geogenThe problem with this damn Rand report that I see, is in fomenting and even escalating a particular ‘us vs them’ combative dialogue and mind-set, rather than keeping focus per se on assessing and concluding which systems might or might not be more superior or practical in facing more generic emerging threats in future.
What is USAF supposed to do now… say ‘oh yeah, we need a B-1R with SM-6 and pac-3 based missiles as Rand has conlcuded’! Oh how PLAAF hardline command can thank job-security and exploit such things to no end??
That being said, I wish the boards could tone down the often time ‘us vs them’, i.e. China vs US scenario based inflamation and discuss more the raw technical aspect of thread.
geogenYou do realize that the price of F-35As have been dropping 10-20 million PER YEAR since the first LRIP?
Do you think that the average buy will only be 20 million cheaper for a timeframe covering 5-10 years (2015-2020) in the future?
You do realize that estimates for FY12 procurement have actually exploded from estimates made back in 2008 for FY12? What would Congress have done back in 2008 if they only knew what the costs for FY12 would actually be??
Spud, I’m sorry but F-35 cost estimates have exploded in cost estimates EVERY YEAR, from Lot 1 LRIP. Please give us one year where original estimates have come in less than the final cost. Please be more genuine on your cost related arguments.
geogenA more realistic Canadian FY15-FY20 Gross cost + initial spares buy could see an avg of perhaps $170m. (note: FY12 Gross + initial spares cost $195.5m per unit).
And yes, look for the first USAF F-35A squadron achieving IOC by 2017 at best. 2018 would not be an extreme estimate.
geogenI could envision two LW IRSTs (maybe enlarged 260mm-280mm aperture derivatives) integrated into the forward looking sphere.
—- “What would be the purpose of such a system if the intended mission is as a stand-off platform? Also, can’t Sniper pods do?” —-
Kapedani –
The purpose of such a system would be to passively track and target a contact, be it either conventional or LO, at ranges greater than at least twice that of what F-35’s EOTS could passively detect.
Cheers-
geogenInteresting.
I’m curious now if Japan, possibly not realistically being able to afford a 5th gen development and/or acquisition any time soon, might rather wish to keep up with the Jones’s in the interim deterrence-wise, via taking this route too?
geogenInteresting thread.
I’ll pretty much have to concur with Wanderlei on his technical and strategic assessment for a viable B-1MM (multi mission) concept. Simply… with fewer and fewer airframes being procured and operated in the near-future, at least some of them better have maximal built-in asymmetrical, modern abilities to multiply-the-force as flexibly as possible.
But firstly, fwiw, I guess I have a fundamental problem with regards to Rand’s apparent ‘us vs them’ mind-set and with their apparent need to focus on such a sensitive scenario as this to justify their analytical worthiness. Flat out, I feel it’s provocative and that any such rhetoric on this level can only add to make certain tensions worse, more than it can possibly make them as a credible think-tank appear smart. I would wish their future analysis and ‘recommendations’ likewise can be better drawn up, via more generic reasoning and scenarios. My 2 cents on this point.
That being said, the actual concept of USAF modifying at least some of their existing B-1B fleet to an improved, more flexible ‘multi-mission’ airframe capability seems legitimate. It could be argued that this would act as either a stopgap to a delayed NGB/NGAD, or as a cost-effective alternative piece to NGB/NGAD. I would speculate that perhaps 35-40 airframes could be upgraded, perhaps with another 5-6 airframes upgraded for training/test. The remaining airframes to be used as parts.
Radar upgrade could include a split between half airframes installing latest multi-role APG-82 radar (plus possible cheek arrays?) and perhaps the other half being equipped with derivative of the off-the-shelf EL/M-2085 dual-band S/L band AEW radar? This 2nd batch of the fleet would be the high-end part of the upgrade mix and might be especially capable towards detecting future emerging low observable contacts.
I could envision two LW IRSTs (maybe enlarged 260mm-280mm aperture derivatives) integrated into the forward looking sphere. A next-gen update of the ALQ-218 tactical digital receiver would seem to be logical for such a cost-effective upgrade in order to meet certain requirements.
Add EO DAS.
Regarding engines, maybe not the F119. I would contemplate a next-gen F110 based advanced-augmentation motor with 33K lbf. The size would be the same length as the the current engine, yet the diameter would be even less. Couple a fluidic chevron nozzle to the engine to address noise? A new engine would definitely add to reliability though and allow for increased mission rates and cut down on maintenance. Moreover, such an F110 upgrade would add to something like 20-25k lbf of additional dry thrust output! Sure, not an F119, but could still be quite an economical balance of performance alternative.
Perhaps the EW suite could incorporate a derivative of the DEWS system, intended for F-15SE? Integrate internally the next-gen elta/Rafale SoJ jammer reportedly being developed?
Possibly design an all-composite canopy shell enabling higher-speed durability while potentially reducing RCS too.
Lastly, the recommended AAM loadout…
In their report, RAND specifically mentioned the SM-2ER (could be implied as a modern block IV type). This actual missile probably wouldn’t fit in the B-1’s weap bay though first of all (unless they were implying only the upper sustainer stage), but even if it did, the 3,000+ lb 2-stage missile as is, would likely need more significant redesign than another missile in terms of the uplink (being an AEGIS guided missile) and to the SARH seeker. They also mention a possible terminal-phase upper stage which would conceivably involve a major 10 yr development phase alone.
Arguably however, an evolution to the second stage of the RIM-174 (SM-6) could be what RAND was thinking about. Call it the EMMM-174 (evolved multi-mission missile). But it would be optimized as is for Airborne mid-course data-linking and would come standard with an off-the-shelf active-seeker. Perhaps then, it could be coupled with the dual IIR seeker already mated to the SM-2 IIIB. Another higher-end variant could possibly include a modified AGM-88E dual-seeker + said IIR.
I’d concur with Madrat too, that an ESSM based missile (e.g. EMMM-162), which is pretty robust in G handling and maneuvering as it is and possibly modified with NCADE’s enhanced AIM-9x seeker, could be an additional component to this concept. (as well as possibly to the F-15E as he mentioned).
So yeah, I would be in a camp of thought supporting the feasibility study of said B-1MM concept + extended range engagement potential, but as a cost-effective alternative to NGB and something which could be introduced sooner. For a different discussion, it could also be rounded off with a navalized joint-service FB-22 (co-produced by Boeing/LM) as a cost-effective alternative program to the F/A-XX/NGAD. imho.
geogenWell, in terms of US ‘stopgap’ BVR AAM class missiles per discussion which could conceivably be coupled also w/ a nominal joint ground engagement capbility (with proper software mod), I would concur with ELP’s well articulated comment. It could be argued as a legit interim requirement at a minimum and valid modern tactical mix, via deploying enhanced capability/deterrence at minimal cost and schedule.
And I’d also have to assess that on a 7″ body, it’s probably not the best exploited size missile (weight and performance wise) and perhaps not even most economical given the current tech at least, to integrate multiple seekers. A heavier 8″ body might be a better candidate for such capability, as would the obvious larger diameter class bodies?
geogenI’d actually be impressed if the T3 offshoot does in fact materialize as an IOC munition prior to 2020. But if planning solely on 120C7/D until then is the policy (to outfit legacy airframes slated for SLEP, to stopgap delayed F-35), then my gut feeling is we’ll probably be observing some form of epiphany surface by around 2015. imho.
geogenThe cost “targets” revealed in last week’s JPO memo seem to be some type of unit cost…they are 3-4% above Lockheed’s URF.
The budget due in February is for FY 2012 – wouldn’t the budgeteering in this document reflect estimates for LRIP V pricing?
The most important document in accurately estimating costs will be Venlet’s Technical Baseline Review..
Yeah, you would be correct about the revealed ‘unit cost’ targets by TB last week. I was trying to differentiate however, that this implied URF-hybrid cost merely as a ‘sub-set’ portion of the total Procurement Unit Cost though (which for all purposes is the relevant ‘Cost’, indicating how affordable the buy year is). It’s easy to hear ‘unit cost’ and get confused as the generic term ‘unit cost’ is an incomplete data point. Here, the *URF* being addressed (minus the engine) is priced into the truly relevant ‘cost’ to Congress and USAF, which will determine how many units can be funded or afforded, accordingly. And that would be the PUC (total Procurement Unit Cost).
The anticipated Feb 2011 (FY12) USAF Budget estimate release is important as it will include a highly detailed breakdown of the latest revised URF, Total Flyaway, Net, Gross, Weapon and total PUC estimates for a number of FY buy years. It will show very accurately what the latest cost will be to the AF for each jet – so it’s good enough to work with.
