MIGleader said:
what!!?? i though an f-18ef for export was 80 million!
well, if the plaaf is on defence, it has an advantage. ground radar can detect the f-18 from farther away, and flankers can be deployed to kill it. the r-77 probably nulls out the aim-120, and plaaf flankers have an hms too. if the j-11s deployed are of the b model, it should fare well against the f-18. j10? just maybe. but losing a some 25 million $ j-10s for a couple 80 million $ f-18s would be a gain for the plaaf.
The estimated unit cost, including total program expense in 1998 dollars, is $39.5 million for F/A-18 A/B/C/D, and $60 million for F/A-18E/F. I cited $60 million figure because it was USN purchase, and not export.
For export sales, the price will be higher if you include training, support, parts, munitions, etc. I think Malaysia paid about $600 million for 8 F/A-18D's in 1997, that's $75 million each. There were also talks to sell 18 F/A-18F's to Malaysia for $1.48 billion USD, approx. $82 million each. The Russians sort of under-cut the US offer with 18 Su-30's for $900 million.
sumdud said:
I'd think that if you have a fighter, it should be the best it could be.
The F-18 is a good multi-purpose platform, with good general performances, much better than the Hornet, but if its agility and manuverability aren't as great, I'd say it's a bust. On a carrier, I'd ask for a dedicated fighter and a dedicated attack plane, not that it cannot perform each other's roles, just at a worse state.
Integration is great, but sometimes, you just can't compromise the entire deal. (I am only meaning the F-18 fighter case.)
Right now, things are OK (OK only.) since most planes aren't BVR-capable. As long as F-18 don't get bold and get too close.
But as new planes, especially J-XX, come out, and F-18 gets no replacement. (JSF is primarily a strike plane. Unless US decided touse JSF as a fighter...) the hornet is screwed. It can't detect the J-XX, whilewill out-dogfight it.
To make long story short, the F/A-18E/F was the result of several factors, including the cancellation of super Tomcat 21 program, destruction of F-14 tools and molds by Grumman, failure of Hornet 2000 codevelopment project (between US and France), US-DoD's axing of A-12 Avenger II & NATF.
Sure, it'd have been nice for the USN if they could've received A-12 attackers and NATF (carrier version of F/A-22) fighters, but the estimated unit cost for A-12 was $165 million each (1990 dollars) and the NATF would've been even more expensive than the F/A-22 ($200 million?). The USN has more $ than any other navy, but it doesn't mean their wallet has unlimited amount of funds. The F/A-18E/F is a good multi-role platform that fit the budget.
If you look at the design requirements for the JSF, it included "survivability, lethality, sustainablity, and AFFORDABILITY". The USN variant, the F-35C, has estimated unit cost of $55 million, and is reported to have low maintenance cost. This made the program a success, in comparison to the cancelled MRF and A/F-X programs. The JSF is stealthy, equipped with AESA radar, and can carry up to 10 AAM's (2 in bomb bay doors, 2 in bomb bays, 4 on wing pylons, plus 2 on wingtips). There's no reason why the aircraft cannot be used in interception roles.