Obviously those are best case values. No target will be pulling 12g at 4000 km/h. But still it is reasonable to believe that this missile will be superior to anything fielded in the West.

Here we go with the KS-172 business again? :rolleyes:

People have been talking about that missile since the early 90s, and where is it today 20+ years later?

If we applied the same standards to Western missiles as we do to Russian ones…

Ramjet powered HARM for internal carriage…

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-lifts-veil-on-ramjet-powered-harm-223342/

A test article flew with a Meteor style VFDR motor a few years ago…

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/navys-turbochar/

Naturally there are ramjet AMRAAM studies…

July 1997

ATLANTIC RESEARCH(ARC) has successfully ground tested a rocket-ramjet engine which could double the range of the Hughes AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

The June boost-sustain transition trial of the variable-flow ducted rocket (VFDR) was the final step before flight testing.

The VFDR is a solid-fuel rocket engine which transitions to ramjet operation, burning fuel-rich rocket-exhaust gases with air ducted into the combustion chamber.

Design features include a debris-free “nozzleless” booster, which eliminates the need for an ejectable rocket-boost nozzle. The solid-ramjet fuel generator allows for long-term storage of the missile, while a control valve modulates the gaseous fuel exhaust to provide variable thrust. This can be used to increase speed, decrease flight time and extend missile range.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/arc-tests-rocket-ramjet-for-amraam-21062/

There is also NCADE…

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/web/page/1106/sectionid/557/pagelevel/3/interior.aspx

…and ALHTK

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/03/open-thread-on-the-rise-of-air.html

We can’t forget everyone’s favorite, CUDA.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/

Of course I could go on and on, but what is the point?

When the missiles I just listed come up people around here point out, rightly, that most of them don’t appear to have gone anywhere yet. (At least not publicly.)

That brings me back to the KS-172 and to some extent other Russian missiles that haven’t shown any real progress toward becoming operational. Everyone is conducting studies and working on various research projects, but until a real budget is given to a program and you start seeing extensive test firings it is just a research project.

His contention is that there is not much “demonstrated” ability on part of the DOD or the JPO to accurately predict price 5-8 years down the road. They have failed misserably in the past which does not inspire much confidence. Lets take it one step at a time, We know what the price is for Lot 4,5 , we would know soon enough what Lot 6 would cost…Beyond that, its very hard to calculate as we do not yet know how MUCH of a hurdle still requires to be crossed before IOC for all three varients…As the Auditor and Program head said, there is still quite a bit of RISK attached to the program and any further stumble would mean that the services would have to SCALE BACK capability to stay on budget (or cut orders) as he does not intend on seeking more money from the congress….

Treading cautiously has never hurt anyone, and if you look at the program cheifs interview he was very cautious…Even GAO which has given the most positive outlook (by it) has still cautioned as there is quite a bit of RISK involved…Fixes to serious problems have to be implemented and verified, fixes to some problems need to be designed…Future testing needs to be conducted smoothly..Software pace needs to pick up etc etc ..

Certainly risk remains. It is a developmental aircraft afterall and not yet into full production.

I just get tired of all the incessant doom and gloom or worse, transparently disingenuous arguments from some. The chief of the program believes $90 million in 2020 dollars is achievable and I expect that he was being conservative as other estimates have put the number lower.

The key things to watch this year are the pricing of the next couple production lots, and most importantly the planned production ramp starting in 2015.

Thats something that i also raised in the F-35 thread some days ago. With the DAS/EOTS combo, the F-35 can benefit immensely from a MICA IR type of missile. OR MBDA can perhaps benefiting by designing a IR version of the Meteor given the market size for JSF weapons 😉 ….

Or Raython further develops this :

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ncade/

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ncade-an-abm-amraam-03305/

For me this just shows how “Ahead of its time” the MICA-IR really was…

Raytheon is already working on the Stunner with Rafael. When the Stunner becomes the Python-6, expect to see it on the F-35.

Thanks, this is excellent information.

Two observations:

1. When buying a new a/c, a lot of other stuff is bought together with the a/c.
2. The F-35 has a lot of stuff integrated, that is not integrated in a 4. gen, and some stuff that is not even in a 4.5 gen fighter.

http://www.deagel.com/news/FMS-Brazil-Seeks-36-FA-18EF-Super-Hornets_n000006453.aspx

7 billion for 36 SH. Granted, there are also some Sidewinders, JDAM, and HARMs in there. But the rest is what you would normally expect in such an offer. If we assume the munitions cost around 50 million USD, this means that the rest would cost 6.95 billion USD.

With a unit cost of approx. 50 million USD, the actual a/c themselves make up only 1.8 billion USD, 25% of the total price.

