbugs for the full 30 yrs they're to be used with the cost of merely buying 100 F-35s?

[column5 63]

Until they're delivered any contract can be cancelled.

 

What surprises me is the numbers. How can 4x as many F-35s only cost 2x as much? $250,000,000 per Super Hornet??!?! That's got to be like 3x what they're supposed to cost. Or is that with full life cycle costs? If so, then they're comparing the cost of 24 Superbugs for the full 30 yrs they're to be used with the cost of merely buying 100 F-35s?

 

I'm sure that economy of scale is part of it. An aircraft built in larger numbers (F-35) can have a lower unit cost becasue less of the fixed costs of production are built into each unit.

[+Typhoid 231]

I'm sure that economy of scale is part of it. An aircraft built in larger numbers (F-35) can have a lower unit cost becasue less of the fixed costs of production are built into each unit.

 

yup. The first additional aircraft after the initial run is complete is comparitively dirt cheap. Way back when the B-1 was being delivered, the program manager gave a talk at the Naval War College about his program and what an additional production could potentially cost. Each of the 100 B-1's cost some tremendous amount of money. The 101st B-1 would have cost 1/4 of what the first 100 cost.

 

The same with the F-22 and any other aircraft. The false economy of cutting the production run or reducing the annual production run drives up the unit cost becase the entire cost of the development is spread over fewer aircraft and inneficient production rates push costs up. The next batch of aircraft don't have the development overhead to pay for, so they cost much, much less.

 

Which is why we should go into serial production of the F-22 (and replace the F-15 fleet before they fall apart) and why additional sales of the F-35 come in at a much lower cost.

 

The more of anything you make (planes, tanks, ships, light bulbs, cars, advanced flight sim gaming computers, etc.) the cheaper the unit cost becomes. Big time.

[+JSF_Aggie 1,292]

As Typhoid said, the develpment costs are split up between aircraft. One additional thing that helps the F-35, is that the current partner countries are chipping in on the development costs now, just to get an insite into the development and capabilities, and to be first in line when we start exporting them.

 

Contracter screw-ups, and/or the goverment pulling out money (stretches development time), raises the development cost.

[BUFF 8]

& the volume saving should also carry over to lifecycle costs (apart from the fact that no doubt the F-35 is designed to need less maintenance than preceding aircraft) because there will be larger nos. of spares produced (hence hopefully cheaper) plus setting up, training etc. local maintenance operations again gets cheaper per aircraft as more are supported.

[sparkomatic 7]

true, but not going to happen...the war costs are spiraling stratospheric and I do not know why...WWII you loose an aircraft carrier to a kamikaze then yeah, the war budget goes up obviously...but explain Iraq to me

[JediMaster 451]

The difference is the USN is in full-scale production of the Super Bug right now. Getting 2 dozen of them should NOT cost that much based on procurement alone. Once again there's some background accounting going on that the news doesn't give you and thereby skews the story.

[MigBuster 2,884]

You seen this blog?

 

http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.com/

 

Some interesting and unexpected points particularly the comparisons with the F-15E - makes the SuperBug look - Just super

 

btw the proposed F-111S could be a tweaking project for someone to see how well it does though tbh the cost and time of converting them over is laughable - so is the concept IMO. :black eye:

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

btw the proposed F-111S could be a tweaking project for someone to see how well it does though tbh the cost and time of converting them over is laughable - so is the concept IMO. :black eye:

 

Still think it's a bad idea comparing it to the Su-30. Like comparing Apples and Bombers. Jedi, don't worry too much about the specifics. The Sydney Morning Herald rarely does...

[JediMaster 451]

LOL, yeah. Things like facts and figures are usually not high on the list of accuracy for any media agency.

[BUFF 8]

You seen this blog?

 

http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.com/

 

Some interesting and unexpected points particularly the comparisons with the F-15E - makes the SuperBug look - Just super

He really needs to learn to spell or at least use a spell checker...

There's also at least 1 factual error though which leads me to believe that there maybe others in areas that I don't have the knowledge to spot.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

I've read that guy's blog too and there are a couple of statements that are either inaccurate or not particularly objective. He doesn't have a particularly high opinion of Russian weapons technology... that much is obvious. That doesn't mean that they're crappy systems though. And I don't know where he's getting his info on Russian AAMs used in the Asia Pacific theatre (very possibly from the last Ace Combat guide maybe? ) but all I can say is "A swing and a miss."