Iranian long range anti ship ballistic missile in development

[VEVAK]

When the U.S. conducted their anti Ballistic missile operation with NATO they were only able to intercept when a large body was flouting in the upper atmosphere towards the target in a fixed ballistic trajectory basically they showed their ability to intercept 1st generation Shahab & Fatteh missiles Iran responded by 1st making it's warheads separate which is good and reduces RCS but still it was a fixed ballistic trajectory towards the target that could be calculated so reducing the RCS wasn't enough due to modern advances so Iran by adding booster or PBV (Post boost Vehicle) and the ability to change trajectory has practically reduces their interception to under 10% and

Next step is to follow what china to reduce that 10% reentry interception to under 1%

This is to the person who said "ballistic missiles can't change trajectory!" LOL! Ballistic missiles have been able to change trajectory since the late 60's

Yes the definition a ballistic trajectory is a fixed trajectory!! But every precision guided missiles in the world whether ballistic or not changes trajectory!!! and the only reason Saudi Arabia has been able to intercept some of Yamens missiles is because they were on a fix trajectory and without a separating warhead!

When your Ballistic missile changes trajectory above the atmosphere you bring down interception rates below 10%

Even for the U.S. being able to hit missiles with separating and guided post boost vehicles that changes trajectory during terminal guidance at a 15% success rate is not only acceptable but it's success!!!

now if you make your reentry vehicle change trajectory that 10% basically goes down to under 1%

 

[Penguin]

The Zolfaqar is solid fueled and hence very fast in the launch phase. You can see for yourself on YouTube how fast that missile launche, giving less time for interception.

I did already indicated that solid or liquid fueled makes a difference in that the need to fuel up is eliminated and launch prep is shortened.

It is also manoeuvrable, so it could fool missile defence systems by making it's trajectory more unpredictable. It's smaller and has been described as having low RCS. If it does truly have those MIRV warheads, it would be even more difficult to destroy.

Multiple and manoeuvrable RVs make for a harder (but not impossible) target

Add to all these factors that Iran can launch a swarm of these, and the target is very vulnerable.

Anything used in large numbers is dangerous in that it can overwhelm defences by sheer numbers. See anti-ship missiles. Hence also the U.S. Navy's LOw-Cost Unmanned aerial vehicle Swarming Technology (LOCUST). Anyway, having a large number of missiles doesn't necessarily mean an equally large number of launchers (i.e. simultaneous launch capability), so the number of available missiles can be deceptive. Clearly, quick reloading would be a force multiplier that can be used to generate waves in quick succession.

That may be so, but both those systems are exceedingly old and don't have the capability of the PMU2 in all sectors. In this case, defence against ARMs and jamming is especially important. Furthermore, a very large part of Iran's systems are domestic, including the Bavar-373. No-one has any samples of those.

Those are two systems that the public knows of. I'm sure the US has not sat idly on its hands all these years.

One thing that has been developed is MALD-J aka Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer. The MALD-J is a fairly small, low-cost weapon that can be launched from fighters, bombers and other aircraft while in flight. In addition to jamming radar and other signals of adversaries, the aircraft also can protect manned aircraft by duplicating their flight profiles and drawing fire away from them. MALD-Js can be fitted with four interchangeable payloads specific to each mission and can be swapped into a host aircraft in about a minute. Raytheon is to produce upgraded versions of the aircraft, to be called MALD-X, with flight tests scheduled for March 2018. A Raytheon ADM-160B MALD is a little over 9 feet in length, smaller than an AMRAAM but with a range of just under Approximately 920 km (500 nautical miles, 575 land miles) with ability to loiter over target and a maximum altitude of about 40,000 feet. Currently validated launch platforms are F-16 Fighting Falcon, B-52 Stratofortress and ... C-130 Hercules, equipped with the new Raytheon-funded MALD Cargo Air Launched System aka MCALS. So, any ramp equipped transport could become a launch platform now for the 920km autonomous jammer. Cleary, that would give air defence something to chew on, even if one didn't have samples of their emissions.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/mald/

Well I don't think the body of shahab 2 and zolfaghar missile cost too different or even their fuel cost. The difference maybe is in guidance system and I doubt that system today's in digital age worth anything near millions of dollars.
When for example China or Russia or USA sell missile A for x $ and Missile B for 10x $ it wont mean missile B production cost 10 time more . its just they are business and well they can charge a lot more for something that is a little more advance . look for example at a company like nVIDIA kook at their chips you see they sell a chip for different prices while it cost them the exact same money. They just put it in different card gp104 can be found in gtx1070 GTX-1080 and quadro P5000 and GPU Accelerator P4 and their price can be more than 10x.

