Red Golem,
Nobody can say for sure what the cost will finally end up being. We're hoping for 35-40 Mil for the F-35A, but it depends on the total number of AC
built.
They are not in production, prototypes and preliminary design reviews are done, but the critical design review has been postponed until next year.
From there it will go into test production, IOT&E, then LRIP, then finally serial production. The first A models should enter service around
2008-2009, with the B model coming in around 2012.
So none have been delivered.
[edit on 2-12-2004 by engineer]
|
first question, how is the AGM-84 SLAM getting along? this would be an excellent tool for SEAD missions I reckon...
Secondly, Will Northrop Grumman's team have visual stealth technology too? will these use Electrochromatic Plating as well? any ideas on what
designation it's going to have? rumors say it's A-17 and F-121...
|
engineer
Thanks for the info. But was there not supose to be a max cost of the f-35 when it was in desighn against the Boeing rival? 
|
Red Golem-
Yes, IIRC the target price was around $30-$35 Mil for the A model. But these numbers aren't really hard and fast until contracts for serial
production are inked. The DOD issues contracts for projects, not individual AC. Unit prices vary depending on a lot of factors. So each year, funds
are allocated towards a particular program, but you can't really say that a particular aircraft costs "x" dollars. Develpoment costs are front
loaded into the initial LRIP orders, so when serial production is underway, unit costs decrease. So the final unit costs are entirely dependent on the
number of actual aircraft produced, because development costs are amortized over the life cycle of the platform.
That's why you hear so many different numbers for the F/A-22. The program is defined, but as costs go up, the total number of AC decreases to keep
the program cost the same. It's impossible to specify a final unit cost until the program is completed. The order for this year was something like
$4.1 Bn. for 24 AC plus spares. When it goes into serial production, The same $4.1 Bn. may buy 36 AC. At the end of the production cycle, the same
dollars may buy 48 planes, because the associated early on costs go away. Those number are program costs, there are spares, training, IOT&E costs,
simulator costs, etc. included. Follow-on orders, foreign sales, and spin-off projects all combine to affect the numbers.
Ground_Zero-
I am not sure which version of the AGM-84 you are referring to. The ER has been in production for a long time. The ATA seems to be in competition with
the JASSM, even though they have different capabilities. I think the JASSM will win out in the long run.
As far as your three questions on the NG proposal for the interim bomber, I don't know, I don't know, and I don't know. (I wish I did) 
[edit on 2-12-2004 by engineer]
|
I believe this has been discussed before, and classified as it will never happen.
Did we not say the project was cancelled in a past thread?
Shattered OUT...
|
Originally posted by Murcielago
Shadow
Murcielago I think the B-22 is going to be around for awhile it can carry 16 2000 lb JADAMS OR 16 B61 or 16 B83 free-fall nuclear bombs with a range
of 11,515 mi w/ one refuelling,The plane is huge.The F/B-22 cant come close to that payload or range.
Lets face it, if war ever went nuclear, do you really think we will send a sub-sonic bomber...No...It will be all ICBM's. As for payload it could do
at least half of the B-2's, and we no longer need a huge payload since this craft (unlike the B-2) cant carpet bomb. and range is still unditermend,
obviously like the F-22 & B-2 it will have Mid-air refueling, but with a option of stealthy external fuel tank I bet it could get close to that range
on supercruise, since then it will be able to cover ground quicker but not use after burners which consume a crap load of fuel.
You could send a subsonic bomber. Just need to fill it up with long range cruise missiles. Thats what they did back in the 80s.
|
