SeamanBeaumont wrote:

On operating cost to operate for F-35 Norway has recently stated it is 11k EUR an hour, twitter post here https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1460652153308127232

If Norway is operating the F-35 for 11K EUR per hour, they are doing it about 30% of what the USAF spends per hour.

"It also claimed that F-35 operating costs had declined from $38,000 to $33,300 in 2020. As that figure is in base-year 2012 dollars, it implies around $38,000-39,000 in 2021." https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... udget-dry/

"The F-35 Joint Program Office has awarded Lockheed Martin a sustainment contract for the F-35 that commits the company to reduce the operating cost of the stealth fighter to $30,000 per flight hour by fiscal year 2023, down 10.7% from FY2020." https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 48.article

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

On operating cost to operate for F-35 Norway has recently stated it is 11k EUR an hour, twitter post here https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1460652153308127232

If Norway is operating the F-35 for 11K EUR per hour, they are doing it about 30% of what the USAF spends per hour.

"It also claimed that F-35 operating costs had declined from $38,000 to $33,300 in 2020. As that figure is in base-year 2012 dollars, it implies around $38,000-39,000 in 2021." https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... udget-dry/

"The F-35 Joint Program Office has awarded Lockheed Martin a sustainment contract for the F-35 that commits the company to reduce the operating cost of the stealth fighter to $30,000 per flight hour by fiscal year 2023, down 10.7% from FY2020." https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 48.article

Not sure what your point is? Norway accounts for different things to the US in their per flight hour cost. Aussies are flying cheaper per hour too. There is no one standard except maybe that everyone generally accounts less in their per flight hour cost than the US.

kitplane01 wrote:

If Norway is operating the F-35 for 11K EUR per hour, they are doing it about 30% of what the USAF spends per hour.

If you keep the tyre warmers on and have crew continually buffing the stealth coatings while pushing for a 90+% mission capability rate then that usually pushes the costs up.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

art wrote:

rlwynn wrote:

Buying the SAAB would help a US partner that needs sales.

From what I have read the weightings for criteria for evaluation are:
20% industrial offsets
20% cost
60% performance

Does the performance criterion make the F-35 the inevitable choice? Even if the Gripens were assembled in Canada, that offset would not count for so much since Canada makes parts for F-35 (and that would stop, I presume, if Canada rejected F-35).. Agreed, on cost Gripen E would win hands down.

You know I read through this whole thread and there is some good info and some bad info.

How about I also add some good info.

On operating cost to operate for F-35 Norway has recently stated it is 11k EUR an hour, twitter post here https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1460652153308127232

Nearly at the same time the Saab HX Campaign manager said Gripen C/D is 11k EUR, https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/uutiset/ ... 72aede61f4 Link is in Finnish but Google translate also knows Finnish...

So amazing but not amazing the cost per flight hour for two comparable nations is pretty similar and Gripen E will cost more to operate than C.

On acquisition cost no evidence Saab can make a Gripen for less than F-35. Perhaps they can, in Finland they offered 64 jets + globaleye to 64 F-35s but no idea on final costs yet, but the difference won't be very much at all, especially as Canada is a JSF partner and gets the partner price, not the FMS price in Finland.

Capability F-35 wins hands down, anyone thinking otherwise belongs in an alternate universe... Evidence is Swiss evaluation ranking F-35 so much better than competitors. Swiss already evaluated Gripen in the previous competition and it couldn't even meet classic Hornet capability of the Swiss then. While Gripen E is better than that evaluated version still not that much better and would still be behind Rafale and Eurofighter let alone F-35.

On industry offset Saab only has 88 aircraft to build from parts mostly imported into the country and will have a global fleet less than 300. F-35 has a 3000 aircraft build and sustainment going out the next 20 years to build and 50 to operate. If Canadian content in every F-35 was 5% that equates to building 150 jets and then sustaining them for 50 plus years.

How anyone thinks Gripen can win or is a better option...

Who posted that 11K EU figure for F-35? Someone called @thef35. He does not cite a source.

Another poster posted this:

Replying to
@thef35
Lol.
38,000$ per flight hour in the US
13,000$ per flight hour in Norway

At least get your stories straight with the United States Government Accountability Office, when you try to screw a country 38,000$ per flight hour in the US 13,000$ per flight hour in Norway

Me - those figures seem more realistic to me.

Mortyman wrote:

Why not the F-16 ?

The worst of both worlds. You don't get the two engine redundancy of the FA18 nor the stealth of the F35.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

On operating cost to operate for F-35 Norway has recently stated it is 11k EUR an hour, twitter post here https://twitter.com/thef35/status/1460652153308127232

If Norway is operating the F-35 for 11K EUR per hour, they are doing it about 30% of what the USAF spends per hour.

"It also claimed that F-35 operating costs had declined from $38,000 to $33,300 in 2020. As that figure is in base-year 2012 dollars, it implies around $38,000-39,000 in 2021." https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... udget-dry/

"The F-35 Joint Program Office has awarded Lockheed Martin a sustainment contract for the F-35 that commits the company to reduce the operating cost of the stealth fighter to $30,000 per flight hour by fiscal year 2023, down 10.7% from FY2020." https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 48.article

Not sure what your point is? Norway accounts for different things to the US in their per flight hour cost. Aussies are flying cheaper per hour too. There is no one standard except maybe that everyone generally accounts less in their per flight hour cost than the US.