And when you develop your own missiles, it is not just the material cost of making a missile, but also the development cost (spread out over the total number of missiles built)

 

[Hack-Hook]

And when you develop your own missiles, it is not just the material cost of making a missile, but also the development cost (spread out over the total number of missiles built)

naturally,but its still cheaper than when you buy it off the shelf specially when you develop them based on existing platforms and also produce them in mass.

 

[Penguin]

naturally,but its still cheaper than when you buy it off the shelf specially when you develop them based on existing platforms and also produce them in mass.

I beg to differ. Also, the assumption is that you have normal acces to what's on the shelf. If the shelf is difficult to get access to, that also bumps your costs.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I beg to differ. Also, the assumption is that you have normal acces to what's on the shelf. If the shelf is difficult to get access to, that also bumps your costs.

well we don't buy it off the shelf so it wont bump our price tag, I said it'd be cheaper to produce an advanced missile locally than buy it of the shelf if you have based it on a previous one and want to develop it more as the body and fuel of the missile have roughly the same price tag as the older one and the guidance system won't cost you hundreds of thousands of Dollar to build but they charge you hundred of thousands of Dollar more when they want to sell you a missile with more advance guidance system if they even sell it to you.

 

[Penguin]

well we don't buy it off the shelf so it wont bump our price tag, I said it'd be cheaper to produce an advanced missile locally than buy it of the shelf if you have based it on a previous one and want to develop it more as the body and fuel of the missile have roughly the same price tag as the older one and the guidance system won't cost you hundreds of thousands of Dollar to build but they charge you hundred of thousands of Dollar more when they want to sell you a missile with more advance guidance system if they even sell it to you.

Are you saying Iran has developed no new systems from scratch?

 

[VEVAK]

2007 prices and we know they haven't gotten cheaper $17K - $110k (Is what the U.S. military pay's NOT countries like Saudi Arabia)

2015 Javelin ATGM $230K each!!!!
2015 RQ-7 Shadow $1M each!!! (Iranian version $10K)

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Weapons.pdf#page=60



Absurd prices U.S. pays because they sell weapons to themselves!!!

This is Iran in 1997 (19 years ago)

That's Iran in 1997 anyone here can google keyword "Fastest Growing Country in Science and Technology" to get an idea as to where Iran is today!! By the most part we don't sell ourselves weapons and all the raw materials are free free free for the defense industry it's just labor

I was mistaken about the F-35's!! It seems I grossly underestimated

If this is what the U.S. Military is paying right now there is absolutely no way any other country on the planet can keep a single F-35 in their fleet for a year for $300 Million USD LOL!!

$286 for the Navy!!!! (Don't even think about the Navy version!!!)

$155 for the Air Force version and that's just the aircraft alone!!

$1.6 Million for each AMRAAM
~$500 K for each AIM-9X
Each SDB is now $320K!!!

Let's say you get 10 of each for each Aircraft

$16M for 10 AMRAAM
$5M for 10 AiM-9X
$3.2M for 10 SDB
& lets round down to $24Million so

1 F-35A $155 Million + $24M (an extremely small amount of weapons) = $179M + $11M for spare parts per aircraft = $190 + $23M in RDT&E = $213 Million

And this is what the U.S. is paying right off the bat for it's cheapest version of the F-35A

No flight time! nothing!!!

So an F-35A in your fleet for under $300 M a year is basically a parked aircraft with hardly any weapons & no pilot capable of even flying it!!!

 

[Hack-Hook]

Are you saying Iran has developed no new systems from scratch?

who develop new system from scratch ?
everybody develop from existing platforms.

 

[Penguin]

2015 RQ-7 Shadow $1M each!!! (Iranian version $10K)

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Weapons.pdf#page=60

Absurd prices U.S. pays because they sell weapons to themselves!!!

There isn't a direct or indirect reference to (unit) cost for RQ-7 in this publication.

In fact the FY2015 budget request [nb a request does not necessarily ges enacted and allocated wholly or partially] doesn't include purchase of RQ-7 at all.

It does include 3 RQ21 Blackjack systems, with each SYSTEM consisting of 5 air vehicles, 2 gound control systems, payloads, launch/recovery system and associated ground support equipment. This three systems together cost $66.6 million. If you devide that by 15, relating to the number of air vehicles, you end up with $4.44 million. Of course, that means all the other system components besides the air vehicle are free

The table in which these amounts are mentions is about RTD&E funding. RTD&E stands for Research Development Test and Evaluation. This is not your production cost for a mature system. And it is not the cost of an RQ-7, which cannot bederived from the data in this document

US$559 million is the estimated U.S. DoD cost for 104 [RQ21] systems through FY2017.
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0305234M_7_PB_2013.pdf
That is $5.35 million per system which - if devided by 5 for the air vehicles alone - amounts to $1,075,000. Of course, that means all the other system components are free

