shouldnt we allow that the f135 has ~twice the thrust of a f414
so to say its 3 times as expensive is misleading in 2 ways, cost per Lb of thrust and the fact that as spudman said its LRIP

from a bad memory they were looking at a 40% price reduction on the f135 costs, down the track

Two F414’s allow for redundancy / survivability, and just happen to be less expensive than the F135/136. Sorry, I just don’t like single engined fighters:)

So night time optics dont exist?

Optical tracking can be done at night.

You are correct that NGJ will show up on the EA-18 first and the F-35 later. One note, the F-35 is currently wired for the NGJ now, no other wiring necessary. There is also an empty ICP (1/3 size) in the rear of the F-35 that is empty (no longer needed after Blk 0.5) and can be used for any integration software needed for the NGJ.

So, we have:
1. Wing leading edge bay room for AESA EM transmitters
2. Pre-wired for NGJ
3. Room for any ICP upgrades needed (rear ICP bay)
4. Studies are ongoing to use the gun-bay in the F-35A for any additional hardware or cooling needs that the EA-35 would need.

There is no need to take up room in the weapons bay for the EA-35 as there is plenty of room elsewhere for the hardware.

One final thought, the EA-35 would have plenty of room in the bay (since it would not need 2000 lb class bombs) that they could still put “some” hardware in the bay and still have 4 AAMs/JDRADMs internally.

I forgot to mention the need for additional power – not sure if an additional engine driven generator is going to be enough. The -A’s are not carrier capable, and there are no gun bays on the -B/C, as well as other internal differences between models. So the volumetrics are still going to be challenging, and I think that you may be overestimating usable weapons bay space. I take you point about the prewiring, leading edge bays, and there are other apertures that can be exploited.

The “reason” the F-117 was lost is mainly due to sloppy mission planning. VLO does not make a plan invisible, just harder to see.

If you keep flying the same mission profile, the enemy (just like they did in Bosnia), will place their asset in it’s path.

No VLO aircraft, be it F-117, F-22, B-2, or F-35 is likely to survive flying directly over a SAM/AAA site.

The F-35 was designed and has always been claimed to have the ability to prosecute missions in areas covered by “double-digit” SAM systems. It has active EW via the APG-81, MALD, JDRADM (~2020), NGJ (~2020), and still retains the ability to have internal AESA Active EW in the leading edge sensor bays (if the client wants to develop it).

I basically agree with all, but in context of the discusion, buying the F-35 does not save you from the need to have electronic support, both organically by the aircraft – and by additional platforms. Both approaches will be used. And “sloppy mission planning” as you say was indeed part of the reason the F-117A was lost. Not having the EA-6B in postion, whether because of planning or execution error, was a critical factor in the loss. As well as some crafty behavior by the SAM crew, and some timely intel which needs to be noted. The overall point is that EA/EW support will be required by the F-35, whether it provided by an EA-35, or in the interim, a EA-18G or EA-6B or other assets, so a claim that buying the F-35 saves from having to buy EA assets is not accurate.

on the subject of cost for each fighter, does the unit cost of a fighter go up or down as it matures? I mean if for example Jackjack is comparing a F35A (i just use that as an example) to a more developed version of Typhoon, should not we compare it to the Typhoon T1? I know this isn’t quite accurate but,

do you see what i mean? Was the cost of an f16A less than that of the C (obviously taking into account inflation)?

And if so, will a developed version of the F35A (E?) cost more than its initial variant?

The F-16A model was considerably less expensive than a F-16C, but the -C is a much more capable airplane. Within the same model, the unit cost does increase over time mainly due to inflation. There are also product improvements within the same model and equipment upgrades in newer blocks of a new production aircraft increase the cost. So a “flyaway” cost tends to increase year to year – but not always – it can go down as in the case of the F/A-18E/F for business reasons.

Do you also count in your assessment of cost the relative expenses of actually having to fight in combat with your purchase? Including costs of lost aircraft, losses due to some targets being “untouchable” because your cheaper aircraft can’t deal with them?

No I don’t. Certainly it is not a metric used in acquisition. But costs drive politics, and politics can kill or curtail an expensive weapons system – and could ultimately prove to be more deadly to the F-35 than any SAM.

That’s why you have to look at the flyaway cost, rather than whatever package was contracted for. Too many critics look at the total cost, and divide by the number of airframes, without looking at how that cost is broken down, which is why they arrive at erroneous conclusions.:D

I guess that I am a member “too many critics” society that you refer. I prefer to look at the cost of an aircraft in a systematic way – from a rational rather than emotional point of view. A “flyaway” cost is an non-standardized oversimplification and not reflective of the true cost of acquiring a weapons system – which an aircraft is in effect.

For argument’s sake, here is the description of “Unit Flyaway Cost” from the DoD’s Financial Management Regulations: “Standard unit flyaway cost elements include the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments; engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including production tooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurement appropriations); divided by the procurement quantity. Flyaway cost does not include research and development, support equipment, training equipment, technical data, or spares.”

To complicate things, another entity might have a different notion about what to include in a “flyaway cost.” Wikipedia lists at least 4 types of “flyaway” costs: UFC – Unit Recurring Flyaway; Nonrecurring Flyaway Cost; FAC – Unit Flyaway Cost; Total Flyaway Cost, and there are more. Do all countries and manufacturers use a standard definition of “flyaway” cost? Doubtful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Askari_Mark/Understanding_aircraft_unit_costs

Here is the chart about how the DoD acquisition minions determine the different types of costs for developing and fielding a weapons system, as a subset Life Cycle Cost.

USN’s MYP-III F/A-18’s: ~$50m

The US Navy expects them to cost ~$50m: considerably less per unit than Australia, mainly because a predictable production run allows for long-lead purchasing agreements with suppliers, and much of the support facilities and equipment already exists. The contracted amount is ~$42.7m per plane without Government Furnished Equipment (engines, radar, ancillary avionics, etc.) Maybe it is time for some customers to reconsider the SH, and get in on the savings of the MYP.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0610144720100506