If there was a modification to an existing contract, that would also show as a separate entry.

This is why the latest LM contract starts with:

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $3,485,385,767 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-09-C-0010).

I have found the original contract award notice.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $3,485,385,767 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-09-C-0010). This modification converts contract type for the efforts described below from a cost-plus-incentive-fee to a fixed-price-incentive (firm target) for the manufacture and delivery of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter low rate initial production Lot IV aircraft. This modification provides for the procurement of 10 conventional take-off and landing aircraft for the U.S. Air Force; 16 short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps; one STOVL aircraft for the United Kingdom Royal Navy; and four carrier variant aircraft for the U.S. Navy. In addition, this modification provides for the procurement of associated ancillary mission equipment, flight test instrumentation, and manufacturing support equipment. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in March 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $21,773,633 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This modification combines purchases for the U.S. Air Force ($1,099,960,361; 31.6 percent); the U.S. Marine Corps ($1,685,707,859; 48.4 percent); the U.S. Navy ($582,147,988; 16.6 percent); and the United Kingdom ($117,569,559; 3.4 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

A few things that we can derive from this announcement.

1. This is the Flyaway cost (not REC Flyaway) as it includes ancillary equipment, support equipment, etc.

2. We can now see the per-type cost.

3. This includes engines (as there are no contract awards to Pratt for the F135, only long lead F135 awards).

4. They were able to contract this for far less than the FY2010 budget estimate.

5. The F-35B seems to be cheaper than the F-35A when bought in these quantities (16 vs 10).

Here is the cost breakdown:

Contract Price $3,485,385,767 </p>
<p>Plane Percent Qty Total Per Plane FY2010 Est % Cheaper<br />
F-35A 31.6% 10 1,099,960,361 $109,996,036 $188,404,400 41.62<br />
F-35B 48.4% 16 1,685,707,859 $105,356,741 $187,640,600 43.85<br />
F-35C 16.6% 4 582,147,988 $145,536,997 $187,640,600 22.44<br />
F-35UK 3.4% 1 117,569,559 $117,569,559

I will be first to say that something seems off. Either that or someone seriously overestimated the FY2010 budget estimate.

Likely missing elements are long lead payments already made.

Sorry, that’s not how procurement works. LM is not being promised a long term profit and the DoD aint paying for it.

LRIP 4 cost what it costs and nothing more.

When they shut down the F-35 line (either in 20 years or 2) there will be additional “line closing” costs just like the F-22 line, but no ability to add uncollected profit from shortened orders.

If something after LRIP4 gets reduced then that LRIP will cost more than it was projected but will not effect LRIP4 prices.

btw, LRIP4 is not tentative pricing. There are 2 price points, expected and ceiling. LM & DoD will share any costs (50/50) on anything that goes above expected but below the ceiling. Anything above ceiling is on LM 100%.

IR tracking is only the 2nd half of IRST, don’t forget that the S stands for Search.

UCAVs are decades away from replacing manned missions, especially in the A2A arena that the F-22 lives in.

In order for a missile to use HOJ, the missile has to detect the jamming signal. If the missile is a SAM type and the fire-control radar is the one being jammed, the missile itself is not the jamming target. With the current ALQ-99 the jamming signal is sent in a very large cone that would likely also cover the incoming missile. In this instance the missile could prosecute the mission in HOJ mode.

With the NGJ, and it’s AESA antenna, the jamming signal is a very narrow beam that will likely not include the incoming missile in it’s cone. In this instance the missile is not likely to detect the jamming signal and will not enter HOJ mode.

Think of it this way: I shine a flashlight in your eyes (acquisition and fire-control radar) from 30 feet away and you cannot see me. Your friend (the SAM), standing 10 feet to your right can easily see the light and can guide himself to me. This is how HOJ & older tech jammers work.

Now NGJ and all AESA jammers works differently. I now shine a laser in your eyes from the same 30 feet. However, because the beam is so tight and there are virtually no side-lobes, your friend 10 feet to your right can not see the laser and cannot guide himself to me.

Now throw in “Cooperative EW”. Instead of just me at 30 feet, a few of my friends (other NGJ and APG-81 sets) are scattered around you and we all take turns shining a laser at your eyes. Even if you could HOJ, which one would you choose? Next, as you made your choice and flew to a target what would you do if that target stopped shining the laser (but all my fiends still did)? How would your friend find me now?

There is no other emitter that a HOJ missile can home in on except for jamming signals (Home On Jamming). Again, if you have information that shows that missiles in HOJ mode can home in on some other emission besides jamming, please share it.

There are many docs that cover the NGJ project going back 7 years at least. On many of them they discuss the needs of NGJ and here are some:

1. Reduced Side Lobes. This is where AESA (or phased array) antennas shine. If you are jamming the ground radar, the missile itself has a much lower chance to see the jamming and will not likely be able to HOJ. Nothing makes you completely safe from HOJ (just like VLO does not make you invisible), but an AESA based jammer makes it very unlikely that a missile will see a jamming signal that is not directed at the missile.

Currently the ALQ-99’s jammer shines a large cone of jamming in any one location. Each ALQ-99 has 2 transmitter horns and can jam two locations at the same time. I am not privy to the size of those cones, but I would imagine they are easily in the double-digit range. AESA signals, OTOH, are less than a degree in width and are thereby harder to detect unless you are the subject of the jamming. This is exactly why AESA radars are harder to detect unless you are the one being scanned.

2. Multi-beam Phased array transmitters (yes it’s on page 52 of the above linked PDF). This lets the jammer react to multiple emmiters virtually simultaneously.

3. Low/High band modules. The NGJ is envisioned to have only two sets of transmitter pods. This differs from the ALQ-99’s 6+ configurations (of which each ALQ-99 can only hold 2 of the 6). This way the EA aircraft can go with a 1x highband, 2x highband & 1x lowband, or 4x highbnad & 1x lowband (1, 3, or 5 pod setup) configuration. The final configs have not been set as we are still in the early development cycle.

That transmitting antenna will be AESA.