Unit cost Per system: US$15.5 million (2011 dollars
Per aircraft: US$750,000.00 (2011 dollars)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAI_RQ-7_Shadow#cite_note-aeroweb-3
referencing

"The full Shadow System consists of 4 air vehicles with payload, launcher and ground control and support equipment including: power generation, communications equipment, automated recovery equipment, one system remote video terminals vehicle mounted shelter, and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) with trailer. Each system is equipped with one Maintenance Section Multifunctional (MSM) and is supported at the division level by a mobile maintenance facility. The baseline fielded payload is electro-optical infrared (EO/IR) with a laser designator payload.A full RQ-7 system with 4 UAVs, launcher, ground control station, and associated spares and other equipment has a price tag of about $15.5 million (in 2011). The unit cost (just the aerial vehicle) is $750,000 (in 2011)."
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/RQ-7-Shadow.html

All this leads me to question your cost estimate for the RQ-7 and possibly your understanding of the subject (budget) matter.

Further more, your quotes price for 'Iranian version' isn't at all supported with reference to anything reliable or verifyable. You might just as well have said $10 or $10 million. It is just your claim. Also It also isn't clear what that $10.000 actually covers. It may well be that the airframe of the iranian version costs that to build (but just the airframe and none of e.g. the payload or remote control and communication equipments built into the airframe).

who develop new system from scratch ?
everybody develop from existing platforms.

Really? That's funny. Look at the 4 contenders remaining in the T-X trainer competion. Two offerings are versions of existing trainers, but the other two are completely new aircraft designs, specifically tailored to the trainer requirement. One offering (Skorpion) dropped out because they weren't prepared to take that 'clean slate' approach. Now, the newly developed aircraft may use mature components e.g. an engine, but that does not mean it is not new. All new capabilities are developed from scratch. Which is, incidentally, why top of the line arms are expensive (even those from e.g. China or Russia).

 

[Penguin]

2007 prices and we know they haven't gotten cheaper $17K - $110k (Is what the U.S. military pay's NOT countries like Saudi Arabia)

Source for that is https://web.archive.org/web/2013080...il/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=72 ( USAF AGM-65 MAVERICK factsheet Posted 11/16/2007)

Clearly these are not necessarily 2007 prices. Rather, they are prices by type (perhaps even in constant dollars), with older (less advanced) or more numerous types likely being cheaper than newer (more advanced) or less numerous types. Also, comparing cost quotes in dollars at different moments in time should take into account the decline in value and purchasing power of the US dollar, esp. from late 1960s to 1980s.

The US Navy factsheet on Maverick says:

Service Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force
The AGM-65F (infrared targeting optimized for ship tracking.) used on Navy P-3 aircraft, and the AGM-65E (laser guided) used on Marine Corps AV-8 aircraft have the larger (300 pound; 136 kg) penetrating warhead. The AGM-65A/B/D 125 pound (57 kg) shaped charge (electro-optical guided) is used by the Air Force F-16 and A-10 aircraft.
Unit Cost: $180,000.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=500&ct=2

USD $48,000 (A model), $64,100 (B), $110,000 (C), $111,000 (D), $101,000 (E) and $269,000 (G) (FY 1999)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article4.html

Acquisition unit cost: $129,322 (AGM 65 D), $158,688 (AGM 65 E)
Production unit cost: $17,000 (AGM 65 A/B) $122,230 (AGM 65 D), $152,491 (AGM 65 E)
Number produced: 23,689 (AGM 65 D), 4,115 (AGM 65 E)
Date deployed AGM65A/B 1972, AGM65D 1986, AGM65E later than 1986
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-65-specs.htm

Maverick D replaced the electro-optical guidance with an imaging infrared system which doubled the practical firing distance and allowed for its use at night and during bad weather. A reduced smoke rocket engine was also introduced in this model. It achieved its initial operation capability in 1983.
Maverick E uses a laser designator guidance system optimized for fortified installations and heavier penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead (140 kg (300 lb) vs. 57 kg (125 lb) in older models). It achieved IOC in 1985 and was used mainly by USMC aviation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick#Variants

If you claim non-US users pay more than US for the same item, than pls provide references that show this.

By the most part we don't sell ourselves weapons and all the raw materials are free free free for the defense industry it's just labor

Nothing is free. Raw materials need to be extracted and processed before they are even remotely ready for use in arms manufacturing. Which means machining, refining etc. Which means it is not 'just labor'. If the cost of raw materials is not charged to the arms manufacturer, then it is born by the government i.e. by society i.e. all the people of Iran. Pretending those costs aren't there is selfdelusion.

In 2006, about 45% of Iran's government budget came from oil and natural gas revenues, and 31% from taxes and fees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
So, if the government takes care of the raw material and processing cost so armsanufacturers only pay wages, then that means oil and gas revenues and tax revenues don't end up benefitting non-arms programs e.g. healthcare and education etc. And it doesn't end up in our pocket either. So, either way the people pay.

Yes, 1.5 mil pounds was the unit cost of a fully equipped Challenger I back in those days
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...llenger-tank-cost#S6CV0108P0_19870112_CWA_587

The price of a Challenger II in 1990 was over £4,000,000
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0023.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

The projected production costs for one Leopard 2AV tank were $128,800 in 1976.
A Lepard II A6 in 2006 cost 2A6: US$5.74 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

A -72 cost between US$0.5 and $1.2 million in 1994-1996, and US$1–2 million in 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72 referincing
http://www.kap-yar.ru/index.php?pg=244
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090806/155743859.html

A T-90 cost USD$ 2.5 million in 1999, US$2.77 – 4.25 million in 2011 (varies by source) and T-90MS is USD 4.5 Million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90 referencing
http://www.kap-yar.ru/index.php?pg=244
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=93690&cid=25

So?

1999-2004 a T-55 went for $200,000
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product412.html

That's nice an cheap. You will also right quickly die in it on a modern battle field. Which doesn't mean it is a usefull piece of kit in some settings, depending on the (lack of) AT capabilities of your opponent.

 

[VEVAK]

There isn't a direct or indirect reference to (unit) cost for RQ-7 in this publication.

In fact the FY2015 budget request [nb a request does not necessarily ges enacted and allocated wholly or partially] doesn't include purchase of RQ-7 at all.

It does include 3 RQ21 Blackjack systems, with each SYSTEM consisting of 5 air vehicles, 2 gound control systems, payloads, launch/recovery system and associated ground support equipment. This three systems together cost $66.6 million. If you devide that by 15, relating to the number of air vehicles, you end up with $4.44 million. Of course, that means all the other system components besides the air vehicle are free

The table in which these amounts are mentions is about RTD&E funding. RTD&E stands for Research Development Test and Evaluation. This is not your production cost for a mature system. And it is not the cost of an RQ-7, which cannot bederived from the data in this document

US$559 million is the estimated U.S. DoD cost for 104 [RQ21] systems through FY2017.
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0305234M_7_PB_2013.pdf
That is $5.35 million per system which - if devided by 5 for the air vehicles alone - amounts to $1,075,000. Of course, that means all the other system components are free

Unit cost Per system: US$15.5 million (2011 dollars
Per aircraft: US$750,000.00 (2011 dollars)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAI_RQ-7_Shadow#cite_note-aeroweb-3
referencing

"The full Shadow System consists of 4 air vehicles with payload, launcher and ground control and support equipment including: power generation, communications equipment, automated recovery equipment, one system remote video terminals vehicle mounted shelter, and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) with trailer. Each system is equipped with one Maintenance Section Multifunctional (MSM) and is supported at the division level by a mobile maintenance facility. The baseline fielded payload is electro-optical infrared (EO/IR) with a laser designator payload.A full RQ-7 system with 4 UAVs, launcher, ground control station, and associated spares and other equipment has a price tag of about $15.5 million (in 2011). The unit cost (just the aerial vehicle) is $750,000 (in 2011)."
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/RQ-7-Shadow.html

All this leads me to question your cost estimate for the RQ-7 and possibly your understanding of the subject (budget) matter.

Further more, your quotes price for 'Iranian version' isn't at all supported with reference to anything reliable or verifyable. You might just as well have said $10 or $10 million. It is just your claim. Also It also isn't clear what that $10.000 actually covers. It may well be that the airframe of the iranian version costs that to build (but just the airframe and none of e.g. the payload or remote control and communication equipments built into the airframe).


Really? That's funny. Look at the 4 contenders remaining in the T-X trainer competion. Two offerings are versions of existing trainers, but the other two are completely new aircraft designs, specifically tailored to the trainer requirement. One offering (Skorpion) dropped out because they weren't prepared to take that 'clean slate' approach. Now, the newly developed aircraft may use mature components e.g. an engine, but that does not mean it is not new. All new capabilities are developed from scratch. Which is, incidentally, why top of the line arms are expensive (even those from e.g. China or Russia).

\

It was there yesterday... but OK from now on i'll take pictures Who cares look at the rest!!!!

14 Million USD for 1!!! RQ-21

It seems they liked Iran's version of the scan eagle better than their own they just made it a bit bigger!!!!

And you went on and on about the Shadow!!! LOL!!!

& the Raven!!! anyone with half a brain can build something far superior at a hobby shop for far less than $2,000!!! what did the U.S. pay again in 2013???

