Well… it seems the NAO didn’t do a proper job with its original estimates. Here are numbers from a 1997 Congressional Budget Office analysis.

That’s a unit flyaway cost of $70 mil and unit acquisition cost of ~$110 mil.

Current estimate is $80-85 mil flyaway and unit acquisition cost ~$150 mil.

(^Adjusted for inflation.)

Did you take into account that at this time the US planned for almost 3100 aircraft for itself? 2036 USAF, 480 USN and 609 USMC.

The table below shows the fuel load in different MiG-29 variants. Data for latest versions could change as there are photos of MiG-35 with 4 drop tanks (and a refuelling kit).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246998[/ATTACH]

http://alejandro-8en.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/fuel-load-in-different-mig-29-variants.html

Doesn’t match the figures I have gathered over the years, but in kg instead of l.
These are:
9.12 = 3190 kg
9.13 = 3480 kg
9.15/9.31 = 4460 kg
9.17/19 = 4775 kg
9.61/41 = 5200 kg

So the original M/K had close to 50% more internal fuel, newer versions even more than 50%.

Not sure why it is amusing and the problem is not new, it has been known about for a long time. The issue is one of policy not technical capability and that some partner nations want sourcing, not straight loads.

I would expect that should a near peer conflict occur these concerns would quickly become non issues…

Something like this should be planned from inception. The US itself certainly don’t want to share all of its data concerning emitter and signature libraries/templates and the same is true for other operators. If you plan a programme like this with international partners involved you know about this. It’s an organizational issue that could have been avoided quite easily.

Are you trully comparing a reported Danish acquisition number cost based on a “interesting report” (and to put it mildly, questionable) without a signed contract with the Brasilian program that includes the development of a twin seater, an in house building line, a new data link and a new cockpit?

Let alone that the comparison is programme acquisition cost vs unit fly away cost. But let people believe their sh!t.

So is this supposed to be CGI of their potential FCAS design?

FCAS is not a single design but a system of systems. What we are talking about here is the Next Generation Weapon System, which is the German MoD’s working title for the “Tornado successor”. Thus far it’s a concept what we are looking at and most likely not a final design.

Well why don’t you explain why a tactical bomber like Su-34 with fixed air-intakes, carnards, large humpback for fuel12,400kg and side-by-side crew cockpit has a higher speed regime over F-35A? I mean sinse you seem know..

Because the Su-27 was designed for greater speeds. It’s all about drag in the speed range and its relation to thrust, with the engine intake combation designed for it. The Su-34 retains the basic design, though it lacks the ramps to achieve greater thrust efficiency at higher speeds and is probably somewhat draggier as well. The principal limiting favtor here, however is the intake.

The issue comes from LM defining Supercruise as > M1.5 but if we stick with the conventional definition then the quote is pretty clear.

Some have argued that the above is not possible, or that small/limited AB is required, but supporting evidence for the above comes from an interview with RAAF SQNLDR Andrew Jackson who stated specifically flying at M1.2 @ 40k. He wasn’t asked about SC, he stated those numbers at the end of the interview in the context of how much he enjoys his day and being able to fly the aircraft. For me Jackson’s comments are the evidence that supports the original claim.

There was Lt. Col Griffith stating

“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going … you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you’re pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising,” Griffiths said. “So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air.” (Lt. Col. Griffiths, from a defensenews article)

Bear in mind that Germany was completely demilitarized after WW II. When the FRG rearmament programme began in the mid 50s several restrictions were imposed on the size and capability of the German armed forces. The FRG furthermore was only partially souvereign until the reunification. Its airspace was mainly controlled by the US and the UK. The GAF’s fighter wings only augmented the USAFE and RAFG units.

As stated the F-4F was a cut down version of the F-4E with a degraded radar and inability to support the Sparrow as well as PGMs. I doubt the GAF said it didn’t want the then still new BVR capability. It was simply not approved to them at that time.