128 million includes initial spares and support.

OTOH, if lifecycle (I suppose 30 years?) spares and support were included, that would be 238 million (http://defense-update.com/20120505_us-congress-formally-notified-of-japans-f-35-purchase.html ). But this amount is not payed before delivery.

And remind me please, if you know, is the F-35 figure for an aircraft with an engine or do we have to add the cost of the engine to the $120m to get a real price?

The weapon system cost for the first F 35 exported is 128 million (engine included,. BTW). : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/us-lockheed-fighter-japan-idUSBRE85S0VE20120629

The chart about the range of the F-22A shows how LM has cooked the numbers. The reader has to ignore that and to look into the related details reduced to a minimum ( f.e. the hi-lo-lo-hi mission profile of the F-15E without the exact height and distance) to work up his own mind about that. 😡

On the contrary, the chart shows honesty ! If they would forget to mention the hi/lo/lo/hi plofile for the F 15E, that would have been cheating.

Not that the USAF chiefs didnt screw its fast jet fleet by failing to recognise/adress the cost issues with the desired “all LO/VLO fleet”, but the civilian leadership is far from being an inpolute group of angels. Barrel pork politics in Pentagon acquisition policy has an awfull lot to do with “wich state profits the most”.

Exactly! You should spread the aquisition in as many states as possible, in order to win Congress representatives from those states, thus ruining one of the strongest advantages of US firms– a simplified logistic chain. You should bring some small&medium companies, also to throw in some minorities owned companies, and so on.

Still that cheap nonsense claim about politicans.

Really? There was an USAF chief of staff sacked because he insisted on more F 22.

It’s not like the Congress set a limmit (in $$$) and the USAF can do what it really likes with.

In F 35 case, the export perspectives weight at least as USAF real needs.

Are they? Lol.:D

http://nation.time.com/2012/11/02/unfriendly-f-22-fire/

Coming from their own midst..
What a commie traitor!
– Lets crusify him the the wall for this!!

Did you read the article?

He said that the F 22 is too A-A specialized:

The aircraft’s maximum range is slightly superior to that of the F-16 but significantly inferior(*) to that of the F-15C, which it was designed to replace. This fact has three important consequences: operational missions need more air-to-air tanker support, the F-22 has a limited ability to deeply penetrate hostile airspace, and pilots cannot take full advantage of the F-22’s supercruise capability. The aircraft has also proven more difficult to maintain than originally anticipated. The Air Force acknowledged that the F-22’s “radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.” The service needs to maintain these coatings continuously to ensure the combat readiness of F-22s, thereby significantly increasing the necessary maintenance manpower (and cost). Moreover, even traditional (non-stealth-related) maintenance rates proved initially higher with the F-22 compared to those of older fighters. However, rates have improved vastly as maintenance personnel have acquired more experience. For example, the mean time between maintenance amounted to .97 flight hours in 2004, but that for newer F-22s has recently increased to 3.22 flight hours.

(*) I suppose that he meant inferior to the F15 with 3 EFTs

However, he praises its qualities:

In terms of performance, the initial operational test and evaluation in 2004 The F-22 Acquisition Program found the F-22 “overwhelmingly effective.” Air Force analysts reinforced this evaluation recently, estimating that the F-22 exchange ratio is up to 30 times better than that for F-15s, F-16s, or F/A-18s in similar high-threat scenarios. Although fourth-generation pilots are used to “seeing” nonstealth fighters 50 miles or more away with their radars, they typically fail to detect F-22s with their radar, visually or otherwise. Today’s F-22 clearly excels at its originally designed air-to-air mission, reinforcing the fact that stealth enables tremendous advantages in the radar-dominated environment of modern aerial combat. Further, the F-22 has demonstrated a capability to conduct air-toground attack in high-threat environments where fourth-generation fighters simply cannot survive. Advanced surface-to-air-missile systems such as the Russian S-300 (North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] designations SA-10 and SA-20) are the deciding factor in these environments. The S-300, similar to the American Patriot surface-to-air missile, has been operational since 1980. Although no Middle Eastern country currently possesses S-300s, Iran has expressed interest, and both China and Russia have fielded large numbers of them. This system can engage fourth-generation fighters at ranges exceeding 100 miles. A single S-300 battalion has the potential to render F-15Es, F-16s, and F/A-18s incapable of striking targets within a circle approximatlly 200 miles across. Additionally, the follow-on S-400 (NATO designation SA-21) further improves maximum engagement range. Fortunately, F-22s can utilize their stealth to operate effectively well inside the maximum engagement ranges of these systems

And he said that the F 22 should be designed differently:

If the service’s leaders had realized that surface-to-air-missile systems were eclipsing air-to-air threats as the primary danger to future air operations, they could have better leveraged the investment in ATF demonstration/evaluation to counter weapons like the S-300. The ATF’s stealth made the aircraft inherently more survivable against these threats, but it lacked a robust air-to-ground attack capability to target them. Furthermore, niche air-to-air capabilities such as thrust vectoring and some specialized avionics could have been eliminated to reduce cost and weight. Range should have received more emphasis, possibly even at the expense of supercruise. In addition to JDAMs, the Air Force should have added air-to-ground radar, Link-16 data-link transmit capability, and an infrared targeting sensor. These modifications would have greatly enhanced the F-22’s utility in threat environments dominated by surface threats without degrading air-to-air performance.

So, more range, no SC, no TV, AG radar modes, IR sensors…sound like an aircrfat I know…:p

BTW, DJcross refers to the threads prior to 2005, where many posters (of course Europeans), described the F 22 as a non-maneuvrabile airplane (because the compromises made for steallth :p), a plane that will never be able to pull a Cobra. Of course, once the F 22 appeared in airshows, the posters were silenced. Bur of course, the same persons had an orgasm when the F22 “choke its pilots”, or when some idiot reporters comme with the “1 trillion dollar” programm. OF course some detailes escape them, like that the sum its all the US tri-services will spent for 50 years of manufacture/operation of 2500 planes…

High up in optimum conditions an “eagle-eye” can spot a small fighter at 10 nm distance at best. Worse atmospheric conditions and at lower levels that will shrink to much even lower limits when hitting zero in clouds or at night. WVR is just the distance some IFF can done by eye-sight or where the “short-range” IR-AAMs can be used.

I think you know that IR AAMs can be cued by radar. A decent radar has some 3 radar modes for WVR: supersearch, boresight and vertical scan. With radar you can “spot” a small fighter longer than 10 nm

BVR weapons with radar support can hit targets behind the 10 nm limit in all atmospheric conditions. Before the AIM-120 the IR-AAMs were the preferred choise for faster instant use and much cheaper as well.
Without the related details non serious can claim we had a WVR or BVR shot. That 10 nm limit is just a fictional one to distinguish between the shorter range IR-AAMs and the longer range AAMs fired behind that limit. All that shots are BVR whatever the details were. 😉

I said myself that many of the “BVR” shots were BVR only because the target was running from the shooter. It was a BVR because you have no chance to kill it with an IR AAM, but it was a WVR in regard of distance. What I said was to correct the other poster who said that most of the kills were with IR missiles.