That is absurd!!!!

 

[VEVAK]

To me this means any country that fully relies on U.S. weapons has to at the very least spend 10X Iran's defense spending to even come close to Iran's capabilities!!

Iran's Military Budget is $17 Billion & even on the low end if the IRGC allocates $3Billion (In reality it's closer to $10) that's still $20 Billion that means if your fully reliant on U.S. weapons you need a defense spending of $200 Billion USD to keep up with Iran!!!

Because I don't think the U.S. makes a single weapon that Iran couldn't produce with well under one tenth of their spending aside from things that are beyond Iran's capability of course.....

I think Iran has a good 10 years to prepare to become a major weapons exporter!!!

Source for that is https://web.archive.org/web/2013080...il/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=72 ( USAF AGM-65 MAVERICK factsheet Posted 11/16/2007)

Clearly these are not necessarily 2007 prices. Rather, they are prices by type (perhaps even in constant dollars), with older (less advanced) or more numerous types likely being cheaper than newer (more advanced) or less numerous types. Also, comparing cost quotes in dollars at different moments in time should take into account the decline in value and purchasing power of the US dollar, esp. from late 1960s to 1980s.

The US Navy factsheet on Maverick says:

Service Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force
The AGM-65F (infrared targeting optimized for ship tracking.) used on Navy P-3 aircraft, and the AGM-65E (laser guided) used on Marine Corps AV-8 aircraft have the larger (300 pound; 136 kg) penetrating warhead. The AGM-65A/B/D 125 pound (57 kg) shaped charge (electro-optical guided) is used by the Air Force F-16 and A-10 aircraft.
Unit Cost: $180,000.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=500&ct=2

USD $48,000 (A model), $64,100 (B), $110,000 (C), $111,000 (D), $101,000 (E) and $269,000 (G) (FY 1999)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article4.html

Acquisition unit cost: $129,322 (AGM 65 D), $158,688 (AGM 65 E)
Production unit cost: $17,000 (AGM 65 A/B) $122,230 (AGM 65 D), $152,491 (AGM 65 E)
Number produced: 23,689 (AGM 65 D), 4,115 (AGM 65 E)
Date deployed AGM65A/B 1972, AGM65D 1986, AGM65E later than 1986
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-65-specs.htm

Maverick D replaced the electro-optical guidance with an imaging infrared system which doubled the practical firing distance and allowed for its use at night and during bad weather. A reduced smoke rocket engine was also introduced in this model. It achieved its initial operation capability in 1983.
Maverick E uses a laser designator guidance system optimized for fortified installations and heavier penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead (140 kg (300 lb) vs. 57 kg (125 lb) in older models). It achieved IOC in 1985 and was used mainly by USMC aviation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick#Variants

If you claim non-US users pay more than US for the same item, than pls provide references that show this.


Nothing is free. Raw materials need to be extracted and processed before they are even remotely ready for use in arms manufacturing. Which means machining, refining etc. Which means it is not 'just labor'. If the cost of raw materials is not charged to the arms manufacturer, then it is born by the government i.e. by society i.e. all the people of Iran. Pretending those costs aren't there is selfdelusion.

In 2006, about 45% of Iran's government budget came from oil and natural gas revenues, and 31% from taxes and fees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
So, if the government takes care of the raw material and processing cost so armsanufacturers only pay wages, then that means oil and gas revenues and tax revenues don't end up benefitting non-arms programs e.g. healthcare and education etc. And it doesn't end up in our pocket either. So, either way the people pay.

Yes, 1.5 mil pounds was the unit cost of a fully equipped Challenger I back in those days
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...llenger-tank-cost#S6CV0108P0_19870112_CWA_587

The price of a Challenger II in 1990 was over £4,000,000
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0023.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

The projected production costs for one Leopard 2AV tank were $128,800 in 1976.
A Lepard II A6 in 2006 cost 2A6: US$5.74 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

A -72 cost between US$0.5 and $1.2 million in 1994-1996, and US$1–2 million in 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72 referincing
http://www.kap-yar.ru/index.php?pg=244
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090806/155743859.html

A T-90 cost USD$ 2.5 million in 1999, US$2.77 – 4.25 million in 2011 (varies by source) and T-90MS is USD 4.5 Million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90 referencing
http://www.kap-yar.ru/index.php?pg=244
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=93690&cid=25

So?

1999-2004 a T-55 went for $200,000
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product412.html

That's nice an cheap. You will also right quickly die in it on a modern battle field. Which doesn't mean it is a usefull piece of kit in some settings, depending on the (lack of) AT capabilities of your opponent.

So for
84 F-15's (And it's weapons)
70 Apaches (And it's weapons)
72 Black Hawks
36 little birds
& 70 F-15 upgrades (And some weapons)
Ends up to $60 Billion??

I'm going to help you out!! Lets count the upgrades as new aircrafts that's how many aircrafts? 332? $60 Billion divided by 332? $180 Million per aircraft! & you only get 84 new F-15's are you kidding me?

If you don't have a formal defense treaty with the U.S. the U.S. can sell you weapons at whatever price it deems fit!!!! That is a FACT!!!

 

[Penguin]

View attachment 339417\
14 Million USD for 1!!! RQ-21
And you went on and on about the Shadow!!! LOL!!!

You apparently missed that I discussed RQ21. And for production (rather than R&D), it comes down to not more than $1,075,000 for a single air vehicle. It is $5.35 million per system which includes 5 air vehicles, plus a lot of other gear.
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0305234M_7_PB_2013.pdf

 

[Penguin]

So for
84 F-15's (And it's weapons)
70 Apaches (And it's weapons)
72 Black Hawks
36 little birds
& 70 F-15 upgrades (And some weapons)
Ends up to $60 Billion??

I'm going to help you out!! Lets count the upgrades as new aircrafts that's how many aircrafts? 332? $60 Billion divided by 332? $180 Million per aircraft! & you only get 84 new F-15's are you kidding me?

If you don't have a formal defense treaty with the U.S. the U.S. can sell you weapons at whatever price it deems fit!!!! That is a FACT!!!

You have no idea what you are talking about, clearly.

Go here, and you will find the details of this package of proposed sales (Congress would still have to approve): http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/archives/201010.

Specifically, there are 4 proposed sales to Saudi Arabia in October 2010:

Saudi Arabia - AH-64D APACHE, UH-60M BLACKHAWK, AH-6i Light Attack, and MD-530F Light Turbine Helicopters

• 36 AH-64D Block III APACHE Helicopters
• 72 UH-60M BLACKHAWK Helicopters
• 36 AH-6i Light Attack Helicopters
• 12 MD-530F Light Turbine Helicopters
• 243 T700-GE-701D Engines
• 40 Modernized Targeting Acquisition and Designation Systems/Pilot Night Vision Sensors
• 20 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars with Radar Electronics Unit
• 20 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometer
• 171 AN/APR-39 Radar Signal Detecting Sets
• 171 AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Sets
• 171 AAR-57(V)3/5 Common Missile Warning Systems
• 318 Improved Countermeasures Dispensers
• 40 Wescam MX-15Di (AN/AAQ-35) Sight/Targeting Sensors
• 40 GAU-19/A 12.7mm (.50 caliber) Gatling Guns
• 108 Improved Helmet Display Sight Systems
• 52 30mm Automatic Weapons
• 18 Aircraft Ground Power Units
• 168 M240H Machine Guns
• 300 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles
• 421 M310 A1 Modernized Launchers
• 158 M299 HELLFIRE Longbow Missile Launchers
• 2,592 AGM-114R HELLFIRE II Missiles
• 1,229 AN/PRQ-7 Combat Survivor Evader Locators
• 4 BS-1 Enhanced Terminal Voice Switches
• 4 Digital Airport Surveillance Radars
• 4 Fixed-Base Precision Approach Radar
• 4 DoD Advanced Automation Service
• 4 Digital Voice Recording System

Also included are

• trainers,
  
• simulators,
  
• generators,
  
• munitions,
  
• design and construction,
  
• transportation,
  
• wheeled vehicles and organization equipment,
  
• tools and test equipment,
  
• communication equipment,
  
• Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems,
  
• GPS/INS,
  
• spare and repair parts,
  
• support equipment,
  
• personnel training and training equipment,
  
• publications and technical documentation,
  
• U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of program support.

The estimated cost is $25.6 billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sale...lackhawk-ah-6i-light-attack-and-md-530f-light

Saudi Arabia - AH-64D APACHE Longbow Helicopters

• 24 AH-64D Block III APACHE Longbow Helicopters
• 58 T700-GE-701D Engines
• 27 Modernized Targeting Acquisition and Designation Systems/Pilot Night Vision Sensors
• 10 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars with Radar Electronics Unit (Longbow Component)
• 10 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometer
• 27 AN/APR-39 Radar Signal Detecting Sets
• 27 AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Sets
• 27 AAR-57(V)3/5 Common Missile Warning Systems
• 54 Improved Countermeasures Dispensers
• 28 30mm Automatic Weapons
• 6 Aircraft Ground Power Units
• 48 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles
• 106 M299A1 HELLFIRE Longbow Missile Launchers
• 24 HELLFIRE Training Missiles
• 1,536 AGM-114R HELLFIRE II Missiles
• 4,000 2.75 in 70mm Laser Guided Rockets
• 307 AN/PRQ-7 Combat Survivor Evader Locators
• 1 BS-1 Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch
• 1 Fixed-Base Precision Approach Radar
• 1 Digital Airport Surveillance Radar
• 1 DoD Advanced Automation Service
• 1 Digital Voice Recording System

