Although I expect the auditors in the UK to have a little bit of accounting and budgeting background nothing like putting something out there an then clarifying and editing on the fly based on inputs received on forums ;). I see that half-assery lacking in the NAOs work…

About budgeting background, LRIP 11 modification was budgeted INSIDE the LRIP7 contract N0001912C0004. No more, no less.

Criitc’s easy, art is difficult. YES there was an error on quoted price (LRIP6 numbers instead of 7, and not precised engines out). Better correct it when it is underlined no? If authors were paid, or if on paid for the site (free and advertisement free) one could require perfection (although considering some articles in paid press…). It is not the case. The 12% differencd you quoted did not impair the validity of the article overall.

It was a querulous comment to pointedly respond to Nic’s. Obviously you can read the NAO report on SDD and follow on dev costs included in the U.K. procurement.

It is ironic considering the recent row over assumed costs presented the last few pages.

Check the article involved : it is clearly written into that “cost perimeter” can be dispcussed.

Yes, cheapish. Especially compared to the Rafale deals which don’t include dev costs.

develop or sustain?

The main difference between the two types is cost. Currently you have to add at least a zero to costs of GaN radars. Moving forward they hope to reduce the cost disparity between the two types. That being the case GaN will eventually replace GaA radars.

Until then GaA is natural choice on systems for mass deployment for the next decade. GaN is the long term choice but is cost prohibitive at the current time. GaN is being used in limited numbers at this time.

Recent talk with AESA RBE2 head of program : GaN was considered for next upgrade, but too costly atm.

Since when APG 81 is GaN based???
GaN has a roughly 4 to 7 higher efficiency.

did Mig do something?

saab was supposedly linked with Turkey, which also linked with BAE

no idea who’d dassault would work with but perhaps potentially with India if fgfa tech transfer doesnt pan out

AMCA

So the question then becomes why publish until it has been edited and sourced correctly, it is not like there are any great revelations in the data.

Is this new site seeking to capitalise on the F-35 click bait phenomena? That business model seems to work for defence.aerospace and war is boring…

Beacuase the money was awarded under LRIP7 contracts. The idea was not to do a cost analysis (later), but to compute all the money awarded under LRIP7 hat which, in the end, is what the taxpayer funds. Cost analysis will dcome further. And there is no business model as there is no money and no advertisement…

Lets back off a bit. The JPO provided F-35A Unit cost with engine and contractor fees for all production lot since it production commenced (Defense One obtained it and published it, and I’m sure they are not the only publication that have access to it). On the LRIP-9 contracts they did the same for the F-35B and the C and provided the unilaterally awarded unit cost including (also including the engine and fees).

During the course of your editing did you ask the author whether he even bothered to obtain the all lot unit cost (including engine) for the B and C? I seriously doubt he did since he did couldn’t even get the basic LRIP-7 cost right (assuming that was the intention) and after you pointed it out, he still got it wrong during the second attempt. All of this was the easy part one could simply google up. One would assume since he makes an attempt to attribute unit costs to the JPO he would have reached out to them to fill in the gap or at least source “accurate” information from the horse’s mouth.

He could not (and it is written) separate versions from each other using the data available (which are listed) however, i’ll write to JPO. Already did about the cost of engine retrofit to PW, no answer yet. I still see, despite some corrections to do about cost, a huge discrepancy between advertised cost and paid cost (which can be both valid).