geogenbut what if the choice is between the assessed not needed kit and the oz-dircm or the 100kw laser weapon
If what is eventually offered as a standard option is not one’s particular choice selection, I’m sure some would just opt out and go w/ an ‘after market’ customized route.
(TA)DIRCMs are likely going to be hot sellers in short-term anyways. Whether podded or plugged into airframe, the optional competing makes and offerings would probably be able to suit an F-35 operator (assuming there will be demand) by the time any of OZ’s would be IOC?
Don’t be surprised either to see such optional, cued systems equipping legacy tactical aircraft, within the next 2-3 yrs. (if not already available).
geogenhahahha…. reminds of that Simpsons episode where they try and chase the Wright Flyer with F-15s (?) and then decide to chase it on foot….
Utmost in stupidity and poor planning.
Why are they even wasting time using an F-16?
Maybe to best cover wide areas of airspace, whilst perhaps searching with Sniper pods? It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack, no? Sure, once you’ve located the target, vector your Bell helos. C’mon folks, don’t get too carried away in the hysterics. Nothing’s perfect anyways.
geogenLM has been squawking 60m (in current dollars or base dollars?) a pop for several months now. It is not entirely clear what the 60m will buy, although my guess is it is some flavor of flyaway price. A flyaway price is for the base jet, and doesn’t include training systems (sims, etc.,) support equipment, spares, infrastructure upgrades or new construction to support the aircraft. US estimates reflect these additional costs as well as R&D and T&E – hence the glaring price difference that an ally might pay vs. what the US taxpayer will eventually fork over.
Maus,
If there will in fact be a glaring price difference in URF recurring price (engine included) between FMS and US taxpayer bought, then there is a significant flaw in the Program that US Congress and taxpayers have not yet been informed about.
Added R&D and T&E costs should therefore not be further included into US-only URF buys. If the case then there are serious shenanigans in the Program with attempts to hide various under reported R&D costs.
URF and the Total Flyaway or FUC (URF + non-recurring and ancillary costs) should be similar under FRP MYB, given an indentical block variant and those being similarly equipped. Now if US variants have superior stock electronics and superior LO functions, then sure, they would appropriately come in higher priced under FUC. That mystery will need to be better understood perhaps starting in 2015, under anticipated FRP. If anything though, USAF FUC prices should be LOWER than similarly equipped FMS unit as USAF will be buying in higher volume.
But if USAF will indeed be paying significantly higher FUC, then there is a Big-Pharma type (a la US consumer subsidizing cheap Foreign market drug consumer) flaw in the Program which Congress/GAO need to be examining ASAP.
Flat out – unless part of such a subsidized Stimulus bill (or other hidden deal), USAF’s FY15 FRP buys will be higher than $60m URF (2010 YD), w/ engine included (mainly due to reduced buys not honestly being disclosed). Not to mention… hold onto your hats soon after, following an equipped block IV FUC. (economic realities will take over from marketing)
In the near-term, I simply cannot wait for lot 4’s full procurement pricing spin to come out. (unfortunately).
geogenI hope you do not mean that case of Mistake identity when Minssionaries were killed???
No, the vid in question does depict a drug runner. Almost made it across the border. Very tough action to take, although there were plenty of warnings giving opportunities for an escort back. I guess they don’t have non-lethal stun-guns up there. It was a bad day to be playing poker though, no doubt. But it’s a pretty brutal and likely endless way to conduct a multi-pronged counter-narc policy, as I see it at least.
geogenYou might have problems spotting at Heathrow. BAA are not friendly at all to spotters at all. And the Coppers may ask you a few questions, along with the joys of a search via Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
My advise is go to Hatton Cross Tube station if you want to see what is flying in and out of Heathrow
Dave
Good info.
geogen“Hill billy trash fire”, lol… worth quoting.
And with regards to thread, do we really need (or can we afford) a VLO aircraft replacing the A-10 @ $160m UPC +/- per pop?
Perhaps it’s time to start considering what the proper Tacair recapitalization mix plan should look like? And what can be more sustainable meeting requirements?
geogenWho else wouldn’t want to see what an F-16XL could do in mil power (GE-132) at optimal altitude, with an IRST shadow pod, 4 conformal AMRAAM and 2 wing-tip 9x?
M 1.2 sustained? Not bad efficiency considering full external loadout and an economical legacy concept.
Too bad LM and DoD didn’t have their thinking caps on.
geogenIsrael is Security Cooperative Participant.
And Turkey will get a big nothing as Iranian, Syrian and Hamas ally.
Ironically, TAI will most likely be building a large portion of any hypothetical future Israeli Air Corps F-35 orders. Assuming the fluid fiscal situation doesn’t force an aborted F-35 program (most expensive program in history) outright. (as some have been assessing and taking into their critical analysis for years now).
geogenBut the territory (non-state) is not presently a sovereign state nor annexed by another, thus without sovereign airspace or sea waters to cede if it wanted. Hence, occupied (controlled) and currently blockaded stateless territorial airspace and waters due to unresolved hostile status. If GS became a sovereign state, then comes sovereign zones, sure. So what’s needed more than a Turkish vs Israeli conflict now, is a new Oslo accord imho, as the Oslo 1 is defunct – exacerbating the problem. Turks therefore could arguably now contribute greater involvement/leadership, imo (given the void) towards the final solution pathway – e.g., providing a new-mind to the solution. Wars and ‘old-minded’ rhetoric of war, such as this circular example, only beget more of it. my views.
geogenWith the Turkish PM going Isreal will be able to do nothing to the aid convoy and will never go to war with a major power for risk of the Arab world getting involved.
The Isrealis will not be able to cope with the TAF and the rest ARab world. If the Saudis get involved then the Typhoons will take out Isreal quite quickly
Perhaps PM Nyahu should sail out as well to greet Turk PM, then rendezvous on an Egyptian gunboat hosting EU, Russian and US reps for a sit down.
geogenSingle-seat F-15 SE. Twin GE-132, 2-D vectoring w/Reverse-Thrust, cheek-array APG-82, internal IRST, cued-DIRCM.
And just to add to the NG F-16X fantasy fanboy concepts, I’ll link a Youtube vid for the F-16x NG. Single or twin-seater.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dXRZV7SvzM
OTS systems could include probe-IFR equipped CFT, center-line Thales-type EA/jamming pod, GE-132 w/TVC, LWS, PAWS-2+ MWS w/SAPIR to give near-EODAS equivalent capability. PAWS-2+ to cue DIRCM integrated into a new reduced-sized-spine config (also included for the single-seat variant). Rear-facing IRST/data-link for cueing defensive shots while in retreat. Integrated MICA, IRIS-T, Russian, Chinese, Japanese rounds you name it..
geogenOff-topic response to my off-topic trap laying, my bad, lol. Anyway, not bad 4.5 concept proposal there, MadRat. imho. I give you credit for your bold considerations in ‘evolving’ platforms as part of a tacair policy overall (in keeping on topic with Gripen XL). Specifically, I concur with your approach in contemplating the so-called ‘Growler-lite’ doctrine, cross-platform. I’ve pondered ALQ-218 as well as part of hypothetical block 60+ growth. And include it on a Super Eagle proposal. Heck, integrate it on a US ANG Gripen XL!
geogenVery fun thread, Swerve, btw. And I 2nd your F-346 too. Maybe someone could put a similar fantasy a2a missile thread in the missile forum as well?
Interesting SAAB XMLU concept. Voted.
MadRat – you went to town on that Golden Hornet (GH), dang. Not a bad elaborated follow-on to the earlier discussions. And how many pounds are stuffing in that nose?!? I think you forgot to squeeze AN/APG-79 cheek-arrays too.. 🙂 FYI, not to top this, but I’m in the prelim stages of drafting the proposed ‘block III.5 2016’ SH. The design concept is incomplete to date but remains classified 😉 Actual technical definitions and requirements for the 2016 concept remain undecided. PM me any ideas if you want.
arquebus – wow, is that your stretched variant?? Nice looking 3D model there. Your fast! Good skill.
geogenInteresting. Perhaps a manufacturing line placeholder as bonus(?), to allow eventual USAF stopgap procurement once the politics come around to that position? Without new orders placed from someone, anybody… in the next 6 months, maybe 8 months max (due to adv lead), the F-16 line would have to be stopped, then restarted anew in future – to take on any conceiveable orders placed in say, FY11.
geogenJJ,
I’ll try my best. To whom in your govt should I apply 🙂
And with regards to F-35A US or export sales (I see you’ve recently had P&W engines on your mind, lol) and Total Flyaway Costs… current/future R&D costs will be separately funded allowing the raw Flyaway costs to price as a mere commodity of sorts. Various final product commodity prices will vary slightly from others according to ones specific order, yes, but the base production prices will be similar.
In 2010 USD? Based on, for sake of discussion, say 30 USAF units procured in a fixed contract… Estimate an avg FRP ‘Flyaway’ of maybe something in the $100m (2010 USD) ballpark? Net/UPC costs however, will unfortunately be far higher than expected though (short of a subsidized/nationalized JPO takeover perhaps) due in part to assumed reduced economies of scale factors.
Sign In
