Who posted that 11K EU figure for F-35? Someone called @thef35. He does not cite a source.
Huh, do I need post the text of the tweet for you to be able to read it?
@thef35 is official LM twitter account. They retweet a Finnish aviation mag https://siivet-fi.translate.goog/?_x_tr ... pto=nui,sc
that visited the Norwegian 132nd Airwing who fly F-35. Pretty damn good source...
Thanks for the steer. I had a look.
It occurs to me that when different criteria are used by different air forces to arrive at CPFH, comparing types within a given air force gives a meaningful relative CPFH for different types.
Figures from 2018 give operating cost per aircraft as follows:
F-16 - $5.65 million
F-35 - $13.38 million
Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/23618/op ... -aircraft/
The difference is so great that I would say it is inconceivable that F-35 operating costs will drop to near F-16 operating costs.
Coming to Gripen, many years ago a comparison of fighter operating costs in flightglobal (IIRC) placed Gripen C near $5000 CPFH in SWAF service and F-16 at near $10,000 - in whose service I do not know. I do not think that Gripen E cost of operation will be anywhere near F-35 cost of operation.
Logic failing again. You say you can't compare different nations, then you go and compare different nations....
If you want to compare within the same nations you need a normalised figure. The F-16 per hour cost doesn’t factor the same things as the F-35 figure and it it compares a mature figure for the F-16 to a clearly not mature figure from 2018 when the USAF had several different blk variants.
The statista source compares all three variants to the same cost but you are hopefully smart enough to understand operating from a boat and doing STOVL is more expensive than conventional ops.
If you want a normalised figure look at the F-35 SAR, 2019 works as good as any and the detail is at the end at page 101 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... 9_Full.pdf
which has the CAPE assessment compared to the F-16. The end result is an F-35 figure that is 20% more per hour to operate than F-16, not 240% the cost…
What I KNOW and some people don’t want to know... Norway says it costs them very similar to fly F-35 to F-16. Saab HX Campaign Manager says it costs Sweden AF about the same comparing the same three main things, fuel, personnel and maintenance to fly Gripen C. Both are Vikings and fly in similar conditions and locations. Gripen has only 200 aircraft in service, F-35 already has nearly 700. F-35 has already flown more flight hours than Gripen even though Gripen is 20 years older. It costs less to fly something when you have more of them, spares are cheaper blah blah.
I think we can all agree on the fact it's expensive to operate fighter jets and it's hard to compare the operational costs between different countries.
If Gripen E is substansially cheaper to operate and meets and/or exceeds all of the Canadian requirements, i definitely see it as a good option for Canada.
It is the dumb option. It has less capability, costs perhaps the same to operate and won’t be supported for as long or as well.
But we can be rather sure the Grippen costs much less to operate than the F-35.
How can you, you haven’t given a single figure for how much it costs to operate.
Do you want a figure? I have one available for you from Saab themselves…
Using the USAF data, the F-35 costs more than the f-15, f-16, f-18, AV-8, and A-10. The F-35 is actually rather cheap to buy, but the operating costs are 2x that if an F-16 or F-18.
Using stupid old data that doesn’t separate variant.
For the Finnish tender LM claimed that because the F-35 simulators are so good one can maintain pilot skill with fewer hours actually flying. I don’t know if this it is true or not.
That was the Swiss one man but even flying the same per year hours as Rafale and Eurofighter and SuperBug the Swiss F-35 cost was still less. You also ignore Swiss who say F-35 is cheaper to fly than SuperBug even though previous quoted dumb old US figure says it is more expensive.