(Luft) Lockheed Martin F-35 - Lightning II

[ObiBiber]

@Phantom:

für dich gibt es wohl auch nur die F35...und du glaubst BLIND was LM bzgl Preisen und Leistungsfähigkeit veröffentlichst... wirfst anderen hier aber vor dass sie dies bzgl Gripen (SAAB) und EF (EADS) tun...und bezeichnest sie dann als Lügner?
worin besteht der Unterschied???

hier mal wieder eine reale Quelle die genauso gut oder schlecht ist wie deine Quellen zum Preis der F35:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/f-35-costs-182-million-to-299-million-per-plane/">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/f-35-c ... per-plane/</a><!-- m -->

To put the F-35-boosters’ claims in context, Winslow Wheeler, an analyst at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C., has calculated the true current cost of an F-35. It’s way more than anyone in official circles likes to admit.
Forget the $85-million or $60-million figure being bandied about in the press. Each of the 29 F-35s the Pentagon is purchasing from Lockheed in 2014 costs between $182 million and $299 million. And that’s leaving out research and development spending since the late 1990s, which could soon exceed $50 billion and add $16 million to true long-term acquisition cost of each F-35.

also 182 Mio - 299 Mio $ OHNE Entwicklungskosten und für die reine Beschaffung einer nackten Maschine

hier sind die Realen Preise!

By that measure, one Air Force F-35A—the simplest of the three JSF models—currently costs $182 million. A vertical-landing Marine F-35B sets taxpayers back $252 million. The Navy’s carrier-compatible F-35C, still mired in serious development problems, comes in at a whopping $299 million per plane.

zur generellen Schnapsidee des JSF

[T]he need to accommodate different service requirements in a single design or common design family leads to greater program complexity, increased technical risk, and common functionality or increased weight beyond that needed for some variants, potentially leading to higher overall cost, despite the efficiencies.

und weiter

The quantitative analysis summarized in this report shows that, contrary to expectations, historical joint aircraft programs have not saved money compared with single-service aircraft programs. Although a joint approach has the theoretical potential to lower acquisition costs by pooling RDT&E resources and increasing production runs, historical joint aircraft programs show substantially higher acquisition cost growth than single-service programs. This higher cost-growth percentage is about twice the maximum theoretical joint acquisition savings percentage for a typical fighter program. In addition, whereas a joint approach can save O&S costs by taking advantage of economies of scale, analysis of actual fighter O&S data shows that the potential savings percentages are small and are not likely to counteract the higher average joint aircraft RDT&E and procurement cost-growth rates. On net, joint aircraft programs have not saved overall LCC compared with single-service aircraft programs.

Fazit

So, essentially, joint fighter programs like the F-35 are the worst of both worlds: nobody gets the airplane they wanted but everybody pays more.

das Oben sind die realen aktuellen Preise... nachdem weit mehr als 100 Maschinen zugelaufen sind

die Aussagen vom Hersteller dass die Preise in Zukunft sinken werden sind schlichtweg gelogen...um jetzt Kunden an sich zu binden

But it’s not true. Not by a long shot. The much-maligned, single-engine F-35—which suffers from a complex design and a lack of maneuverability—currently costs twice what its proponents are projecting. And don’t buy the argument that the jet’s sticker price will substantially drop in coming years. Lockheed’s been making that claim for a long time now, and it hasn’t happened yet.