My point is I don’t believe you can fly an f-35 for €11,000 per hour

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If Norway is operating the F-35 for 11K EUR per hour, they are doing it about 30% of what the USAF spends per hour.

"It also claimed that F-35 operating costs had declined from $38,000 to $33,300 in 2020. As that figure is in base-year 2012 dollars, it implies around $38,000-39,000 in 2021." https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... udget-dry/

"The F-35 Joint Program Office has awarded Lockheed Martin a sustainment contract for the F-35 that commits the company to reduce the operating cost of the stealth fighter to $30,000 per flight hour by fiscal year 2023, down 10.7% from FY2020." https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 48.article

Not sure what your point is? Norway accounts for different things to the US in their per flight hour cost. Aussies are flying cheaper per hour too. There is no one standard except maybe that everyone generally accounts less in their per flight hour cost than the US.

My point is I don’t believe you can fly an f-35 for €11,000 per hour

His point was that different countries include different things in their cost per flight hour calculations.

art wrote:

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...

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If Norway is operating the F-35 for 11K EUR per hour, they are doing it about 30% of what the USAF spends per hour.

"It also claimed that F-35 operating costs had declined from $38,000 to $33,300 in 2020. As that figure is in base-year 2012 dollars, it implies around $38,000-39,000 in 2021." https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... udget-dry/

"The F-35 Joint Program Office has awarded Lockheed Martin a sustainment contract for the F-35 that commits the company to reduce the operating cost of the stealth fighter to $30,000 per flight hour by fiscal year 2023, down 10.7% from FY2020." https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 48.article

Not sure what your point is? Norway accounts for different things to the US in their per flight hour cost. Aussies are flying cheaper per hour too. There is no one standard except maybe that everyone generally accounts less in their per flight hour cost than the US.

My point is I don’t believe you can fly an f-35 for €11,000 per hour

Bad point. Numbers are fuel plus maintenance plus personnel. Swedish numbers by Saab take in the same figures. Different countries but use case and environment are similar. If you include all the costs the USAF does in their per hour cost and man the squadron with the staff the US does and fly as much and train as much and travel as much and include infrastructure and all back end depot cost etc it costs more.

The Swiss F-35 per hour figure is going to be 55k but that includes everything including the kitchen sink in the cost. This was still lower than SuperBug and Eurofighter and Rafale using same metrics.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

art wrote:

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.

kitplane01 wrote:

My point is I don’t believe you can fly an f-35 for €11,000 per hour

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.

kanye wrote:

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.

What one has to remember is that Canada has a significant artic frontier to cover which will become increasingly relevant in the next decades.
Also, Canada routinely contributes to international missions such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Under the wrong circumstances Syria could have turned into an engagement
with Syrian or even Russian fighters. Canada definitely needs more capability rather than less in my opinion.

kanye wrote:

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..

That’s true.

But we can be rather sure the Grippen costs much less to operate than the F-35.

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.

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.

Also it might be the case that one can get the same amount of combat power with fewer F-35 because they are more capable.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... aphic/amp/

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

art wrote:

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...

A Norwegian air wing told a Finnish magazine that LM retweeted is not the best source ever.

I trust the USAF official data more, specially since they compare various aircraft with the same operational and accounting rules. And that source says the F-35 costs more than anything except the F-22. (Of course they don’t operate the Grippen. But for the Grippen to be equal in operating cost to the F-35 the Grippen would have to exceed the operating costs of the F-15 and the F-18.)

kitplane01 wrote:

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.

Same for the Swiss tender, LM promised that they could get the same training effectiveness with 20% fewer flight hours and 50% fewer take-offs and landings across the fleet. Simply by making heavier use of simulators compared to the competitors, and because it's easier to operate.

If the Eurofighter, F-18 and Rafale that took part in that competition all have similar costs per hour, that's going to bring the F-35 in the same ballpark on a fleet-wide scale. Switzerland was promised that the F-35 is cheapest overall.

But yeah, to beat the F-16 - and the Gripen is likely similar - the F-35 will have to improve by another 50%. Part of that could be achieved by buying fewer aircraft but a 50% smaller fleet would be a significant cut.

art wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

art wrote:

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.

kanye wrote:

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.

kitplane01 wrote:

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…

kitplane01 wrote:

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.

kitplane01 wrote:

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.

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

art wrote:

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...

A Norwegian air wing told a Finnish magazine that LM retweeted is not the best source ever.

I trust the USAF official data more, specially since they compare various aircraft with the same operational and accounting rules. And that source says the F-35 costs more than anything except the F-22. (Of course they don’t operate the Grippen. But for the Grippen to be equal in operating cost to the F-35 the Grippen would have to exceed the operating costs of the F-15 and the F-18.)

Trust no one...

But the US figures as already posted are not accurate and my point in other post on Swiss finding F-35 is cheaper than SuperBug should send shockwaves through your waters.

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Why not the F-16 ?

The worst of both worlds. You don't get the two engine redundancy of the FA18 nor the stealth of the F35.

Wich is why I am surprised that Canada seems to have abandoned the F-18 and is going for either the F-35 or the Gripen wich are both single engine aircraft. If so, why not the F-16 ? Stealth is over hyped.

Mortyman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Why not the F-16 ?

The worst of both worlds. You don't get the two engine redundancy of the FA18 nor the stealth of the F35.

Wich is why I am surprised that Canada seems to have abandoned the F-18 and is going for either the F-35 or the Gripen wich are both single engine aircraft. If so, why not the F-16 ? Stealth is over hyped.

The F35 is more than stealth, it is also electronics...battelfield awareness and connectivity.
PS--Once again, I find it ridiculous how many people want the cheapest, least capable option. Don't you care about your country's defense and the safety of your pilots?

Mortyman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Why not the F-16 ?

The worst of both worlds. You don't get the two engine redundancy of the FA18 nor the stealth of the F35.

Wich is why I am surprised that Canada seems to have abandoned the F-18 and is going for either the F-35 or the Gripen wich are both single engine aircraft. If so, why not the F-16 ? Stealth is over hyped.

Stealth is overhyped is the dumbest statement I have read in a while. Every submariner the world over understands that stealth is king. Why do plane guys have to keep having it explained to them. If you can see the other guy before he sees you you get to kill him first, it is as simple as that.

How about have Billie explain it to you... https://billieflynn.com/f-35-war-gaming-fear-mongering/

Mortyman wrote:

Stealth is over hyped.

I have noticed the only people who say this are European. As Europe has no stealth aircraft available for sale they are sick of losing against the F-35 in every competition it enters.

Downplaying the one area where the F-35 dominates against the Eurocanards is an obvious sales technique. Stealth has proven itself in combat in the eyes of the entire world.

RJMAZ wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Stealth is over hyped.

I have noticed the only people who say this are European. As Europe has no stealth aircraft available for sale they are sick of losing against the F-35 in every competition it enters.

Downplaying the one area where the F-35 dominates against the Eurocanards is an obvious sales technique. Stealth has proven itself in combat in the eyes of the entire world.

Now you've done it! Someone will bring up the F117 over Serbia and claim that proves stealth doesn't work...

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

art wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

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.

kanye wrote:

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.

kitplane01 wrote:

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…

kitplane01 wrote:

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.

kitplane01 wrote:

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.

Where did the Swiss say it costs less to fly an F-35 than an F-18E/F? Also, they don't fly either plane (but do fly the F-18C).

I'm going to believe both the USAF and Lockheed Martin congressional testimony ($35000/hour). You can believe a report by an operating unit in Norway indirectly retweeted by LM(€11,000/hour).

DoD Reimbursement rates are not operating costs, but are somehow related to operating costs. They are
F-22 $40,385
F-15C $22,498
F-35A $16,952
F-18E $12,850
F-16F $9,054

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... 20_b_c.pdf

Mortyman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Why not the F-16 ?

The worst of both worlds. You don't get the two engine redundancy of the FA18 nor the stealth of the F35.

Wich is why I am surprised that Canada seems to have abandoned the F-18 and is going for either the F-35 or the Gripen wich are both single engine aircraft. If so, why not the F-16 ? Stealth is over hyped.

I think that Boeing's actions intended to cripple the US sales prospects of the Bombardier C Series explain why Boeing is OEM non grata. I, too, would have thought that 2 engines would have suited the vastness of Canada better. However I believe that no Gripen has come down through failure of its 1 engine. Have any F-135 had an engine failure?

kitplane01 wrote:

Where did the Swiss say it costs less to fly an F-35 than an F-18E/F? Also, they don't fly either plane (but do fly the F-18C).

https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/docum ... 84275.html

In addition to the benefits, the F-35A also achieved by far the best result in terms of costs. Both procurement and operation costs are the lowest for this aircraft. At the time the bids were made in February 2021, the procurement costs amounted to CHF 5.068 billion – well under the financial cap of CHF 6 billion set by voters. Even when accounting for inflation up to the time of payment, procurement costs will remain below the credit limit.

The F-35A also has the lowest operating costs of all of the candidates evaluated. The total costs of the F-35A (i.e. procurement plus operating costs) amounts to approximately CHF 15.5 billion over 30 years

This is around CHF 2 billion less than the second-lowest bidder.

The other bidders in the competition were the Eurofighter, the Rafale, and the F-18E/F.

kitplane01 wrote:

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... 20_b_c.pdf

Good job posting this link considering it just proves you wrong for the last 2 pages. A nice apple to apple comparison atleast.

F-35C at $13,124 is lower than the F/A-18F at $13,654. Same operator, same mission profiles. This is what the Swiss worked out.

Everyone would agree that the simpler and lighter F-35A will be cheaper than F-35C per hour. The F-35A being at $16,952 is due to the USAF having nearly all of the really early build aircraft. The more aircraft that get delivered to the USAF the smaller these early build aircraft effect the average hourly cost. Any new operator will be getting current build that are low cost.

If newer build F-35C are at $13,654 then a new build F-35A will be $12,000 or so right now and costs are coming down in the future.

That is starting to get close to the F-16C at $9,054. The F-16C costs will continue to climb as it gets older. The older F-16A is already at $15,778 and the F/A-18C is at $18,056.

This is why the T-7 fighter variant will probably have a $5,000 per hour cost using this metric. In 10 years time the F-16C will be approaching $15,000 per hour. Considering a T-7 costs around $20 million per aircraft with a saving of $10,000 per hour means the T-7 aircraft fully pays for itself in only 2,000 hours. From that point the T-7 is saving money for the remaining 4,000+ hours left on the frame. A T-7 fighter would be perfect for Canada but it will arrive years late to the party.

kitplane01 wrote:

Where did the Swiss say it costs less to fly an F-35 than an F-18E/F? Also, they don't fly either plane (but do fly the F-18C).

Amigo, must I find everything for you...

In addition to the benefits, the F-35A also achieved by far the best result in terms of costs. Both procurement and operation costs are the lowest for this aircraft. At the time the bids were made in February 2021, the procurement costs amounted to CHF 5.068 billion – well under the financial cap of CHF 6 billion set by voters. Even when accounting for inflation up to the time of payment, procurement costs will remain below the credit limit.

The F-35A also has the lowest operating costs of all of the candidates evaluated. The total costs of the F-35A (i.e. procurement plus operating costs) amounts to approximately CHF 15.5 billion over 30 years.

This is around CHF 2 billion less than the second-lowest bidder.

https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/docum ... 84275.html

The above is after it was found as the most effective in the competition.

In the case of the fighter aircraft, this candidate is the F-35A. With 336 points, it showed the highest overall benefit and was the clear winner with a lead of 95 points or more over the other candidates. This aircraft scored best in three of the four main criteria evaluated:

We don't even know which out of Eurofighter, Rafale or SuperBug came second, third and fourth.

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm going to believe both the USAF and Lockheed Martin congressional testimony ($35000/hour). You can believe a report by an operating unit in Norway indirectly retweeted by LM(€11,000/hour).

Why is this so hard for you to understand? The US cost is not the same cost as the Norwegian. Different Air Forces account for different things in their per flight hour cost. There is no reason those proud vikings from the north couldn't operate the F-35 at their stated cost, they have operated their F-16s for less than the US for 30 years. The Aussies have a per flight hour cost of close to the Norwegians as well but we all know they are a nation descended from criminals so must be a con.

The USAF is getting 50+ brand new planes every year, the same amount Norway is getting over 7. The USAF was supposed to have retired the A-10 when F-35 arrived and the techs were all supposed to go from A-10 to F-35. They haven't so they have to bring in new guys and train em quick All accounted for in the per flight hour cost. Congress bought them extra jets every year for the last 6 which isn't accounted for in the depot maintenance schedule and why stuff is not getting fixed quickly enough, Congress also underfunded the depots so they are paying lots of overtime. All accounted for in the per flight hour cost. The USAF are managing a fleet of different blk aircraft, all accounted for in the per flight hour cost.

Do you get it yet?

kitplane01 wrote:

DoD Reimbursement rates are not operating costs, but are somehow related to operating costs. They are
F-22 $40,385
F-15C $22,498
F-35A $16,952
F-18E $12,850
F-16F $9,054

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... 20_b_c.pdf

And what do those costs include? Does the F-16 cost include their targeting pod? Nope. Include the ALQ-184? Nope. Include the towed decoy? Nope. They as well as half a dozen other things are all separate programs and not accounted for in the reimbursement rates. Meanwhile F-35 comes delivered with an inbuilt EW system, inbuilt targeting pod, inbuilt towed decoy all included in the reimbursement rates, one program managing many things, not ten programs contributing to one airframe.

Any old dog can throw out numbers that mean nothing, seems to be working wonders for some...

Mortyman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Why not the F-16 ?

The worst of both worlds. You don't get the two engine redundancy of the FA18 nor the stealth of the F35.

Wich is why I am surprised that Canada seems to have abandoned the F-18 and is going for either the F-35 or the Gripen wich are both single engine aircraft. If so, why not the F-16 ? Stealth is over hyped.

Probably because the software and computer architecture in F18 and F16 is old and won't stay relevant in the future. The future in the air is all about Artificial Intelligence, software and computer processing capabilities.

Mortyman wrote:

Wich is why I am surprised that Canada seems to have abandoned the F-18 and is going for either the F-35 or the Gripen wich are both single engine aircraft. If so, why not the F-16 ? Stealth is over hyped.

Not sure about the Gripen, but the F-16, F-18, and the F-15EX are still basically metallic frames. The F-35 is mostly composite. Even if you do ignore the stealth, the frame weight difference gives you that performance advantage. And for those who wants to keep their frames for a lo.. . . .ong time, it does have that leg up.

bt

Gripen is mainly Aluminium and Carbonfiber.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Where did the Swiss say it costs less to fly an F-35 than an F-18E/F? Also, they don't fly either plane (but do fly the F-18C).

Amigo, must I find everything for you...

In addition to the benefits, the F-35A also achieved by far the best result in terms of costs. Both procurement and operation costs are the lowest for this aircraft. At the time the bids were made in February 2021, the procurement costs amounted to CHF 5.068 billion – well under the financial cap of CHF 6 billion set by voters. Even when accounting for inflation up to the time of payment, procurement costs will remain below the credit limit.

The F-35A also has the lowest operating costs of all of the candidates evaluated. The total costs of the F-35A (i.e. procurement plus operating costs) amounts to approximately CHF 15.5 billion over 30 years.

This is around CHF 2 billion less than the second-lowest bidder.

https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/docum ... 84275.html

The above is after it was found as the most effective in the competition.

In the case of the fighter aircraft, this candidate is the F-35A. With 336 points, it showed the highest overall benefit and was the clear winner with a lead of 95 points or more over the other candidates. This aircraft scored best in three of the four main criteria evaluated:

We don't even know which out of Eurofighter, Rafale or SuperBug came second, third and fourth.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Here is what corporalfrisk had to say about this: "In other words, seems the Swiss have asked main operators about simulators versus real flight hours, and the USAF has returned with a 20% lower number compared to the USN, AdA, and LW. There is preciously little in open sources to explain this difference in real terms. Yes, the F-35’s simulators are good, but the rest are no slouches either. I can see no clear reason why it wouldn’t be possible to run a simulation-heavy training curriculum for the rest of the fighters as well, if that is what you want."

But having written that, it is true the Swiss used a reasonable methodology and got the results they got.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm going to believe both the USAF and Lockheed Martin congressional testimony ($35000/hour). You can believe a report by an operating unit in Norway indirectly retweeted by LM(€11,000/hour).

Why is this so hard for you to understand? The US cost is not the same cost as the Norwegian. Different Air Forces account for different things in their per flight hour cost. There is no reason those proud vikings from the north couldn't operate the F-35 at their stated cost, they have operated their F-16s for less than the US for 30 years. The Aussies have a per flight hour cost of close to the Norwegians as well but we all know they are a nation descended from criminals so must be a con.

If different accounting standards vary the price between $35000 and $12,000, one of them is not accurately describing all the costs. And if the USAF is operating them in a way that raises the costs by 3x, they should change.

What do you make of the USAF and LM saying repeatedly that it costs them $35000/hour? I assume you don't think they're making it up. And they are by far the largest operator.

You wrote that Canada can operate achieve the costs that the Norwegians get (which I very much doubt are the real costs). But why do you think they won't get the American costs (the largest operator, physically closest ,etc.)? I understand that the Canadians will be operating newer F-35s. But I've never seen any data that says the earliest F-35s cost more than 3x to operate than the newer F-35s.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

DoD Reimbursement rates are not operating costs, but are somehow related to operating costs. They are
F-22 $40,385
F-15C $22,498
F-35A $16,952
F-18E $12,850
F-16F $9,054

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... 20_b_c.pdf

And what do those costs include? Does the F-16 cost include their targeting pod? Nope. Include the ALQ-184? Nope. Include the towed decoy? Nope. They as well as half a dozen other things are all separate programs and not accounted for in the reimbursement rates. Meanwhile F-35 comes delivered with an inbuilt EW system, inbuilt targeting pod, inbuilt towed decoy all included in the reimbursement rates, one program managing many things, not ten programs contributing to one airframe.

Any old dog can throw out numbers that mean nothing, seems to be working wonders for some...

How do you know what those numbers include?

kitplane01 wrote:

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Here is what corporalfrisk had to say about this: "In other words, seems the Swiss have asked main operators about simulators versus real flight hours, and the USAF has returned with a 20% lower number compared to the USN, AdA, and LW. There is preciously little in open sources to explain this difference in real terms. Yes, the F-35’s simulators are good, but the rest are no slouches either. I can see no clear reason why it wouldn’t be possible to run a simulation-heavy training curriculum for the rest of the fighters as well, if that is what you want."

But having written that, it is true the Swiss used a reasonable methodology and got the results they got.

If you quote Frisk then add the link (don't bother I found it...). In response the Swiss answered your/his/others question and said with the same flight hours F-35 cost was still less than competitors. Not by as much but still less.

kitplane01 wrote:

If different accounting standards vary the price between $35000 and $12,000, one of them is not accurately describing all the costs. And if the USAF is operating them in a way that raises the costs by 3x, they should change.

What do you make of the USAF and LM saying repeatedly that it costs them $35000/hour? I assume you don't think they're making it up. And they are by far the largest operator.

Read the following https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1178.html which answers both your questions on reimbursement costs and on how many different versions of cost per flight hour there are.
The graphic on page 19 shows how the Norwegians can say their cost per flight hour is what it is and then also why the USAF can say their cost per flight hour is so high.

kitplane01 wrote:

You wrote that Canada can operate achieve the costs that the Norwegians get (which I very much doubt are the real costs). But why do you think they won't get the American costs (the largest operator, physically closest ,etc.)? I understand that the Canadians will be operating newer F-35s. But I've never seen any data that says the earliest F-35s cost more than 3x to operate than the newer F-35s.

Again, it is all accounting. What is included varies the cost per flight hour. If you only look at fuel and maintenance and personnel then many other nations have lower costs than the US for these three things. Reason being their SQNs are half the size of a US squadron in dudes on the flight line for comparable aircraft numbers. Older aircraft cost more because they have different parts. The prod line is banging out 150+ a year now and having those supps manufacture older parts for the early Blks costs money but worse time. Most oldies are gone now anyway, the mods to Blk 3F are almost finished.

kitplane01 wrote:

How do you know what those numbers include?

I already gave you the reason, aside from the above RAND report the programs are managed differently. JSF was always one ring to rule them all program while previous had many different programs all adding to an airframe. That new model was meant to reduce overhead and admin, probably hasn’t but was worth a try. Sauron wins in the end...

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Again, it is all accounting. What is included varies the cost per flight hour. If you only look at fuel and maintenance and personnel then many other nations have lower costs than the US for these three things. Reason being their SQNs are half the size of a US squadron in dudes on the flight line for comparable aircraft numbers.

I'm very curious about this. How many soldiers in an fighter squadron, and how does Norway or Canada etc get away with having half as many?

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If different accounting standards vary the price between $35000 and $12,000, one of them is not accurately describing all the costs. And if the USAF is operating them in a way that raises the costs by 3x, they should change.

What do you make of the USAF and LM saying repeatedly that it costs them $35000/hour? I assume you don't think they're making it up. And they are by far the largest operator.

Read the following https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1178.html which answers both your questions on reimbursement costs and on how many different versions of cost per flight hour there are.
The graphic on page 19 shows how the Norwegians can say their cost per flight hour is what it is and then also why the USAF can say their cost per flight hour is so high.

It's a nice chart on page 19 (which I did look at).

Accounting is not just making up numbers. It's supposed to describe a real world thing.

According to the RAND report you linked, cost per flight hour (American version) is total fleet costs (excluding a few things like upgrades) divided by total flying hours (bottom of page 1). BTW, about 60% of that is fixed costs (page 9). If the Norwegians use a different definition (and some squadron in Norway might not include all systems costs) they can get a different number. But I still believe that this inclusive version of cost per flying hour is about $35,000 because both the USAF and Lockheed say so. For Norway to get a 1/3 number, they must be excluding a bunch of stuff. I wonder if the Norway number only includes squadron-level costs (after all it was published by a squadron).

kitplane01 wrote:

It's a nice chart on page 19 (which I did look at).

Accounting is not just making up numbers. It's supposed to describe a real world thing.

Who is making up numbers? The question is what do you believe should contribute to a cost per flight hour? If it is everything needed to maintain and sustain a capability where do you stop? Maybe include the USAF academy because pilots have to go to there and be trained or warehouse that stores parts for ten different aircraft, do you divide the costs up amongst those ten airframes, how about buying trucks to transport the fuel or tankers to refuel the aircraft in flight or 20 other things.

kitplane01 wrote:

According to the RAND report you linked, cost per flight hour (American version) is total fleet costs (excluding a few things like upgrades) divided by total flying hours (bottom of page 1). BTW, about 60% of that is fixed costs (page 9). If the Norwegians use a different definition (and some squadron in Norway might not include all systems costs) they can get a different number. But I still believe that this inclusive version of cost per flying hour is about $35,000 because both the USAF and Lockheed say so.

You put my ex’s divorce lawyer to shame, it is not this hard to understand… The Norwegians costs are not the same as the USAF costs even if they take in the same factors. They may have different people costs (more expensive guys or less expensive gals or more gals and guys), fuel costs, repair costs, overhead costs, depot costs, consumable costs, blah blah. It might be close but not the same.

kitplane01 wrote:

For Norway to get a 1/3 number, they must be excluding a bunch of stuff. I wonder if the Norway number only includes squadron-level costs (after all it was published by a squadron).

If you read the text of the tweet and what I wrote must have been seven times since the Norway figure is fuel plus parts plus maintenance. It is again comparable to the Saab provided figure referencing the same three things…
No one said the USAF cost and the Norwegian cost look at the same things…but…. Norway, and Australia and Canada and others have a history of flying their aircraft cheaper than the USAF/USN for a host of reasons already mentioned.
The difference is people barfing crap like Gripen at 5k per hour or SuperBug at XX or other rubbish figures and thinking they are all the same. Even within DoD there are different standards for grading this cost between the services.
Do you get it now?

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

It's a nice chart on page 19 (which I did look at).

Accounting is not just making up numbers. It's supposed to describe a real world thing.

Who is making up numbers? The question is what do you believe should contribute to a cost per flight hour? If it is everything needed to maintain and sustain a capability where do you stop? Maybe include the USAF academy because pilots have to go to there and be trained or warehouse that stores parts for ten different aircraft, do you divide the costs up amongst those ten airframes, how about buying trucks to transport the fuel or tankers to refuel the aircraft in flight or 20 other things.

kitplane01 wrote:

According to the RAND report you linked, cost per flight hour (American version) is total fleet costs (excluding a few things like upgrades) divided by total flying hours (bottom of page 1). BTW, about 60% of that is fixed costs (page 9). If the Norwegians use a different definition (and some squadron in Norway might not include all systems costs) they can get a different number. But I still believe that this inclusive version of cost per flying hour is about $35,000 because both the USAF and Lockheed say so.

You put my ex’s divorce lawyer to shame, it is not this hard to understand… The Norwegians costs are not the same as the USAF costs even if they take in the same factors. They may have different people costs (more expensive guys or less expensive gals or more gals and guys), fuel costs, repair costs, overhead costs, depot costs, consumable costs, blah blah. It might be close but not the same.

kitplane01 wrote:

For Norway to get a 1/3 number, they must be excluding a bunch of stuff. I wonder if the Norway number only includes squadron-level costs (after all it was published by a squadron).

If you read the text of the tweet and what I wrote must have been seven times since the Norway figure is fuel plus parts plus maintenance. It is again comparable to the Saab provided figure referencing the same three things…
No one said the USAF cost and the Norwegian cost look at the same things…but…. Norway, and Australia and Canada and others have a history of flying their aircraft cheaper than the USAF/USN for a host of reasons already mentioned.
The difference is people barfing crap like Gripen at 5k per hour or SuperBug at XX or other rubbish figures and thinking they are all the same. Even within DoD there are different standards for grading this cost between the services.
Do you get it now?

This is what I have gotten.

1) Some squad in Norway says they can operate the F-35 for about $12000/hour. We're not sure exactly what's included. For example, does "fuel + parts + maintenance" include engine overhauls, software updates, practice munitions, etc?

2) The USAF says they an operate the F-35 for $35000/hour. We're sure they are including more items in their calculations. They do include everything listed above.

3) You believe Norway has an actual cost advantage, but there is no public data using the same accounting basis to measure the cost advantage Norway might have.

4) Certainly much of the difference is that the USAF is including more costs in their total.

5) If you're a Canadian budget planner, you probably want the total cost including as many costs as possible. Therefore the USAF number is more relevant.

Do you disagree with any of these sentences?

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

It's a nice chart on page 19 (which I did look at).

Accounting is not just making up numbers. It's supposed to describe a real world thing.

Who is making up numbers? The question is what do you believe should contribute to a cost per flight hour? If it is everything needed to maintain and sustain a capability where do you stop? Maybe include the USAF academy because pilots have to go to there and be trained or warehouse that stores parts for ten different aircraft, do you divide the costs up amongst those ten airframes, how about buying trucks to transport the fuel or tankers to refuel the aircraft in flight or 20 other things.

kitplane01 wrote:

According to the RAND report you linked, cost per flight hour (American version) is total fleet costs (excluding a few things like upgrades) divided by total flying hours (bottom of page 1). BTW, about 60% of that is fixed costs (page 9). If the Norwegians use a different definition (and some squadron in Norway might not include all systems costs) they can get a different number. But I still believe that this inclusive version of cost per flying hour is about $35,000 because both the USAF and Lockheed say so.

You put my ex’s divorce lawyer to shame, it is not this hard to understand… The Norwegians costs are not the same as the USAF costs even if they take in the same factors. They may have different people costs (more expensive guys or less expensive gals or more gals and guys), fuel costs, repair costs, overhead costs, depot costs, consumable costs, blah blah. It might be close but not the same.

kitplane01 wrote:

For Norway to get a 1/3 number, they must be excluding a bunch of stuff. I wonder if the Norway number only includes squadron-level costs (after all it was published by a squadron).

If you read the text of the tweet and what I wrote must have been seven times since the Norway figure is fuel plus parts plus maintenance. It is again comparable to the Saab provided figure referencing the same three things…
No one said the USAF cost and the Norwegian cost look at the same things…but…. Norway, and Australia and Canada and others have a history of flying their aircraft cheaper than the USAF/USN for a host of reasons already mentioned.
The difference is people barfing crap like Gripen at 5k per hour or SuperBug at XX or other rubbish figures and thinking they are all the same. Even within DoD there are different standards for grading this cost between the services.
Do you get it now?

This is what I have gotten.

1) Some squad in Norway says they can operate the F-35 for about $12000/hour. We're not sure exactly what's included. For example, does "fuel + parts + maintenance" include engine overhauls, software updates, practice munitions, etc?

2) The USAF says they an operate the F-35 for $35000/hour. We're sure they are including more items in their calculations. They do include everything listed above.

3) You believe Norway has an actual cost advantage, but there is no public data using the same accounting basis to measure the cost advantage Norway might have.

4) Certainly much of the difference is that the USAF is including more costs in their total.

5) If you're a Canadian budget planner, you probably want the total cost including as many costs as possible. Therefore the USAF number is more relevant.

Do you disagree with any of these sentences?

Bad form dude. If you edit your post then say so.

Only one worth responding to
5) Nope. You want the vendor to tell you what it will cost to operate using your methodology. Same as what Swiss just did and what the Canucks have asked for. In the reqs for the boat/tank/plane the Military says this is how I want to operate it. Tell me if you can do it that way and how it will fit into my system. O Canada may not chose to maintain the same way the USAF does. They clearly didn't with little bug compared to USN who had to maintain carrier qual for the aircraft.

Considering how long Canada has kept their CF-18s a pertinent question would be how much whatever fighter they choose will cost to fly and maintain in 10, 20 and 30 years time. You would have to think as time goes by the F-35 will become relatively more cost-effective if for no other reason than the volume being produced creating efficiencies.

A good thing is that the Norwegian budget and costs for F35 is public and can be found online.
Here is an article about it, thoughts and comments?

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... 7i%3E.html

kanye wrote:

A good thing is that the Norwegian budget and costs for F35 is public and can be found online.
Here is an article about it, thoughts and comments?

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... 7i%3E.html

There is a reason why the USAF is considering to replace some of its F-16s with a less capable but much cheaper fighter than the F-35.

from your article:

But it has to be said that the Swiss F-35A operations costs are far more realistic than those put forward by Finland – and the Swiss data is based on 36 aircraft, while Finland desires 64, and will likely settle for 60.

It is possible that they just really want that fighter because the other available alternatives will not be able to handle the latest versions of Flankers, SU-57 and SU-75.
and god knows when the 6th gen fighters will be available and if they will be cheaper to acquire and operate than the F-35

I'm curious how the Canadian requirements differ from the Finnish ones. Both are looking at operating the aircraft for a long time, both are looking at Russia as the main opponent, both are looking at similar sized fleets. Canada has longer range requirements. Canada might still hate Boeing.

If they pick different airplanes for any reason other than range, that would be interesting.

kanye wrote:

A good thing is that the Norwegian budget and costs for F35 is public and can be found online.
Here is an article about it, thoughts and comments?

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... 7i%3E.html

Thanks for the heads up.

Norway has been operating the F-35 for five years. They now expect to spend $19.5M per F-35A per year over the life of the program. They expect to spend $70,000/hour to operate an F-35 (if 200 hours/year). All numbers inflation adjusted to 2021. (also, makes one doubt the $12K/hour I've seen mentioned.)

10 of the 31 Norwegian AF planes in in the US as part of a training fleet. That has to hurt!

Makes on wonder about the Finnish HX program budget numbers.

bajs11 wrote:

It is possible that they just really want that fighter because the other available alternatives will not be able to handle the latest versions of Flankers, SU-57 and SU-75.

This is what it all comes down to. It has nothing to do with cost-per-hour or anything else. It's whether it can do the job.

johns624 wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

It is possible that they just really want that fighter because the other available alternatives will not be able to handle the latest versions of Flankers, SU-57 and SU-75.

This is what it all comes down to. It has nothing to do with cost-per-hour or anything else. It's whether it can do the job.

Canada might get the choice of 60 Gripens or 30 F-35s, and reasonably choose the F-35s. But cost matters as it effects the number of aircraft you can buy and operate.

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

It is possible that they just really want that fighter because the other available alternatives will not be able to handle the latest versions of Flankers, SU-57 and SU-75.

This is what it all comes down to. It has nothing to do with cost-per-hour or anything else. It's whether it can do the job.

Canada might get the choice of 60 Gripens or 30 F-35s, and reasonably choose the F-35s. But cost matters as it effects the number of aircraft you can buy and operate.

Canada can afford more than 30 F35s. With their geographical boundaries, they'll need more than 30. Look at how many, much smaller European countries are buying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... #Operators

kanye wrote:

A good thing is that the Norwegian budget and costs for F35 is public and can be found online.
Here is an article about it, thoughts and comments?

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... 7i%3E.html

Settle down cowboy, there is a lot wrong with that article and his snarky comes through well. This is the same guy that said the Swiss were also now paying more but didn't realise the whole price already factored in inflation. Credibility factor is low...

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

It is possible that they just really want that fighter because the other available alternatives will not be able to handle the latest versions of Flankers, SU-57 and SU-75.

This is what it all comes down to. It has nothing to do with cost-per-hour or anything else. It's whether it can do the job.

Canada might get the choice of 60 Gripens or 30 F-35s, and reasonably choose the F-35s. But cost matters as it effects the number of aircraft you can buy and operate.

Why post without actually knowing anything about the competition? It is for 88 aircraft not 60 or 30. Cost matters only to 20% of the evaluation score, capability is 60% and industry offset is 20%.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

This is what it all comes down to. It has nothing to do with cost-per-hour or anything else. It's whether it can do the job.

Canada might get the choice of 60 Gripens or 30 F-35s, and reasonably choose the F-35s. But cost matters as it effects the number of aircraft you can buy and operate.

Why post without actually knowing anything about the competition? It is for 88 aircraft not 60 or 30. Cost matters only to 20% of the evaluation score, capability is 60% and industry offset is 20%.

Canada might want 88, but they might not be able to afford to purchase or operate 88. Given their purchase success so far, I wonder if they will end up flying the F-18s for much longer than planned.

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Canada might get the choice of 60 Gripens or 30 F-35s, and reasonably choose the F-35s. But cost matters as it effects the number of aircraft you can buy and operate.

Why post without actually knowing anything about the competition? It is for 88 aircraft not 60 or 30. Cost matters only to 20% of the evaluation score, capability is 60% and industry offset is 20%.

Canada might want 88, but they might not be able to afford to purchase or operate 88. Given their purchase success so far, I wonder if they will end up flying the F-18s for much longer than planned.

The Canucks don't say up to 88, they say 88... https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... 8-eng.html

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Why post without actually knowing anything about the competition? It is for 88 aircraft not 60 or 30. Cost matters only to 20% of the evaluation score, capability is 60% and industry offset is 20%.

Canada might want 88, but they might not be able to afford to purchase or operate 88. Given their purchase success so far, I wonder if they will end up flying the F-18s for much longer than planned.

The Canucks don't say up to 88, they say 88... https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... 8-eng.html

"The Conservatives under Stephen Harper announced plans in 2010 to buy a fleet of F-35 fighter jets on an untendered contract, but aborted that plan in 2012 once the full price became known."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada- ... -1.5517876

"Six years ago (2015) , Justin Trudeau promised to find the Royal Canadian Air Force a more affordable fighter jet than Lockheed Martin’s F-35. He pledged, if elected, he would scrap the deal and open a new competitive process to find a next-generation plane for the Canadian military. But not the F-35, he swore.

Yet with Trudeau fighting his second reelection campaign, Canada has still not committed to a new plane for the Royal Canadian Air Force"

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/0 ... ets-510804

For 11 years now Canada has been aboot to buy a fighter, and yet no fighter. The current PM swore not the F-35, and yet that's the leading contender. It might happen, and it might be 88. But the program has not been smoothly run, and has not kept to schedule.