Perhaps Gripen NG would be the most economical modernization? Taking into account LCC costs.

IMHO,

ROC should instead seek an AIDC license-produced upgraded F125 engine for an evolved, upgraded F-CK IDF indigenous a/c… Perhaps lease SABR-lite units as part of systems upgrade integration? Add an integrated centerline IRST tank?

About 80% less provocation, but with efficiencey, economy and proportionate and fair counter-balance ‘gap-filling’ potential restricted only by the numbers ROCgov decides to order?

edit: In fact, such a jet could actually prove reasonable bargain export potential as well? Go from net importer to net exporter all while satisfying domestic defense requirements in the same motion??

Then again… to be fair, the 275 knot enveleope is not necessarily standstill. I’m sorry but one must give credit of capabilities where credit is due. And furthermore, s-m would have to be classified as covering all relative ranges of speed? (i.e., the full spectrum speeds at which air combat would actually take place, not just the optimal speeds one would wish combat to take place)?

Personally, I’d consider as viable a reduced RCS F-16X development program combining a Ventral Canard Vectoring-type system, similar to that tested during the CCV flights. Yes? No?

I’d say that’s a pretty fair overall rebut, H.K.

I tend to agree that LCS is more of a doctrinal flaw (e.g. flawed acquisition policy/strategy from inception) – steering the requirement for 55 hulls et al. It just smells fishy to me and has more of a derived ‘ship building industrial complex smell’, over anything. (i.e., Marketed as a ‘cheap’ multi-purpose surface/littoral combatant to be simply banged out in high numbers… although in reality we find: not so cheap afterall and a ship w/ shrinking capabilities and fewer suitable missions)??

Other than that, I think it’s a well-intentioned concept and very cool/modern looking for an American concept. IMHO, the speed could probably best be exploited for evading rare torpedoes fired first by some pesky littoral lurking sub (or mine), even more than escaping fast boats – swarming from all directions not just one, yikes.. But still, I don’t think the concept is justified – at least at this point – with the mission in mind.

Hence, put me in the camp of supporting reallocated (limited and imminently shrinking) USN ship procurement funds – for a better multi-mission ship with better light/supplemental ‘escort’ ability but with ASW/AMW mission module capability and spec ops module too.

So realistically, perhaps procure 8-10 LCS, cut losses and call it a day – with 3-4 dedicated for US SOCOM and 3-4 dedicated for primarily ASW/AMW. (and/or Perhaps a couple RAM-less ships transferred to USCG for Caribbean anti-drug and natural disaster rapid response as well)?

Back to thread… so would a DCNS frigate (or alternative corvette/Frig) be something to which USN reallocate this longer-term LCS budget? Or perhaps even mixing a few M88 type ships to the list for good measure? I wouldn’t be able to speculate on any exact ship’s validity, but the basic principle sounds to be on track. BTW, what would a DCNS go for cost wise? $1billion USD?

Are there any pics of the Chung Sang Eo (Blue Shark) mated to any fast jet e.g., KF-16, TA-50, F-15K?

Interesting. So based on the above images as evidenced, and if it must be given a letter… perhaps this ‘duct’ could more closely quack and be defined by a sorta flattened ‘V’ instead of ‘S’? For example, via slightly inward canted front-section of duct (maybe 5 degrees?), then redirected outwardly to an outward canted aft-section aligning the stream into the slightly (perhaps 5 degrees) outward angled engine?

Look at the Lot 1 & 2 costs in the FY2010 budget

pfcem, the reference I’m using is the USAF Financial Management and Comptroller budget estimates for FY07 through FY10. (credit to Spudman for posting links http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/budget/ ).

The numbers I’ve been referencing and reference below are not a numbers game, sir. They are official USAF estimates – I’m just copying and pasting and doing some estimate increase math to help clarify the tracking of lots 1,2, and 3. Nothing more. Good?

Now to clarify as best I can, how Lot 1, 2 and 3 estimates have tracked higher compared to the Feb07/Feb08 original estimates, I’ll paste a very clear and itemized comparison of original Lot estimates for ‘URF’ and their respective latest URF estimate increases. (URF just as an example of the very basic Unit Recurring Flyaway portion of the Total Procurement Cost. (Lot 1,2,3 ‘UPC’ also tracking higher in their final estimate).

URF increases from original estimates: (from official USAF numbers, no play zone)

Feb07 est for FY07 URF $202.89m
Feb08 est for FY07 URF $229.60m (+$26.71m per copy increase)

Feb07 est for FY08 URF $171.45m
Feb09 est for FY08 URF $180.40m (+$8.95m per copy increase)

Feb07 est for FY09 URF $145.32m
Feb10 est for FY09 URF $160.25m (+$14.93m per copy increase)

That’s all I’m correcting in terms of your openning post, OK? Just correcting the misconception “…when the actual cost of the 1st three LRIP lots… is below even 2007 projections.” (your words).

As far as the final negotiated prices for FY10 jets being also ‘less’ than Feb07 projections??? Dubious, but of course I will wait like everyone else for the final negotiated cost estimate. Cheers-

Perhaps the program will evolve into a defacto MEADS-lite at some point in the near-term?