Ripped Off? Why Germany pays $240m for one F-35
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- Germany's odyssey to replace Tornado is nearly over with the F-35 deal nearing completion. It's going to cost Germany $240million a plane. But why?
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
AFMag, Finland Formalizes Deal for 64 Block 4 F-35s, 11. February 2022, available at www.airforcemag.com/finland-f... [last accessed 07/08/2022].
Augengeradeaus, Fürs Archiv: Lambrecht zu Tornado-Nachfolge, 17 December 2021, available at: augengeradeaus.net/2021/12/fu... [last accessed 07/08/2022].
BMVg, 100 Milliarden Euro für eine leistungsstarke Bundeswehr, 10. June 2022, available at www.bundesregierung.de/breg-e... [last accessed 07/08/2022].
DSCA, Germany - F-35 Aircraft and Munitions, available at: www.dsca.mil/press-media/majo... [last accessed 07/08/2022].
DSCA, Major Arms Sales Belgium, available at archive.ph/20180120192909/htt... [last accessed 07/08/2022].
Reuters, Norway receives first F-35 fighter jet, available at www.reuters.com/article/us-no... [last accessed 07/08/2022].
Pogo, Selective Arithmetic to Hide the F-35’s True Costs, 21 October 2020, available at www.pogo.org/analysis/2020/10... [last accessed 07/08/2022].
SPD, Bündnis 90/ Die Grünen, FDP; Koalitionsvertrag 2021-2025: Mehr Fortschritt Wagen, Berlin, 7. December 2021.
DoD/ NATO
Thumbnail elements by Pixabay
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Intro
00:08 - Lost time, lost opportunities
02:04 - Changes with a new government
03:18 - Contract announcement (preliminary)
05:25 - What costs do these deals include?
07:38 - Capitalist intermezzo
08:35 - German deal details
11:58 - Outro
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
#militaryaviationhistory #F35 #germany
**Hope you all enjoy this one and if you are right now in the mids of a heatwave just as yours sincerely, stay save, apply liberal amounts of +50 and keep hydrating that glorious body of yours!**
I hope Germany won't once again abandon a European army program such as the FCAS just to buy american trash planes such as the F-35 just to not ask France about nuclear capabilities sharing...
Roger that, hydrate with liberal amounts of *BIER*
It was interesting and informative
But it didn't quite answer the question.
I'm curious about what Germany is getting that other countries aren't, that warrants the vast difference in price?
Why is our deal different? Does it need to be different or is this a classic case of German overspending?
I avoid the sun at all costs when walking the dogs.
Interesting to note that in the US the flyaway cost often doesnt include the engine! This is because Congress likes them to be separately listed and seperately procured so they can see how much they are paying as well as introduce competition between different engine manufacturers.
Many years ago I was working on a US Army program. Part of it was buying desktop computers. The cost per unit was much higher than what the two star general saw in the ads in the newspaper for similar units. So, we put together a little booklet for him. The cost for the Army included everything from network equipment to printers to maintenance for three years (required for all government contracts, and many commercial ones as well). So, the story is very similar to what you are laying out here, but in a much simpler case.
Computers and airplanes are a good comparison. First of all, it’s very common for people to consider the computer in total isolation and the plane in isolation.
But let’s imagine a large business wanting to update/overhaul/upgrade the capabilities of one or more departments. The executive in charge isn’t (or shouldn’t be, if he is competent) be thinking “we need faster computers”. He needs to be thinking about the capabilities and results he wants. Perhaps it’s better customer support, sales support, billing, streamlined shipping, or whatever. In brief, he needs to be thinking in terms of systems.
Likely he is working with a hardware vendor and a software vendor, and/or possibly a systems integrator vendor. And the contract is going to be based on “seats”, “desks”, or whatever it is called in our hypothetical business. It’s the number of employees that will be using the system-and generally this breaks down to 1 computer per 1 system user.
All of this is to say that even though we must think in terms of systems, the most modular way to break down the contract is to base it on # of users, or seats. The business may grow during the upgrade or after, and there needs to be a way to modify the contract if requirements change. But there could be some other modular unit on which the contract will be based.
I’m sure you’re way ahead of me. Let’s say that the business’ upgrade is in the shipping department. It needs to upgrade its ability to ship products into dangerous neighborhoods, and to do so it’s upgrading the trucks to better survive driving into a hazardous environment where people will be trying to shoot at the trucks.
So it’s decided to buy the FORD F-35. But there are going to be expenses integrating it with the legacy warehouse systems, the routing systems, billing, customer intelligence (so you can verify that the product was successfully delivered and had its intended result for the customer).
But the point here is that there’s a lot more going on than just buying 100 truck packages and just replacing your current trucks. You’re buying a truck system that must be integrated with all the other systems it touches. I think it bears emphasis: you’re not upgrading trucks, you’re upgrading your delivery system to cope with the demands of the modern battl-I mean, business environment.
Even when you demand COTS, the defense contractors will make their own word processing software. Pork pork pork. (Insert ed-209 rant here).
Always found it funny that my JROTC unit had a pile of old computers in the back room because while the government was good at buying them computers, the way one got rid of an old or broken one was to take it to the nearest airforce base for disposal since it was government property...a 6 hour round trip that neither the colonel or master sgt were ever going to do themselves
In a related field: Lowest price bidder wins contract to supply desktop computers. A short time later new software chosen which the "new" desktops can't cope with. New lowest price bidder supplies compatible new desktops.
The Federal Acquisition Regulations do have a way of driving costs up...
The 240 million is a system price that includes all maintenance work, soft defense, spare parts and ammunition, training, etc. for the next 20 years.
Without this package, the F35 costs us only 75 million per piece, even cheaper than the Eurofighter, which costs around 98 million.
exactly and Denmark payed the same per airframe.
Plus, I might be wrong but I'm fairly sure the USA approval is the MAXIMUM amount of services Lockheed Martin & Germany can make a contract for.
The final contract is not signed yet & might be lower.
Germany isn't a "partner nation" in R&D development, so add 10-20% extra for that, likely. Also, the German "panik timing" of order surely contributes to a higher "high demand" price. Some things to take into consideration. ^^
Thanks. That is the only calculation that remotely makes sense.
Where do you get this $75million number?
A huge part of the deal is paying upfront for the Block 4 software integration. With this, we will get a better ECR aircraft and possibly earlier than the tailored Typhoon variant.
The short version: imagine that when you buy your car, you're paying up front not just for the car but for every scheduled service and every tire change for the next twenty to thirty years, parts and labour included, right down to training the mechanics and buying them their tools. And if a new model comes out with fancy gadgets, you're paying to have those refitted to the model you bought.
Now imagine what that would do to the price.
(EDITED FOR CLARITY.)
It makes sense really. Plus if Germany likes it. Guess what they could by in bulk?
yeah i already thought so, most of the money in deals like this also go towards ammunition for the craft and not the craft itself
Well, those things arent free
@@John_Redcorn_ Oh, I mean paying for it UP FRONT as you take the car out of the lot. Will amend.
Imagine your neighbour buys the same car, and pays upfront for the same scheduled services and tire changes etc and still pays only 2/3 of what you have paid …..
Perun's video on German procurement was also kinda enlightening about this stuff as well as to why the price tag is so high, good video as well Bismarck
Why is that guy an expert all of a sudden?
He was a video game youtuber until the war started.
Did you check his credentials or are you just assuming he is correct, because he made a video?
@@roadrunner6224 the fact he made videos on games doesnt mean he cant do other stuff in his life, anyway he said he works in Australian military procurement
@Apsoy Pike maybe you should ask yourself why a gaming channel is suddenly doing military videos.
@@roadrunner6224 Does it invalidate his points?
@@roadrunner6224 He hinted that he works in military procurement in Australia (or a think tank affiliated with military procurement).
In our school (I am german) we had a giant oscilloscope, and our teacher told us "that is a Starfighter oscilloscope. In the package of each Starfighter there was a set of tools included, but of course a toolshop needs just a handful of those. Most just was packed away in storage.
And when the Starfighter was decommissioned, the Bundeswehr cleared its stores, and so our school got an ancient, but brand-new professional oscillosope.
Just as example what you get in addition to the naked plane...
... and people knock bribery and corrupt military procurement... but, look at these kids... learning!
Lots of schools get "obsolete" military technical equipment for educational purposes.
We had several in exellent condition manual NATO green lathes and milling machines from the Dutch Army at our tech school.
Those lathes and milling machines were once part of the Leopard 1 tank technical support equipment.
Crazy story. Wie lang ist das denn schon her?
To the secondary school: "This is your Bundeswehr. Do you need a few G3 assault rifle that we replace? We have also a lot munition here. Please let us know when you are interested..."
After watching the video, I realized it is the USA that profits the most out of a war between Russia and Ukraine.
The whole of Europe is now dependent on US gas/oil/tech/weapons. Best still, Europe's relations with China have been sabotaged by the US, effectively leaving Europe at the mercy of the Americans for goods/tech/weapons and becoming de facto vassal states/puppet regimes to the Americans.
I'm pleasantly surprised at the level of detail you mention in this discussion! You did a great job of describing the complexities of aircraft pricing and FMS.
It is not just a matter of totaling the program costs and divide by the number of aircraft. So much of the program costs go for new hangars, tools, simulators, armament, spares, and fuel...
With that "That's just like... The market, man!" joke, I direly missed a "WHERE IS THE MONEY, SCHOLZ?" earlier in the video
I figured it was flyaway cost vs system cost. But the number of weapons seemed crazy low, barely enough for a couple of missions each. Then the old brain said, "What would Chris say?" and I answered myself, "that's an initial peace time loadout; surely they'd buy a lot more if Russia got extra frisky."
In general, stockpiles of munitions in most air forces are surprisingly low.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I'd replace the word 'surprisingly' with 'worryingly'
@@MrBlueBurd0451 Depends, whole Russian airforce second best and largest in the world is grounded vs Ukraine.
I would gues 50 Amrams is enough.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Of course stocks are low, having a munitions crisis at the beginning of a war is tradition after all.
@@MrBlueBurd0451 despite all the turmoil Germany doesn't see itself going to war so having a small stockpile is enough since missiles are incredibly expensive and would serve no purpose sitting next to rotting Igla crates
Excellent breakdown of unit vs total system cost! Thank you. So many don't realize all that really goes into acquiring a new weapon system.
100 billion € for "rearmament" sounds smaller and smaller as the time progresses.
that happens when right wing warmongering buisness meet incompetent right wing politics
Nato exe4cise showed that nato ran out of ammo after 8-10 days
@@wintermaryland3619 can you elaborate please
I mean that’s on top of the annual military budget which is something like 50 billions per year so that has to be taken into account as well. The thing is that the Procurement system of the German MoD is an absolute joke.
@@gehtdichnixan3200 Ah yes, it's all about the 'warmongering right wing.' Nothing at all about the discovery that Germany's armed forces were incapable of conducting combat operations.
The 240 million also includes the spare parts program, the technical training the platforms etc. + you waited forever to make a decision.
. . . plus you went decades without having to pay for a conflict-ready military; Perhaps a fair price to pay to begin your military to-do list. Thank goodness these advanced military weapons programs are even available.
@@Woodie3200
German Phantom jets are good enough for smal conflicts.
The only countries who are able to have big conflicts are USA, Russia, China and later on India.
$240 million is twice what other nations are paying, so the number fails basic inspection when looking at US Defense Acquisitions Security Agency FMS contracts. Sounds like a sensationalist headline figure to sour voters and members of parliament. Base price for an F-35A Block 4 is $83 million. Add spares, pylons, ejector racks, weapons, support equipment, simulators, pilot training, and logistics ranges from $120-$140 million unit program cost. Rafale unit program was 216 million euros for India, for example. Unit flyaway for Rafale F4 is 162 million euros. Typhoon later versions with the AESA and new avionics are similar price to Rafale F4, both of which being much more expensive due to twin-engined designs with older flight control systems, hydraulics, and electronics architecture.
It's a big shame Germany missed the boat on becoming a partner, it's something that definitely helped make the choice for the F-35 here in the Netherlands. Several components are made exclusively here in the Netherlands, and then shipped to the US for assembly into the eventual airplane. It doesn't lower the cost of the airplane, but it does give a noticable boost to the economy, which helps pay for the airplane. So, for every airplane we buy, we indirectly get a few million returned in our economy. For every airplane Germany buys, we will get a few million dollars into our economy.
There is a small (VERY small!) possibility for Germany to enter the partner program if they make haste making a decision and setting up certain required manufacturing installations: Turkey dropped out of the partner program, and the components that were manufactured in Turkey will no longer be manufactured there at the end of this year. Those components will in the future be produced by another partner, most probably the US itself, but if Germany plays its cards right, they might get a level 3 partnership program out of it.
It's an option to consider. For Germany to earn back a percentage of the investment, and for Lockheed Martin & Partners for making that sale.
Not really; it was a choice that made sense especially at the time. Remember, the F-35 program generated a lot of buzz and controversy as a money grave with insane cost overrun the longer development went on. And ultimately, regardless of junior partners the F-35 is still an American platform, whereas Germany naturally is more inclined to invest in European solutions. The planned Rafale/Airbus FCAS would be nuclear-capable as well -- it just isn't "here" for another ~20 years, and Russia's self-sabotaging invasion of Ukraine more or less forced Germany into replacing the aging Tornado platform now.
The fact that the F-35 is pretty much only needed as modernization for NATO nuclear sharing capabilities also means that a further buy-in doesn't make sense for the country, as the Eurofighter (additional purchases of which were actually announced alongside the F-35) and its upgrades will remain the country's primary fighter craft for the foreseeable future. An investment into the F-35 program would only create competition for its own defense industry, and most likely seriously impact relations with its closer partner and direct neighbor, France.
The US is in desperate need of (Idiots) sorry of course customers of the F35 The US knew they were ripped by the manufacturer and now were looking for idiots they can rip .Instead buying the absolutely overpriced F35 system gouverments should purchase a swarm of F16 like jets. a F35 killed by a 500000$ isn´t a good deal!
@@RisBo998 good luck with that attitude with the current supply chains wonders.
The Netherlands and USA thank Germany for the boost to our economies.
@@CautionCU Me as a (dumb) german citizen appreciate that!
Germany opting for the heated seat subscription on its F-35s
For those who don't understand why the price escalates so quickly, just try out the Porsche pricing tool. And yes, many of those options are there because the companies are trying to perform a cashectomy on someone they know has a lot of money. Not to say that those options won't be appreciated by the end user, but the company has an incentive to price things that way. Once the buyer has mentally made the jump to pay some large X amount, then adding smaller amounts that are still significant becomes easier.
Best analogy I've heard regarding procurement: buying a F-35 (or any weapon system/capability) is like buying a home - you're not just spending for the physical house but also furniture, appliances, ornaments, utilities, insurance, maintenance, etc..
*Its been hard to reach you, I'm calling about an extended warranty for your F-35*
I mean it'll be interesting to see if it ends up costing more because they end up extending the life of their F-35 program if they decide to pushback on timely replacements again.
Sustainment tends to cover part of the upgrade introduced throughout the lifecycle. If FCAS continues, it is likely to substitute both Eurofighter and F-35.
Yes , that’s why I said ‘if’
A large part of the initial costs are for new infrastructure required for unit level maintenance requirements unique to stealth aircraft.
Very interesting breakdown, proving these simple "F35 too expensive cost comparisons" don't always show the true bang-for-buck. Btw glad you mentioned the costs advantage of being an original program partner, those countries copped a lot of world backlash about wasting their money on a supposed white elephant... now after 3000+ sales to 10 countries (and growing), who's laughing now hmmmm..... 🤔
Well, US congress found the F-35 too expensive and asked LM to reduce costs. And they are used to buy expensive stuff.
So, maybe the F-35 is worth the money, but it ain't cheap.
@@chefchaudard3580 Same guys that won’t pull the plug on the A-10 program. I don’t think a bunch of government officials are best regarded in understanding military topics.
@@m1a1abramstank49 Well, the A-10, while obsolete in a major conflict, was available when the Air Force needed an attack aircraft in low intensity wars they were involved in overseas.
It made sense to use it instead of buying a dedicated aircraft, like the Super Tucano, or use sophisticated and expensive to operate fighter jets.
In an uncontested environment, the aircraft is somewhat overkill, but it is there and the job is done for a fraction of the cost of an F-35.
@@chefchaudard3580 Except now we’re planning to use propeller aircraft in the roles the A-10 was used for. It should’ve been done, years ago. Propeller aircraft require less maintenance, were cheaper, and just as effective for COIN. The Air Force kept begging congress to pull the plug before they were involved in these low intensity conflicts, during a time we expected a peer to peer conflict. A-10 was not really viable, simple as and Congress isn’t an expert towards military subjects. It’s just a bunch of cronies that listen to things face value
@@m1a1abramstank49 I don't know the figures, but, at first glance, it made sense to use existing aircrafts, that had a lot of potential and were already paid for, to do the job, rather than dispose of them and buy new ones. Now, again, i don't know anything about the cost of the various options.
How good is the warranty on an F-35? Would it void the warranty if I made some aftermarket modifications? Just curious in case I ever find myself in a position to buy one.
ask Israel
Warranty is void if you replace the electronically scanned array (AESA) radars or the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) with any aftermarket product.
Repainting is only allowed by an official dealer. Trying to modify your F-35A to either F-35B or F-35C automatically voids the warranty.
Only few selected items, like CD changer, floor carpets and Distributed Aperture System (DAS) can be changed on your own.
@@eukariootti1 Perfect, thanks for the info! The website was really unhelpful.
@@alexv6324 Are you an F-35 buyer in the U.S.? Check the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Depending on your state, your state’s laws could go beyond the consumer protections in Magnuson-Moss. I’d avoid aftermarket warranties from third parties. Stick with the Manufacturer’s Warranty offerings.
If I was considering getting aftermarket add-ons, I’d be sure to check my insurance policy first. You might inadvertently jack up your monthly premiums. I know Lockheed Martin charges an arm and a leg for accessories, but it’s the safest way if you want to keep costs down over the long haul.
I opted for the LX package after a test flight (just around the airport) but I was considering the Sport package. It’s the damndest thing, but the cup holders on the LX are worth the extra money, imho. I strongly suspect that the stock cup holders on the Sport package would have been one of those little things that drive you crazy when you hit Mach 1. Honestly, if plane is billed as a stealth aircraft, it should come with stealth cup holders. But that’s how Lockheed Martin gets you, amirite?
Chris, mate, you know as well as I do that the Germans will ALWAYS pay over the odds for equipment because of the broken and dysfunctional procurement process in you fair land. Fly away costs are of course not worth worrying about because as you rightly point out, you need all the supporting stuff you need.
But - I would be very surprised if Germany are getting as good a deal as the UK.
Considering the flyaway cost of the F-35 for the U.K. is currently believed to stand at around $115 Million (roughly £90 Million) per jet I seriously doubt if Germany will get anywhere near that sort of deal.
@@mrjockt Keep in mind that Britain is buying the most-expensive version of the F-35, the jumpjet F-35B.
why should germany get as good of a deal as the UK? The UK has been a constant and key ally to the NATO alliance and the US's most trusted partner... now compare that to Germany who has been a parasite to NATO since its foundation, always the weak link and not participating in the slightest during exercises or humanitarian efforts that require international coordination. Germany should have been kicked out of NATO decades ago and honestly should consider themselves lucky the US is even allowing germany to make the purchase.
I think we are getting a fair old discount, as we were "early investors" and took on part of the dev costs, and are supplying some of the gear (and while that is hardly unique, it does include some quite important bits of the electronics etc, not just supplying the pilots lunches)
@@talltroll7092 This is absolutely correct. The early adopter programme partners have gotten the very best F-35 deals. It was a very smart move on thier part, not to mention industrial participation returns that will last for decades.
I just wanted to say thank you for your time and effort to provide us with this indepth analysis of important developments on a regular basis.
I'm not in a position to provide any tangible gratitude currently thanks to the ruptured intestine and coma that resulted from multiple organ failure, but I really want you to know how much I do appreciate your honesty and perspectives on modern and historical developments.
Thanks, glad to hear you like the videos. Get well soon, wishing you a speedy and complete recovery !
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I thank you for the well wishes.
Germany 2021: doesn't pay enough.
Germany 2022: pays too much.
At 240M the F35 has less markup/gross margin than Audi/BMW/Mercedes, so they are getting a bargain!
It reminds of the Black Hornet micro scout drone...$80,000 for a heil about the same size as a dragon fly. It's impressive but the RC hobby has already progressed past it and a quadcopter with similar capabilities can be had for $800.
more than double that price actually, 195k.. i might understand it, for scouting purposes, IF it was TOTALLY silent, and the size of a fly. and had stealth technology. and able to send the data it sees to the central cloud so everything gets 3d mapped automatically in real-time on the fly. and automatically fly, map areas by itself, 24/7.THEN it would be worth even 200 000 per piece, a no-brainer, the holy grail of scouting..
"By 2015, the Black Hornet had deployed with U.S. Marine Corps special operations teams.[7] Although the Army is seeking a mini-drone for use by individual squads through the Soldier Borne Sensors (SBS) program, the individually handmade Black Hornet is seen as too expensive for large-scale deployment, with a unit costing as much as US$195,000.[18]"
-wikipedia
The comment you touched on at the end about development partners I think plays a very significant part.
People don't seem to realise this but F35 while mostly American was still an international program, with 9 countries participating in both funding and different parts of the production process. The UK alone payed for almost 10% of the total development cost of the aircraft.
You got me with the frozen yoghurt part. Expecting a full video on that topic soon!
Define how aircraft are priced and you'll find at least 10 different ways. Lockheed are generally reporting the basic minimum cost for marketing purposes, whereas European buyers have tended to look at full life project cost and then deivided by unit purchased. I assume this also included Maintenance and spares.
On that basis, with a 35 year operating life, its only $7 million pa plus fuel, crew, base...
On top of costs varying over time and all the political dealings, I assume its relatively easy to shift at least some set-up and sustainment costs into contracts separate from the air frame acquisition. Say, purchasing the simulators and prepping your logistics while the plane was still under development, lumping F-35 munitions procurement in with armaments for the rest of your airfleet, etc.
I do have one question on one thing presented in the video, are the 37 engines listed '37 spare units' or '35 installed units and 2 spares'?
It 35 installed and 2 spares.
It will be 35 installed and two spare and considering the parts issues with the F135 I'd be ordering more spares if it was up to me.
The person or people signing checks want to know what they are buying and how much it really costs. But sure, there could be multiple contracts, or a master contract with subcontracts. I just think you will run into trouble if you try to bury any costs in a separate contract to fool someone (such as the tax payer). Whether there are costs that are upfront, ongoing or backend, it’s better to be upfront about the total costs.
I think it’s important that we conceptualize this sort of procurement in terms of systems. “We’re buying this system for $x. The package we are buying includes y number of planes, so the cost breakdown is $x/y per plane.” For most conversations it’s better to keep emphasizing the system that you are buying (or have bought), not the number or cost of airframes.
i think the best way for most people to understand the differences is "off the lot car price" vs "total life cost of the vehicle"
I have very little experience with military aviation procurement, but some in other areas. In the Canadian context, a rule of thumb is that the cost of the item procured, in this case "fly away cost" is 1/3 of the life cycle cost, including all the follow on costs you mentioned. We would also include the cost of the people needed to own, operate, and maintain the item over its whole life, as well as the expected cost of disposal at end of life. On this basis the 40% number you quote is not out of line. And yes it always leads to sticker shock. Cheers.
The Netherlands got them even cheaper than Finland, due to big investments during F35 development and a bigger quantity. As for the maintenance, all European F35's (thus also from the Luftwaffe) will be maintained in the Netherlands (of course the big repair and maintenance only). All European users have paid a contribution for that.
Interesting, does that include RAF versions?
@@davidhouseman4328 I see, interesting. I knew that production was done in different countries on certain projects.
Sounds nice for efficiency, but not that great in a war. After all that means by striking one target, you can significantly affect readyness and repair capabilities.
Also sounds like a logistical nightmare demaded by politicy.
"The Netherlands got them even cheaper than Finland, due to big investments.."
you have to count the investments into the price. how much has the Netherlands invested?
"and a bigger quantity."
Finland gets 64. The Netherlands has 52. (according to 2022 Wikipedia information)
The Netherlands has 17 million people Finland has 5 million, so it's not bigger per capita, either.
"Finland orders 64 Lockheed F-35 fighter jets for $9.4 bln" - Reuters, 2021. That's 140 million a piece, and it includes all the training, etc.
ten years ago Netherlands circled the number " 85 F-35 fighters. " but it is uncertain if the Netherlands has the political will to commit to it.
after all, the Netherlands is not right next to Russia, like Finland is, but further away, behind Germany...
Finland might have the greater political will because all of them go through mandatory army training+their location.
in Finland, even their most leftist party in the government, named "the left alliance" voted for nato. that was controversy inside their party, the party had a big job explaining to their voters. but they fulfilled their duty all the same, even when they hated it.
not many countries can claim the same in Europe.
i might be wrong, maybe they do have the political will to go for 85 f35´s. even so, it is questionable whether it´s cheaper than the great offer Finland got.
@Risto Kempas just one thing on the point of having zero Allies....what makes you say it like that may I ask?
Basically the cost is due to the F-35 being updated.
The other countries planes are not necessarily outdated. But the F-35 Germany is Getting is the block 4 version. Which means it’s the newest and most updated F-35. Updated computers, weapons, everything. Plus, I assume it’s getting the new jet engine. Which is going to rack up the price.
The new engine is slighter faster, has more thrust and is much more efficient which allows the planes to fly longer without refueling.
Yes, good points, the support systems and ongoing service and upgrade costs over 30 years can be included.
Great work as usual Chris!
One thing you forgot to mention: How much of the money will Germany get back as tax revenue? It's not uncommon for those contracts to contain clauses that a certain percentage of maintance, logistics etc will have to be done by local contractors (and that's not limited to parts or docs classified as National Eyes Only).
I can tell you that A LOT of German machinery is making these aircraft, so there is a return in that area.
I don't think there will be much direct local contractors like that.
The purchase is placed in a hurry, for aircrafts that are badly needed for yesterday and there is no time to find local partners.
And it would increase costs.
The F-35 will be bought from the shelves, made in the US, with no local partners except, maybe, for the catering for the inauguration day.
Not much. Only the UK has anything approaching that kind of deal. That said, as another commenter noted, German firms are going to benefit quite a bit from the demand for their machine tools etc
Probably close to nothing. Knowing the US, everything will exclusivly be done by US companies.
@@chefchaudard3580 I agree, it's much to late for any joint venture for production. I was rather thinking of maintenance and retrofitting partners in the decades to come.
240 mill is chicken feed bro. I presume it includes warranty and servicing. Unless you go for Russian crap e.g. SU 35 at 45mill..but bring your own GPS and wings.
I disagree with you on the su 35
A lot of non stealth airforces would struggle in Ukraine no need to get smug
@@johnpaul3099 No.
@@johnpaul3099 SU 35 is a marvel of aerodynamic engineering just not a great modern fighter.
@@authoritariangentleman7570
Its a marvel of 1990s aerodynamics and Engineering.
great video!
Es ist schön, endlich mal Fortschritt zu sehen :)
FMS is a US Govt to Foreign Govt arrangement and is managed through the US State Department. The arrangements vary by country - your country may not have the same arrangement as another. This certainly adds another complication to any attempt to compare deals. As an example, does your country pay a share for the original R&D costs of the equipment or is it waived/discounted?
Yeah but you got free shipping with Amazon prime
this was hilarious thank you 😂
Nice video about german procurment of F-35. Think I'd still prefer to have at least some military aviation industry in eu rather than total USA dependency, even if it costs more and isn't as effective. So rather more 3rd gen eurofighter rather than F-35 but perhaps that's just me. For a more in depth take it might be worth to take a look on Peruns take on the topic. Wonder if you know of him and what you think. " Germany, rearmament, and Ukraine - "Why 100 billion Euro may not fix the German military" (lawsuites, uncertainty, scale all trouble procurment) would be related to german procurment and "Defence economics, and the US production advantage" woud be the vid related to the production advantage of F-35 (scale, tech concentration in USA).
A very well done analysis!
As they say, you are not just paying for the plane but for everything that comes with it for its projected lifespan and whatever else you want or need. Most informative Chris.
I wonder what portion of those 240m/unit is taken up by consultant fees ;-)
A high proportion. But it's a sellers market with no competition. Also there's far more involved in these machines than initially meets the eye. When you see what's involved you understand the cost.
What I find most concerning is the fact how few weapons are bought with the plane. I mean the AMRAAM and Aim-9X purchase barely is enough to equip all the planes with a full Air to air loadout. I really hope they integrate the Meteor soon which could explain the purchase of so few Aim120s. Perhaps they even integrate the IRIST as well. That would be a deadly combination.
There are tighter export restrictions on the AIM-120D I believe
@@BenHuntsman That‘s probably true but I don’t see why this should be an issue for a close US ally like Germany.
I don't know why we buy these missiles at all. With the Meteor and the IRIS-T we have domestic missiles that are already in service and just as good or superior.
@@13deadghosts The Problem is Meteor an IRIS-T aren’t yet integrated into the F-35. I know that the UK and Italy are working on integrating the Meteor into the F-35 however this will take a bit of time. So that’s why they buy these missiles.
Also, when is the order slated to be delivered? Isn’t the AIM 260 about to enter IOC? If so why wouldn’t they pursue buying AIM 260s
Very true in the package differences. Not to mention there is a new power unit upgrade coming for the F35 which could be also included as a near future consideration.
That new GE XA100 jet engine is showing significant increased thrust as well as fuel efficiency.
Another insightful video by Chris.
Very nice Video. It is good to get a competent brackdown of this.
But why do I get the impression that Chris goes to that frozen yogurt store a lot ? :)
Hah, I haven't been since 2011 (yeah, I remember the date...) But recently was reminded of the existence of such places.
If your late to the party, you pay premium. Very wise descision of the Dutch to step in early, just like we did with the f16..
The Dutch have always been good partners
@@sc1338 Sure, but the Yanks always get us into trouble and bleeding us dry.
There is also customization costs such as language modification. To put everything into German, a great deal of interpretation must be done and that will have to be approved by the German defense ministry. The language changes must be added to all maintenance documentation, the cockpit displays, the simulator and all other documentation. The actual interpretation is not that hard to do, but the approval process takes a lot of time and is expensive.
No, comparatively translation costs are a drop in the ocean and besides, it’s not required as it’s all standardised in English
@@MilitaryAviationHistory So, you have developed these systems? I have and know a little about it. Nations always want the language options and always want their say in how the display looks and feels. The languages are typically selectable, but they don't want their pilots to have to interpret to a secondary language in real time. It is one thing to read English documentation if one knows English as a seconday language. It is quite another to have displays in English and have to interpret it real time. Pilots need to make split second decisions at times. They cannot be left trying to interpret some abbreviations on a display while flying at 500 mph. And requiring your pilots to be completely fluent in English to the point of thinking in English is not always a possibility. So, most countries opt to have all documentation and simulators translated as well. It makes training their pilots and support personal much easier.
Clearly you have not sat in a LW jet
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I sat in F/A-18C Hornet and AV-8B Harrier 2 cockpits. I am not familiar with the term "LW jet".
Because it's not just the plane itself, it comes with support packages, missiles, parts and equipment, training, etc.
Well, it's interesting that an invasion of an major Eastern European country by Russia (historically again and again) has prompted the German government of the time to increase military spending as a counterbalance. It's again taken a major European military crises for EU to take action. And again, I sense the reluctance for the German government to cross over into "militarism" (through obvious historical antipathy), but increasing your military budget to a mere 2% of GDP is not militarism. If these new Luftwaffe purchases are well articulated by the German government with a mission statement plan for the deployment of the Luftwaffe and other Bundeswehr componants into the defence of Germany, and by extension military assistance to her EU and NATO allies during armed conflict, then by clarity, no-one (except Putin and his loyalists) should fear it but welcome the deterrent value to military aggression, unilateralism and territorial expansionism that it can offer.
Yeah but who are we gonna defend from? If Russia attacked, it would be NATO clause 5 and then it would be off to nuclear war.
You believe in a lot of propaganda that Russia or China are doing the things you wrote but the US and UK , Germany have many times done the same.
In forgein policy there is no real democracy its still the biggest that does whatever.
Many from the Bush administration confessed on tv that the second war in Iraq was started by laying to the world even NATO allies fabricating false evidence , they knew there were no WMDs or mobile WMD labs. That means a war was started for no good reason and they sent soldiers to die for no good reason, hundreds of thousands died even more wounded and Tony Blair confessed that they were partially to blame for the making of ISIS.
There are German politicians that have said to their colleagues that they have no moral right too complain about Russia in the Ukraine because they and many others did the same in 1999 but of course many will try too justify their crimes.
Politics is full of hypocrisy and double standards I can make a list here about things that are known , media , movies and politicians are trying to brainwash people in to believing we are the good guys always and we are never wrong and why? We have democracy , what a God complex.
It's no secret that many big "Democratic " countries mostly the US have been allied with almost every dictator, talibans even terrorists when its politically convenient or "Interests need to be protected" in another country whatever that may be political, economical, strategic but if there are no interests they don't care .Like Ruwanda 95 when 1 million people were killed in 100 days it was 70% of that ethnic group a real genocide and the politicians that are playing so Democratic did nothing.
A poor African nation there is nothing too gain no interests to protect that's how dirty politics is and how it works in reality.
NATO is aggressive instigator of conflict, so yea no.
Germany would have gotten a discount on their F35s if they had supported the project like Britain or Italy did from the early stages. Canada will get the same treatment as Germany did when they start procurement of the F35
Because all those Nations did not value defense highly.
Canada's case is just frustrating because they COULD have gotten the F-35 at the same value as the UK did, but because they listened to the stupid arguments of the fighter mafia, they had to do a "real test" to actually determine that the F-35 was the best choice they had.
No, Canada has been in the F-35 program, despite cancelling procurement before.
I’m glad you pointed out that Germany was not a F-35 program partner. That they chose not to participate & pay for that development on the front-end, so naturally that means they will pay more on the backend for said development otherwise it would mean the program partners would be paying more & subsidizing non-program partners. Development has costs plain & simple.
oh no it costs more per unit to purchase a brand new aircraft including support services! How can the world be so complicated!
We thought long and hard about whether to get our F-35 with the Sport package or the LX package. We really should have spent more time worrying about set up and sustainment than obsessing over the trim and upholstery.
Like Germany literally has US Air bases, they will just loan those.
Seems like Germany got a pretty decent deal, considering they didn't invest anything in the original program, plus the current value of the euro. Had they started their own program they could have easily spent twice that amount for fighters they would only receive in 10 years. Also, there will be so many other operators, you can guarantee there will be upgrade packages available.
@@Sv5YpWTwd9otTA4So83f and be obsolete by the time it launches? And the f35 works so idk what you’re on about
@@Sv5YpWTwd9otTA4So83f No, we wouldn’t. There is no point in betting against the F-35. The US is simply building way too many of them, so that no competitor can hope to rival their development costs per plane. When the Senate voted to stop F-22 production in favor of quicker F-35 procurement, it was all over.
@Wilhelm Eley I know all that and it’s irrelevant. You forgot to multiply the F-35s ability to drop nuclear bombs with the likelihood this will never happen and what you get is zero. That’s why Germany shunned the F-35 up until the probability that NATO will fight against Russian troops protected by S300 and S400 increased. The superior stealth and fighting distance capabilities and the fact that the F-35 is the only near-term available modern fighter jet at the market decided the issue.
Concise, insifgthful, timely.
Thanks.
DOUGout
Interesting video, thanks for sharing it. Just wondering whether we (European countries already using the F-35) may realistically lower the operating costs by aggregating training and maintenance facilities. Back in the ‘80 the Cottesmore school for Tornado pilots was a good example of cooperation beyond the mere development and production project.
Some additional benefits from Germany or any country buying into a weapon system and program at the scale of F-35.
1. Continuation test and development, driven and sponsored by in particular DoD for at least the next 40 years. Buying and integrating the next weapon is cheaper or even an option because of economies of scale. A few other programs can provide this, but not many, and nothing compares to the market share now held by F-35. Any other new 4.5th generation essentially costs just as much, but without future growth. This was critical to the Swiss buying F-35. Stealth is just a bonus/burden.
2. Continuation test and development is easier to implement on newer aircraft because an increasing portion of this is software, and aircraft and avionics have been designed for those updates (again sponsored by economies of scale).
3. Training, tactics, and procedures, tested and further refined by exercises and employment by primarily the US.
4. A large portion of stealth costs are stealth facilities and maintenance. Buying a small fleet of anything is relatively inefficient, and more so with stealth.
5. Germany is a special case though because of billions in U.S. aid spend on stealth facilities in Spangdahlem. As a result it is conceivable that in 20 years NATO F-35s will be partially serviced in Germany, much like other aircraft.
It's so stealthy you can't see the invoice
Content well done 👍🏾
SK purchased 40 F-35 for around 80mn$. But without any maintenance contract. The asshats thought buying some of these would include MRO&U（Maintenance Repair Overhaul and Upgrade）but they were totally wrong. The only option to keep their birds updated (e.g. to Block 4) is to bring them to Japan, Australia, USA or Europe. There might be some political reasons not to allow MRO&U in SK (reverse ingineering issue, close to China etc.). The best option would be to maintenance in Japan, but SK has some issues with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and with the japanese government. So the near bargain turns out to become dead expensive
To paraphrase a certain disgraced American cyclist, "It's Not About the Plane".
Germany is not buying 35 aircraft. It's buying a defence/warfighting capability. Any analysis which simplistically breaks this down to mean one aircraft = $240 million (which *this* video does NOT do!) misses the point completely. For example, how many of the other NATO/soon-to-be-NATO F-35 customer countries will deploy their fleets to be available to deliver tactical nuclear bombs on the battlefield?
about zero unless they are able to actually field them.
@@pogo1140 All aircraft, especially high-performance military aircraft, run into fleet-wide issues, like the F-35 recently. Such issues are investigated, rectified and the aircraft returned to service at the earliest opportunity. That's peacetime SOP. In the event of military necessity, such as Russia invading the Baltic Republics, NATO F-35 fleets would be back in the air regardless. They *are* available for war fighting, but in peacetime they're grounded as a safety precaution.
No it doesn't. The primary reasons Ze Deutschland pays more are as follows:
1. The jet is an overpriced Edsel that, in no way, meets the 'want an ASA interceptor that looks good on jingoist 'airshow day' needs of the majority of it's supposed customer base. It is, in fact, not a _fighter_ perse, at all but an F-117 interdictor replacement with optional landing modes that add nothing but cost to the airframe. As a result of its gross lack of multirole ability, its development has, essentially, been abandoned in favor of the twin engined, heavyy, NGAD/PCA as an F-111 followon. And with this in mind, the total U.S. purchase is now well below the storied 3,000 number (last I heard, 1,200+480+257 = 1,937 American airframes) originally fobbed off on the taxpayers at the end of the Cold War as 'one airframe, scaled economics' rather than 'three airframes, none of them any good'. Coupled to similar gross under purchasing by the Tiered NATO partners (Britain, 21 of 138 originally ordered with Norway and Netherlands following similar 45-not-90 purchases) and the outright exile of the Turks (at one time, 200) and all the other late buyers will get soaked because the airframe is a massive sales failure, at home and abroad.
2. You're Germany. The biggest economy in Europe with a GDP of ~4 trillion dollars, nearly 50% higher than France and Britain, at 2.6 trillion. You will always get overcharged because Hello Hitler, added to what the U.S. feels is gross underpayment of NATO contributions for 30+ years, at least. Plus, it's Lockheed. The last time they built you folks a fighter it ended up in court with multiple felony charges on the F-104 corruption case. Ask Lockheed to set up a pan-European, joint maintenance contract, arrangement; similar to what SABCA/Fokker did with the F-16. Even if they agree, it's still going to be likely that, with the FACO in Italy covering everything _at cost_, Germany would end up paying outrageous percentages. Europe needs its own armed forces. Its own, rationalized, consolidated, defense industry, and from that, a single tank/fighter/assault rifle/naval force. Until you stop thinking like city states and start acting _and purchasing_ like a nation state, you will always be the victims of Superpower economics. Something you might want to consider as the Americans seem hell-bent on trashing the Dollar and crushing their country's financial viability under a debt based social welfare driven taxation economy. Russia is not your competitor. But China and India could well be. And spending huge amounts of money to refight the Cold War is just stupid chasing crazy.
100% correct. Systems and capabilities.
Whoops! Of course the UK are a partner country in the F35 programme. So we’ll get a better deal.
So … why didn’t Germany get into this group? It’s not as if you guys have no industrial, technological and engineering expertise to bring to the programme. 🤔
Seriously - I am interested to know. I have a nagging feeling about it but some back ground would be illuminating.
Political decision of Merkel.
If I had to guess its would be their lack of interest in upgrading their airforce and didnt want to be reliant on American planes. Germany uses the eurofighter which is made in Europe. So a European fighter is more beneficial to them. They have been trying to upgrade their fleet but have always been denied by their politicians. They didnt take it seriously until Russia invaded.
Basically ww2 and a warped germano-centric kind of pacifism in german society and politics that has been festering since reunification.
Because we didn’t need the F-35 and we barely need it now either.
35 airframes! Not exactly a number with which you buy yourself a development share. _LOL_ 😂
Germany remains a Eurofighter nation.
Until the drone wars begin! 🤖
@@jansix4287 it is foolish. The tornado is horribly outdated for such an important role in the German Air Force.
Thanks for the great video!
I'm looking forward to an update video regarding the FCAS project, the current outlook or state of the project and possible alternatives to replace Eurofighter Typhoons should the project fail. I am also really curious in the Japanese 6th-Gen F-X programme but one after the other
The word is that the Japanese is working with UK on the tempest fighter.
@@jimc1654 France will give Germany almost zero workshare on FCAS. Germany will leave and try and join UK Tempest, which will probably end up being British/Japanese/Swedish/Italian. UK will direct them to the sales desk considering they blocked various sales of Typhoon to ME customers.
I was told by a Royal marine that the germans always overpay for quality kit as they see it as compensating for the majority of their troops not being very "professional". the career guys are fine but the squaddies arent very motivated or engaged.
What troops are not being professional??
Roay marine man nonsense
If I remember correctly, this plane is so you can continue to toss bomb nukes, otherwise the Eurofighter or Rafale would have sufficed. So, a small force of used F15 for the nukes and then a force of Rafale would have done the job. The price you pay is absolutely ridiculous.
Even for other tasks it's overwhelmingly superior.
F-15s compete with the B-52 for the hugest RCS in the US military inventory. You won't be using those to penetrate the airspace of an opponent with a decent IADS.
what you just said is ridiculous you boil all of air doctrine to toss a nuke?
the f-35 is a flying networked computer with sensors that feed info to half a dozen places real time that ant cheap
But stealth was never an original requirement I think. Sounds like Germany accepts a ripoff deal on the F-35 it doesn't need in order to buy political cred or security guarantees
@@SirDeadPuppy The main reason stated for the difficulty in replacing the Tornado was that the new aircraft must be able to toss a standard American nuke and that such nukes were not integrated in the Eurofighter or the Rafale, otherwise they would have sufficed. I have not seen it stated that stealth was the reason.
Why would you buy Rafale when F-35s are available? It is just an inferior platform to F-35
You also have to take political climate and how generally well off a country is into account. America is willing to sell to smaller/more vulnerable/poorer countries at a loss/near loss per plane in order to have them better defended against other major powers and/or more firmly attached to America's "side". Germany can afford to spend more, so America doesn't cut them the same kinda deal.
That probably plays into it but my money’s on inflation and Germany’s decision to join late causing the lion-share of the difference. China makes a lot of things and it’s goal of the “reunification” of Taiwan are causing a lot of changes to estimated budgets for the private sector. I’d assume it has a knock-on effect for the military industrial complex as well.
Considering that Germany is sponsoring the main NATO adversary with $ and tech, that’s fair.
Germany has always been the weak link in the NATO alliance and has not ONE TIME met the minimum requirements to even be a member of it... Why would the US sell the most advanced machine on the planet to a country that doesn't even have the capability or drive to defend itself in the first place? the germans should consider themselves EXTREMELY fortunate to even being allowed to bid at all!
@@noop9k I knew Deutsch Bank financing Trump would come at a cost.
@@noop9k he he he, for how many billions of dollars did the US buy oil from Russia in the past few years? Your claims are justified by the fact that only Germany paid money to Russia. The UK was also involved as it generates 49% of its electricity from gas-fired power plants and also gets gas from Nord Stream 1 via intra-European pipelines and southern European countries currently consume more gas from Russia than Germany. When you point your index finger at someone, remember that there are 4 fingers pointing at you at the same time.
Are they including fixing the eject charge
Germany must’ve also asked for chocolate syrup on the F 35s.
While this stuff does take the "History" out of Military Aviation History - It's still very interesting and will become history in about 70 years time
The whole situation should be summed up with two words. Money laundering.
well splitting the cost to 40% Flyaway 15% setup 45% sustain, is not really a good argument. It doesn't change anything in regards to other deals if you just go ahead and split their 160 vs 240 million dollars with this formular... same comparions with smaller numbers.
The only way a split starts to have meaning is if the 15% and 45% get a modifier with time (another unknown factor sadly).
What would be nice to know is how does the 2 spare engines compare to other nations spare purchases.
I personally find 35 planes to be a rather low number. It would be interesting to know if the deal already includes further plane replacements/additions once the first batch starts to show its age. If not oh boy.....
The video shows what is included in the price, hence the breakdown does make sense esp. since most people don’t consider setup and sustainment costs in my experience. Comparing deals does not.
-Regarding engines, this info tends to be available. E.g if I remember correctly Belgium is getting 4 additional with basically same number of planes.
-35 is indeed low, what’s even more staggering however is the choice to find 15 Eurofighter EW variants.
I literally paused at 0:21 to make sure I had seen the previous videos. Thanks.
It doesn't really matter, Germany needs full package and it needs it two years ago. Even at double the price its still a good deal if they are timely, and it is the cost of the poor planning.
I think they did well negotiating this at such a low rate considering the circumstances and it might mean delays for other customers increased, overtime, new production facilities to meet the order you'd expect at least double the unit price.
In December 10, *2021* Finland decided to order 64 F-35A's with "weapons systems" and some other stuff. For 9.4 billion euros (EDIT: was erroneously 8.4, EDIT2: I misspelled erroneously...).
* The first ones are to be delivered in *2026.*
* Current Hornet fleet is planned to be phased out by *2030.*
@@eukariootti1 so 8 months later and more sales Germany also managed a 2026 delivery... i'm not sure if we know yet how much and when complete.
Also note the Finland deal doesn't include the engines which were purchased separately from pratt & witney. Not sure if the German deal includes engines or not, they are usually purchased separately generally in aviation.
This is Clickbait
An almost perfect example of the "pay me now or pay me later" principle. Invariably, the pay later option costs more.
Great video
"Germany is paying $240 million for an airplane that's available for $70 million." Then you proceed to take 12 minutes to explain why that's a big lie. Why did you state it as a fact to begin with?
It’s called a hook
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I call it clickbait. By the way.... good video.
No. Video titles and thumbnails are clickbait because they are meant to entice that click. Just like the title of a book and its cover entices a buy.
I´m thinking that Germany will face other problems then buying this crap!
Thanks. Should have joined the Program!
It’s not just the plane, it’s everything else that comes, armaments, service contracts, spare parts etc.
Sound like the cost is for a turn key solution not just the cost of the plane. I have been in on buying radio systems for the city I worked for which would include each tower site the the links to each site, the links to the comm centers, have capability so each dept can communicate with their equipment and employees. This adds to the cost and must be included or the system will not be able to be used to it's total capabilities.
If 240 million for an F-35 is a ripoff idk what to call the Bulgarian deal. We paid the same price for F-16 bl.70.
The title made me think that Germany was buying literally one F-35. That would look suspiciously like Germany was planning to reverse-engineer it and make their own.
Germany has been an American colony since 1945. The F35 is a more expensive version of the F104 Widowmaker.
Why are F-35s so expensive? Because they're worth it.
How does that deal compare with the contract the Swiss government should sign next year? I know that such Swiss military contracts have a clause which mandates that at least 60% of the contract's worth must be compensated by plane manufacturers. That is, that 60% of the money involved has to be reinvested into the Swiss economy (in this case, the direct and indirect maintenance of the plane will carried out by Swiss companies). Is that option available in German contracts?
i really hate it when governments combinr the capital cost and the operation cost of an item. Anyone doing finance or a brain can tell you those are 2 separate things and honestly when govs do this all they do is scare the tax payers with over bloated numbers.
Operation costs are not included in this, setup and sustainment are. They are different from op costs
It's never too shameful to overcharge Germans.
The German contract may include the optional dual engine per airframe standard.
So we have Military History Visualized for land, Drachinifel for sea, this lovely channel for air, Perun for defense economics and procurement
Who else am I missing to so we have the full spectrum
My first thought reading the headline before I watched your video was that the fly-away or lifetime cost. Another variable is how much maintenance will be performed by the German government vs outsourced back to US contractors. All in all the F-35 is an expensive toy but it appears that after a very controversial development is had turned out to be a capable aircraft. But like all bleeding edge technologies the development process was painful.
but, the per unit cost, and the per hour to fly cost?
The F35 is less per unit cost, and less then a F18, F15, Typhoon etc. per hour to fly.
and being single engine, then that helps again.
The only fighter I could find less per hour to operate? It was the F16 at $30,000 per hour vs the F35 at $33,000 per hour.
(but, MORE amazing is the F35 takes less ground crews and hours of maintains to keep flying then the F16).
So, every other fighter from F15, to F18, to Rafale etc. actually costs a bit more per hour to operate.
So, while we can quote 240 million per fighter?
No, lets quote the unit cost, and THEN quote the per hour rates to fly.
We see:
Eurofighter/Typhoon: 115 million per copy
Rafale: 94 million per copy
F15: 88 million per copy (but, with targeting pods, and IRST package, you now at 120 million to match F35).
Gripen JAS 39 E/F: 85 million
F35: 77.8 million
So, NO they should NOT include the full package price. They should quote fly-away cost, and then the expected per hour operating cost.
The F35 tends to be lower cost to buy, but ALSO is lower per hour to run then duel engine fighters.
"...not a program partner..." - Ding, ding, ding.....Germany gets to pay to the original partners who footed the development bill for the privilege of buying "off the shelf". It cost a lot to make that shelf. There's an old commercial here in the US from decades ago: "You can pay me [a little bit] now, or you can pay me [a lot more] later." Germany chose to pay later, so they get to pay a lot more. [Sad trombone sound].
Hi Chris, can you please make a video about the problems with stationing F35A Jets in Germany.
What are the problems at the airport in Buechel and with the admittance for the use in german airspace.
Best wishes and keep up the good work!
It will be interesting to see how different the cost Germany pays will be compared to Canada’s F-35 purchase if and when it gets finalized.
Canada is part of the development program and is paying 98 million per airframe, plus this comes with massive modifications and extra maintenance required for Canadian tundra. They have to fly all the way to Artic from Eastern Canada while because of Alaska US takes care of Western Canada.
Can you do a similar video about FA-50 for the Poland?
Thing is, I believe the cost includes a 5 Year 50,000 Mile bumper to Bumper warranty AND free oil changes for 5 years.