a1bill,
I will reply to that when we get the market current or near future fighters (grippenE) costs that you think are cheaper than the F-35 with all sensors at under $90m flyaway 2020 price?
From Aviation Week:
The JAS 39E will be able to engage stealth targets with a fused, multispectral sensor suite, according to program officials. It will be able to cruise at Mach 1.25 without using afterburner, and will enter service in 2018 with a full suite of weapons including the MBDA Meteor ramjet-powered air-to-air missile (which enters service next year on the JAS 39C/D). The Swedish air force's fixed-price contract for 60 complete aircraft, converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure, equates to a flyaway price of $43 million.
The JAS 39E is intended to have a lower acquisition cost than the JAS 39C, despite its greater capability, and to have a lower operating cost than any other fighter. The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel. For development costs (also covered by a fixed-price contract), Saab's goal is to spend only 60% as much as it would have cost using the same tools and processes that were used on the JAS 39C.
The JAS 39E is not a classically stealthy aircraft, but the Swedish Air Force development contract stipulates a significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) than the JAS 39C. In conjunction with the all-new Saab-developed electronic warfare system, which uses gallium nitride antenna technology and is described as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor in its own right, and the new Selex-ES Brite Cloud expendable active decoy, the reduced RCS is expected to allow the fighter to survive against advanced threats, including the Sukhoi T-50 fighter and “double-digit” surface-to-air missiles, while avoiding the cost and risk of an F-35-type stealth configuration.
I can only say that some European folks are much more sensitive to acquisition cost as well as what needs to be done from a manufacturing viewpoint to obtain those costs than the JPO and L-M.
did your prices include all the pods/sensors needed for multi role, as I suggested was the specs?
Question:
Why does the US need a "multi-role" fighter, that you suggest, when the F-35 has the air to ground attack function all wrapped up? Isn't the need a good low cost air to air fighter, a role the F-35A can't fulfill?