Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
art
Posts: 4183
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:37 pm

Aesma wrote:
These future billions matter a lot for Switzerland though, since they're "promised" a certain price and certain operating costs, that are not going to materialize.


What remedy will Switzerland have if F-35 costs are above the 'promised' costs?
 
johns624
Posts: 4045
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Fri Jul 09, 2021 1:01 pm

sebolino wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
sebolino wrote:

How old are you ? Seriously, you sound like a teenager. Please tell me which claims I made on the F-35 that were proven wrong ... I'm curious.

About the price of the F-35 maybe ????

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_fo ... 87038.html
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07 ... ity-cliff/


And again, if you think there's no pressure in this kind of deal, well, you're definitely very young.

Ha ha, apparently when I say logical things I am a teenager. Even if I was does that make anything I wrote incorrect? You can add links to media reports all you want but if you don’t understand the facts then you will forever just be noise with no substance.

What it costs the US is almost meaningless, if you want to operate the aircraft like the US does then you will pay US costs. If you want to operate the aircraft like other nations do, at half the cost of the US today let alone years into the future, then you can. The Swiss have made a good choice that was billions cheaper than the alternatives.

No pressure is again a stupid statement but nice to see you are backing away from your silly Biden claims. Should we say there was no pressure from France to buy the Rafale, Parly didn’t visit Switzerland a couple of weeks before the announcement (is this pressure) and she didn’t issue statements after the F-35 selection about Swiss not choosing European, or comments on Germany choosing the P-8.

Pressure is always there and from all sides but what decided the competition was the selection criteria, technical, cost and industry for Switzerland. The F-35 won the first two overwhelmingly and did enough in the last to win the competition overall. Pressure from any side didn’t change the result of the evaluation.



Pfff ...
Sorry boy, but what you say has no logic in it, it's just driven by your desperate need to show your manhood: "It is easy to say you were wrong is making a claim, just say it, and don't be a sore loser about it. You are wrong on pretty much most of your other claims on the capability of the F-35".
You didn't tell me which claim I made which was proven wrong. I'm still waiting.

"Pressure is always there and from all sides". You see , you're starting to learn.
Just like you haven't said what plane you think should've won the competition.
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 4133
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:57 am

art wrote:
Aesma wrote:
These future billions matter a lot for Switzerland though, since they're "promised" a certain price and certain operating costs, that are not going to materialize.


What remedy will Switzerland have if F-35 costs are above the 'promised' costs?


A good question - and one we won´t be able to answer if the contract isn´t disclosed. And given that apparently about 50% of the winning points were attributed to costs in the tender one has to ask what was promised only, and what was guaranteed.

However, it seems likely that this question will be on the agenda rather sooner than later as the sustainment costs for the F-35 were actually rising in 2020 for the USAF, not dropping:

In a report released on 7 July, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that the F-35 Joint Program Office's (JPO's) estimated sustainment costs per aircraft, or tail, per year, for each variant, increased in 2020, except for the US Marine Corps' (USMC's) F-35C buy.


https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/pentagon-services-face-unaffordable-f-35-operations-and-sustainment-costs-by-2036
 
texl1649
Posts: 1893
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:46 am

Part of the reason for the increase though is increased attempts to maintain the aircraft with the new Alice system for parts (might have the name wrong), and also the oldest ones which the USAF wants to just retire, as they’re essentially hangar queens.
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:48 am

Breaking Defense fired a shot across the bows of the Pentagon with their report on the Swiss costs https://breakingdefense.com/2021/07/the ... he-f-15ex/

I was reading a different forum and someone provided these Aussie figures from a think tank there, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fMSGGh ... sp=sharing Looks like they are claiming F-35A costs 31.5k in skippy dollars per hour or 24k in dead USA presidents. Like I said maybe the Swiss are on to something and don't plan to fly the aircraft the way the US do? The aussies are making it work.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:24 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
Like I said maybe the Swiss are on to something and don't plan to fly the aircraft the way the US do? The aussies are making it work.

That would definitely be the case. Most people do no realise that an aircraft can be maintained to different standards. They think the aircraft either is maintained perfect and is combat ready or it is unflyable.

Stealth coatings is a good example that provide another large variable to maintenance cost. A perfectly maintained coating will have a lower radar cross section than an aircraft that has not even been washed after dozens of flights. Coating maintenance could even vary from squadron to squadron with aircraft being deployed maintained to higher standards. For most operators they do not need to maintain the F-35 coating to the highest level as they can still dominate any adversary.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:43 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Stealth coatings is a good example that provide another large variable to maintenance cost. A perfectly maintained coating will have a lower radar cross section than an aircraft that has not even been washed after dozens of flights. Coating maintenance could even vary from squadron to squadron with aircraft being deployed maintained to higher standards. For most operators they do not need to maintain the F-35 coating to the highest level as they can still dominate any adversary.


I guess the main question is how far you could stretch the stealth coating maintenance without making an incredibly costly nightmare by the time you actually need it? So far as I know the stealth coating is exceptionally finicky. Specialised sealants for access hatches, washing routines to keep it from degrading, etc. etc. But I suppose rotating fighters in and out of "elevated coating maintenance" would keep the overall inventory at an acceptable rate of pristine coating vs. what needs emergency maintenance in case of sudden need.

Considering stealth is the F-35s raison d'être it'd be a rotten bit of luck if it's not upp to snuff when you need it.

Most interesting is that such cost-savings doesn't seem to have been de rigueur practice proposed by Lockheed themselves to quiet down cost criticism. At least not to the point where I've picked it up.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:18 am

Leovinus wrote:
I guess the main question is how far you could stretch the stealth coating maintenance without making an incredibly costly nightmare by the time you actually need it? So far as I know the stealth coating is exceptionally finicky. Specialised sealants for access hatches, washing routines to keep it from degrading, etc. etc. But I suppose rotating fighters in and out of "elevated coating maintenance" would keep the overall inventory at an acceptable rate of pristine coating vs. what needs emergency maintenance in case of sudden need.


Considering that F-35s fly around with radar reflectors on most of the time, letting the minor stealth maintenance slide is not a big deal. Realistically, stealth is opening shots of the war capacity, then its pointless as they start strapping external stores on. On top of that, the F-35s stealth is much more robust than that of the F-22, so it really will be a wash, seal the panel gaps, off to war.
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3605
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:18 am

johns624 wrote:
sebolino wrote:
Just like you haven't said what plane you think should've won the competition.


???
I don't think I did. What exactly did I say ?
Now, if you want to hear a real expert, and not those gloating supposed experts in this forum ("you should listen to what I say" LOL), please take some time to watch this.
It's in French, I'm not sure that "ATE" made an English version, but I think he's very clear.


And in the end, he thinks the winner should have been ....












The F-16 (yes, I know that you once again wanted to say that a French was going to put the Rafale first).
As the F-16 was not in competition, he thinks the F/A 18 was the best option, and he explains clearly why the arguments of Armasuisse are flawed.

The link:

https://youtu.be/Olx03vxRxFQ
 
FlapOperator
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:17 pm

Oroka wrote:
Realistically, stealth is opening shots of the war capacity, then its pointless as they start strapping external stores on. On top of that, the F-35s stealth is much more robust than that of the F-22, so it really will be a wash, seal the panel gaps, off to war.


Stealth/LO is increasingly a requirement for any contested airspace. My argument would be something like Yemen, where a combination of legacy SAMs and UAVs have persisted for years in a congested battlespace.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:33 pm

FlapOperator wrote:
Stealth/LO is increasingly a requirement for any contested airspace. My argument would be something like Yemen, where a combination of legacy SAMs and UAVs have persisted for years in a congested battlespace.


That is if you are waging a limited engagement and not trying to absolutely bring your opponent to their knees. If you know they exist and choose to not hunt them down and eliminate them, that is a choice and you have to run around in full stealth. Once you have air superiority and eliminated most air defences, you can allow minor stealth maintenance to slide.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 6005
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Mon Jul 19, 2021 8:11 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
This report by Blattmann is very damning. He says that the Federal Council:
- Grossly underestimates operational and maintenance costs. He expects 12% of the purchase costs will be spent every year just on flying and maintaining them.
- Neglects the purchase of F-35 weapons. If F-35 are bought, then the scenario would be a similarly equipped country attacking us. And they will mount an attack leading to attrition, both in terms of aircraft and weapons. One can't buy weapons in a conflict...

He argues for keeping the F-18s for air police duty and buying no fighters, while building up a serious ground-based air defense that adresses both drones, cruise missiles as well as other airborne threats (basically the Israel model, where older jets carry out most of the missions). This would be the cheapest option, which frees up finances for a big and serious development in 2025, 2030 or even later.

Did this Blattmann guy do any research? The USAF per hour cost may be high but we don’t hear the same reports coming from Norway or Australia or Italy etc. Perhaps the Swiss was able to negotiate a fixed cost for flight hour of the aircraft and LM eats everything above that?

Also the weapons the aircraft uses are the same as the current aircraft. Even if the Rafale was chosen which I think was the other favourite it would have required a whole new set of weapons that aren’t even compatible with the Hornet fleet.

I guess Swiss could have kept the old hornets around, not sure it would cost less in the end given they would become a lonely operator, but that is an academic argument that is a bit hard to justify after you have run a multi year costly campaign to find a replacement aircraft and don’t like the result.

His other plan doesn’t make sense either, missiles aren’t a viable substitute for a fighter aircraft. I’m not sure what else will come in 2025, 2030 or even later that will be cheaper?



The operating cost of the F-35 is very high for Norway. A simple air policing mission of Iceland, cost 4 times as much as it would with F-16's.
 
art
Posts: 4183
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:46 pm

Mortyman wrote:
The operating cost of the F-35 is very high for Norway. A simple air policing mission of Iceland, cost 4 times as much as it would with F-16's.


Remember LM telling us 20 years ago that F-35 would offer far more than F-16 (true) at roughly the same cost (not true)? I never believed the cost claim.That is one reason why I was against most countries buying F-35. I thought the cost would mean defence budgets being skewed towards an increase in the cost of a fighter force, meaning that if you order F-35, you end up either cutting back elsewhere or increasing your defence budget.

The evaluation versus Gripen E by Norway was a joke, wasn't it? Conclusion was that Gripen E would cost more than F-35.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:13 am

Mortyman wrote:
The operating cost of the F-35 is very high for Norway. A simple air policing mission of Iceland, cost 4 times as much as it would with F-16's.

The operating cost of the F-16 is very high for Norway, a simple air policing mission cost 4 times as it would with a PC-21.

A single F-35 could patrol more area than 4 old F-16 aircraft. Coverage area is radar detection area multiplied by aircraft range. The F-35's APG-81 radar has around 3 times the radar coverage AREA of the Norway's F-16's Radar.

The F-35A has more internal fuel than the F-16 with internal AND full external fuel load. With the 3 external fuel tanks and a pair of missiles the F-16 can't go supersonic and it has more drag than the F-35 with full fuel. So the F-35 is burning less fuel per hour and has more total fuel giving approximately 20% greater range.

The F-16 requires conformal tanks AND 3 external fuel tanks to surpass the range of the F-35 with internal fuel only. Or the other option is for the three external tanks to be dropped as soon as they become empty on every policing mission which puts the costs up significantly.

All F-35 aircraft are plumbed for external fuel tanks and they will definitely arrive soon with Israel being the first operator. The demand for external tanks on the F-35 is low because the US has long range bombers and the other F-35 operators are coming from short range Hornets and F-16's so they are very happy with the range on internal fuel.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:24 am

art wrote:
The evaluation versus Gripen E by Norway was a joke, wasn't it? Conclusion was that Gripen E would cost more than F-35.

The F-35 is even cheaper than a single engine Cessna when you take into account air to air capability per dollar. No joke. A thousand Cessna aircraft will be less capable than a single F-35.

Are you suggesting that the cheapest aircraft should win regardless of capability per dollar?

Or are you suggesting they should rig the criteria so the aircraft with the lowest fuel burn gets a massive advantage so an armed turboprop trainer wins the competition? Now that would be a joke.
 
art
Posts: 4183
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:51 am

RJMAZ wrote:
art wrote:
The evaluation versus Gripen E by Norway was a joke, wasn't it? Conclusion was that Gripen E would cost more than F-35.

The F-35 is even cheaper than a single engine Cessna when you take into account air to air capability per dollar. No joke. A thousand Cessna aircraft will be less capable than a single F-35.

Are you suggesting that the cheapest aircraft should win regardless of capability per dollar?

Or are you suggesting they should rig the criteria so the aircraft with the lowest fuel burn gets a massive advantage so an armed turboprop trainer wins the competition? Now that would be a joke.


Rigging? This was riigging:

On 20 November 2008, the selection of the F-35 Lightning II for the Royal Norwegian Air Force was announced, stating that the F-35 is the only candidate to meet all operational requirements; media reports claimed the requirements were tilted in the F-35's favour.
Saab and Sweden's defence minister Sten Tolgfors stated that Norway's cost calculations were flawed; the offer being for 48 Gripens over 20 years, but Norway had extrapolated it to operating 57 aircraft over 30 years, thus doubling the cost;
cost projections also failed to relate to the Gripen's operational costs.
Norway also calculated greater attrition losses than what Sweden considered reasonable.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:21 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
It is hard to think of a situation where Switzerland needs any fighters at all. Any threat to Switzerland would be taken out by NATO aircraft.

Only 30 years ago the air space of Austria, one of Switzerlands neighbors, was violated many times by hostile MIGs. NATO has taken out exactly none of them.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:59 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
It is hard to think of a situation where Switzerland needs any fighters at all. Any threat to Switzerland would be taken out by NATO aircraft.

Only 30 years ago the air space of Austria, one of Switzerlands neighbors, was violated many times by hostile MIGs. NATO has taken out exactly none of them.


A fine example of time space discontinuity. Even 30 years ago there would have been 0 incident of Swiss air space being violated by a hostile force in the form of the Warsaw Pact. Now, even more so.

Now Swiss airspace being violated by unauthorized non governmental or friendly governmental aircraft is a more realistic possibility. That situation would require a fighter interdiction/escort. A stealth fighter? Probably not. But the F-35 would represent state of the art pomp for a first world country.

bt
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:32 pm

bikerthai wrote:
A fine example of time space discontinuity. Even 30 years ago there would have been 0 incident of Swiss air space being violated by a hostile force in the form of the Warsaw Pact. Now, even more so.

I just posted a real world example of a series of incidents which did occur and during which NATO would have been/was of no help for Switzerland. You also have to know that Austria does not belong to NATO and basically has a non-existing air defence. So there is a large void and undefended air space just East of Switzerland. At the time, when the 1991 incidents occured, they had more fighters than today.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:53 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
just posted a real world example of a series of incidents which did occur and during which NATO would have been/was of no help for Switzerland.


And NATO would be of no help to Switzerland today.

The real wold example applied to a country bordering a "non-friendly" neighbor.

With the times a changing, the non-Swiss friendly nation have moved further east. So that example is no longer valid.

I have no qualm with the Swiss buying the best equipment for their Arm Force. They can afford it. But the reason of a hostile neighbor intruding its airspace is lower in the probability scale in my opinion.

bt
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:31 am

Mortyman wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
flyingturtle wrote:
This report by Blattmann is very damning. He says that the Federal Council:
- Grossly underestimates operational and maintenance costs. He expects 12% of the purchase costs will be spent every year just on flying and maintaining them.
- Neglects the purchase of F-35 weapons. If F-35 are bought, then the scenario would be a similarly equipped country attacking us. And they will mount an attack leading to attrition, both in terms of aircraft and weapons. One can't buy weapons in a conflict...

He argues for keeping the F-18s for air police duty and buying no fighters, while building up a serious ground-based air defense that adresses both drones, cruise missiles as well as other airborne threats (basically the Israel model, where older jets carry out most of the missions). This would be the cheapest option, which frees up finances for a big and serious development in 2025, 2030 or even later.

Did this Blattmann guy do any research? The USAF per hour cost may be high but we don’t hear the same reports coming from Norway or Australia or Italy etc. Perhaps the Swiss was able to negotiate a fixed cost for flight hour of the aircraft and LM eats everything above that?

Also the weapons the aircraft uses are the same as the current aircraft. Even if the Rafale was chosen which I think was the other favourite it would have required a whole new set of weapons that aren’t even compatible with the Hornet fleet.

I guess Swiss could have kept the old hornets around, not sure it would cost less in the end given they would become a lonely operator, but that is an academic argument that is a bit hard to justify after you have run a multi year costly campaign to find a replacement aircraft and don’t like the result.

His other plan doesn’t make sense either, missiles aren’t a viable substitute for a fighter aircraft. I’m not sure what else will come in 2025, 2030 or even later that will be cheaper?



The operating cost of the F-35 is very high for Norway. A simple air policing mission of Iceland, cost 4 times as much as it would with F-16's.

First time deployment for the aircraft, a mixed fleet of versions, spare parts issues not resolved, blah blah blah. The true test is five years from now how much it costs when there is only F-35 flying down the fjords or over Hvannadalshnúkur.
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:49 am

art wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
art wrote:
The evaluation versus Gripen E by Norway was a joke, wasn't it? Conclusion was that Gripen E would cost more than F-35.

The F-35 is even cheaper than a single engine Cessna when you take into account air to air capability per dollar. No joke. A thousand Cessna aircraft will be less capable than a single F-35.

Are you suggesting that the cheapest aircraft should win regardless of capability per dollar?

Or are you suggesting they should rig the criteria so the aircraft with the lowest fuel burn gets a massive advantage so an armed turboprop trainer wins the competition? Now that would be a joke.


Rigging? This was riigging:

On 20 November 2008, the selection of the F-35 Lightning II for the Royal Norwegian Air Force was announced, stating that the F-35 is the only candidate to meet all operational requirements; media reports claimed the requirements were tilted in the F-35's favour.
Saab and Sweden's defence minister Sten Tolgfors stated that Norway's cost calculations were flawed; the offer being for 48 Gripens over 20 years, but Norway had extrapolated it to operating 57 aircraft over 30 years, thus doubling the cost;
cost projections also failed to relate to the Gripen's operational costs.
Norway also calculated greater attrition losses than what Sweden considered reasonable.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

dumb, just dumb. It is 13 years later and Gripen is still not in service and rejected by the swiss the second time because it wasn't mature enough. I read the other day Saab agreed the aircraft wasn't good enough and why it is bigger and heavier but just as average.
 
art
Posts: 4183
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:16 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
art wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The F-35 is even cheaper than a single engine Cessna when you take into account air to air capability per dollar. No joke. A thousand Cessna aircraft will be less capable than a single F-35.

Are you suggesting that the cheapest aircraft should win regardless of capability per dollar?

Or are you suggesting they should rig the criteria so the aircraft with the lowest fuel burn gets a massive advantage so an armed turboprop trainer wins the competition? Now that would be a joke.


Rigging? This was riigging:

On 20 November 2008, the selection of the F-35 Lightning II for the Royal Norwegian Air Force was announced, stating that the F-35 is the only candidate to meet all operational requirements; media reports claimed the requirements were tilted in the F-35's favour.
Saab and Sweden's defence minister Sten Tolgfors stated that Norway's cost calculations were flawed; the offer being for 48 Gripens over 20 years, but Norway had extrapolated it to operating 57 aircraft over 30 years, thus doubling the cost;
cost projections also failed to relate to the Gripen's operational costs.
Norway also calculated greater attrition losses than what Sweden considered reasonable.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

dumb, just dumb. It is 13 years later and Gripen is still not in service and rejected by the swiss the second time because it wasn't mature enough. I read the other day Saab agreed the aircraft wasn't good enough and why it is bigger and heavier but just as average.


Is there mention of any criticism of F-35 that you do not consider dumb? ALIS. Dumb to mention that, no? 600 or so non-critical deficiencies still outstanding? Perhaps you will not find mentioning those quite so dumb, particularly if I describe them as a possible impediment or constraint to successful mission accomplishment.

By the way, it would be interesting to get a link to SAAB's admission that Gripen E is just as average as Gripen C. I am inclined to think that is just a smidgeon untrue.
 
angad84
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:07 pm

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
I read the other day Saab agreed the aircraft wasn't good enough and why it is bigger and heavier but just as average.

I'd love a source for this, because that sounds wildly out of character for an on the record Saab statement.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:33 pm

angad84 wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
I read the other day Saab agreed the aircraft wasn't good enough and why it is bigger and heavier but just as average.

I'd love a source for this, because that sounds wildly out of character for an on the record Saab statement.

That would be author interpretation. It definitely is bigger and heavier and just as average. The original small wing is now the Achilles' heel. The Gripen E gained 18% more empty weight and gained 22% more thrust.

Let's compare the three Eurocanards.

The Eurofighter wing has 70% more wing area but it is has an empty weight only 37% heavier than the Gripen E. The Eurofighter has 47% more internal fuel and 83% more engine thrust.

The Rafale C wing has 50% more wing area but it is only 22% heavier than the Gripen E. The Rafale has 38% more internal fuel and 53% more engine thrust.

The Gripen E is so heavy despite having the lowest thrust to weight ratio, the worst wing loading and the worst fuel fraction. When I see people here talk up the Gripen I instantly know they are amateurs.

The original Gripen had a laughable fuel capacity with only 2,350kg of fuel. The lighter T-50 trainer using the same F404 engine has 2,690 kg of fuel. The Gripen E fuel capacity at 3,400kg brings it up from a distant last place to a close last place.

F-35A versus "high fuel capacity" Gripen E.
The F-35A has an empty weight 66% more yet has 143% more internal fuel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee ... ghtning_II
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:30 am

art wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
art wrote:

dumb, just dumb. It is 13 years later and Gripen is still not in service and rejected by the swiss the second time because it wasn't mature enough. I read the other day Saab agreed the aircraft wasn't good enough and why it is bigger and heavier but just as average.


Is there mention of any criticism of F-35 that you do not consider dumb? ALIS. Dumb to mention that, no? 600 or so non-critical deficiencies still outstanding? Perhaps you will not find mentioning those quite so dumb, particularly if I describe them as a possible impediment or constraint to successful mission accomplishment.

By the way, it would be interesting to get a link to SAAB's admission that Gripen E is just as average as Gripen C. I am inclined to think that is just a smidgeon untrue.

Art guy, never said F-35 was perfect, it has many flaws but is the best of the lot right now as the Swiss confirmed. If you can afford it and get it then there is no contest. ALIS is stupid, there are too many defects etc but dumbness extends beyond that by trying to claim rigging when what Sweden/Saab offered Norway was a mess of unsupported claims and unfunded promises that was assessed with more reputation risk than being Trump’s press secretary.

You also need to read better, bigger and heavier is true, the average claim is from me and the statement was about the Gripen offer to Norway which wasn’t even an E, some sort of franken NG that didn’t win any sales and had to become the E which hasn’t won any sales except Brazil that really wanted SH but NSA screwed the deal.

Now that link
"They [Norway] selected another fighter to meet their needs," Kristoffer Broqvist, Project Manager Survivability and EW for Gripen E in the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), told the EW Europe conference in May. "We wanted to understand the reasons for their decision. "While we disagreed, or didn't understand, in many areas, it was clear to us that they weren't happy with the EW solution offered with the Gripen as it looked in 2008," he continued. "We did our own thorough evaluation, and decided Norway was right - we didn't like it either."
Journal of Electronic Defence Nov 2019 Vol 42 No 11.

The EW system wasn’t good enough, what else wasn’t good enough? It was the franken NG then probably range, payload, sensors, survivability. So dumb is claiming the contest is rigged when one party offers a jet with 2500 orders and the other offers a jet with no other customers, a lack of definition and then claims they didn't burn the toast.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:29 pm

When I see people here talk up the Gripen I instantly know they are amateurs.


Strange attitude. The Gripen has some interesting off-airport and simplified servicing, fast turnaround concept. Almost unique theses days. It's made for rough environments and marginal weather and some more regional defence and does not need superior range.
Having said that I totally respect the Swiss decision. Interesting to see somebody come to his conclusion so clear after real world testing for his needs.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 6005
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:06 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
The operating cost of the F-35 is very high for Norway. A simple air policing mission of Iceland, cost 4 times as much as it would with F-16's.

The operating cost of the F-16 is very high for Norway, a simple air policing mission cost 4 times as it would with a PC-21.

A single F-35 could patrol more area than 4 old F-16 aircraft. Coverage area is radar detection area multiplied by aircraft range. The F-35's APG-81 radar has around 3 times the radar coverage AREA of the Norway's F-16's Radar.

The F-35A has more internal fuel than the F-16 with internal AND full external fuel load. With the 3 external fuel tanks and a pair of missiles the F-16 can't go supersonic and it has more drag than the F-35 with full fuel. So the F-35 is burning less fuel per hour and has more total fuel giving approximately 20% greater range.

The F-16 requires conformal tanks AND 3 external fuel tanks to surpass the range of the F-35 with internal fuel only. Or the other option is for the three external tanks to be dropped as soon as they become empty on every policing mission which puts the costs up significantly.

All F-35 aircraft are plumbed for external fuel tanks and they will definitely arrive soon with Israel being the first operator. The demand for external tanks on the F-35 is low because the US has long range bombers and the other F-35 operators are coming from short range Hornets and F-16's so they are very happy with the range on internal fuel.



All this is irrelevant. If the aircraft is too expensive to operate, that it spends more time on the ground than in the air, it is of no use to us.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Switzerland Restarting Fighter Competition

Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:13 pm

Mortyman wrote:
All this is irrelevant. If the aircraft is too expensive to operate, that it spends more time on the ground than in the air, it is of no use to us.

So you agree with my statement that the Swiss should buy PC-21 as it is cheapest? They can afford to have PC-21 in the air 24 hours a day which according to use is extremely useful.

I was being sarcastic to prove a point. You do not buy the cheapest option if it can't do the job and would instantly get shot down.
 
johns624
Posts: 4045
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:22 pm

sebolino wrote:

The F-16 (yes, I know that you once again wanted to say that a French was going to put the Rafale first).
As the F-16 was not in competition, he thinks the F/A 18 was the best option, and he explains clearly why the arguments of Armasuisse are flawed.

The link:

https://youtu.be/Olx03vxRxFQ
There you go "assuming". I had no preconceived notions on your choice and didn't even know that you were French. Since a.net "updated" and got rid of members' flags, it's hard to tell where anyone is from.
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:58 pm

johns624 wrote:
sebolino wrote:

The F-16 (yes, I know that you once again wanted to say that a French was going to put the Rafale first).
As the F-16 was not in competition, he thinks the F/A 18 was the best option, and he explains clearly why the arguments of Armasuisse are flawed.

The link:

https://youtu.be/Olx03vxRxFQ
There you go "assuming". I had no preconceived notions on your choice and didn't even know that you were French. Since a.net "updated" and got rid of members' flags, it's hard to tell where anyone is from.

The Swiss also never stated what came second so it could very well have been the F-18.

Sebolino if you're going to reference a source not in English you are supposed to give an "adequately translated summary of the article content". It would be nice to know why he chose the F-16 and F-18 and not just that he did else it really is a useless statement.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6169
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:17 am

Now it has come to light that Switzerland has used an new kind of evaluation process, which could be attacked legally.

Usually, a government issues specifications, and then gives grades (A, B, C, ..., F) to each criterion of each offer.

But now, they used the "Analytic Hierarchy Process", which pits each jet against each other - if the F-35 is better in a specified aspect than the F-18E, then it gets a point. It also fares better against the Rafale, so there's another point... like a football tournament before the knock-out phase.

The advantage of the usual method ("How well does an offer meet our specs?") is obvious. Companies can improve their product to meet the specs before handing over the documents.

But in AHP, there is a pairwise comparison, where there is a winner in each comparison. It does not look at how good something meets the specs. Experts have said that AHP is sensible though when there are no objective, measurable criteria (like the choice of a holiday destination, "How much do I like the beach?", "How stressful would the travel be?").

Another criticism is that there can be a rank reversal if an offer is retracted - without any change in the offers themselves.

The report says that the losers could challenge the decision, on the grounds that Swiss federal authorities generally do not use the AHP method.


https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/kampfje ... pfjet-kauf
 
angad84
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:49 pm

Seems tenuous at best.
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:29 pm

angad84 wrote:
Seems tenuous at best.

Exactly, more Swiss left straw grasping...

If the evaluation was consistent across the selection for all competitors and each was aware of how the airframes were going to be evaluated who cares that it is different to other swiss contests.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6169
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:51 am

The Federal Council has one or two communication problems...

They said they could get a fixed price for the F-35 from the US government, and that operating costs would be guaranteed during the first ten years of operations.

This Germish article https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/beschaf ... ie-schweiz points out that

- no country was able to get a promise from the US (or the manufacturers) regarding the operating costs.
- Switzerland would get the jets from 2027 (at the earliest), which would be production lots 19 to 22. At the moment, the US government is still in negotiations with Lockheed Martin concerning lots 15 till 17.
- because Switzerland gets the jets through the US Foreign Military Sales programme and not directly from Lockheed Martin, Switzerland would get the jets on the same terms as the US government. It would thus pay the same purchasing and operating costs.
- in the documents https://www.dscu.mil/documents/publicat ... hapter.pdf the US government says it cannot give any guarantees re purchasing costs or operating costs, and buyers have no legal recourse to sue the US government in case these costs would be higher than anticipated.
 
art
Posts: 4183
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:02 am

Has the Swiss government gone ahead in confirming on this basis:

Seller: "We guarantee xyz."
Buyer: "just what we wanted. We'll buy it on that basis."
Seller: "Brilliant but just remember we don't guarantee to honour the guarantee."
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6169
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:21 am

art wrote:
Has the Swiss government gone ahead in confirming on this basis:

Seller: "We guarantee xyz."
Buyer: "just what we wanted. We'll buy it on that basis."
Seller: "Brilliant but just remember we don't guarantee to honour the guarantee."


Remember that the Swiss Federal Council has to get the public message right. The government won the last fighter jet referendum only with 50.1% of the votes, and phone polls have indicated that many nay-sayers were motivated by the prospect that Switzerland could buy the most expensive jet.

When the jet turns out to be a lot more expensive, the Federal Councillors are long retired and can say they have been "wrongly" informed...
 
744SPX
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:04 pm

I always thought SAAB would have been better off just putting the F414 on the Gripen C. It might require a bit of intake modification but the engine is the same physical dimensions as the F404. THAT would be an improved aircraft.
 
744SPX
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:09 pm

That being said, the 19k F404 INS6 would have been pretty sweet on the F-18C.
 
angad84
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:40 pm

744SPX wrote:
I always thought SAAB would have been better off just putting the F414 on the Gripen C. It might require a bit of intake modification but the engine is the same physical dimensions as the F404. THAT would be an improved aircraft.

I can tell you from the Indian experience, this would not work out well.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:58 pm

I was watching another youtube video, about an F35 crash in Florida. The report mentioned something that surprised the youtuber, a former French Navy pilot (on Super Etendard and Rafale M) : the accident pilot had about 130 hours on type, and had been an instructor for 50 hours. So only 80 hours to become an instructor. And overall, not enough hours flown in a year, well below the recommended time (recommended by NATO/the US).

Are maintenance issues (or worst, problems, like what happened during that crash with the flight controls) preventing pilots to fly enough hours ? Or cost ?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:41 am

Aesma wrote:
the accident pilot had about 130 hours on type, and had been an instructor for 50 hours. So only 80 hours to become an instructor.


Crazy, but if you wait for enough instructors to get "sufficient" F-35 flying time, then you'll need to buy a lot more F-15EX because you will not have sufficient F-35 pilots.

Seems like this would be an issue for any new fighter program.

Of course you would think they would have a lot more simulator time though.


bt
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:15 am

744SPX wrote:
I always thought SAAB would have been better off just putting the F414 on the Gripen C. It might require a bit of intake modification but the engine is the same physical dimensions as the F404. THAT would be an improved aircraft.

From a netscape search the F414 has a higher tsfc than the F404. Gripen C has a fuel problem, as in not enough of it..., so why install an engine with a higher tsfc, is heavier and draggier with bigger holes to accommodate it even if you get a thrust bump. You won't make it to the battle to use the extra thrust...

The funny funny here is what your describing is the Gripen NG which failed to garner any sales until Saab made the whole aircraft bigger and heavier in the E but screwed the pooch with weight.
 
744SPX
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:34 am

SeamanBeaumont wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I always thought SAAB would have been better off just putting the F414 on the Gripen C. It might require a bit of intake modification but the engine is the same physical dimensions as the F404. THAT would be an improved aircraft.

From a netscape search the F414 has a higher tsfc than the F404. Gripen C has a fuel problem, as in not enough of it..., so why install an engine with a higher tsfc, is heavier and draggier with bigger holes to accommodate it even if you get a thrust bump. You won't make it to the battle to use the extra thrust...

The funny funny here is what your describing is the Gripen NG which failed to garner any sales until Saab made the whole aircraft bigger and heavier in the E but screwed the pooch with weight.



I didn't realize the Gripen NG was so different than the E. That's the mistake right there.
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:29 am

bikerthai wrote:
Aesma wrote:
the accident pilot had about 130 hours on type, and had been an instructor for 50 hours. So only 80 hours to become an instructor.


Crazy, but if you wait for enough instructors to get "sufficient" F-35 flying time, then you'll need to buy a lot more F-15EX because you will not have sufficient F-35 pilots.

Seems like this would be an issue for any new fighter program.

Of course you would think they would have a lot more simulator time though.


bt

The crash report... plenty of gouge and actual cause of the crash...

"The AIB President found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mishap was caused first,
by the MA touching down at 202 KCAS, and second, by the MA flight control surfaces, namely
the tail of the aircraft, conflicting with the MP inputs upon landing, resulting in the MP’s inability
to recover from the aircraft oscillation. The AIB President also found by a preponderance of the
evidence that four additional factors substantially contributed to the mishap. The substantially
contributing factors are: the MP landed with Speed Hold engaged and using an alternate crosscheck
method, the MP Helmet Mounted Display misalignment distracted the MP during a critical phase
of flight, MP experienced cognitive degradation due to fatigue, and the MP lacked systems
knowledge on flight control logic. "

"8. CREW QUALIFICATIONS
The MP was a current and qualified Instructor Pilot (IP) in the F-35A at the time of the mishap
(Tab G-215 to G-229). In the F-35A, the MP had 137.8 total hours, 53.4 instructor hours, and 8.0
night hours (Tab G-215 to G-229). The MP obtained his initial F-35A instrument qualification on
29 January 2019 (Tab G-229). The MP’s initial mission qualification as an instructor in the F35A
is dated 7 August 2019 (Tab G-227). The MP was current and qualified as an F-35A instructor at
night at the time of the mishap (Tab G-225 to G-228). Prior to qualification in the F-35A, the MP
was qualified in the F-15E with 1272 hours, 374.9 night hours, and 410.3 combat hours (Tab G219). Over his career he has a total of 1459 flight hours from 689 sorties
(Tab G-219). "

"10. OPERATIONS AND SUPERVISION
a. Operations
The 58 FS operations tempo was normal but slightly degraded due to coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) operational precautions such as minimum or essential manning, mask wear and social
distancing, and a lack of in person pilot meetings and phase briefs (Tab V-3.1). It had been six
weeks since the squadron’s last night week and the MP last flew at night 42 days prior on 7 April
2020 (Tabs G-215 to G-229 and V-3.1). The MP’s most recent flight prior to the mishap was 11
days earlier on 8 May 2020 (Tab G-221).

b. Supervision
The mission was authorized by the 58 FS operations supervisor and a review of flight training
records showed the MP and MW were current and qualified to participate in the scheduled sortie

(Tab CC-3). "

https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/AIB ... Signed.pdf
 
User avatar
SeamanBeaumont
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:12 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:52 am

744SPX wrote:
SeamanBeaumont wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I always thought SAAB would have been better off just putting the F414 on the Gripen C. It might require a bit of intake modification but the engine is the same physical dimensions as the F404. THAT would be an improved aircraft.

From a netscape search the F414 has a higher tsfc than the F404. Gripen C has a fuel problem, as in not enough of it..., so why install an engine with a higher tsfc, is heavier and draggier with bigger holes to accommodate it even if you get a thrust bump. You won't make it to the battle to use the extra thrust...

The funny funny here is what your describing is the Gripen NG which failed to garner any sales until Saab made the whole aircraft bigger and heavier in the E but screwed the pooch with weight.



I didn't realize the Gripen NG was so different than the E. That's the mistake right there.

Not that different, Saab changed the name, increased the width and added a ton of weight. Now no better than Gripen C except for updated EW and radar. Really NG was a better option but never realistic, just slideware marketing spin and why the Swiss excluded it the second time.

Image
Image from here, https://closewar.com/2013/03/03/gripen- ... gripen-ng/

Image
Image from here, https://twitter.com/jrvianney/status/83 ... 52/photo/2
 
744SPX
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:01 am

Cool- thanks!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14738
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:19 am

bikerthai wrote:
Aesma wrote:
the accident pilot had about 130 hours on type, and had been an instructor for 50 hours. So only 80 hours to become an instructor.


Crazy, but if you wait for enough instructors to get "sufficient" F-35 flying time, then you'll need to buy a lot more F-15EX because you will not have sufficient F-35 pilots.

Seems like this would be an issue for any new fighter program.

Of course you would think they would have a lot more simulator time though.

bt


Apparently the flight controls had a bug/unknown failure mode, meaning the simulator wouldn't have reacted in the same way... The report mentions that simulator training can be bad training (not the terms used). Also the cognitive issues mentioned in the excerpt that has been posted are in part due to lack of oxygen, I had heard about this but I didn't know it was that bad.
 
art
Posts: 4183
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:48 am

Back to costs. US politicians are not happy with F-35A:

On Monday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., unveiled his “chairman’s mark” of the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act, which included provisions that would pose affordability constraints on how many F-35s the military can buy or maintain at a time.

“If you bring the sustainment cost down, we’ll buy more,” Smith said during a Aug. 31 event at the Brookings Institution. “If you don’t, we’re not going to, simply because of the cost that is involved in that.”

Specifically, if the military does not meet the affordability targets for “cost per tail per year” — which measures the average price of operating, maintaining and upgrading a single aircraft — the services will not be able to procure the number of F-35s planned as part of the program of record. (In FY20, the cost per tail for an F-35A was about $8 million. The U.S. Air Force’s target for an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model is $4.1 million.)


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/09 ... -aircraft/

Sure, how you calculate operational costs can produce different figures but it cannot account for a figure double the expected figure, can it? Around $8 million per annum instead of $4.1 million per annum is a seriously bad figure.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Updated: Switzerland deciding to buy F-35A fighter jets

Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:13 am

art wrote:
Sure, how you calculate operational costs can produce different figures but it cannot account for a figure double the expected figure, can it? Around $8 million per annum instead of $4.1 million per annum is a seriously bad figure.

That is the authors numbers and interpretation. Notice he includes upgrades in his price. The USAF early F-35 builds are getting upgraded to a newer standard which is a one off cost. You do not upgrade your aircraft every year.

The RAAF F-35 current costs are $31,448 AUD per flight hour. That is $23,232 USD which is already below the USAF target. The USAF wants to hit the target of $25,000 USD by 2025. The RAAF are already below the target.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fMSGGh ... sp=sharing

Now if you look at the Hawk data. Project Air 5438 was an upgrade program for the Hawk to make it a better 21st century trainer. The hourly operating costs went from around $12,000 historical average to $42,558 per hour in 2019. That is higher than the F-35 per hour cost. Expensive upgrades divided over so few flight hours per year has a big effect in the cost per hour.

The same thing happened in 2002 with the Hornet more than quadrupled compared to 2000 or 2004. The whole Hornet fleet was getting upgraded.

The F-35 operating costs are declining rapidly once you remove one off upgrades. The RAAF aircraft are all at the same standard now. The RAAF are predicting the hourly operating cost of the F-35 will reach $18,257 AUD or $13,488 USD next year. That is a rapid decline. This is less than half of the hourly cost of the Eurofighter fleet. Some F-16 operators have a higher hourly operating cost than this.

The US politicians will all be able to take credit for bringing the F-35 operating costs down.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: texl1649 and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos