US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Another step in strategic BMD, a new booster has been tested for the first time.



MDA tests two-stage Ground-Based Interceptor

By Doug Richardson - 29 June 2010

The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has successfully conducted Booster Verification Test-1 (BVT-1), the first flight-test of the two-stage version of the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI). Launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), California, at 1525 hours local time on 6 June, the booster performed fly-out manoeuvres and delivered an exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) to a designated point in space.

[...]

After separating from the second-stage booster, the EKV executed a variety of manoeuvres to collect data that would further prove its performance in space. A target missile was not launched for this flight-test, so there was no attempt to conduct an interception.

The Americans have moved 3 out of their 4 Ohio SSGN's to the Pacific, popping up in the Philippines, South Korea and Diego Garcia.

Click to expand...

But >>> As far as I know or the US will admit those are "just" cruise missiles. Only 144 x 3 = 432....yikes

Although the SSGN's are built too also let loose a Warm and Friendly Navy Seal Welcoming party.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Although the SSGN's are built too also let loose a Warm and Friendly Navy Seal Welcoming party.

Click to expand...

I think they changed the name to "Amphibious Cultural Exchange and Education Team". It's kinder and friendlier.

Just for referance, there are some latest price assumtions on the F-35.
If LM is right saying fly away cost will be around 60M, and Canada might end up paying 134M per aircraft, more than twice as much, does that mean that the other costs like training, simulators, development ect. are that big, or that the fly away cost is indeed a lot higher?



Farnborough 2010: LM insists JSF costs are coming down

By Peter Felstead - 23 July 2010

The debate about the unit price of the Lockheed Martin (LM) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) continued at the Farnborough International Airshow as the programme undergoes a recertification process initiated in June.

Briefing journalists at Farnborough on 19 July, Tom Burbage, the general manager and executive vice-president for the F-35 programme, maintained that LM was "still on track to deliver a USD60 million aircraft" in flyaway cost terms. An LM official subsequently confirmed to Jane's that this flyaway price included "all mission systems, sensors and auxiliary mission equipment".

However, as recently as March plans were announced for the F-35 programme to be moved from a 'cost plus' to a fixed-price basis. US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Ashton Carter, told the US Congress that the average per-unit cost of the F-35 had substantially increased from USD50 million to as much as USD95 million in 2002 dollars.

Recent pricing data for the F-35's international customers also appears to put the F-35 per-unit cost much higher. In Canada, for example, official documents have suggested that the acquisition costs for the 65 F-35As Ottawa expects to buy will total about USD8.7 billion, giving a unit price of USD134 million.

Does "fly away cost" include simply the price of production (at 60M)? I would imagine the Canadians and others are being asked to contribute to the development cost. Separating development cost and production cost makes it all more politically palatable.

that is of course if Canada buys, they are still or at least were quite happy with the Cf18 series there investment was mostly for the sake of technology and economics.

Red Moon said:

Does "fly away cost" include simply the price of production (at 60M)? I would imagine the Canadians and others are being asked to contribute to the development cost. Separating development cost and production cost makes it all more politically palatable.

Click to expand...

There's a wiki article that I think is a pretty good referance for basic understanding of the different costs of military aircraft.



With these terms I guess you can search for more precise sources if you want to.

And the different partners of course also pay for R&D. The UK as the sole tier one partner contributed the most, wich is why they'll get the first planes outside the US. And then it goes on that way with tier two and three partners.



Spearheaded by the United States, the project's second largest partner was the United Kingdom which contributed over $2.5 billion (10% of development costs) to the project. Level 2 partners include Italy and the Netherlands who have contributed $1 billion and $800 million respectively. Third tier partners are Canada ($440 million), Turkey ($175 million), Australia ($144 million), Norway ($122 million), and Denmark ($110 million)

I'm not sure if that's still the most up to date figure, but you get an idea.

The US navy apparently is saving itself into reduced readiness. Some of the Tico cruisers recieved unsat ready rating for their AEGIS capability, there's definitely some strain on the services right now.



US Navy's readiness deficit blamed on excessive cost-cutting

By Sam LaGrone - 05 August 2010

Over-zealous cost-cutting efforts within the US Navy's manning and training budgets, dating back 20 years, have been blamed for a decrease in the service's operational readiness.

Combat system failures in surface combatants are giving officials particular cause for concern, with 50 per cent of Ticonderoga-class cruisers in one study receiving unsatisfactory Aegis readiness ratings.

Lean manning practices and reliance on automated systems were also identified as contributory factors in the engine failures that have blighted the procurement of San Antonio-class landing platform dock ships. ...

Thank you for your answer, Scratch. I read the wikipedia article. It was informative, but I still don't know why Canada has to pay so much more per plane. Is it because the "only" contributed $440 million?