More on missiles for F-35:

“FORT WASHINGTON, Md. — Lockheed Martin is showing three conceptual air-launched missiles at the Air Force Association (AFA) show outside Washington this week, two of which are air-to-air weapons.

The Supersonic Testbed Risk Reduction (SSTRR) represents work on a future weapon in the same size class as the AIM-120 Amraam. The company is carrying out trade studies involving air-breathing and rocket propulsion, including multi-pulse motors, hit-to-kill technology and different guidance technologies. “Everyone wants everything,” a Lockheed Martin engineer explains. “If everyone in the room is crying, we’ve got it about right.”

On show for the first time at AFA is a model of Lockheed Martin’s Cuda, a so-called “Halfraam” weapon about half as long as an Amraam and compact enough to fit six missiles into each bay of the F-35 or F-22. Cuda draws on the hit-to-kill technology used on the PAC-3 missile, is designed to have a radar seeker and has both movable tails and forward attitude control motors for high agility. The company is not disclosing Cuda’s design range, but one variation of the concept is a two-stage missile with a similar total length to Amraam, presumably with the goal of covering a wide range envelope with a single missile design.

…”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_09_17_2013_p05-01-617260.xml

I expect to see a lot of progress on next generation missiles in the next year or two. Clearly the big players expect to see new requirements come down in the coming months and are looking to get ahead of the curve.

The two-stage CUDA concept is particularly interesting. Certainly it would result in an intriguing blend of range/speed and terminal maneuverability. It would also allow a lot of load-out flexibility. You could put two two-stage Cudas on the air to ground station and two each on the doors. (Total load of 4 long range and 4 medium-short range or you could trade two of the half-length Cudas on one of the bay doors for another two-stage Cuda and get a 5 x long range and 2 x medium-short range, a load just shy of what an F-22 has today.)

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/110530/lockheed-seals-final-f-35-deals

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/148334/lockheed-wins-%248.3-bn-contract-for-71-f_35s.html

So LRIP 6 and 7 still seem to be being brought at about $116 million a piece and that’s excluding engine costs.

LRIP6 (excludes engine)

F-35A – USD$103 million
F-35B – USD$109 million
F-35C – USD$120 million

LRIP7 (excludes engine)

F-35A – USD$98 million
F-35B – USD$104 million
F-35C – USD$116 million

LRIP 6 engines cost $1 billion for 39 engines (36+3 spares):

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/uk-unitedtechnologies-fighter-engines-ex-idUKBRE97P0L820130826

That adds about $25.6 million per aircraft BUT the distribution is difficult to work out without details as F-35B engine is more costly than F-35A/C and I’m not sure what contract is made up of in terms of support packages.

Good news is costs are falling. Bad news is this plane still costs a mint!

In anycase it seems LRIP 6/7 is still chugging along at $120+ million a piece.

At least there’s still LRIP8-11 to get price down.

All assuming US government can get it’s @#$% together – 2013 and another Congress v President budget showdown. Is it news if it’s a regular occurence?

The engines for the F-35As cost ~14 million each. The B version’s engine/lift fan system is far more expensive skewing the average up.

“Pratt will not release its unit price, but a defense official says each F-35A engine costs roughly $14 million, and each F-35B engine is about $38 million.”

See: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_05_2013_p30-602514.xml

Figure about ~112 million with engine in LRIP 7, still expensive but a lot of progress when you consider they haven’t even ramped production up yet.

This cost is the one you actually have to pay. That’s what matters, in the end.. Getting some hypothetical quote for a bulk missile you cannot even transport to your place, let alone operate, makes sense only for those who want to artificially highlight its affordability which does not really exist.

When Indians signed a contract worth 950mil for 500 MICA ER, this, too, included ancillary equipment, support and training. There is no way around it.

For the purposes of comparison it is essentially useless because you can’t tell what is in the package. When kiddies take a total package price and divide it by the number of missiles/jets/etc they end up with ridiculous numbers. (just like you did) We have official unit prices from the SAR.