Also included are

• trainers,
  
• simulators,
  
• generators,
  
• training munitions,
  
• design and construction,
  
• transportation,
  
• tools and test equipment,
  
• ground and air based SATCOM and line of sight communication equipment,
  
• Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems,
  
• GPS/INS,
  
• spare and repair parts,
  
• support equipment,
  
• personnel training and training equipment,
  
• publications and technical documentation,
  
• U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of program support.

The estimated cost is $3.3 billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/saudi-arabia-ah-64d-apache-longbow-helicopters

Saudi Arabia - AH-64D Longbow Helicopters, Engines and Night Vision Sensors

• 10 AH-64D Block III APACHE Longbow Helicopters
• 28 T700-GE-701D Engines
• 13 Modernized Targeting Acquisition and Designation Systems/Pilot Night Vision Sensors
• 7 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars with Radar Electronics Unit (Longbow Component)
• 7 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometer
• 13 AN/APR-39 Radar Signal Detecting Sets
• 13 AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Sets
• 13 AAR-57(V)3/5 Common Missile Warning Systems
• 26 Improved Countermeasures Dispensers
• 26 Improved Helmet Display Sight Systems
• 14 30mm Automatic Weapons
• 6 Aircraft Ground Power Units
• 14 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles
• 640 AGM-114R HELLFIRE II Missiles
• 2,000 2.75 in 70mm Laser Guided Rockets
• 307 AN/PRQ-7 Combat Survivor Evader Locators
• 1 BS-1 Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch
• 1 Fixed-Base Precision Approach Radar
• 1 Digital Airport Surveillance Radar
• 1 DoD Advanced Automation Service
• 1 Digital Voice Recording System

Also included are

• trainers,
  
• simulators,
  
• generators,
  
• training munitions,
  
• design and construction,
  
• transportation,
  
• tools and test equipment,
  
• ground and air based SATCOM and line of sight communication equipment,
  
• Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems,
  
• GPS/INS,
  
• spare and repair parts,
  
• support equipment,
  
• personnel training and training equipment,
  
• publications and technical documentation,
  
• U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of program support.

The estimated cost is $2.223 billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sale...-helicopters-engines-and-night-vision-sensors

Saudi Arabia – F-15SA Aircraft

• 84 F-15SA Aircraft
• 170 APG-63(v)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets
• 193 F-110-GE-129 Improved Performance Engines
• 100 M61 Vulcan Cannons
• 100 Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution
• System/Low Volume Terminal (MIDS/LVT) and spares
• 193 LANTIRN Navigation Pods (3rd Generation-Tiger Eye)
• 338 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)
• 462 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVGS)
• 300 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles
• 25 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM-9X)
• 25 Special Air Training Missiles (NATM-9X)
• 500 AIM-120C/7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
• 25 AIM-120 CATMs
• 1,000 Dual Mode Laser/Global Positioning System (GPS)
• Guided Munitions (500 lb)
• 1,000 Dual Mode Laser/GPS Guided Munitions (2000 lb)
• 1,100 GBU-24 PAVEWAY III Laser Guided Bombs (2000 lb)
• 1,000 GBU-31B V3 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) (2000 lb)
• 1,300 CBU-105D/B Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW)/Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD)
• 50 CBU-105 Inert
• 1,000 MK-82 500lb General Purpose Bombs
• 6,000 MK-82 500lb Inert Training Bombs
• 2,000 MK-84 2000lb General Purpose Bombs
• 2,000 MK-84 2000lb Inert Training Bombs
• 200,000 20mm Cartridges
• 400,000 20mm Target Practice Cartridges
• 400 AGM-84 Block II HARPOON Missiles
• 600 AGM-88B HARM Missiles
• 169 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS)
• 158 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems
• 169 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems
• 10 DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods
• 462 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System Helmets
• 40 Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receivers (ROVER)
• 80 Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation Pods

Also included are:

• the upgrade of the existing Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) fleet of seventy (70) F-15S multi-role fighters to the F-15SA configuration,
  
• the provision for CONUS-based fighter training operations for a twelve (12) F-15SA contingent,
  
• construction,
  
• refurbishments, and
  
• infrastructure improvements of several support facilities for the F-15SA in-Kingdom and/or CONUS operations,
  
• RR-188 Chaff,
  
• MJU-7/10 Flares,
  
• training munitions,
  
• Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices,
  
• communication security,
  
• site surveys,
  
• trainers,
  
• simulators,
  
• publications and technical documentation,
  
• personnel training and training equipment,
  
• U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistical support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.

