"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
The Raven wrote:
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
How do you figure it would be at a lower cost when Boeing would be
footing the entire developement bill *and* they'd be sold in fewer
numbers than the F-35?
I'm speculating that it could be cheaper once you drop certain JSF
requirements that aren't in high demand by other global military
forces. VTOL is one, sure people may desire it but few can justify it
on cost and practicality.
Let's imagine you could drive the development costs down for a non-VSTOL
single-configuration design. You're still talking about system complexity
comaprable to Eurofighter, which is costing tens of billions of dollars to
develop. Even the cheapest modern combat aircraft program, Gripen, is
costing around $5-8 billion for development. And that's a very basic
deasign comapred to this F-32.
OK
Given the very limited potential export market, Boeing could not possibly
justify this cost.
OK
The simple fact is that overseas buyers are seldom
interested in aircraft types not adopted by the US military.
Sorry, I dispute that on the fact that there are plenty of military aircraft
in use around the world which weren't adopted by the US military. Yes, the
US military may be the largest buyer and thus have an influence on other
buyers etc but to claim that people seldom buy equipment not adopted by the
US military is false.
For examples,
see the F-20 and F-18L.
OK, that's two.
Who funds Boeings development of any commercial
aircraft today?
Boeing.
Exactly, and thus the whole argument about governmental funding
becomes weaker. If they can perform full R&D on very expensive
relatively low production aircraft
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Boeing's commercial
developments are all predicated on very *large* production runs, at least
in
comparison to possible exports of your notional F-32. For example, they
just launcheed development of the 7E7, at an estimated $7-10 billion,
which
is not quite a "bet-the-company" program, but not far from it. They
project
a market of 2,500-3,000 aircraft in this size class, and hope to take
significantly more than half of them. So they are talking about selling
over 1,500 aircraft to make this a viable project. The worldwde market
for
a strike fighter like the F-32 would be far lower (hundreds at most), even
if it wasn't totally closed out by the F-35 and European competitors.
Take manufacturing aside and
consider that each F-32 would be 100% profit. At five billion you'd
have to sell 167 aircraft just to break even.
167 wouldn't be that hard to sell when individual potential customers
are already looking at buying 100.
But as Scott poitns out, the real breakeven is much higher. I'd guess
it's
probably pushing a thousand aircraft. The market is't big enough to
support
this.
That's if they cost $0
to build and if it was only $5 billion more to develope it and Boeing
making $0 dollars in the end. Factor in cost of materials and
manufacturing and a reasonable profit
Most defence contracts do not have the "reasonable profit" that
commercial industry expects.
If Boeing launched development of a fighter as a commercial venture,
they'd
have to expect commercial returns. If they didn't, thy'de be better off
spending the money on commercial aircraft ventures (like 7E7).
and the number of aircraft you
have to sell to make it viable climbs dramatically.
I don't think it would be that hard to sell a budget orientated
stealth fighter, noting statements currently produced comes close to
JSF requirements.
This is a real problem area. Boeing cannot freely market stealth
technology. The government has a legitimate interest in maintaining
control
over low-observable materials and techniques, which means that Boeing can
either offer their design to the exact same set of pre-selected countries
looking at the F-35 (with its much longer produciton runsand guaranteed US
product support) or they have to strip the stealth out and market a
second-rate alternative. That has not worked really well before (F-16/79
anyone?)
Ahh, an this was alluded to in my original posts but no-one responded to it.
The US government would not allow Boeing to go ahead, assuming they wanted
to, so as to retain control of technology and resulting capabilities that
could affect US interests.
If we assume the initial partner orders were in the vicinity of 400
units @ 30M there would be enough margin to cover manufacturing and
profit.
That's just covering likely development cosst with little left over for
manufacturing, much less profit. And a 400-plane run is wildy optimistic.
You are countnig on this plane winning all of the major non-US programs in
the next decade, basically.
Interestingly, being a SDD partner to JSF doesn't tie you into buying
aircraft. Many partners have joined to hedge their bets on final
purchase whilst simultaneously getting access to some of the
technology and contracts to be awarded.
But having invested significant money in F-35, how likely are they do
spend
the same money again for another candidate?
They've spent money to gain knowledge and the potential for industrial
involvement. Even the JSF Team acknowledge that several partner nations
haven't committed to a purchase but, hope to convert those partners to sales
in the long run.
Australias 150M input is not going to be wasted if they decide not to
purchase F-35 (noting no formal agreement to purchase). Australian industry
has already won 10 JSF related contracts and the ADF will gain some insight
into JSF technologies. Even if the Australian goverment walked away from
F-35 they would have gained sufficient return on that investment. Local
industry has won contracts, the ADF has gained knowledge that would
otherwise be difficult/impossible to self develop. For the ADF the worst
case scenario is that the money makes them nothing more than a more informed
buyer.
Especially since it would kill
their industrial involvement in the F-35 program.
Buying F-35 is not a requirement for industrial involvement, which.the JSF
Teams have said repeatedly. Being a partner, however; is a requirement for
consideration in industrial involvement. So, as long as you're a partner
nation the doors are open for industrial involvement. Once industrial
involvement is contractually underway it would be stupid for the JSF team to
yank the rug merely because a partner nation chose not to continue beyond
the SDD phase.
--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.