Abraj said: And F35 is much more capable than F18 in almost every aspect except price
Random said: And F35 is much more capable than F18 in almost every aspect except price
Spitfire says: i keep trying to emphasize this to randomradio
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Abraj said: And F35 is much more capable than F18 in almost every aspect except price
Random said: And F35 is much more capable than F18 in almost every aspect except price
Spitfire says: i keep trying to emphasize this to randomradio
they should not be "landing harder" on improvised strips anymore than you should be "landing harder" on a regular runway. Why do we believe that the perfectly well trained pilot needs to "crash land" like he is trapping on the USS H W Bush? you land on a road just like a regular runway, its the distance and the conditions AFTER one lands that matter. Super Hornets aren't designed with long rough runways in mind. its crash, trap, or bolter, but there is little runway and its always flat, same with wheel brakes. Super Hornets aren't built with hard breaking in mind because that is what the cable is for. F-35 has a wider undercarriage "stance" between the rear wheels which means its more stable in the ground. F-35 doesn't need external fuel tanks and other wing mounted ordnance that stress the wings on bumps and lumps either.
its confusing an aircraft that is meant to operate in a very small environment yes, but in very different and specific ways with lots of external mechanics that make that achievable. The aircraft is not unique in that it can take off short or land short, most of what makes them unique is getting their landing speed very low with lots of fine control to catch wires, and being able to handle all the abuse of crashing and shooting off aircraft carriers.
I am not saying you are wrong, maybe you have the true factor that matters, but of all the talk out of Finland, the competitors are not "playing up" this aspect you think is key. typically when there are 1 or 2 key factors to winning every company can't wait to beat the drum into oblivion about how much better theirs is, or in some cases that it doesn't matter at all, but they tend to address it.
and hard points, and fuel tanks and pylons, and NVG for the pilot
The Mirage 2000 hasn't gone anywhere so I guess Rafale is not so omnirole?
all the many countries that buy F-35 and did cost analysis and understand fighters are now "LM" is LM in the room right now? The documentation from multiple governments and open sources is available. its official and audited and everything. even you can read it.
Last edited:
Abraj: And F35 is much more capable than F18 in almost every aspect except price maybe and in 10-15 years down the line, Super Hornets will become obsolete design and very expensive to maintain and update
note the "except price MAYBE" as well
way to selectively quote there. That is some desperate and pathetic stuff and it shows. Not operating in good faith at all. There are qualifiers in that second half of that sentence that negate the first part you highlighted.
Last edited:
Would that mean, based on the Danish results, the SH is at least cheaper to operate than the F-35 on a per jet basis?
Is that what you think? What about post 2719 then?
Let me see how you answer my previous post.
Gripen fits Finnish requirements quite well. It entirely depends if they want a double engine fighter instead of single engine for more survivability.
It seems they are aiming for The Best Capable and not The Most Suitable.
Gripen although lesser capable, offers Scandinavian countries very unique advantage of integrating their resources more closely to hedge against a strong Russia. It gives them freedom to innovate and integration whatever they need on a very potent platform which is based on years of experience gained by SAAB that is very innovative company and is making Fighter jets since WW1. It’s very cost effective too.
"Most capable" also means who is able to operate from maximum number of temporary airfields. If there is war, it is natural that airfields will be struck first. There are lots and lots of ballistic missiles in the potential enemy's inventory. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Hornet was an ideal fit for FAF.
And in this respect it is firmly my belief that F-35 is least capable of the five.
By the way, if we examine the Swiss deal and calculate the prices for 64 F-35's based on that info, the F-35 won't fit in the budget. That is curious. So I think the F-35 is out, LM knows it, and it's for PR.
And in this respect it is firmly my belief that F-35 is least capable of the five.
By the way, if we examine the Swiss deal and calculate the prices for 64 F-35's based on that info, the F-35 won't fit in the budget. That is curious. So I think the F-35 is out, LM knows it, and it's for PR.
Do not worry with the scientific method. I will give you the way to learn it. Firstly you can find a university, even by internet. Do you know internet ? Yes ? Great ! Then when you have found one you can found a course where you can been taught with "scientific method" Are you always here ? Not to hard for you ? Then I continue. Then when you have the level, if you are able to of course, try to find "usaspending" on internet. Then with all of your new knowledges try to propose how to compare data together.
At the end of the day perhpas could you consider that we are not comparing flyaway costs with switzerland's costs. The only thing that we are saying is that for 1 F-35 Swiss have to paid 110 millions. And they have also bought 1 missile/f-35. Not me, not even you can decide at the place of each citizen for the vote to come for the f-35. But this sudden change on price will certainly have a very bad effect on them. At the same moment Armasssuisse try to explain that this price is fixed ... ANd that with only one missile par plane they can go at war ...
Last edited:
The Gripen E's have the capability to carry 7 meteors. Still not existent in Rafales and Typhoons. Maybe that could become a selling point since it will fit quite nicely into an air defence role if a Russian Aerial invasion happens.
Here are the words use in Switzerland to prepare the vote :
Introduction
On September 27, the Swiss population accepted Project Air2030 by a very narrow majority. This close result highlights the strong opposition among the population to spending billions on luxury fighter aircraft. On June 30, 2021, the Federal Council decided to buy 36 F-35A Lightning IIs from Lockheed Martin for more than 5 billion francs, showing that it is absolutely not prepared to take a step towards the largest possible minority, the 49.9% who voted NO last September.
Of course, close results are part of democracy and must be respected. Nevertheless, if the population had not voted on an opaque and anti-democratic planning decree but on a concrete procurement project with a specific model of fighter aircraft, the result would certainly have been different. It should be noted that during the campaign, the two US models clearly emerged as the most controversial. It is now a question of avoiding the worst and allowing the population to express itself on a concrete acquisition project. It is out of the question for Switzerland to buy a stealth fighter that is extremely expensive to maintain, such as the F-35. Moreover, with the F-35, the CIA is still on board and Switzerland would not even have full access to the programs' source codes. Switzerland would not be able to use these fighters independently.
From the point of view of the unitary committee, however, this is far from being the only fighter aircraft that should be vehemently rejected.
Arguments against the F-35
Too big, too expensive
It is far from clear why a fighter aircraft for Switzerland should be equipped with stealth technology, as is the case with the F-35. Moreover, it is foreseeable that this technology will become obsolete in the next few years due to new detection techniques.
The F-35 is an oversized, overpriced luxury toy for a few military officers. This view is shared by the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Air Force, Charles Brown, who has called the F-35 a Ferrari used in a completely wrong way. Other senior members of the U.S. armed forces even call the F-35 a worthless aircraft.
It is an oversized aircraft designed solely for combat, not for the air policing missions that must be performed in an unquestionable manner. If this luxury fighter aircraft is used for daily air policing missions, the equipment will wear out far too quickly. These aircraft will then become a financial drain, something that Switzerland absolutely cannot afford in the wake of the pandemic. Sending a warplane like the F-35 into the air to intercept airliners, tourist and sports planes makes no sense at all. Light combat aircraft are more than sufficient for these missions and we support their purchase.
"High life cycle costs :
Various reports from abroad show that if Switzerland were to buy the F-35, it would have to reckon with enormous costs over the entire life cycle. An hour of flight time with an F-35 currently costs the US Air Force $44,000, although Lockheed Martin has been promising a reduction to $25,000 by 2025. The Canadian government commissioned a study by the renowned auditing firm KPMG, which concluded that the F-35, with a purchase volume of C$9 billion, would cost over C$45 billion over its lifetime. This corresponds to a factor of 1 to 5 compared to the purchase price alone. If we do the same calculation for Switzerland, it would correspond to a spectacular total cost of 25 billion Swiss francs for a purchase price of six billion francs. The former head of the army, André Blattmann, estimates annual costs of 12 percent of the purchase price, which would result in life-cycle costs of 23 billion francs over 30 years.
The Norwegian Ministry of Defence, which has purchased F-35 fighter jets, uses a factor of 3.75. For Switzerland, this would mean total costs of 18.75 billion Swiss francs, which is significantly higher than the DDPS estimate of 15.5 billion Swiss francs for the new fighter jets over the entire life of the aircraft. Such high lifetime costs for the new fighter aircraft would put other sectors of the armed forces under massive pressure to make savings or force the Federal Council to increase the armed forces budget even more, which would lead to budget cuts in other departments. Spain and Japan are also grappling with the high costs of the F-35 for air policing missions. Spain has already opted for a lighter aircraft. In fact, using super fighter aircraft for air policing missions is like shooting sparrows with guns. Not only is this completely absurd, but it would cost hundreds of millions of francs of our tax money. This madness must be prevented.
Can it fly?
Even after decades of development, the F-35 remains the problem child of the U.S. Air Force and Navy. In addition to amusing incidents such as its inability to fly in thunderstorms, the model has significant technical flaws:
In theory, Lockheed Martin's system should automatically order replacement parts. However, this software is also faulty, so parts have to be reordered manually. Lockheed Martin charges the resulting additional costs to the
customers.
A large part of the F-35 fleet in the US is still not operational. There are still more than 800 known defects - nearly a dozen of which are so serious that they could cause the aircraft to crash or endanger the lives of pilots.
Engines for the U.S. F-35 program are not being delivered quickly enough, so up to 6 percent of the fleet is expected to fail because of this one problem. The U.S. Air Force's F-35 readiness rate also remains consistently below target. For example, the Department of Defense has set a goal that 80 percent of all F-35s should always be capable of performing at least one mission, which is currently only possible for 69 percent. For the F-35A, i.e. the model that Switzerland wishes to purchase, the Department of Defense has set a target of
70 percent and has also reached it, although this figure is very low. By purchasing 36 aircraft, Switzerland would therefore have to count with 11 grounded aircraft.
The outer layer of the F-35 is regularly and very quickly damaged.
Instead of continuing to invest in improving the F-35 program, senior U.S. military officials are now openly considering developing an entirely new fighter aircraft or reverting to the F-16. Recently, for example, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Q. Brown, declared the F-35 a failure Christoph Miller, acting secretary of defense under Trump, even called the jet a "piece of shit." This raises the question of whether Switzerland should really buy a jet that may no longer be produced and developed for the United States in just a few years.
Unsuitable for real-world conflict situations
Proponents of the new fighter jets like to point out that Switzerland and the Swiss Army must be prepared for all scenarios, no matter how unlikely. However, in the event of war, which is the only other operational situation for combat aircraft besides air policing, combat aircraft are totally unsuitable. Current wars, such as the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh or the conflict in eastern Ukraine, show that combat aircraft have played a secondary, if any, role in warfare. Instead, cheaper drones and guided weapons have been increasingly used. Russian-made Iskander-M ballistic missiles, such as those used by Armenia, have a range of up to 500 km. These would paralyze the entire Swiss air force in a few hours by destroying the runways.
The former head of the Swiss Army André Blatmann shares this opinion. Thus, according to him, combat aircraft are designed to deal with adversaries that no longer really exist in crises and conflicts near Switzerland.
What influence does the USA have?
Two American officers are already stationed in Dübendorf to regularly inspect weapons systems and aircraft purchased in the USA. The basis for this is the strict US ITAR legislation, according to which the US remains solely responsible worldwide for the safekeeping of particularly sensitive technical components. Control of the F/A-18 software remains in the hands of the manufacturer Boeing. Switzerland must obtain permission from Washington to fire short-range guided missiles. The navigation system also only works with codes that are delivered once a month from the USA. The increasing technical complexity makes Switzerland even more dependent on the USA. The ODIN system installed in the F-35, for example, provides Lockheed Martin with mission data after each flight. Officially, this is supposed to guarantee the automatic replenishment of spare parts, but the system goes much further. In this way, Switzerland also provides the US military with detailed information about its missions and much more.
One can assume that Switzerland would not be able to maintain its air sovereignty against the will of the US. Either the fighters would remain directly on the ground because of built-in backdoors, or they would be prevented from taking off at the latest if the supply of spare parts by the manufacturers does not materialize. If this supply chain is interrupted, the aircraft may not be able to fly within six months. In the case of longer missions, comparable to the war in Iraq in the early 2000s, Switzerland could also be forced to let US fighter planes fly overhead.
The US military-industrial complex and armed forces ensure that the economic and geostrategic interests of the government and big business are safeguarded, if necessary, by force or military intervention. Lockheed Martin is one of the largest producers of military goods. The company produces nuclear weapons as well as other prohibited weapons. Switzerland would therefore pay five billion to a company that produces prohibited weapons in Switzerland.
The US military does not hide the fact that the sale of military goods also serves to promote its own interests. With the considerable development of communications between the various military systems, there is a risk that Swiss aircraft will not only be used to protect Swiss airspace in the future. So far, the DDPS has not clarified this point, which raises many questions. With a US fighter, Switzerland would be taking another step towards NATO. In the case of the F-35, for example, it is very openly announced what the real objective of a sale of this aircraft is: the integration of all users into a common military structure.
Initiative text
Federal popular initiative "Against the F-35 (Stop F-35)
The Constitution is amended as follows:
Art. 197, ch. 13
13. Transitional provision to Art. 60 (Organisation, training and equipment of the armed forces)
1 The Confederation shall not purchase F-35 fighter aircraft. 2 The armed forces budget shall be adjusted accordingly.
3 This provision shall cease to have effect on 1 January 2040.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Sorry guys that the game. But when Armasuisse give reason to believe political words that's a hit to f-35.
Introduction
On September 27, the Swiss population accepted Project Air2030 by a very narrow majority. This close result highlights the strong opposition among the population to spending billions on luxury fighter aircraft. On June 30, 2021, the Federal Council decided to buy 36 F-35A Lightning IIs from Lockheed Martin for more than 5 billion francs, showing that it is absolutely not prepared to take a step towards the largest possible minority, the 49.9% who voted NO last September.
Of course, close results are part of democracy and must be respected. Nevertheless, if the population had not voted on an opaque and anti-democratic planning decree but on a concrete procurement project with a specific model of fighter aircraft, the result would certainly have been different. It should be noted that during the campaign, the two US models clearly emerged as the most controversial. It is now a question of avoiding the worst and allowing the population to express itself on a concrete acquisition project. It is out of the question for Switzerland to buy a stealth fighter that is extremely expensive to maintain, such as the F-35. Moreover, with the F-35, the CIA is still on board and Switzerland would not even have full access to the programs' source codes. Switzerland would not be able to use these fighters independently.
From the point of view of the unitary committee, however, this is far from being the only fighter aircraft that should be vehemently rejected.
Arguments against the F-35
Too big, too expensive
It is far from clear why a fighter aircraft for Switzerland should be equipped with stealth technology, as is the case with the F-35. Moreover, it is foreseeable that this technology will become obsolete in the next few years due to new detection techniques.
The F-35 is an oversized, overpriced luxury toy for a few military officers. This view is shared by the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Air Force, Charles Brown, who has called the F-35 a Ferrari used in a completely wrong way. Other senior members of the U.S. armed forces even call the F-35 a worthless aircraft.
It is an oversized aircraft designed solely for combat, not for the air policing missions that must be performed in an unquestionable manner. If this luxury fighter aircraft is used for daily air policing missions, the equipment will wear out far too quickly. These aircraft will then become a financial drain, something that Switzerland absolutely cannot afford in the wake of the pandemic. Sending a warplane like the F-35 into the air to intercept airliners, tourist and sports planes makes no sense at all. Light combat aircraft are more than sufficient for these missions and we support their purchase.
"High life cycle costs :
Various reports from abroad show that if Switzerland were to buy the F-35, it would have to reckon with enormous costs over the entire life cycle. An hour of flight time with an F-35 currently costs the US Air Force $44,000, although Lockheed Martin has been promising a reduction to $25,000 by 2025. The Canadian government commissioned a study by the renowned auditing firm KPMG, which concluded that the F-35, with a purchase volume of C$9 billion, would cost over C$45 billion over its lifetime. This corresponds to a factor of 1 to 5 compared to the purchase price alone. If we do the same calculation for Switzerland, it would correspond to a spectacular total cost of 25 billion Swiss francs for a purchase price of six billion francs. The former head of the army, André Blattmann, estimates annual costs of 12 percent of the purchase price, which would result in life-cycle costs of 23 billion francs over 30 years.
The Norwegian Ministry of Defence, which has purchased F-35 fighter jets, uses a factor of 3.75. For Switzerland, this would mean total costs of 18.75 billion Swiss francs, which is significantly higher than the DDPS estimate of 15.5 billion Swiss francs for the new fighter jets over the entire life of the aircraft. Such high lifetime costs for the new fighter aircraft would put other sectors of the armed forces under massive pressure to make savings or force the Federal Council to increase the armed forces budget even more, which would lead to budget cuts in other departments. Spain and Japan are also grappling with the high costs of the F-35 for air policing missions. Spain has already opted for a lighter aircraft. In fact, using super fighter aircraft for air policing missions is like shooting sparrows with guns. Not only is this completely absurd, but it would cost hundreds of millions of francs of our tax money. This madness must be prevented.
Can it fly?
Even after decades of development, the F-35 remains the problem child of the U.S. Air Force and Navy. In addition to amusing incidents such as its inability to fly in thunderstorms, the model has significant technical flaws:
In theory, Lockheed Martin's system should automatically order replacement parts. However, this software is also faulty, so parts have to be reordered manually. Lockheed Martin charges the resulting additional costs to the
customers.
A large part of the F-35 fleet in the US is still not operational. There are still more than 800 known defects - nearly a dozen of which are so serious that they could cause the aircraft to crash or endanger the lives of pilots.
Engines for the U.S. F-35 program are not being delivered quickly enough, so up to 6 percent of the fleet is expected to fail because of this one problem. The U.S. Air Force's F-35 readiness rate also remains consistently below target. For example, the Department of Defense has set a goal that 80 percent of all F-35s should always be capable of performing at least one mission, which is currently only possible for 69 percent. For the F-35A, i.e. the model that Switzerland wishes to purchase, the Department of Defense has set a target of
70 percent and has also reached it, although this figure is very low. By purchasing 36 aircraft, Switzerland would therefore have to count with 11 grounded aircraft.
The outer layer of the F-35 is regularly and very quickly damaged.
Instead of continuing to invest in improving the F-35 program, senior U.S. military officials are now openly considering developing an entirely new fighter aircraft or reverting to the F-16. Recently, for example, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Q. Brown, declared the F-35 a failure Christoph Miller, acting secretary of defense under Trump, even called the jet a "piece of shit." This raises the question of whether Switzerland should really buy a jet that may no longer be produced and developed for the United States in just a few years.
Unsuitable for real-world conflict situations
Proponents of the new fighter jets like to point out that Switzerland and the Swiss Army must be prepared for all scenarios, no matter how unlikely. However, in the event of war, which is the only other operational situation for combat aircraft besides air policing, combat aircraft are totally unsuitable. Current wars, such as the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh or the conflict in eastern Ukraine, show that combat aircraft have played a secondary, if any, role in warfare. Instead, cheaper drones and guided weapons have been increasingly used. Russian-made Iskander-M ballistic missiles, such as those used by Armenia, have a range of up to 500 km. These would paralyze the entire Swiss air force in a few hours by destroying the runways.
The former head of the Swiss Army André Blatmann shares this opinion. Thus, according to him, combat aircraft are designed to deal with adversaries that no longer really exist in crises and conflicts near Switzerland.
What influence does the USA have?
Two American officers are already stationed in Dübendorf to regularly inspect weapons systems and aircraft purchased in the USA. The basis for this is the strict US ITAR legislation, according to which the US remains solely responsible worldwide for the safekeeping of particularly sensitive technical components. Control of the F/A-18 software remains in the hands of the manufacturer Boeing. Switzerland must obtain permission from Washington to fire short-range guided missiles. The navigation system also only works with codes that are delivered once a month from the USA. The increasing technical complexity makes Switzerland even more dependent on the USA. The ODIN system installed in the F-35, for example, provides Lockheed Martin with mission data after each flight. Officially, this is supposed to guarantee the automatic replenishment of spare parts, but the system goes much further. In this way, Switzerland also provides the US military with detailed information about its missions and much more.
One can assume that Switzerland would not be able to maintain its air sovereignty against the will of the US. Either the fighters would remain directly on the ground because of built-in backdoors, or they would be prevented from taking off at the latest if the supply of spare parts by the manufacturers does not materialize. If this supply chain is interrupted, the aircraft may not be able to fly within six months. In the case of longer missions, comparable to the war in Iraq in the early 2000s, Switzerland could also be forced to let US fighter planes fly overhead.
The US military-industrial complex and armed forces ensure that the economic and geostrategic interests of the government and big business are safeguarded, if necessary, by force or military intervention. Lockheed Martin is one of the largest producers of military goods. The company produces nuclear weapons as well as other prohibited weapons. Switzerland would therefore pay five billion to a company that produces prohibited weapons in Switzerland.
The US military does not hide the fact that the sale of military goods also serves to promote its own interests. With the considerable development of communications between the various military systems, there is a risk that Swiss aircraft will not only be used to protect Swiss airspace in the future. So far, the DDPS has not clarified this point, which raises many questions. With a US fighter, Switzerland would be taking another step towards NATO. In the case of the F-35, for example, it is very openly announced what the real objective of a sale of this aircraft is: the integration of all users into a common military structure.
Initiative text
Federal popular initiative "Against the F-35 (Stop F-35)
The Constitution is amended as follows:
Art. 197, ch. 13
13. Transitional provision to Art. 60 (Organisation, training and equipment of the armed forces)
1 The Confederation shall not purchase F-35 fighter aircraft. 2 The armed forces budget shall be adjusted accordingly.
3 This provision shall cease to have effect on 1 January 2040.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Sorry guys that the game. But when Armasuisse give reason to believe political words that's a hit to f-35.
Last edited:
France has limited the number of usable points for the meteor to 2, because for us the main weapon is the MICA and soon the MICA NG. For us, the Meteor will only be used to engage distant targets with little manoeuvrability, such as AWACS or tankers.
The Rafale is optimised to be very effective at medium range between BVR and WWR, which is why it is LO and not VLO and why its survivability is complemented by SPECTRA which is a more versatile system than passive stealth.
But if the French doctrine is not suitable, it is easily possible to open up to 9 points for Meteor use. This is a job that requires 6 months of testing, while the first Rafales ordered arrive after 3 years.
Well then folks. Interesting news from the Finnish forum (where I am banned twenty times over): the evaluation process is now done with and ready. The HX team is preparing their assessment and recommendation for the government people. After the paperwork is done, the matter is given to the Ministry of Defense, whatever that means. I am not very good with bureaucracy and I don't know how they really handle the process according to every little rule.
But - the assessment is done. They know, but we know. And no-one knows what the political machine will do. Interesting times.
It won't be the F-35
this much I "know"
But - the assessment is done. They know, but we know. And no-one knows what the political machine will do. Interesting times.
It won't be the F-35
this much I "know" 
Damn !! @WHOHE won't sleep for the next couple of nights. He'd be heartbroken . It's official.It won't be the F-35
@Dawg-69, Hei.
You’re not alone w/ the intuition Finland could not purchase the LightningII
-
It seems a China-lm/aukus high intensity confrontation into southchinasea-pacific is becoming increasingly likely.
Then, i am pretty sure Russia would want to take advantage - territorially/militarily - in the Baltic area, while the US are fully engaged into the scs-pac theater.
-
My questions in such a scenario, are about the northern-europe f35’s employability. I mean about the “extended” logistical aspects ; big picture.
For example, concerning the spares supplies for eurof35’s squadrons...
In 2019, The USGAO’s Report to Congressional Requesters, titled:
F-35 AIRCRAFT SUSTAINMENT -DOD Needs to Address Substantial Supply Chain Challenges declares, page2: F-35 aircraft performance is falling short of warfighter requirements—that is, aircraft cannot perform as many missions or fly as often as required.
This lower-than-desired aircraft performance is due largely to F-35 spare parts shortages and difficulty in managing and moving parts around the world:
• Spare parts shortages and limited repair capabilities. F-35 aircraft were unable to fly nearly 30 percent of the May—November 2018 time period due to spare parts shortages. Also, the Department of Defense (DOD) had a repair backlog of about 4,300 F-35 parts. DOD is taking steps to fix these issues, such as improving the reliability of parts. However, it has not fully dJe etermined actions needed to close the gap between warfighter requirements and the performance the F-35 supply chain can deliver.
And passim.
-
Please, consider that in 2019, the “suppliers” weren’t engaged in a H/I conflict. Question: if this conflict happens (which it seems to come), would there be enough “spares supplies” for the eurof35s?
Since potus Obama, they tell us they “pivot” to Pacific., and “leave“ europe. So i might have a reasonable doubt.
And also, i still Have a persistent mental picture of the US living Bagramastan by night, like thieves….
-
Another question i wonder is about data flows, i mean between “alis on the ground” and the supplier’s servers. I wonder about the bandwithd allowed to the european customers/theatre compared to the scspac area, that has priority…
-
Finally, i want to add i thank you for your words about the f35 ‘s (un)employability on unprepared (or even errr “short-prepared”) landing/takeon ground. Even for f35b (in a “baltic area” conflict w/ russia, i imagine a uk’s implication) i have doubts... i’m afraid the lightningII needs too much care to be used in such doctrine.
Ahem,
@randomradio, the other day i was qwantling such keywords as “navy aircraft carrier patrol baltic sea, period: 1776-2021”
Answer: less than “peanuts”, ø.
Shukriya.
You’re not alone w/ the intuition Finland could not purchase the LightningII
-
It seems a China-lm/aukus high intensity confrontation into southchinasea-pacific is becoming increasingly likely.
Then, i am pretty sure Russia would want to take advantage - territorially/militarily - in the Baltic area, while the US are fully engaged into the scs-pac theater.
-
My questions in such a scenario, are about the northern-europe f35’s employability. I mean about the “extended” logistical aspects ; big picture.
For example, concerning the spares supplies for eurof35’s squadrons...
In 2019, The USGAO’s Report to Congressional Requesters, titled:
F-35 AIRCRAFT SUSTAINMENT -DOD Needs to Address Substantial Supply Chain Challenges declares, page2: F-35 aircraft performance is falling short of warfighter requirements—that is, aircraft cannot perform as many missions or fly as often as required.
This lower-than-desired aircraft performance is due largely to F-35 spare parts shortages and difficulty in managing and moving parts around the world:
• Spare parts shortages and limited repair capabilities. F-35 aircraft were unable to fly nearly 30 percent of the May—November 2018 time period due to spare parts shortages. Also, the Department of Defense (DOD) had a repair backlog of about 4,300 F-35 parts. DOD is taking steps to fix these issues, such as improving the reliability of parts. However, it has not fully dJe etermined actions needed to close the gap between warfighter requirements and the performance the F-35 supply chain can deliver.
And passim.
