Thought I would post the new F-35 SAR for FY2018 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=25039 There are some interesting changes which have been summarized below (I grabbed these from another site so props to dragon029).

The new FY2018 President's Budget F-35 Selected Acquisition Report has been leaked - some new details in it (some of these have already been reported earlier mind you):

The total US buy number has risen from 2,443 to 2,456 with the USMC adding a requirement for 13 more F-35Bs.

In the last SAR, the F-35A, B & C had estimated combat radius figures of 625nmi, 467nmi and 630nmi respectively. The new SAR reports that the F-35A has now since demonstrated a (strike / interdiction) combat radius of 669nmi and the F-35B has demonstrated a combat radius of 505nmi. The F-35C doesn't have a demonstrated figure yet, but its estimated combat radius has been increased to 640nmi (I'd be willing to bet it'll demonstrate an even higher radius). The objective / threshold combat radii of each variant was 690/590nmi, 450/550nmi & 600/730nmi.

In the previous SAR they estimated that it would require a 558ft STO to launched an F-35B with 2x JDAM and 2x AMRAAM with fuel to fly 467nmi. In the new SAR they've demonstrated a 549ft STO but with the difference of it having fuel to fly 450nmi. I'm assuming the demo was done with 450nmi of fuel rather than 467nmi or 505nmi to compare the STO distance figure with the threshold & objective of 600ft.

In the previous SAR, mission reliability of the 3 variants was estimated at 97, 98 & 98% respectively; in the new SAR they've demonstrated 93, 95 & 97%. With the exception of the F-35C, those are right on the APB development threshold (93, 95, 95%).

For their logistics footprints, the A has demonstrated its threshold & previous SAR esimate of "Less than or equal to 8 C-17 equivalents", the C's demonstrated footprint is 44,900ft^3 and 222 short tons, the B's demonstrated footprint is <= eight C-17 equivalents (on land) / 18,400ft^3 and 105 short tons (at sea).

For sortie rates, they've demonstrated for the A variant: 3.4/3.0/2.0 2.5hr Average Sortie Duration (ASD), for the B variant: 5.5/4.0/2.0 1.1hr ASD, for the C variant: 3.9/3.0/1.0 1.8hr ASD. I'm not quite sure how to read the sortie rate figures - the either the first or second figure is the surge rate and the third would be the sustained rate, but what's the other (1st or 2nd) figure?

The F-35C has also demonstrated the previous estimated max approach speed at required carrier landing weight of less than 144 knots (objective / threshold was <140 / <145kts).

Compared to the last SAR, in Then-Year dollars, RDT&E rose by $364.1m, Procurement rose by $27.0747 billion, MILCON rose by $0.1m; the total program cost is now estimated at $406.4809 billion, up from $379.0420B.

In baseline year 2012 dollars RDT&E increased by $319.5m, Procurement rose by $11.1080 billion, MILCON decreased by $67.3m; the total program cost in BY2012$ is now estimated at $324.6206 billion, up from $313.2604B.

A list of why costs have risen is listed on pages 81, 82, 85 and 86. One major reason was the USAF changing their peak buy rate from 80 aircraft a year to 60, extending production from 2038 to 2044 and increasing inflation costs.

The CAPE ICE operations & sustainment costs haven't been updated / changed from last year to factor in the 13 addition F-35Bs.

The two most striking to me are the USAF production extension due to less airframes being acquired each year and the range increase for the F-35A. Range has steadily increased as the airframe has gone through testing and the latest figure is a great achievement. As for the production rate, it is a shame the USAF isn't going to acquire at a faster rate and I suppose the rate change could always go back up. Obviously overall acquisition cost increases with a lower rate and an extension of the production line for an additional 6 years.

I've taken VSMUT's response from the European fighter thread to here for better context. No need to clutter the European tread with F-35 commentary.

VSMUT wrote:

Ozair wrote:

That is less than 10% of the total US order, 2440, let alone the additional orders from 11 other nations.

Lol. The US will end up with around 1000 tops, add in a few hundred for export. Even 1500 in total is optimistic.

Well let’s look at your dire prediction in more detail.
For USAF orders, as posted above the USAF is planning an annual buy rate of 60 aircraft per year from 2023-2043, twenty years of solid consistent production. This does not include additional airframes funded by Congress, which Congress has done each year for the last four.
For USN orders, the USMC recently increased their F-35B orders per the latest SAR by 13. The USN and USMC will be receiving jets at a rate of 45 jets per year, a mix of F-35B and F-35C from 2021-2029.
The number required by US forces has remained very static at that 2443, now 2456, for the last 10 years. There has been plenty of time to reduce that number but they have not. Does that mean that the US will order all 2456 airframes? No, it is certainly not guaranteed but even if we looked at ending US production in 2032 when the USN/USMC will have received all their airframes, we will be looking at a combined total of
USN/USMC - 693
USAF – 1001
So approx. 1700 aircraft in USAF service by 2032. That doesn’t take into account increased buys of airframes by the USAF, which they are very keen to do.

Looking at exports, if we total the numbers currently on order for the various partner nations, minus Canada, then we are looking at the following,
Australia – 100 (75 will be acquired and received by 2023)
Italy – 90 (reduced from an earlier higher number)
Turkey - 100
Netherlands – 37
Norway – 52
Japan – 42
Korea – 40
Israel – 37
Denmark – 27
Total Export orders – 500 airframes
So… Of those 500 expected export orders every nation except Denmark on the list has already ordered airframes and a number have already received them. The likelihood of exports being limited to 40% of the above total is not based on reality. Again suggest you actually review information about the program before making incorrect claims.

VSMUT wrote:

Thanks to budget deficits and high prices, US can't afford that many

Can you point me to the budgets where the US defence budget is decreasing?
If we look at the US defence budget from 2015 under a democratic White House the trend was for a reasonably consistent spend till FY2019.

What has actually happened is the Trump 2018 budget is a total request for nearly US$656 billion, a higher spend of OCO but still a considerable rise over planned totals.

Today President Donald J. Trump sent Congress a proposed budget request of $639.1 billion, $574.5 billion in the base budget and $64.6 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget. This budget request is $52 billion above the defense budget cap in the Budget and Control Act (BCA) of 2011.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1190216/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2018-budget-proposal/

VSMUT wrote:

and is increasingly coming to the conclusion that they are placing too many eggs in one basket.

Not sure where you derive this from, any actual commentary to support this point of just a pluck?

VSMUT wrote:

The current plans haven't taken the state of the rest of the military into consideration. The Pentagon will need to develop a new main battle tank, armoured personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle for the army, and the Marines will need new amphibious vehicles too. The Navy needs a new frigate because of the failed LCS program, and still hasn't gotten round to developing a replacement for the Ticonderoga class cruisers. They also need to find funding for 12 Columbia class SSBNs, plus the 36 Virginia class SSNs to replace the old 688s. The CH-53K and the new Ford class carriers are bleeding money left right and center.

Really? The budget Trump submitted has the following included in it

The FY 2018 budget request includes:
 Sustainment of the increased manning levels for the Army and Marine Corps in the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act as well as increases in Air Force and Navy manning levels.
 Additional funding for operating forces, logistics, maintenance, training and spares
 Additional shipyard capacity and aviation depot maintenance for the Navy
 Increased unit and flight training for the Army
 Increased weapons sustainment and increased end strength to address pilot and maintainer shortfalls in the Air Force
 Increased investment in a wide range of preferred munitions
 Increased facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization across all Services
This budget request also invests in modernization and advanced capabilities to reassert our technological edge over future adversaries. Major investments include:
 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, 70 aircraft; $10.3 billion
 KC-46 Tanker, 15 aircraft; $3.1 billion
 B-21 Bomber, $2.0 billion
 Virginia Class Submarine, 2 ships; $5.5 billion
 DDG-51 Destroyers, 2 ships, $4.0 billion
 CVN-78 Class Aircraft Carrier, 1 ship, $4.6 billion
 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, 2,647 vehicles; $1.1 billion
 Science and Technology, $13.2 billion

Looks like they have plenty of funding across the board. Yes there are some big acquisitions coming up but if we look at F-35 investment then at any one year the F-35 comprises approximately 4% of the US defence budget. So 4% of the total Defence budget to essentially recap the US tactical fighter fleet.
That is not breaking the bank.

VSMUT wrote:

The administrations plans for 100+ Block III Super Hornets well under way, and the Super Hornet program has already been trundling steadily away with a budget allotment of 14 this year.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/ ... ornet.aspx
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/boei ... -stackley/
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... come-21282

That is right, the USN is continuing to trickle the SH in production. The plan has always been for the USN to receive the F-35C last as it was the only service that had an active production line for new airframes. There remains a large naval fighter gap and continued trickle production of the SH supports this but even an increase in this doesn’t come at the expense of F-35C orders.

VSMUT wrote:

The USAF is going to extend the service lives of 841 aircraft F-16s through the SLEP program, allowing them to serve until 2048.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0

Not quite. The way these contracts are written there is a ceiling number. If the total number being SLEP’ed was 841 then that would equate to US$400k per aircraft. The actual number of F-16s that the USAF are looking to SLEP is an initial 300 F-16s. The devil is in the details though as this work is expected to come at the cost of not F-35s but of the F-15C/D fleet as per this article.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9247/usaf-to-keep-upgraded-f-16s-till-2048-as-fate-of-f-15c-in-doubt

What should be noted is the following quote within the article,

“The question of an F-15 and an F-16 in a European scenario on its own, neither one is going to do it,” Air Force Lieutenant General Mark Nowland, Air Force’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, declared at another event, according to DefenseNews. “They both are going to get shot down and die.”

To put the above in additional context, this is from USMC Lt Gen Jon Davis

"...Still, the Marine Corps continues to face questions about why it hasn’t joined the Navy in buying F/A-18E-F Super Hornets as a band-aid until the F-35 can be fully fielded. Without directly addressing this criticism that seems to pop up every year during budget season, Davis wrote that “our 5th gen jet (the F-35) can be quickly configured to a 4th gen bomb truck… The last thing the USMC needs is another 4th gen aircraft program – especially one that can’t be based on an amphib, a [light carrier] like [the Royal Navy’s HMS Queen Elizabeth], or short expeditionary strips ashore. Predicting the future is always difficult- even the smartest of the smart guys get it wrong. We have no idea where we will be fighting or against who in 2025. The USMC has to be ready for the toughest fight. The real question ought to be – why are we building any more 4th gen birds? What we buy in 2025 will be with us for 30-40 years – 4th gen Hornets in 2055-2065? The smarter move is to build 5th gen now.”..."

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/14/lt-gen-jon-davis-marine-corps-aviation-readiness-modernization

VSMUT wrote:

In the long term, the F-35 potential is capped by the looming F/A-XX and now the new European jet.

F/A-XX is not a replacement for the F-35C, it is a replacement for the SH and a modified F-35C remains one of the candidate options.

F/A-XX is a development and acquisition program for a future sixth-generation air superiority fighter to replace the United States Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet beginning in late-2020s.[1] A requirement was first identified in June 2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-XX_Program
As for the USAF program, that is additionally not a replacement for the F-35A but a replacement for the F-22. The USAF is still fleshing out requirements for the 6th gen fighter and any movement on this probably won’t see an in service jet until at least 2035 and probably closer to 2040. It is highly doubtful that the USAF will let F-35A production end and have no active production line while waiting for the 6th gen aircraft.
The European jet is not in any way competition for US F-35 orders. It isn’t even competition for European F-35 orders, at least not for another 20 years.

VSMUT wrote:

Just subtracting the 950 F-16s and Advanced Super Hornets gives you a combined US purchase of just 1490, and that doesn't even take into consideration the almost guaranteed upgrades to the existing Super Hornet fleet (350 aircraft), additional orders for new aircraft (Boeing suggests about 80 on top of the 100) and the inevitable cuts that the F-35 will also suffer, you are already down to 1000.

Subtracting numbers does not help you when your numbers or the impact those numbers have are wrong to begin with.

Ozair wrote:

Looks like they have plenty of funding across the board. Yes there are some big acquisitions coming up but if we look at F-35 investment then at any one year the F-35 comprises approximately 4% of the US defence budget. So 4% of the total Defence budget to essentially recap the US tactical fighter fleet.
That is not breaking the bank.

Just to add to the above, found this chart showing future USAF purchases.

This ever intrigues me. Top 2 items are classified, large sums of money are spent there. Is there any oversight?

Dutchy wrote:

This ever intrigues me. Top 2 items are classified, large sums of money are spent there. Is there any oversight?

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services

Ozair wrote:

Can you point me to the budgets where the US defence budget is decreasing?

Simple:
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtc ... itedstates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 836ed8240d

The US can't afford to keep going in the current direction, and the changing demographics means that it is only a matter of time before the young gain the political majority. As somebody else mentioned in another thread (I think it was you actually), Trump could be gone in 4 years. Chances are pretty good that he will be replaced by a candidate with more Bernie-esque views. Even if it doesn't happen, your unrealistic projections of the F-35s longevity will mean surviving another 5 presidential elections. Populist leaders such a Trump also tend to be a double-edged sword.

But good to see that I struck a nerve. You generally don't react quite so rigorously unless it strikes pretty close to home.

ThePointblank wrote:

But, as we all know, it is highly unlikely that both the Germans and the French will replace their fighter fleet 1:1, as force numbers have continuously decreased over time for the past 60 years.

And the same goes for the US, even if they have yet to admit so

VSMUT wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Can you point me to the budgets where the US defence budget is decreasing?

Simple:
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtc ... itedstates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 836ed8240d

The US can't afford to keep going in the current direction, and the changing demographics means that it is only a matter of time before the young gain the political majority.

You have not provided a reference to a reduction in the US defence budget. As for affording it, unless there is a drastic change in US policy, every successive US President and Congress will continue to maintain the current budget allocation which is a quite affordable 3.3% of GDP.

VSMUT wrote:

As somebody else mentioned in another thread (I think it was you actually), Trump could be gone in 4 years. Chances are pretty good that he will be replaced by a candidate with more Bernie-esque views. Even if it doesn't happen, your unrealistic projections of the F-35s longevity will mean surviving another 5 presidential elections. Populist leaders such a Trump also tend to be a double-edged sword.

Trump has little to do with the F-35, I thought you realized that by now. The JSF program is now on its fourth President and other than some screwing around by Obama the F-35 is in healthy shape. Given how wide spread the F-35 program is throughout the US it is unlikely the program will be cancelled by any US President who has thoughts of either a second term or any congressional support.

According to standard industry accepted economic forecasting, the multirole 5th generation stealth fighter is responsible for more than 170,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs.

Equally impressive to the program's job creation prowess is the sheer size of its economic footprint. The Lockheed Martin F-35 program teams with more than 1,400 domestic suppliers in 46 states and Puerto Rico to produce thousands of components from highly sophisticated radar sensors to the aircraft's mid fuselage.

VSMUT wrote:

But good to see that I struck a nerve. You generally don't react quite so rigorously unless it strikes pretty close to home.

Not quite, I just enjoyed correcting a post that was full of poor assumptions, fake facts and erroneous conclusions.

VSMUT wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Can you point me to the budgets where the US defence budget is decreasing?

Simple:
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtc ... itedstates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 836ed8240d

The US can't afford to keep going in the current direction, and the changing demographics means that it is only a matter of time before the young gain the political majority. As somebody else mentioned in another thread (I think it was you actually), Trump could be gone in 4 years. Chances are pretty good that he will be replaced by a candidate with more Bernie-esque views. Even if it doesn't happen, your unrealistic projections of the F-35s longevity will mean surviving another 5 presidential elections. Populist leaders such a Trump also tend to be a double-edged sword.

But good to see that I struck a nerve. You generally don't react quite so rigorously unless it strikes pretty close to home.

I think it is worth mentioning demographics. 50 years ago the give peace a chance baby boomer generation started coming of age by protesting against the Vietnam war. By the 1980s they started taking power and have conducted nearly 40 years of war and counting. Don't expect the younger generations to stop this. History has shown once given power the next generation likes to wield it. And with our declining standards of living we will do whatever it takes militarily to hold onto it.