If/when an export customer buys a significant order of Meteor we may get a more apples to apples comparison…. but we may not. Again, there is just too much variability in the content of the packages. Some portion of maintenance/support could be covered in a separate contract for instance.

Bottom line, the approach you tried to take will never work for anything other than making you look foolish.

General Electric is also involved with AETD program. Are they basing it on the F136 or a New Power Plant???

At least part of GE’s AETD powerplant is derived from a commercial engine, but I don’t know the heritage of that engine and whether it might share any of its design with the F136.

“GE’s adaptive cycle engine integrates proven commercial engine technologies: the next-generation LEAP* high-pressure compressor; heat-resistant ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) in the combustor and high-pressure turbine; and additive manufactured components that result in a 25 percent improvement in fuel efficiency, a 30 percent increase in aircraft operating range and a five-to-10 percent improvement in thrust compared to today’s most advanced military combat engines.”

http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20130729.html

Regardless of what they are basing it on the program requirements stipulate that it be an essentially drop-in replacement for the F135 so that won’t be an issue.

Well… Ahem. There will not be any AESA Sqd… Because RBE2AESA will be spammed upon Sqds. In a way you are absolutely true, France do not have enough money to entertain full AESA Sqds. Oh and btw there will be towed decoys on indain Rafales, AdlA do not want them and went to LEA program. Ooops forgot, HMS scheduled for Rafale MLU which wont be much further F35 FOC. … Still awaiting something like that…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]221372[/ATTACH]

Towed decoys if the Indian contract materializes… a helmet mounted sight sometime in the future… these are things that have been operational elsewhere for over a decade. I don’t intend for this to turn into yet another round and round slap-fight. My point is simply that the Rafale is a long way from leading the pack in more than a few areas so lets not get too excited about demonstrating a capability in a test environment that will be imminently operational on the Aim-9x block II.

Every so called “4th gen” fighters are sharpening their claws , and eagerly awaiting competition vs F35, future will tell us. Oh btw did you ever hear about smthing called MICA NG?

Whatever… the F-35 is already competing with its various 4th generation predecessors and so far it has nothing to worry about.

Funny how such a simple sentence heated up some ppl… And funny how they talk about meteor the same way F35 skeptics talk about F35…
So what do we have in the end? Elusive manouvers prediction, certainty of identification, datalinks etc.

Um… huh? You made yourself look like a fool. The AMRAAM program is under no threat whatsoever from Meteor. The AMRAAM is cheaper, more mature, and is already likely the most widely deployed missile in the world today. Nobody questions whether the Meteor will offer some improved capabilities relative to the AMRAAM, but there is zero chance of the Meteor killing the AMRAAM program because of the sheer scale of the program. Forces around the world will be stocking up on AMRAAMs for years and years to come and the AMRAAM may well continue in production well after its successor enters service for that reason alone.

If i was a humourist i would pont that the shoot behind via datalink (3rd pary targeting) capability of sidewinder 9X has been shown many years ago on mica.
Not to take in account capabilities revealed by Vianney Riller JR on defesanet which F35 is years behind….
Btw i’m fully aware that F35 will have capabilities Rafale do not.
End of WE, will be more serious next week 😉

…and if I were a “humourist” (I think the word you are looking for is “troll.”) I would point out that Dassault just delivered its first Rafale equipped with an AESA… and that at the rate it is delivering said planes it will take another two years of production to equip one single squadron with such. (Assuming a squadron at ~20 jets plus a few spares.) Or we could talk about helmet mounted sights… or towed decoys…

Integration of Meteor would mean death of AMRAAM program…

:rolleyes:

The “death” of a program that scored its first kill 20+ years ago and already has its replacement in the works?

Seriously for a moment, the AMRAAM will one day go out of production but it is more than sufficient for the threats in service today and its price advantage over the Meteor virtually ensures it will stay in production for some time to come.