It’s the difference between average & marginal cost. Very simple arithmetic.

Oh yeah, in a week where classical capitalist models were given a damn good kickin’, here has emerged the neo-neo-model where “volume production savings” trump Economies of Scale.

I guess by your model the next batch of F-22s will come in @$100K apiece (average, not marginal)- Simple.

If the economical situation continues like that, the forces will face a 50% cut from one FY to the next. The F-22 is already here. Super Hornet is here. Other new toys – cut. CVN fleet – cut. Bomber 2018 – cut. F-35 – who knows…

You know, this US Govt. bailout & recapitalisation is going to run into several trillions of $ over the coming years- it’ll have to go beyond G7 to G20 to finance it.

In such a climate I can see the F-35 at best shelved, at worst cancelled. Ironically, the F-22 line may re-open with LRIP, Boeing’s SH will almost certainly be the ‘beneficiary’. Even a prolonged presence in Iraq will not be financially sustainable.

What credit-crunch?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=auPHMMVXYA80&refer=latin_america

So the next batch are essentially navalised MiG-35s with tvc, (if true) this is starting to sound like the MMRCA consolation prize for MiG.

JSF Leaders Back In The Fight (AW&ST)
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 9/22/2008 8:40 AM CDT

I was on vacation on Friday and somehow missed the announcement of the press conference that the JSF program office called to further publicize the Wheeler-Sprey attacks on the program and the Australian reports that JSFs had been “clubbed like baby seals” in a Pacific wargame. Moreover, apparently, government program manager Maj Gen Charles Davis accused program critics of having “agendas”.

Whatever can he mean by that?

The office is clearly worried that the reports are gaining traction around its customers, particularly since we now know what the Dutch expression neergeknuppeld als zeehondjes means.

The release which accompanied the stealth teleconference touted the JSF’s capabilities, leading with the claim that “USAF analyses show the … F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.”

This statement is about as informative as a Ginsu knife infomercial. Moreover, it’s made just as Graham Warwick reports (subscription) that Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch, stated last week: “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.”

There is surely a universe where these two statements are compatible, but we don’t live there.

One analyst suggests to DTI that what the JSF office’s claim most likely means is that the F-35 has demonstrated a 4:1 advantage over adversaries in a simulation such as TAC BRAWLER.

The next question here is what data was put in. If it’s assumed:
– that the F-35 can close to a range where AMRAAM has a kill probability (Pk) above 0.75, without being detected
– that jamming, maneuvering and RCS reduction don’t reduce that Pk
– that the adversaries use line-abreast tactics so that they all get a shot at the same time

… then four F-35s will take out three out of four Su-35s or Typhoons (assuming these to be the top end threats or competitors) every time. You then hope that the survivor will turn and run, rather than counting eight missile shots and proceeding to avenge his buddies at the expense of the now-unarmed F-35s.

My guess would be that the model assumes all the points above, and also does not allow for any serious tactics (like operating in a widely spaced box, as Gripens do, switching radar transmissions from one aircraft to another).

It also does not allow for situations where JSF is outnumbered: if the threats are anywhere close to 2:1, it’s bad news if you only have two missiles. This is most likely the situation that gives Maj Koch nightmares.

The problem, as an analyst points out, is that air-to-air missile Pks are never 1.0 and are usually lower in combat than in tests; the more AAMs you have, the less that matters, which is why the F-22 and Typhoon pack eight missiles each.

Another key claim: “In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. …More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35’s aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.”

Reading the above carefully, it appears that what is being compared here is the F-35A (not the B, which has much less fuel) with a Typhoon or Su-35 carrying bombs, AAMs and a targeting pod. In that case, you may show an advantage in top speed (because most fighters aren’t cleared supersonic with external A-G weapons) and subsonic acceleration. But do not forget that we started talking air-to-air and now it’s air-to-surface: Su-35 or Typhoon, with AAMs and tanks punched, are more likely to outrun and out-accelerate JSF.

But perhaps the most remarkable statement from the release is attributed to Tom Burbage: “Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access – all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again.”

Jeebus on a Vespa… I have been writing about LO technology for 28 years and I have never heard anyone make a claim like this. Stealth means that you are hard to detect, harder to track and harder still to engage, but it doesn’t make you invisible, particularly after large explosions have alerted the adversary to your presence.

If the F-35 can really do all that, why did the USAF spend billions on supercruise, rear-aspect stealth and supermaneuverability (the reason for 2D vectoring nozzles) for the F-22? And does this mean that the all-aspect/wideband LO tech on the B-2 and X-47B UCAS is superfluous?

[End].

Still its not going to have alot of competition is it, i mean flankers are out of date and RCS disasters, the PAK-FA is, well vapour ware and no other country is making stealth fighters/attackers. JSF should have it easy.

You are right, I stand corrected, LM has discovered Alien technology in the last 15 minutes…forgive my insolence- I’ve been pre-occupied on deciding which ‘distressed assets’ to purchase- kinda like the US DoD.

Su-35 will give any affluent bush bandit incredible reach for his military ambitions. 1500km out. Russians should make sure they have a nice assortment of (actually working) PGMs for it.

…and only Venezuelan Beauty Queens should be trained to fly them 😎

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4781027.ece

Nice pics Ken, you lucky devil 😉 I particularly like the fighter-style control sticks in the Be-200’s cockpit.