The estimated cost is $29.432 billion.

Source: http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/saudi-arabia-f-15sa-aircraft

TOTAL: US$ 61.455 billion

In short, the proposed deals involve far more than 'just' the aircraft. Munitions and spare parts aside, there's a lot of 'after sales services', including training, often over a period of many years (the article Vevak quoted speaks of 5 to 10 years).

Taking the value of the deal and deviding by number of aircraft is a rather simplistic way to assess the procurement cost of an aircraft.

Compare for example the second and third package, for 24 and 10 Apache respectively. (US$3.3 billion / 24 = US$137.5 million "per aircraft" versus US$2.2 billion / 10 = US$ 222.3 million "per aircraft"). So, within the same package, there are vastly differing 'unit costs' this way, for exactly the same aircraft. Another way of looking at this is that 14 extra Apaches apparently cost only $80 million each (difference in deal values / 14), compared to US$222.3 million for the first 10). Indications that this is not a good method.

Certainly not a straight comparision with procurement unit cost from the US Defence budget. You have yet to show that the USAF would have to pay less, for the same package.

Please also note that this US information is available to anyone of the general public with internet. I have yet to see any such data for Iran (so, if it is available, do feel invited to reference or post it)

 

[VEVAK]

Source for that is https://web.archive.org/web/2013080...il/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=72 ( USAF AGM-65 MAVERICK factsheet Posted 11/16/2007)

Clearly these are not necessarily 2007 prices. Rather, they are prices by type (perhaps even in constant dollars), with older (less advanced) or more numerous types likely being cheaper than newer (more advanced) or less numerous types. Also, comparing cost quotes in dollars at different moments in time should take into account the decline in value and purchasing power of the US dollar, esp. from late 1960s to 1980s.

The US Navy factsheet on Maverick says:

Service Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force
The AGM-65F (infrared targeting optimized for ship tracking.) used on Navy P-3 aircraft, and the AGM-65E (laser guided) used on Marine Corps AV-8 aircraft have the larger (300 pound; 136 kg) penetrating warhead. The AGM-65A/B/D 125 pound (57 kg) shaped charge (electro-optical guided) is used by the Air Force F-16 and A-10 aircraft.
Unit Cost: $180,000.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=500&ct=2

USD $48,000 (A model), $64,100 (B), $110,000 (C), $111,000 (D), $101,000 (E) and $269,000 (G) (FY 1999)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article4.html

Acquisition unit cost: $129,322 (AGM 65 D), $158,688 (AGM 65 E)
Production unit cost: $17,000 (AGM 65 A/B) $122,230 (AGM 65 D), $152,491 (AGM 65 E)
Number produced: 23,689 (AGM 65 D), 4,115 (AGM 65 E)
Date deployed AGM65A/B 1972, AGM65D 1986, AGM65E later than 1986
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-65-specs.htm

Maverick D replaced the electro-optical guidance with an imaging infrared system which doubled the practical firing distance and allowed for its use at night and during bad weather. A reduced smoke rocket engine was also introduced in this model. It achieved its initial operation capability in 1983.
Maverick E uses a laser designator guidance system optimized for fortified installations and heavier penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead (140 kg (300 lb) vs. 57 kg (125 lb) in older models). It achieved IOC in 1985 and was used mainly by USMC aviation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick#Variants

If you claim non-US users pay more than US for the same item, than pls provide references that show this.


Nothing is free. Raw materials need to be extracted and processed before they are even remotely ready for use in arms manufacturing. Which means machining, refining etc. Which means it is not 'just labor'. If the cost of raw materials is not charged to the arms manufacturer, then it is born by the government i.e. by society i.e. all the people of Iran. Pretending those costs aren't there is selfdelusion.

In 2006, about 45% of Iran's government budget came from oil and natural gas revenues, and 31% from taxes and fees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
So, if the government takes care of the raw material and processing cost so armsanufacturers only pay wages, then that means oil and gas revenues and tax revenues don't end up benefitting non-arms programs e.g. healthcare and education etc. And it doesn't end up in our pocket either. So, either way the people pay.


.

1st off to make you grasp what I mean by free let me just inform you how much each gallon of Diesel costs in Iran!
Today Diesel in Iran cost 10 cents per litter that's = $0.38 per gallon!!!

And that's not a special price for some!!

2ndly In terms of mining 90% of all the mines are owned by the government and nationalized so the needs of Iran's defense industry is being met by the government owned and operated companies

Finally what's your point? Every country charges taxes & in Iran Oil and Gas are nationalized what does that have to do with anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Iran