I suspect that Gubben and Obligatory have hit the nail on the head. MS21 was not NG, or E/F, until 2010. And even E/F today is not what NG was in 2009.

So, at best, the $65m “estimate” is a result of projecting 25 years of production of a single variant at a constant 80/year rate.

Additionally, I would suspect that this estimate factors in through-life efficiency improvements. It would be interesting to see those assumptions, but it would be amusing if they were based on Super Hornet.

Meanwhile, back here on Planet Reality, it looks as if the F-35A LRIP-4 batch is now over $150 million, and that’s including only the problems discovered, fixed and costed so far.

She was goin’ down grade, makin’ ninety miles an hour…

I am dubious about the idea of a stop-gap Super Hornet lease. It’s not as if there are a ton of US-owned aircraft to draw on (as when F-4Es were leased to the RAAF). The USN needs the current production rate to replenish squadrons until the F-35C (in theory:diablo:) replaces the SH in production. And given that the plan is to stop acquiring SH in the US, what is done with the stop-gaps when the lease is up?

Possible approaches: the US may be willing to eat most of the cost of the deal, in order to keep the UK in JSF. Or the RN could be persuaded to take some Block 1s out of the FRS/test community – which could be spared by late in the decade as the operational squadrons are dominated by Block 2s/EA-18Gs. Both smack of desperation.

Since when do neutral posters talk about people being “lap dogs”?

Range is not all about size, except to the extent that a big aircraft can trade weapons for fuel. It’s about fuel fraction, including external tanks (and two 450 gal tanks on an aircraft as small as a Gripen is a lot). It’s about drag, and about the combination of wing loading and military power that gets you high quickly, even with a heavy load on board.

MC – Commercial aircraft programs are highly concurrent, and usually every test aircraft after 001 is refurbed and sold. In the event that early aircraft are a little under-performing (excess fuel burn, excess weight) they are sold at a discount to a customer who does not care (eg, is not Emirates).

Concurrency got a bad name in military aviation with the F-111 and C-5A.

In the case of the F-111, the USAF ended up with 550-some aircraft in five versions, of which only one (the F-111F) was spec-compliant and two (the E and F) were ever based outside the US or used in combat. Of the others, the F-111A was never quite up to snuff (and many were modded into EF-111As, used in tests &c), the F-111D had a whiz-bang MkII avionics system that had only one fault (it did not work) and the FB-111A was SAC’s red-haired stepchild.

On the C-5A, it was discovered too late that someone had fat-fingered the stress calculations and all the aircraft had to be fitted with new wings.

After that, the idea of low-rate initial production was invented.

MC – I would look at the timing of the announcement. It follows the rather depressing language of the QLR and DOT&E, which the program can no longer shrug off by calling it “legacy thinking”.

It precedes a budget that is widely expected to kick production ramp-up out a few more years, with consequences for IOC dates. There is an election coming up, and the administration has to cut budgets without being seen as “soft on defense”.

Moreover, it’s hardly fair to hold the B in probation as long as the C hasn’t caught a wire.

Seriously, F3, before you start yelling “nonsense” (and getting all upset when you take some incoming) you should do research.

Lockheed actually briefed on its A/F-X design in early 1995. It was a healthy-sized two-seat, two-engine swing-winger that (IIRC) could carry at least 4 x 1000lb LGBs internally (maybe 4 x 2Ks) with separate side bays for AAMs.

A/F-X had by that time replaced AX, which was a watered-down rethink of the bridge-too-far A-12 spec. (12 k internal + 2x HARM + 2x AIM-120). AX was 6000-8000# internal. A/F-X added supersonic to the mix.

JSF was not defined by STOVL, of course. As long as you consider the following as minor details: Number of engines, OEW, overall length, A/B-version span (which does affect C design because of edge alignment and wing-body geometry), relationship of forebody cross-section area to length, forward location of main nozzle.

Some of the chickens have already come home to roost (hook geometry, A/B effects on tails, transonic accel). The question is how many more are inbound.