On another note, the contract cost for 3f upgrade:
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1162544/
$109,563,735
3F is primarily a software upgrade (except for the aircraft still needing TR2 hardware modification).
rankly, considering for example the software issues and the reallocation of old test points to new standards, etc. seems pretty risky. Program is late, would it be so dangerous to let it slip another 1 year in order to clean every potential weakness before wantin to start building F4 on a standard not yet fully debunked and tested?
When is a program ever completely issue free? The transparency of the F-35 program leads people to believe this is unique. 3F is the full warfighting config, the follow on 4.1-4.4 add capabilities but there was never a plan to wait for block 4 to start FRP.
As users have pointed out, their experience with the F-35 is quite different from the DOT&E findings. The F-35 is performing at exercises, training, flying in operational squadrons. The pilots and crews may notices glitches or uncover software instability or defects (like the fuel valve on one of the aircraft that was supposed to fly to Europe), but their overall impression is far different from what public perception is. If DoD was to wait for every issue to be ironed out before ramping up production, every weapon system would be obsolete before ever reaching the user.
Most people don’t notice software instability or glitches with their Iphone, yet there are constant software patches release, constant updates adding new features. Does Apple wait for every single feature, every app, every flaw or instability to be eliminated before selling the phone? No- this is the list of iOS 10 updates and patches:
https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US
Yet the phones still sell and people are generally pleased with them.
Paris air show claims they did extend invite to U.S. government-
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/paris-air-show-organizers-invited-us-f-35s-to-conduct-flight-demos
JPO states they received no indication. Really inconsequential considering any U.S. F-35 display would consist of basically a flyover. U.S. F-35’s aren’t going to be cleared for airshow displays until after SDD.
What does that unit cost include?
The chart is the “current” production unit cost for Tranche 1 & 2 aircraft in 2009, development costs are given in a different section. There is no breakdown of what is specifically included.
It is not a coincidence that almost all major Air Force programs have a huge spike in funding (procurement) right after the budget caps expire. That has and will create an acquisition bow-wave that they are now trying to address by increasing spending gradually. That is obviously easier said than done since as long as the BCA is in place any budget
The acquisition bow wave has been discussed for a half decade now, and pushing FRP right into the crest of it in the early 2020’s is going to lead to cuts to other programs and difficulty affording even the 60 F-35A per year for the USAF (forget the hoped for 80).
The budget uncertainties make it imperative that DoD get LRIP 11 finalized and green light MYP contract negotiations before mid-term elections.
Came across “Major Projects Report 2009, Appendices and Project summary sheets”. The Unit cost for the tranche 1 & 2 Typhoons (UK) in 2009 was 69.7 million pounds (roughly 109 million USD). Anyone have data for the tranche 3 aircraft in 2013-2015?
New GAO report (or was it already posted?)
No, parts have. The full report only came out yesterday. The news articles pretty much summed it up. GAO is reporting 1.7 billion and 12 months to complete testing, JPO is saying 532 million (or something close) and five month delay. That has been reported since last year.
More interesting (to me) was the graph on F-35 production ramp up. Unfortunately, GAO is absolutely correct on this point, the delays to the F-35 and pushing the production ramp up to the right has resulted in a FRP F-35 procurement timeline that will now have to compete with the B-21, KC-46A, and so on. Of course, the GAO recommendation is to push procurement further right (not a viable option considering the above).
Report has a different look this time.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/boeing-hits-back-on-f-15c-retirement-proposal
Claims 1 million per airframe to replace longerons, allow the aircraft to serve into 2030’s. They make a good point about the investments already made into the F-15 fleet: APG-63v3, upcoming EPAWSS.
Just does not seem they are realistically looking to retire the F-15C, the government just signed another contract for 18 more APG-63v3 at the same time the story about possible retirement was floated:
http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=Blog-boeing-awarded-nearly-169-million-f-15-radar-improvement
Well if you have powerful modules GaN modules & big aperture and you know where to look in the first place, + no need to track/search/GMTT/GMTI/SAR at the same time?, + have LBand radars giving a hand?
How many modules do you need then?
Besides keep in mind that with 60° coverage on each side, there will be some overlapping from 45° to 60° from flight axis. Which means that you get 1500+ + ~400 TRMs.
Nic
The Pak-Fa’s radar is GaA based, not GaN. There are indications that may change in the future, but as of now this is not the case.
TRM count is more or less given by the size of the apperture.. Antenna size has been just one of the parameters defining the radar performance way before AESA has been introduced and continues to remain so.. only clowns like yourself masturbate on the “mine is 1,518 and yours is 1,236 only” comparisons.. ..
Depends, the latest TRM are supposed to be more compact than the earlier generations.
I would assume with the same level of technology that aperture size would determine the total count. Not sure of the Russian foundries, or how advanced their industry is. Given the opacity of Russian defense reporting and information control, I’m not sure anyone outside of their MoD, military, and engineers, would be able to accurately assess the maturity of TRM technologies and foundries.
More BS.. All air forces paint their primary fighters in light colors, sometimes with 2 shades on top or onz color on top that’s a bit darker than below.
Maybe you deserve to be called an arrogant idiot after all…
Really? All? Let’s look at the F-22, Rafale, F-35, tejas, J-11, some Su-35. Super light shade right?
Only a child can’t admit when their wrong. Done with you for now, you really should be ashamed over your temper tantrum this last few pages.
With so many shades of grey I think Nato’s air forces are going to get spanked.
Maybe they like it rough.
So if I understand FBW correctly, dark grey is best for camouflage at high alt, so they are going to make the F35 light grey.
Makes sense.
Don’t think you understood me at all. But if it makes you feel better go ahead with that. Grey is the best color, there are various shades used by NATO.
I would say that the F-22, Rafale, F-35 are a darker grey than the RAF uses for example.
Umm.. not saying you are wrong here, but why does the VKS jets have the bright and fairly light color underneath 90% of all their fighters?
If you are talking about operating over 40k ft, for a prolonged time, then the only Nato jet that comes to mind is F-22.. well if they finally have sorted out the returning from missions suffering from hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation.
90% if not more of all the fighter jets are operating in the low to Medium altitude where you have the optimum performance between juce/air for engines and less drag.
If your point is that the color does not judge the detection of any jet, then claiming it has to be darker for very high altitude.. well..
Most are lighter on the underside due to visibility from the ground. The greys seem to blend better with horizon when flying above cloud level.
40k isn’t particularly high for fighter aircraft. Most operate between 30-40 thousand feet.
And no, drag decreases as altitude increases, while engine power may also decrease, this is partially offset by decrease in drag.
As far as colors, my point is they don’t necessarily determine mission set. Russia uses colors they believe are low visibility, NATO fighters are mostly in shades of low vis grey as that was determined to make them less visually detectable at the altitudes they typically operate at (30,000-40,000 ft).