Had an F-35 been bought instead,things like the ATFLIR pods and EW systems would be integrated.

Thus an F-35 package would not be 100% more expensive than an SH, it would not even be 25% more expensive…(assuming it would not include any of those expensive LRIPs)

In the FMS to South Korea, 60 F-35A was offered for 10.8 billion.

Compare that to 6.95 billion USD for 36 SH.

The SK offer is 55% more expensive than the Brazil offer. However SK will get 67% more fighter units.

Another way of calculating it would be that Brazil would pay 193 million USD per SH (all included) whereas SK will pay 180 million USD per F-35, so actually a lower unit price… 😀

This is not a fair comparison of course due to the quite different numbers of a/c.

Assume that each additional SH (including all the pods, etc) cost 85 million extra. We would then have to add 2.04 billion to the 6.95 billion to arrive at the same number of a/c. This brings us to 8.99 billion. IF all assumptions hold this would make the F-35 package 20% more expensive to a comparative SH package. However my 85 million USD estimate is perhaps much too conservative?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Somebody gets it!

No you just need an unbiased head and a bit of common sense.

Unbiased? Stop thinking like cheerleader. This isn’t team red vs team blue here.

I already said I thought the Rafale would have the advantage overall, but this business of guessing RCSs from pictures is just stupid.

The Rafale is a 4th generation fighter with some moderate RCS reductions. The Su-35 has also received some moderate RCS reductions.

Neither aircraft is going to have a substantial advantage over the other in RCS while flying armed.

This has never happened in the modern history of jet aviation. Whatever claims might have been made and whatever numbers were quoted, the prices have steadily risen up, never down. Even with 5,000+ sellers like F-4 Phantom II. Of course, the capabilities have risen, too, no one denies that.

Untrue of course… :rolleyes:

Prices have frequently fallen as production has ramped up. Going from ~32 F-35s a year to 120-200+ will most certainly result in cost savings. This should be common sense but I suppose common doesn’t mean universal.

Later F-35s will likely, too, be different from what they are today. LM will use every opportunity to provide another update, another upgrade, another Block with even more weapon integration just to squeeze another additional billion from the design. And they will use these upgrades as an excuse for another rise in cost instead of the promised falling prices. And worshippers on this forum will use the same excuse as a backup escape plan from their previous predictions about how cheap the F-35 would become one day.

:rolleyes:

On a long enough timeline F-35 prices will rise if only due to inflation. This is reflected in price projections already.

What you seem to be mixing up is that when F-35 production ramps it will do so in just a few years… but the total production run will extend across decades.

Prices will drop, then essentially bottom out, and then likely rise over the course of the program.

The later F-16 variant might have grown fatter and heavier, but its a far cry to state they become more complex and thereby the price.. Its no excuse, its just how the cost figures goes as time go by. Up Up and Up.

Nice try though.. :p

Ahh, post like these allways makes me smile:D

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1275632&postcount=606

It is hardly just a case of an aircraft putting on weight over time. The entire role of the aircraft has been dramatically re-shaped and essentially every bit of avionics has been replaced at least once somewhere along the way.

You are also looking at the effects of decades of inflation, plus the F-16 hasn’t been in high-rate production in some time. The UAE order for instance was a huge order by current export standards, but it was still just 80 jets.

Back in the day they were producing better than 240 F-16s a year.

If you are actually interested in educating yourself look here:

http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article18.html

That is a complete BS. Those prices are not for the initial small testing batches. If they were, I would completely understand that. But the quotes for Canada or Norway talk about $180+ million for EVERY aircraft delivered, not just the first 3-4.

First off, the F-35s coming off the line today are most certainly among the initial production batches so you are just flat wrong there.

As for the 180+ million numbers being thrown about… you just have to understand how pricing works… and clearly you don’t. :rolleyes:

Switzerland will pay far less for the 22 fighter jets it is planning to buy from the Swedish company Saab than Sweden itself would pay for the aircraft, the Swiss public broadcaster SF reported.

Sweden confirms sale of Gripen to Switzerland (28 Aug 12)
Swiss will press on with Swedish fighter jet deal (22 Aug 12)
Sweden to lend Gripen fighters to Switzerland (29 Jun 12)

Switzerland is to buy the JAS-39 Gripen combat jets for 100 million Swiss francs ($107 million) each, SF reported late Sunday, citing unnamed sources in both Switzerland and Sweden.

That price is between 15 to 30 percent below the level Sweden itself has agreed to pay for the planes, according to the broadcaster’s sources.

Stockholm has said it plans to buy between 40 to 60 Gripen jets, but has not said revealed how much it will pay for each.

http://www.thelocal.se/44974/20121210/

Remember, the Gripen NG is the “cheap” option… :confused: