3 AAMs per bay is part of the planned Block 5 upgrade…

I have yet to see a 2 AAM per by photo yet, just 1 AAM and a JDAM.

Spudman

If i am not mistaken, quite recently someone at ARES (?) (Bill Sweetman?!) asked directly to LM what was the status of that particular development (six internal AIM-120), the official answer was that, right now, they were happy with the four BVRAAM arrangement and the “six pack” wasnt being pursued.
(I´ve might got it all wrong though, if someone out there can direct me to the original article i would be grateful)

Cheers

Another great achievement by Bill Green (in collaboration with another well-known aviation author, Gordon Swanborough) was “Fighters A to Z”, an extensive encyclopaedia of the world’s fighter aircraft, which was published in monthly installments during 26 years (1971-1997) by the renowned british magazine “AIR International”.
The same material was collected in a “Salamander” book which appeared in 1994 with the title “The Complete Book of FIGHTERS – An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Every Fighter Aircraft Built and Flown”.
608 pages – 2,340 photograps – almost 1,200 general arrangement drawings – 470 colour profiles – over 80 cutaways drawings …..

http://www.collectaire.com/advisor/books/completebookfighters.jpg

What a feat ! ….. Unsurpassed …..

😮

THAT Bill Green?!! 🙁
Sad loss indeed….

RIP

thats a good idea, why dont you
page 22 unit cost, but if you can find a fly away for 55, i will humbly apologise as long as you do the same if you cant

Jack

The Fly Away Cost of the Super Hornet can be found in the US Navy Budget, for 2007 (released February 2006) the document is here: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/07pres/PROC/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf

The relevant information is on page 25.
A SH bought in the FY 2007 has a “Unit Fly Away Cost” of 54.836 million US$ (including engines).

i know this is a waisted post, as you’ve been told this before
the us tax payer has always copped the r&d costs alone and usa sells at normal usa fly away costs to buyers, as per our fa-18f
this is the first partnership that usa has gone into, the partner costs have been paid, there is no further r&d costs to them
the sell price is the same fly away for usa and partners

now if you have a link that shows usg gets their r&d cost back, i’d like to see it, this will be a first in their procurement, otherwise you are just badly guessing

Jackjack

Not quite, the FMS system levy´s a tax of 3,75% over every sale, then there were severall documented cases in wich a system was developed with money from foreign governments while at the same time the Pentagon ordered that same equipment for the US armed forces, the Juliet Hercules (Great Britain), and the Strike Eagle (Saudi Arabia), by example.
I have read the JSF MOU and the entire chapter (13) about third party sales (page 70 onwards) is so vague that it leaves room for any interpretation about this specific point (at least for me).
I have never seen any official document that states that a foreign military sales of “military flying tubes” “must” be made using the “Fly away cost” has the cost calculation base, but i have seen a few of them that the calcuted cost is so much higher than the Fly Away Cost that is present on the US DOD budget, that, even with logistical suport, training, documentation, etc, i do have some serious doubts that the “Unit Fly Away Cost” had anything to do with the final price.
I do have this idea that every sale is a diferent case, the bottom line might be very well the “FWC” plus the 3,75% FMS fee, but (by example) in cases were there´s no credible competition the profit margin seems to grow quite a bit.

Cheers

ELECTRONIC ATTACK

Radar Glossary

Radar — Electronic Attack

Information on Electronic Attack

Electronic attack (EA), previously known as electronic counter measures (ECM), is conducted on radar systems to reduce or prevent the radar’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum effectively.

Well, if an AESA can really fry or otherwise damage or impair the radar receiver on an incoming AAM, then it fulfills the defininion of electronic attack… unless, of course there’s another, more accepted definition/term.

It cant. It doesnt provoke phisical damages to a radar, you are going to need an EMP nuclear strike to do that (or an HARM/JDAM/rock/whatever/something kinetic).
Pit already explained it very well, its the old ECM jargon/techniques all over again.

Nah. Just tired of waiting.

Oh, i see. Me too.

Cheers

There were some interesting numbers published recently about Moroccan F-16 deal. While the overall package costs around $100mil+ per aircraft, the resulting separate contract issued to LM was something around $37mil (?) per aircraft which could be an indication of the flyaway price(?) .

Its not, there are severall items that a FMS contract to LM (or Boeing) doesnt cover. Specificaly, the “Government funded items”, they have separate contracts, the most proeminent of those “GFI” being the engine.

Cheers 🙂