First, consider the following from an earlier post:

…

The Canadian government says the production cost of each F-35 will average $74.5-million (U.S.) – but other obligations such as spare parts, simulators, and program management costs mean that the full package works out to $138-million per jet. It also estimates the annual maintenance price tag for the jets will total $250-million, on par with the current bill for the aging CF-18 planes…

Trusting blindly in what Lockheed Martin says has not proved a sensible thing to do so far.  The minister says there are no delays for the US Air Force’s F-35A version the government is planning to get?  And the delivery date for us won’t be affected?  Our first aircraft are supposed to arrive in 2016.  So we are going to get them before they’re in full operational USAF service, since “…development of the conventional take-off and landing F-35A and carrier-based F-35C will be extended by one year to 2017.”  Sure, Peter.

As for our cost per aircraft not rising.  In 2016/17 the plane will not be at full production rate (and probably not for a while thereafter).  Costs for early production aircraft are always greater than later on as economies of scale are achieved with increased rate of build and as the construction learning curve takes effect.   There is no way, if we buy the planes in the time-frame now envisaged by the government, that we will get them at a (comparatively) cheap full-rate production cost–which is what the $74.5 million (U.S.) price per plane must represent.  And we definitely will not get them cheaper than the USAF is paying…

If a competition were held fairly soon there is no way Lockheed Martin could win it. Price is the problem. The costs to the company for 2016-17-build F-35s are simply not known; thus it could not submit a firm contract price, to which it would be held under pain of penalty, that the Canadian government could afford from the money allocated for the competition. Any price low enough to fit within the competition would guarantee the company would take a loss on planes produced for Canada; they just are not going to cost Lockheed Martin less than $74.5 million each to make (remember the company needs to make a profit) in that time frame.

Moreover I do not believe the company could guarantee the delivery schedule the government says it needs to phase out the CF-18s as presently planned.  (For a real delivery schedule balls-up, read about the Air Force’s new Cyclone helicopters at this post.)

Meanwhile:

…
GasTOPS, an Ottawa firm that employs around 100, first announced it had won a $48-million contract with Hamilton Sundstrand, a key supplier on the fighter craft, in May 2009. The deal would see the Ottawa company provide its oil debris sensors for inclusion in 3,500 of the F-35 jets…

That 3,500 number sure do look dicey to me. And if there is anything in this speculation about re-starting Raptor production that number definitely goes up in, er, smoke:

The Air Force has apparently gotten over one of its biggest taboos: talking internally about the possibility of buying more F-22s.

Until recently, USAF was under strict orders not even to think about it, but recent developments have caused the possibility to crop up in some “what if” PowerPoint slides.

Those developments include likely further slips in the F-35 strike fighter’s schedule and an upcoming defense acquisition board review of the F-35 expected to be fraught with bad news on cost.

That would come on the heels of various deficit-cutting proposals that already suggest cutting the F-35 buy.

Without F-35, Air Force fighter inventories will plummet below minimums in coming years as F-16s age out.

Extending F-22 production could be the dealmaker if F-35 foes carry the day and compel USAF to take mostly new-build F-16s instead.

The Raptors would provide the extra stealth force required to make the non-stealthy F-16s acceptable.

Also, if you’ve listened carefully, USAF has gone from saying it will retain a “portion” of F-22 production tooling to “most” and, most recently, to “all.”..

Via Defense Industry Daily.  Keep in mind that it was defense secretary Robert Gates who finally forced the end of F-22 production.

But Mr Gates is likely to be stepping down pretty soon; and then there is that new, much more Republican, Congress–what will they want?  More here on the Raptor (and quite a bit on the F-35).  In any event the Americans are taking a very close and critical look at the F-35 program, the results should become evident next week.  One wonders if our government is paying close attention.  Maybe it doesn’t want to, very worried about the possible results.  One hopes our major media will pay that attention.

Update thought: Remember that both the F-22 and F-16 are made by Lockheed Martin; so there could be a lot of off-setting money for the company in those aircraft.

Upperdate: Note current costs still quite uncertain:

Lockheed Martin Corp. received a fourth production contract for 31 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets valued at $3.48 billion as the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program faces new questions over costs and delays.

Lockheed will build 16 planes for the U.S. Marine Corps configured for short takeoffs and vertical landings, 10 of the Air Force version of the jet, 4 Navy models and 1 for the U.K. [emphasis added], the Pentagon said today. The Bethesda, Maryland-based company has an option to assemble a 32nd aircraft for the Netherlands [emphasis added].

The award provides a boost to Lockheed on the eve of a Nov. 22 review of the JSF led by the Defense Department’s top arms buyer, Ashton Carter. Development and combat testing is running more than four years behind schedule on the F-35, a program with a projected price tag of $382 billion.

Lockheed and the Pentagon will share on a 50-50 basis all overruns topping the F-35’s “target price.” Lockheed would have absorb the entire overrun once the price exceeds an upper- limit “ceiling [emphasis added],” while any savings for beating the target price would be split between the company and the government.

The contract caps a month of negotiations in which the Pentagon sought to convert from an agreement that paid the company all expenses plus a fee for profit while requiring the government to cover any overruns. Those were the provisions for the first 3 JSF production lots of 2, 12 and 17 planes…

Next week’s Pentagon review of the JSF is the third such study in less than a year. Officials are supposed to receive details from an assessment conducted by the program manager, Vice Admiral David Venlet, as the Defense Department seeks to avoid “further surprises,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said yesterday.

No Decisions

Venlet “has discovered additional issues that are of concern,” Morrell said. There is more software code “left to be written than what we thought,” said Morrell, who declined to give details on any potential new costs or delays and said no decisions were likely at the session…

Mark
Ottawa