I know, I was referring to the current lack of internal jammers in the F-22 and F-35.

Here is the USN’s Open Solicitation for the NGJ. Lots of info here.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/doing_business/open_solicitations/solicitation_view_action.cfm?Sol_No=N00019-09-R-0238

And why would you do this?

Why to use an important resource like a radar as an ECM jammer?

Why not leave that task to specialized pods? or special aircrafts? while the others systems/planes concentrate on what they can do best?

Why would you split the radar’s energy for this kind of thing?

Is a stupid idea

Very simple reasons.

1. With an AESA based jammer, EVERY fighter gets to have one. No need to ship around pods or dedicated EW aircraft.

2. It does not need to loose a hardpoint to a pod. It can cary more weapons and/or fuel.

3. An AESA based jammer can focus more jamming energy on the target than any current pod.

Well, the Marines used to run OV-10 Broncos from L class carriers.

Sounds good to me.

Fracture… aka crack 😉

IIRC the leading contender for the F-35’s DIRCM is a Australian firm.

That is a claim only. The test-program of the F-35 will be finished in 2016, when no more nasty surprises will show up. Just all F-35s built after that milestone will be up to specifications verified by the related test or in short the US military will get full capable F-35s and the price fetched is about production cost only.
From that time scale we learn about the real cost and the capabilities delivered for that.

2016 is for the end of OT&E (and that’s stretching it a bit), not DT&E. Block 3 F-35s will start rolling off the line in 2013/2014 with the USAF/USN IOC. Not only that, but contracts are already being signed to upgrade Blk1&2 F-35s to Blk3.

They did not make the same mistake they did with the F-22 in which they changed the F-22’s avionics infrastructure half way through the program.

Cola, you obviously have no grasp of the acquisition process, or basic math for that matter. I’ll see you back here in 6 days when the FY2011 docs are released and we know the FINAL price for LRIP3 aircraft.

There are a few things that puzzle me at the present moment. Are the LRIP F-35’s that are being built and ordered just now the complete final aircraft?

No

Do they have all the system and weapon integration done that is required for the final aircraft.

No

Also are these aircraft built for combat service once they are finished the test program or do they require upgrades before that could happen.

The first batches of the F-35 are destined for the OT&E squadrons. They will also be used to stand up Eglin AFB, where all the initial training squadrons will be for all 3 services & foreign pilot training.

Only the first 4 LRIP cycles are being produced with the Block 1&2 config. That is a total of 58 aircraft. They have already started upgrading the early LRIP F-35s as the new Blocks come online. LRIP4 was the FY2010 F-35s authorized last year. Everything bought after last year is Block 3 which is full config.

If the aircraft are being bought to just serve as test aircraft and perhaps training aircraft then that isn’t an issue. If they are going to need to have costly upgrades to bring them up to combat standard then that will need to be included in the price.

It is a separate, follow-on contract. It is relatively cheap, however, as the difference in the blocks is largely software. Btw, they are building a dedicated F-35 reprogramming center at Eglin AFB to handle this and future upgrades.

Something i have considered is with the F35 is, are nearly all known weapons going to be integrated onto it as standard as has been said a few times or will the customer pay extra for each one they want. If i was a country that was planning on only using F35A or Air defence flying with 4 AMRAAMS and 2 sidewinders and possibly to external tanks i would not want to be buying an aircraft that programmed to work with Storm Shadow, maverick etc etc and needing to pay for a shared cost in that. I suspect the US are looking to get a complete monopoly on future weapon sales by only having there weapons working on the aircraft. (mind you they nearly have this anyway) Also take situations like Finland and their F18’s. They wanted land attack ability but the US refused. If buying F35 and this situation occurs will it only be a software hack away before a weapon can be put on? If i was Finland i would be pissed at the US for that insult.
IN the end the lesson is keep you own weapon development going even if it costs more as one day you may live to regret it. In the future you will go to fire the M-16 replacement and the magazine will drop out and it will start beeping and saying you are not allowed to fire at these people, please turn around and shoot the other way.

Weapons integration is going through an evolutionary change as we speak. The F-35 will be the first fighter designed with what is called a UAI (Universal Armament Interface). Basically, they want to separate block upgrades from weapons integration. In other words, it’s plug-and-play for weapons. I know that is putting it too simpley, but you get the idea.

Here is a brief on UAI:

The continued expensive and lengthy aircraft/store integration process is mainly driven by
the software integration process between the aircraft and store. Due to these factors and the
shortcomings in the MIL-STD-1760, the United States Air Force (USAF) decided to develop
Universal Armament Interface (UAI) starting in 2004. UAI utilizes the MIL-STD-1760 electrical
interconnection standard by defining a standard set of messages between the aircraft and
store. The UAI standard initially began with air-to-ground stores and will eventually include airto-
air stores, rockets, and sensors. “With a standardized interface between the aircraft and the
store, any new (store) that supports this interface could be integrated onto that aircraft without
having to make changes to its OFP” (Puttré, 2005). This should significantly drive down the cost
of integration of new stores on an aircraft by eliminating the three to five year waiting time for
the aircraft OFP cycle. It also allows for new stores to be integrated onto aircraft and other systems
as soon as they are developed. Thus, the warfighter is receiving technology updates to sensors,
weapons, and other systems on a near real-time basis instead of a lengthy three to five years
or more based on the current integration process. In addition, the UAI standard increases the
level of interoperability prior to the aircraft/store integration by utilizing a standard test to ensure
that both the aircraft and store are UAI compliant before any aircraft/store integration activities
begin. In addition, UAI eliminates the expensive OFP certification process for store integration
because there are no longer unique software modifications that are required to enable full store
capability.
However, at this time, USAF is the only DoD implementing UAI. The US Navy and US
Army are not currently supporting, and have no plans to support UAI in the near future. Furthermore,
the current UAI standard only applies to precision guided stores. Air-to-air stores,
sensor stores, and other aircraft stores still years off from UAI implementation. In addition, the
PROCEEDINGS CSER 2008, April 4-5, Los Angeles, CA, USA
UAI standard is currently in the process of being analysed for foreign counties. As a result, they
are still three to four years away from having a UAI compliant aircraft/store.
UAI standard achieves a high level of interoperability for aircraft/store integration. However
it is limited only to MIL-STD-1760 type weapons and is currently limited in scope. As a result
of this partial UAI implementation, there will be poor synergistic store integration activities
across the many different DoD/foreign military aircraft.

One final thing regarding the F35 is the airframes that have recently been purchased by other countries example UK 3 Netherlands 1-2 etc. Are these being used with the test program that the US is running just now (and seems to be struggling to stick to timescales) or are these for there own seperate test program’s, training, weapon integration etc?

I am not sure as to the number or status of Foreign test F-35s.

Once again, you need to get a clue. You cannot look at the butchering the Congress did to the request and try to extrapolate a real, per unit cost of the F-35. And your outright dismissal of established Economy of Scale modeling is just embarrassing.

This is most obvious when you look at how they made the cut.

For the USN, they cut the REC Flyaway cost of a F-35B. For the USAF, they cut that, and an extra $19.7 million. This makes even less sense considering the F-35B costs the most to produce, yet the F-35A program was cut the most, both in total cut and percentage cut.

Here are the detailed breakdowns of both the FY2009 and FY2010 costs associated with the LRIP3 buy.

<br />
FY2009 Docs @ 8 units FY2010 Docs @ 7 Units Changes from FY09<br />
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total<br />
Price Price Price Price Change Change<br />
Airframe/CFE 99.67 797.34 107.15 750.04 7.48 -47.30<br />
CFE Electronics 32.03 256.27 33.67 235.69 1.64 -20.58<br />
Engines/Eng Acc 12.52 100.20 16.94 118.60 4.42 18.40<br />
ECO (Flyaway) 5.64 45.15 6.14 42.99 0.50 -2.16<br />
Sub Rec Fly 149.87 1198.96 163.90 1147.32 14.03 -51.64<br />
Non-Rec Cost 46.34 370.70 43.26 302.84 -3.07 -67.86<br />
Ancillary Equip 3.28 26.26 4.58 32.04 1.29 5.78<br />
Sub Non-Rec Fly 49.62 396.96 47.84 334.88 -1.78 -62.08<br />
Airframe PGSE 3.05 24.39 2.97 20.80 -0.08 -3.59<br />
Engine PGSE 0.32 2.60 0.47 3.27 0.14 0.67<br />
Avionics PGSE 0.88 7.08 0.85 5.97 -0.03 -1.10<br />
Pec Train Equip 8.71 69.70 5.75 40.23 -2.97 -29.47<br />
Pubs/Tech Data 1.31 10.49 2.64 18.49 1.33 7.99<br />
Other ILS 1.90 15.21 1.67 11.72 -0.23 -3.49<br />
Production Eng 8.89 71.12 4.17 29.21 -4.72 -41.90<br />
Sub Support 25.07 200.58 18.53 129.70 -6.54 -70.88<br />
Gross P-1 Cost 224.56 1796.49 230.27 1611.90 5.71 -184.60<br />
Adv Proc Credit -15.34 -122.70 -17.53 -122.70 -2.19 0.00<br />
Net P-1 Cost 209.22 1673.79 212.74 1489.19 3.52 -184.60<br />
Adv Proc Cost 17.11 136.90 24.49 171.44 7.38 34.53<br />
Weapon Sys Cost 226.34 1810.69 237.23 1660.63 10.90 -150.06<br />
Initial Spares 10.71 85.69 8.70 60.93 -2.01 -24.76<br />
TOTAL Prog Cost 226.34 1810.69 237.23 1660.63 10.90 -150.06<br />


The biggest evidence that they came under budget is that the Congressional Committee cut the Net P-1 from $1.673 billion to $1.504 billion and they only spent $1.489 billion. They beat the cap by 15 million, that’s UNDER BUDGET for you people who cannot do the math.

One item of interest is that there must have been an issue with the F135s and their costs. The per unit price rose (expected due to the cut in engines ordered), but the total cost rose over the estimates for the original 8. They thought they would pay $100.2 million for 8 and they ended up paying $118.6 for 7, OUCH, but that’s on P&W not LM.