-
Please, consider that in 2019, the “suppliers” weren’t engaged in a H/I conflict. Question: if this conflict happens (which it seems to come), would there be enough “spares supplies” for the eurof35s?
Since potus Obama, they tell us they “pivot” to Pacific., and “leave“ europe. So i might have a reasonable doubt.
And also, i still Have a persistent mental picture of the US living Bagramastan by night, like thieves….
-
Another question i wonder is about data flows, i mean between “alis on the ground” and the supplier’s servers. I wonder about the bandwithd allowed to the european customers/theatre compared to the scspac area, that has priority…
-
Finally, i want to add i thank you for your words about the f35 ‘s (un)employability on unprepared (or even errr “short-prepared”) landing/takeon ground. Even for f35b (in a “baltic area” conflict w/ russia, i imagine a uk’s implication) i have doubts... i’m afraid the lightningII needs too much care to be used in such doctrine.
Ahem,
@randomradio, the other day i was qwantling such keywords as “navy aircraft carrier patrol baltic sea, period: 1776-2021”
Answer: less than “peanuts”, ø.
Shukriya.
What’s the use of carrying so many BVRAAMs for single mission ? Upto 4 BVRAAM with 2 WVRAAMs along with One centreline Fuel tank is what these types of aircraft carry in CAP missions.
Here a very detailed post by @Sancho
Still a bit tricky, since it's not easy to find reliable sources for EW, or radar sizes, but I still added that part too and for comparison, also put the light class Gripen C in the mix as well:
As expected, the F16 scores highly in terms of load and multi role capability. Where it lacks are advanced passive sensors, EW or modern cockpit design. The upgrade potential of than old design is simply limited.
The light class Gripen C can't keep up, although it offers good capabilities for it's class, the lack of hardpoints is quite visible, you either have to justify fuel, or BVR missiles and therefore self defence capability:
The weapon rating as discussed, wouldn't had made much sense, but do you know anything else that could be added and that is verifiable with public infos?
Another possibility
Last edited:
The Rafale costs even more. we would probably be seeing the Rafale price escalate in Switzerland too, but of course we will never know since Rafale lost there. The Rafale is the best fighter to ever drop out in Canada, lose in Switzerland, and place 3rd in Brazil. The same thing happened to the F-35 here, it won and from there on out got all the scrutiny from the bevy of losers. So we throw a competition, and France dropped out. do you know drop out? yes? to quit?
Dassault withdraws from Canada’s fighter jet competition
Dassault Aviation had been approved by the Canadian government for a fighter jet competition and intended to offer the Royal Canadian Air Force the Rafale fighter jet.
www.defensenews.com
Just wondering, are LM thinking like Whohe? "They will buy F-35 anyways, so we can offer them what we want". Last time around the F-16 failed because of this approach. And now the F-35 will fail in HX. F-16 was the "favourite of the FAF". Just like F-35 is now, supposedly.
No F-35 for Finland, folks. Four left out of five.
No F-35 for Finland, folks. Four left out of five.
Quite frankly, the merits of the F-35 aside, given the emaciation of the British aerospace industry & the closure of the Canadian aerospace program for fighters following the cancellation of the Avro Arrow & given the "as close as lips & teeth relationship"( incidentally used by the CCP to describe the relationship between PRC & Pakistan ) between the US & Canada , it's honestly a waste of time for any other nation's OEM barring the aforementioned nations to consider participation in RCAF's procurement program.The Rafale costs even more. we would probably be seeing the Rafale price escalate in Switzerland too, but of course we will never know since Rafale lost there. The Rafale is the best fighter to ever drop out in Canada, lose in Switzerland, and place 3rd in Brazil. The same thing happened to the F-35 here, it won and from there on out got all the scrutiny from the bevy of losers. So we throw a competition, and France dropped out. do you know drop out? yes? to quit?
Dassault withdraws from Canada’s fighter jet competition
Dassault Aviation had been approved by the Canadian government for a fighter jet competition and intended to offer the Royal Canadian Air Force the Rafale fighter jet.
