So, Lockheed-Martin, on a plane that is not really in production yet, and one for whom the cost numbers are very fluid, decided to call out the McDonnell Douglas Boeing F/A-18 E/F by name on operating costs, and Boeing’s response was, “Oh no you didn’t bitch!”.

We now have a contractor cat fight:

Lockheed Martin is peddling untruths about the relative cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Super Hornet, according to Boeing Military Aircraft president Chris Chadwick.

In a Tuesday morning teleconference, Chadwick not only called Lockheed Martin’s claims “fundamentally untrue” but named business development vice-president Steve O’Bryan as the source, and the fact that the claims were denied formally also points to a developing war between the two programs.

The offending statement, quoted in Air Force Magazine’s Daily Report last week (here, search for May 26), claimed that a fully operational F-16E or F/A-18E would be “the same cost” as an F-35 at maturity, around $65 million in 2010 dollars. Not so, Chadwick says, claiming a comparable (recurring flyaway) cost of $53 million for a Super Hornet — including a set of external tanks, an ATFLIR targeting pod and “working” helmet mounted displays.

Any F-35 cost figure, Chadwick pointed out, “is an estimate based on numbers of unsold aircraft.”

Moreover, Chadwick added, current figures show that the JSF — even in its F-35A variant — will cost more to operate than the Super Hornet. Citing a $16,400 cost-per-hour F-35A estimate (in 2002 dollars) in the latest Selected Acquisition Report, Chadwick says that a comparable number for the Super Hornet is $12,200 — less than either the F/A-18C/D or the F-16C/D.

Cat fight!

Though I would note that the F-16, should be cheaper than both to operate, and it should get you there quicker than both too, at least until calling bingo fuel.