And lastly, this FY12 estimate, if you can believe it… will include estimates for LRIP VI! FY11 funds LRIP V and FY10 is for LRIP IV (that’s costs for FY10 jets being revealed in 2011:eek:). All three buy year estimates will be included in this Feb 2011 released estimate, as normally are.
geogenOne has to admit, Turkish industry is innovative at modifying and upgrading existing platforms of many types. Take the cost-effective, stretched, multi-configured and power-upgraded M-113 APC, for just one simple example. Recent naval building ambitions is impressive, too.
In terms of a modern tactical aviation program… just an I idea I had, maybe Turkey could take a license-produced (or quasi-partnered) baseline platform, such as Gripen and ‘stretch’, ‘re-wing’ and ‘bolt-on’ to Turk’s flavor?
A poster under the handle Arquebus had made a cool 3-D model of something on that line in the “fantasy fighter” thread.
Perhaps incorporate a standardized engine type already used in the force structure to maximize economy and meet a T/W requirement if it’s bigger than a Gripen, i.e. Turk’s F-16 engine type?
Maybe they and Greece could make truce and partner ! :eek::confused:
geogenJust a question…do theses LRIP costs have any real value in judging FRP costs…
Hi Geoff,
With regards to ‘prices and costs’, one could phrase the above LRIP numbers as being a sub-set ‘price’ which make up the total Procurement Unit Cost.
By all appearance the latest released ‘prices’ could be assessed as somewhat of an URF, minus the engine, but with components of Total Flyaway and possibly even snips of the ‘rest of’ weapon system cost included.
So basically, we’ll need to wait until Feb 2011 for the budget estimate’s release (see Spudman’s countdown clock), in order to fully ascertain LRIP IV’s URF, Total Flyaway, Net, Gross, Weapon system and total PUC cost.
To judge FY16’s (and beyond) FRP Total Flyaway price and PUC cost is in truth impossible at this point though, as for one thing those numbers will require a MYB contract for a certain known number of USAF ordered F-35A variants of certain block types – something uncertain at this point.
But regardless of whether USAF is ordering 25 F-35A per yr starting in FY15-FY16 under FRP, or 40 units e.g., one can argue that official forward looking estimates made since 2006 even, have been all over the place.
geogenGood points. imo, it almost seems like an URF+ type price ‘target’ being described, a whole new class of price? To throw off the competition in part, Gripen et al? 😎
Anyway, I truly hope the Feb 2011 budget estimate includes the standard pricing analysis of past. I’m just getting funny feelings that all good things (including detailed public info) must come to an end 🙁 hope i’m wrong.
geogenThey should freeze the new settlements for 100 days instead and demand 30 F-35s in return.
Sarcasm detected :confused:
How about offering a 1 yr freeze, in exchange for a 30x F-15SE security incentive?? :rolleyes:
geogenProduction vs total Procurement costs, budgets
While Production costs for LRIP IV are becoming more clear, we still need to wait until Feb, 2011’s USAF budget Estimates report to see what LRIP IV’s Total Unit Procurement Cost is. These will be different pricing figures of course (the URF and total Procurement Cost/PUC) with the Procurement Unit Cost being the price which will shape how many F-35A USAF will afford (or rather, Congress can afford) in FY12 and beyond.
So for all purposes of debate, the importance of this wildly discussed URF price (with or without engines) should become transplated by what the weapon system cost, net/gross cost and PUC cost are.
On this point, my guess for LRIP IV’s (FY10) final F-35A PUC cost is for about $175m. Anyone else wish to guess?
What is stunning however, is the possibility of an FY11 base Defense budget of roughly $510 billion only affording 17x F-35A units for USAF! In your opinion, what will be the F-35 procurement budget authorized by Congress if/when the base budget drops below $500 bn?
I would hope for the body to use this thread for specific budget and pricing/production related discussions keeping on topic…
geogenZdrasti,
I’m curious if a small yet respected air force such as Bulgaria’s could sufficiently police her air space with an econo airframe even cheaper than the Gripen’s Life Cycle Cost – e.g., M-346 (potentially a leased option)? Or other new-entry alternatives e.g., leased KAI FA-50 Golden Eagles, reportedly available by 2013? The savings could roll into a supplemental ground based, mobile, air-defense capacity of the medium range class?
I would concur to delay the tender at least a year… imho. Respects, BuAF.
Sign In
