I posted the numbers I have. Actually I have each & every budget going back to FY1998 readily at hand but it is quicker/easier to just post the numbers from a single document. The numbers I posted are supperted by said budgets.

Understood, I also used budget data (from http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/10pres/books.htm going back to FY1997)

Unfortunately, both of the documents you posted numbers from, the document itself in a number of placed is unreadable so I don’t know if the numbers you posted are correct or if you are missing/misreading something.

I gave a perfectly good indication of the pages, tables, columns and rows from which I took data (which I could read, for I wouldn’t have been able to post those data other wise) . So, the question is what other places you were trying to look at BESIDES the places I indicated, and from which the data matches your initial quote (so why assume an error). The differences are in the FY (what estimate) and in the cost code (what’s included).

FY09
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/09PRES/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
(see page 26)

FY10
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf
(see page 23)

Both tables relate to F/A-18E/F procurement
Quantity (of airframes) listed on the line just below column headings.
Cost code 8 > Rec. Flyaway Cost
Cost code 12 > Total Flyaway Cost
Cost code 28 > Total procurement Cost

Although I do not know what additional weapon system costs for the F/A-18E/F could possibly add up to ~$30 million per airframe at this point in the program.

Rec. Flywaway costs comprises: airframe, electronics, engine, armament (sum of cost codes 1 through 7).

The difference between Rec. Flyaway Cost and Total Flyaway Cost is from:
+ Cost code 9: Non-Recur Cost
+ Cost code 10: Ancillary Equip
+ Costcode 11: other ‘support’

The difference between Total Flyaway Cost and Procurement cost is from:
+ Cost code 21: support cost (sum of cost codes 13 thru 20)
– Cost code 23: advanced procurement credit
+ Cost code 25: advanced procurement calender year
+ Cost code 27: Initial spares:
(Cost codes 22, 24, 26 are subtotals)

The difference therefor is in support costs, initial spares, and ‘government accounting’ (i.e. shuffling money back and forth between FYs and CYs)

At any rate what needs to be is apples-to-apples. If you are comparing based on flyaway cost then all being compared must be flyaway cost, if you are comparing based on weapons system cost then all being compared must be weapons system cost, et cetera.

Indeed.

Yes I did.

page 43 of pdf
F-35 Flyaway Unit Cost
FY2007: $247.450 million (02)
FY2008: $215.035 million (06)
FY2009: $199.489 million (08)
FY2010: $158.546 million (12)
FY2011: $124.580 million (24)
FY2012: $101.726 million (42)
FY2013: $091.223 million (48)
Total Program (average): $083.131 million Not here: here’s over 1600 airframes > who can tell today that this is what will actually be sold/ordered in future?

page 55 of pdf
F-22 Flyaway Unit Cost
FY2007: $136.826 million (20)
FY2008: $137.467 million (20)
FY2009: $146.388 million (20)
Total Program (average): $154.267 million
Not here: how many airframes ? > who can tell today that this is what will actually be sold/ordered in future?

Exactly. It continues to drop each & every year until some time after 2015 when full rate production is underway. That is why accelerating LRIP procurement & procuring 150 more F-35s during FY2010-FY2015 (amazing how there is/was no money for additional F-22s but that without any additional F-22 procurement there is money for 150 more LRIP F-35s that will cost about the same as 100-120 additional F-22s would) is more expensive than sticking to the plan & procuring those 150 F-35s during full rate production.

The F-22 has 2 handicaps. F-22 and F-35 for US yield a hi-lo mix of aircraft. Obviously, all other things being equal, the more advanced F-22 should/will cost more than the less advanced F-35. Another key difference between F-35 (lo) and F-22 (hi) is that F-35 development has foreign partners and exports are foreseen (and are more likely). The F-22 was for US consumption only/mainly. That automatically means a smaller production run for F-22, and higher per unit costs. IMHO

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2009 BUDGET ESTIMATES
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Volume I: BUDGET ACTIVITIES 1- 4

F/ A- 18E/ F (FIGHTER) HORNET (MYP)
Unit Cost ($ M)
FY2007 $74.759
FY2008 $87.765
FY2009 $83.486
FY2010 $90.628
FY2011 $93.024
FY2012 $78.865
FY2013 $82.733

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2010 BUDGET ESTIMATES
JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES MAY 2009
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Volume I: BUDGET ACTIVITIES 1-4
see page 23; columns 4 through 9;

cost code 8 (rec. flyaway cost)
FY 2008 unit cost = 52,215.546
FY 2009 unit cost = 54,668.689 < my number for FY 2009
FY 2010 unit cost = 61,725.599

cost code 12 (total flyaway cost)
FY 2008 unit cost = 2,289,464.932/37 = 61,877.431
FY 2009 unit cost = 1,417,297.313/23 = 61,621.622
FY 2010 unit cost = 663,412.169/9 = 73,712.463

cost code 28 (procurement cost)
FY 2008 unit cost = 2,784,795.000/37 = 75,264.730
FY 2009 unit cost = 1,865,650.000/23 = 81,115.217
FY 2010 unit cost = 1,063,655.000/9 = 118,183.889

Your source:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2009 BUDGET ESTIMATES
JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATES FEBRUARY 2008
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Volume I: BUDGET ACTIVITIES 1-4
see page 26; columns 4 through 9;

cost code 8 (rec. flyaway cost)
FY 2007 unit cost = 53,734.000
FY 2008 unit cost = 55,066.000
FY 2009 unit cost = 55,429.000

cost code 12 (total flyaway cost)
FY 2007 unit cost = 2,319,853.000/37 = 62,698.730
FY 2008 unit cost = 1,631,725.000/24 = 67,988.542
FY 2009 unit cost = 1,486,303.000/23 = 64,621.870

cost code 28 (procurement cost)
FY 2007 unit cost = 2,766,098.000/37 = 74,759.405
FY 2008 unit cost = 2,106,370.000/24 = 87,765.417
FY 2009 unit cost = 1,920,168.000/23 = 83,485.565 < your number for FY2009

And what would an F-16 cost if we only made 187 of them?

Surely less than an F-15

Unit cost of F/A-18E/F is US$54.7 million (2009 flyaway cost) [Number built >350 as of 2008 ]

The littoral combat ship Independence (LCS 2) underway

The littoral combat ship Independence (LCS 2) underway during builder’s trials. Builder’s trials are the first opportunity for the shipbuilder and the U.S. Navy to operate the ship underway, and provide an opportunity to test and correct issues before acceptance trials.

A second SeaRAM could easily be added to the hangar roof. As could 2×2 or 2×4 Harpoon.

LCF VLS modules when it was built originally are tactical length, and would have required upgrading if Tomahawks were ordered. I’m not sure if they have been upgraded, which they might do since they are looking to get into the BMD game.

Interest in adding Maritime Tactical Ballistic Missile Defence (MTBMD) capability is not recent, nor is that in adding Tomahawk capability.

A navy study of 2005 mentions both in relation to Mk41. It at least suggest current VLUs are capable of launching BMD-versions of Standard missile and Tactical Tomahawk block IV (TacTom). There is no mention of any modification of current launchers or their swapping out for (a) strike length module(s).
Marine studie 2005 (dutch) see p.13-14
http://www.defensie.nl/_system/handlers/generaldownloadHandler.ashx?filename=/media/Kamerbrief_marinestudie_tcm46-114383.pdf

If indeed fitted with Tactical Mk41, then unless the LCF was designed with space and weight reserved for Strike Mk41, there will have to be structural modifications to the ship. Surely this would be noted in policy docs. (as it would increase the cost of any such projects)

The 2003 ‘state of the union’ adress by the Queen (troonrede) states that the Mk41s on the LCF can fire Tactom.
http://www.hcss.nl/en/download/62/file/20031015_ccss_survey_1.pdf (see p5)

So does this DoD study:
Studie “Grote Oppervlakteschepen Koninklijke marine”
Deelstudie 3 Ondersteuning landoptreden door LC-fregat
en
Deelstudie 4 Vergelijking kruisvluchtwapens en stand off wapens
http://www.defensie.nl/_system/handlers/generaldownloadHandler.ashx?filename=/media/DS34_Studie_GOSKM_tcm46-114897.pdf (see p 12)

If it can fire TacTom, it is strike length.

Indeed, this is what Lockheed Martin says:
“All four new Dutch “LCF” Air Defense and Command frigates will be equipped with Lockheed Martin’s MK41 Vertical Launch System to launch SM2 and ESSM missiles. Each LCF ship has five strike-length launch modules installed. “
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/europe/netherlands/

And the MK41 VLS on the “Sachsen” and “De Zeven Provinzien” are tatical lenght.
Cheers

The basic module is available in three sizes: Strike, Tactical and Self-
Defense. The Strike module is approximately 25 feet (7.6 meters) long and
capable of launching the largest missiles such as those that support sea-based midcourse ballistic missile defense and long-range strike. The Tactical module is approximately 22 feet (6.7 meters) long and capable of accommodating the same missile types as the Strike, except for the Tomahawk land attack cruise missile and those missiles designed for a SMD role. The Tactical module is currently being integrated and installed in ships of the Turkish and Australian navies. The Self-Defense module, at just more than 17 feet (5.2 meters), is ideal for meeting the mission requirements of offshore patrol vessels, corvettes, small frigates and amphibious ships.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf

LCF (DZP class) supposedly equipped in such a way as to be able to fire Tomahawk (though these have not been purchased: planned procurement of the missile got cancelled ). That pretty much rules out the Tactical length VLU as the standard VLU on these ships (unless a single strike length module were to be installed as the 6th VLU module, or – absent additional VLU modules – a tactical module were to be swapped out with a strike module. In both cases, however, there would either have to be below deck space available for the extra length of the strike module (7 feet worth > 1 deck), or an external enlargement (7 ft) would have to be built at the level of the main deck. Neither option is very likely.)
See: here and here

I’m sorry but i find this really hard to belive. I can’t see russia getting ships built in other countries yards. AMybe they need the designs so they can build them there selves but i just can’t see this happening. Russia has cheaper Labour, Empty Ship yards and lots of unemployed. I don’t see the point in building anywhere else.

Hulls built in China, fitted out in Russia? :diablo: