F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Where is Sydney Silverman when we need him?
Mr. S. Silverman Would it be a fair summary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am trying to help. Would it be a fair summary of what the right hon. Gentleman has told the House to say that the result of his negotiations in the United States is that what he has really done is to buy a pig in a poke with a blank cheque?
Skybolt Missile (Hansard, 22 June 1960)
Mr. S. Silverman Would it be a fair summary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am trying to help. Would it be a fair summary of what the right hon. Gentleman has told the House to say that the result of his negotiations in the United States is that what he has really done is to buy a pig in a poke with a blank cheque?
Skybolt Missile (Hansard, 22 June 1960)
Turbine D
Sorry if I'm being dull, but your best to worst lists. I don't understand them.
Are you saying that you think Rafale is superior to F22 at surprising the enemy?
Sorry if I'm being dull, but your best to worst lists. I don't understand them.
Are you saying that you think Rafale is superior to F22 at surprising the enemy?
Both Rafale and Typhoon better than the F-22 at surprising?
Do you mean visual (eyeball) only?
Outnumbering? I get you are looking at costs, but that can be irrelevant if you look at how many fighters a force buys and actually fields for an engagement.
Outmaneuvering? Based on what? Knife fight? I think you need to give the F-16 and F-22 some more credit....
Reliable kills? Based on your favorites, or based on proven Air to Air record? I can't recall a kill from many on your list. F-22 last? Really? The F-22 (admittedly no real kills) regularly does very, very well against teen series fighters in exercises, and from what I understand against others on your list as well.
And you also need to factor in the force they fly with. A fighter force with good AWACS, ELINT, tanker and jamming support will have a great advantage.
Leads me to think your list is very Euro-fan centered....
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sandiego89,
First, I wanted to answer a1bill's comment on not seeing any fighters less expensive than the F-35 possessing similar "Superior" capabilities. Secondly, I wanted to narrow the response to that of an air to air combat role which the USAF does have need for in terms of air superiority. I also wanted to point out that the F-35, although initially stated by both DoD and L-M to be a duel role fighter, it isn't. In the air to air role, it will be poor and its effectiveness in the air to ground role has yet to be fully determined. So, to search for a less expensive air to air fighter aircraft, you have to look outside of the USA as we don't have any being produced these days. Although the F-22 is good, it isn't going back into production soon, or perhaps ever. IMHO, the USAF needs additional good air superiority fighters given the F-35 situation and the few F-22s available. OTOH, Europe does have some good air to air fighters that can hold their own in many ways. The Gripen C from Sweden is the least expensive and very capable in the air, plus it uses an American GE engine. It is simple to operate and maintain, small like the F-16 and highly maneuverable. So yes, it may well be slanted towards Europe, but what does the USA have available other than 200 or so F-22s when the F-16s and F-15s arrive at the bone yard?
Anyhow, here is the source I extracted information from while attempting to keep my posting shortened:
From Defense Issues January 2014.
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/...tern-fighters/
For those who would like to read this and other interesting articles, you can vote your choice of the best air superiority fighter here:
From Defense Issues January 2016
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com
Hope this answers your questions
First, I wanted to answer a1bill's comment on not seeing any fighters less expensive than the F-35 possessing similar "Superior" capabilities. Secondly, I wanted to narrow the response to that of an air to air combat role which the USAF does have need for in terms of air superiority. I also wanted to point out that the F-35, although initially stated by both DoD and L-M to be a duel role fighter, it isn't. In the air to air role, it will be poor and its effectiveness in the air to ground role has yet to be fully determined. So, to search for a less expensive air to air fighter aircraft, you have to look outside of the USA as we don't have any being produced these days. Although the F-22 is good, it isn't going back into production soon, or perhaps ever. IMHO, the USAF needs additional good air superiority fighters given the F-35 situation and the few F-22s available. OTOH, Europe does have some good air to air fighters that can hold their own in many ways. The Gripen C from Sweden is the least expensive and very capable in the air, plus it uses an American GE engine. It is simple to operate and maintain, small like the F-16 and highly maneuverable. So yes, it may well be slanted towards Europe, but what does the USA have available other than 200 or so F-22s when the F-16s and F-15s arrive at the bone yard?
Anyhow, here is the source I extracted information from while attempting to keep my posting shortened:
From Defense Issues January 2014.
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/...tern-fighters/
For those who would like to read this and other interesting articles, you can vote your choice of the best air superiority fighter here:
From Defense Issues January 2016
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com
Hope this answers your questions
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine D : B1. Costs
Unit flyaway costs when adjusted for inflation to FY 2013 USD are 126 million USD for F-15C, 70 million USD for F-16C, 68 million USD for F-18C, 273 million USD for F-22A, 188 million USD for F-35A, 127 million USD for Typhoon, 95 million USD for Rafale C and 44 million USD for Gripen C, all in FY2013 USD.
Unit flyaway costs when adjusted for inflation to FY 2013 USD are 126 million USD for F-15C, 70 million USD for F-16C, 68 million USD for F-18C, 273 million USD for F-22A, 188 million USD for F-35A, 127 million USD for Typhoon, 95 million USD for Rafale C and 44 million USD for Gripen C, all in FY2013 USD.
"Other than the super hornet, that is very close to the F-35 in price when you add the pods etc. I'm having trouble finding cheaper fighters. Which one/s are you thinking of? That's not even allowing for the superiority of the F-35's capability."
did your prices include all the pods/sensors needed for multi role, as I suggested was the specs?
they don't make the grippen C, f-16c or F-15c any more and the $year buy would be 2020. wouldn't it? that is when the F-35 is out of LRIP.
If we are looking back in history, the spitfire was a lot cheaper.
although you started with what the superiority of the F-35's capability may or may not be. I will reply to that when we get the market current or near future fighters (grippenE) costs that you think are cheaper than the F-35 with all sensors at under $90m flyaway 2020 price?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill,
From Aviation Week:
I can only say that some European folks are much more sensitive to acquisition cost as well as what needs to be done from a manufacturing viewpoint to obtain those costs than the JPO and L-M.
Question:
Why does the US need a "multi-role" fighter, that you suggest, when the F-35 has the air to ground attack function all wrapped up? Isn't the need a good low cost air to air fighter, a role the F-35A can't fulfill?
I will reply to that when we get the market current or near future fighters (grippenE) costs that you think are cheaper than the F-35 with all sensors at under $90m flyaway 2020 price?
The JAS 39E will be able to engage stealth targets with a fused, multispectral sensor suite, according to program officials. It will be able to cruise at Mach 1.25 without using afterburner, and will enter service in 2018 with a full suite of weapons including the MBDA Meteor ramjet-powered air-to-air missile (which enters service next year on the JAS 39C/D). The Swedish air force's fixed-price contract for 60 complete aircraft, converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure, equates to a flyaway price of $43 million.
The JAS 39E is intended to have a lower acquisition cost than the JAS 39C, despite its greater capability, and to have a lower operating cost than any other fighter. The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel. For development costs (also covered by a fixed-price contract), Saab's goal is to spend only 60% as much as it would have cost using the same tools and processes that were used on the JAS 39C.
The JAS 39E is not a classically stealthy aircraft, but the Swedish Air Force development contract stipulates a significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) than the JAS 39C. In conjunction with the all-new Saab-developed electronic warfare system, which uses gallium nitride antenna technology and is described as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor in its own right, and the new Selex-ES Brite Cloud expendable active decoy, the reduced RCS is expected to allow the fighter to survive against advanced threats, including the Sukhoi T-50 fighter and “double-digit” surface-to-air missiles, while avoiding the cost and risk of an F-35-type stealth configuration.
The JAS 39E is intended to have a lower acquisition cost than the JAS 39C, despite its greater capability, and to have a lower operating cost than any other fighter. The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel. For development costs (also covered by a fixed-price contract), Saab's goal is to spend only 60% as much as it would have cost using the same tools and processes that were used on the JAS 39C.
The JAS 39E is not a classically stealthy aircraft, but the Swedish Air Force development contract stipulates a significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) than the JAS 39C. In conjunction with the all-new Saab-developed electronic warfare system, which uses gallium nitride antenna technology and is described as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor in its own right, and the new Selex-ES Brite Cloud expendable active decoy, the reduced RCS is expected to allow the fighter to survive against advanced threats, including the Sukhoi T-50 fighter and “double-digit” surface-to-air missiles, while avoiding the cost and risk of an F-35-type stealth configuration.
did your prices include all the pods/sensors needed for multi role, as I suggested was the specs?
Why does the US need a "multi-role" fighter, that you suggest, when the F-35 has the air to ground attack function all wrapped up? Isn't the need a good low cost air to air fighter, a role the F-35A can't fulfill?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who would have guessed that was written by bill sweetman. Do you have a credible source to the supposed $43m, including all the needed sensors/pods ?
Even SAAB saying it has a cost per hour of 50 cents is more believable.
you see this is where we disagree again, the RAAF say the f-35 is a very good A2A fighter, but we'll do this after the costs are sorted.
Even SAAB saying it has a cost per hour of 50 cents is more believable.
you see this is where we disagree again, the RAAF say the f-35 is a very good A2A fighter, but we'll do this after the costs are sorted.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine D
I've read the article that you have used as a reference.
At this point I will state that I'm on the fence about F35, and I think that Rafale is fantastic and we should have bought it for the RN.
I am not a fighter pilot and never have been, so it is entirely possible I am missing something, but I have to say that it is an awful truly egregious piece of junk masquerading as science.
For example.
Under the "surprising the enemy without being surprised" section:-
"largest aircraft are first to be noticed. All aircraft have largest signature when watched from the top or bottom; relative sizes can be seen here:"
The first question is obviously how much difference size actually makes at the closing speeds involved? At night? IMC? Secondly, how likely is the first spot to be from the top or bottom view?
Under the "outlasting the enemy" section:-
"As already noticed, persistence is determined by fuel fraction"
No. Persistence is quite obviously determined by a range of factors, of which fuel fraction is only one.
I could go on with each section, but I must say that if this is the sort of junk you consider authoritative, then your judgement is wanting.
I've read the article that you have used as a reference.
At this point I will state that I'm on the fence about F35, and I think that Rafale is fantastic and we should have bought it for the RN.
I am not a fighter pilot and never have been, so it is entirely possible I am missing something, but I have to say that it is an awful truly egregious piece of junk masquerading as science.
For example.
Under the "surprising the enemy without being surprised" section:-
"largest aircraft are first to be noticed. All aircraft have largest signature when watched from the top or bottom; relative sizes can be seen here:"
The first question is obviously how much difference size actually makes at the closing speeds involved? At night? IMC? Secondly, how likely is the first spot to be from the top or bottom view?
Under the "outlasting the enemy" section:-
"As already noticed, persistence is determined by fuel fraction"
No. Persistence is quite obviously determined by a range of factors, of which fuel fraction is only one.
I could go on with each section, but I must say that if this is the sort of junk you consider authoritative, then your judgement is wanting.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small update on the Italian F-35 trans atlantic crossing...
First Atlantic crossing for F-35 | AIRheadsFLY.com
And a small piece on Dutch F-35's with some interesting comments about ACM and data sharing with other aircraft, and it seems the Dutch want the dragchute on their F-35's as well as the Norwegians...
Dutch Lightning testers: Royal Netherlands Air Force and the F-35
-RP
First Atlantic crossing for F-35 | AIRheadsFLY.com
And a small piece on Dutch F-35's with some interesting comments about ACM and data sharing with other aircraft, and it seems the Dutch want the dragchute on their F-35's as well as the Norwegians...
Dutch Lightning testers: Royal Netherlands Air Force and the F-35
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's seems divided between those that know in the RAAF and a few that aren't in the loop. I haven't seen anyone with clearance to the F-35 bag it. the F-35 is a multi roll strike fighter, but that doesn't mean it can't have air superiority, does it?
Maybe we should just stick to facts, such as noting that some people have a pattern of posting that is obsessional, defamatory and mostly inaccurate. Or make a rule that you can't comment on things that you can't spell. Even when they have six-letter, completely phonetic names. And as anyone will tell you, the Rafale is the only true "multi-roll" fighter, bombarding its hapless adversaries with brioches and baguettes.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO
As an interested and undecided observer, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the F35, it is quite blatantly the "anti" brigade such as yourself who are the most aggressive and obsessional posters.
KenV, a1bill and the like are abused more than abusers. Not that it really matters, I'm not a big believer in internet "bullying" (you can always turn wifi off!) but it is a bit rich from the bullies to cry foul.
One argument that they keep saying is not invalid and bears constant repeating.
I also have yet to hear from a single operator who doesn't rave about it. Financial/temporal disaster it may well/seems to be, however the users who get to play seem to love it.
As an interested and undecided observer, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the F35, it is quite blatantly the "anti" brigade such as yourself who are the most aggressive and obsessional posters.
KenV, a1bill and the like are abused more than abusers. Not that it really matters, I'm not a big believer in internet "bullying" (you can always turn wifi off!) but it is a bit rich from the bullies to cry foul.
One argument that they keep saying is not invalid and bears constant repeating.
I also have yet to hear from a single operator who doesn't rave about it. Financial/temporal disaster it may well/seems to be, however the users who get to play seem to love it.
Awww, I weep salt tears of sympathy.
Not really: if you want to treat the discussion as a vendetta, to wit...
Who would have guessed that was written by bill sweetman. Do you have a credible source to the supposed $43m, including all the needed sensors/pods ?
... you might just check your facts first, because said source is not exactly hard to find.
Saab receives serial production order for Gripen E to Sweden
As for KenV, I don't think it's abusive to call out fabrication or ask for clarification on questionable statements.
Not really: if you want to treat the discussion as a vendetta, to wit...
Who would have guessed that was written by bill sweetman. Do you have a credible source to the supposed $43m, including all the needed sensors/pods ?
... you might just check your facts first, because said source is not exactly hard to find.
Saab receives serial production order for Gripen E to Sweden
As for KenV, I don't think it's abusive to call out fabrication or ask for clarification on questionable statements.
Tourist - I also have yet to hear from a single operator who doesn't rave about it. Financial/temporal disaster it may well/seems to be, however the users who get to play seem to love it.
I don't know about that. On the last occasion where I heard lots of operators talking about the aircraft, they were up on its information-based capabilities - not "raving" - but the mood was quite cautious about the process of getting those capabilities on the flight line in good order, which given the DOT&E's latest chainsaw attack is understandable. And the "it's not a super A2A machine" view seemed accepted in surprising places (and it was being energetically advertised as such a while back).
And if we're talking about USAF guys in public, nobody can quite unsay this:
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf
I don't know about that. On the last occasion where I heard lots of operators talking about the aircraft, they were up on its information-based capabilities - not "raving" - but the mood was quite cautious about the process of getting those capabilities on the flight line in good order, which given the DOT&E's latest chainsaw attack is understandable. And the "it's not a super A2A machine" view seemed accepted in surprising places (and it was being energetically advertised as such a while back).
And if we're talking about USAF guys in public, nobody can quite unsay this:
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist - I also have yet to hear from a single operator who doesn't rave about it. Financial/temporal disaster it may well/seems to be, however the users who get to play seem to love it.
I don't know about that. On the last occasion where I heard lots of operators talking about the aircraft, they were up on its information-based capabilities - not "raving" - but the mood was quite cautious about the process of getting those capabilities on the flight line in good order, which given the DOT&E's latest chainsaw attack is understandable. And the "it's not a super A2A machine" view seemed accepted in surprising places (and it was being energetically advertised as such a while back).
And if we're talking about USAF guys in public, nobody can quite unsay this:
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf
I don't know about that. On the last occasion where I heard lots of operators talking about the aircraft, they were up on its information-based capabilities - not "raving" - but the mood was quite cautious about the process of getting those capabilities on the flight line in good order, which given the DOT&E's latest chainsaw attack is understandable. And the "it's not a super A2A machine" view seemed accepted in surprising places (and it was being energetically advertised as such a while back).
And if we're talking about USAF guys in public, nobody can quite unsay this:
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, I can't see the said $43 mil flyaway ..are you sure you gave the right link?
Math, baby, math. Actually it's less now, because of the exchange rate.
Math, baby, math. Actually it's less now, because of the exchange rate.
Defence and security company Saab has, within the framework of a previously signed agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for Gripen E, received a serial production order amounting to SEK16, 4 billion for operations during 2013-2026. The order includes modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E for Sweden with initial deliveries in 2018.
“The order from FMV is further proof of the Swedish Parliament’s confidence in Gripen, its development potential and defence capacity. Furthermore, it is confirmation that the programme is proceeding according to plan," says Saab’s president and CEO Håkan Buskhe.
FMV has today placed an order for modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E with initial deliveries in 2018. This is the third order under the agreement with FMV for Gripen E that was made public on 15 February 2013. Other orders within the agreement are as follows:
Development of Gripen E to Sweden during 2013-2023 – orders received on 15 February and on 22 March 2013.
Mission-specific equipment and support and maintenance for Gripen E to Sweden, and;
Delivery of 22 new Gripen E, and related equipment to Switzerland, if Switzerland decides to acquire Gripen E. During August and September 2013 both chambers of the Swiss Parliament voted yes to the procurement of Gripen E and a referendum on the procurement is expected in 2014.
Orders under the agreement are booked when each order is received and the remaining orders are expected in 2014.
“We continue to build on the success of Gripen. Gripen is unique in its ability to combine high technology and performance with cost efficiency and we note a strong interest for Gripen on the export market,” says Lennart Sindahl, Deputy CEO and head of Saab's business area Aeronautics.
“The major performance improvements we are now performing will establish Gripen E as the fighter aircraft of the future - both for Sweden and for other countries. Our existing customers that operate the Gripen C/D version will also be able to take advantage of some of the development in their future upgrades.”
Gripen E has significant performance improvements compared to previous versions, including a stronger engine, longer range, more weapons, new electronic radar and more advanced avionics. Today, Gripen is the backbone of five nations' air defences: Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. In addition, The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots.