Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

Air6000, which is the Australia F-35 program, includes the cost of the whole endeavor including the cost of the airbase infrastructure. that is why it is not typical. You are using F-35 prices that don't align with most F-35 prices since the Australians do it a different way. You are using a bad model with costs that go beyond the aircraft purchase.

Er... Yeah, that's the point.

The Indian Rafale contract includes about $2B for air base infrastructure.

The break up:
$4B for the jets, about $2B for R&D, about $2B for 2 bases, $800M for weapons and $400M for spares and logistics. Prices includes 50 years maintenance contract.

This is a generic contract. The jet, spares, training, weapons and infrastructure.

Most F-35 customers skip out on R&D and weapons costs. Partners paid R&D costs in a different contract, while most (I guess all) have skipped out on weapons since the F-35 is still WIP. It's likely that even the Australian contract of $11.5B comes without weapons.

The Rafale's cost is $122M for just the jet and 5 years' spares supply. In case we buy 36 more, we can skip out on the $4B needed for R&D and the bases, which comes up to $144M per jet with weapons.
So you are a fanboy and not serious. Rafale $85 LOL, you made that up. I won't try to explain anything to you again.

Did you even bother to read the link and who wrote it?
 
You need to look at the contract and some are hard to decipher.
There was also pilot training, weapons and spares, a 10 year engine service agreement and sims for example, in that $250 a tail for the Supers. One thing I am certain of. An equal Rafale-Super buy, the super would be cheaper. The F-35 is cheaper than the Super.

The Super's cheaper to buy and operate than the F-35 because of the new engines.
 
Fanboyencephalitis. Something happens to your brain when you become a fan of GripenE and the french plane where you become deaf to what other nations that fly GripenE and french plane competitor usually caused by fingers blocking the ear canal.

View attachment 21894
I'm fine with fanboys, I'm one myself. It's the obvious deceit. To try and paint a false picture, than annoys me. It stops any chance of a sensible discussion.
 
I'm a fanboy myself but GripenE and french plane fanboys take it very personal when it comes to their fighters and will lie and purposely be ignorant of the truth to try to win an argument.

My knowledge and claims I make about the F-35 doesn't come from me I use sources from the people in the know like DOD, LM, F-35 pilots and General Bogdan and General Hostage who ran the F-35 program. french plane fanboys went nuts when I posted the F-35 had E-virus capability "think stuxnet" quoting General Hostage.
 
Lets see if I can get them unhinged again...

--The issue of how effective the F-35 would be in a classic dogfight often arises. Gen. Hostage noted during our interview that the F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has either made a mistake or been very unlucky. Shooting down other planes using kinetics is only one role of the F-35. Perhaps air forces around the world are going to have to come up with a new honor other than ace to define those who fly the F-35. What should a pilot be awarded for outsmarting the best air defense systems in the world or injecting something like Stuxnet into the enemy’s command and control system? So much of what this aircraft will do has nothing to do with shooting down another pilot that we may need a new term.

-
LANGLEY AFB: If you want to stop a conversation about the F-35 with a military officer or industry expert, then just start talking about its cyber or electronic warfare capabilities.

These are the capabilities that most excite the experts I’ve spoken with because they distinguish the F-35 from previous fighters, giving it what may be unprecedented abilities to confuse the enemy, attack him in new ways through electronics (think Stuxnet), and generally add enormous breadth to what we might call the plane’s conventional strike capabilities.

So I asked Air Force Gen. Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command here, about the F-35’s cyber capabilities, mentioning comments by former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz several years ago about the F-35 having the “nascent capability” to attack Integrated Air Defense Systems (known to you and me as surface to air missiles) with cyber weapons.
'A God's Eye View Of The Battlefield:' Gen. Hostage On The F-35 - Breaking Defense Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary


Laugh away anonymous. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: _Anonymous_
when I posted the F-35 had E-virus capability "think stuxnet" quoting General Hostage.
Unfortunately , Iran continues to proceed with processing weapons grade uranium. A few flights over the Persian Gulf can still address this problem. While you're at it Kim Jong Un says hi .🤣🤣
 
  • Haha
Reactions: suryakiran
Lets see if I can get them unhinged again...

--The issue of how effective the F-35 would be in a classic dogfight often arises. Gen. Hostage noted during our interview that the F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has either made a mistake or been very unlucky. Shooting down other planes using kinetics is only one role of the F-35. Perhaps air forces around the world are going to have to come up with a new honor other than ace to define those who fly the F-35. What should a pilot be awarded for outsmarting the best air defense systems in the world or injecting something like Stuxnet into the enemy’s command and control system? So much of what this aircraft will do has nothing to do with shooting down another pilot that we may need a new term.


Laugh away anonymous. :)
You ought to advise the Brits to try & threaten using the stuxnet or whatever you call the E Virus against the Russians who as of now are competing with the Royal Navy to salvage the remains of the F-35B which some pilot of theirs landed into the drink. Given the competence of the RN , the Russians may just beat them to it.
 
@Optimist

You see? A fanboy just posted back to back a retort to my post that has nothing to do with the topic.

They're nuts! :ROFLMAO:
I sincerely hope Gen Hostage - queer name , pun unintended , would be in charge of writing the AFSQR of the NGAD.

Who knows , we may see the pilot project a hologram of his eyes onto the pilot of the rival plane thus hypnotizing the bandit , causing him to crash the plane. Of course this would be after the F-35 deployed "Stuxnet" doesn't do the job - in the rare event it fails. 🤣

This way you have in built redundancy.,🤣🤣
 
Fanboyencephalitis. Something happens to your brain when you become a fan of GripenE and the french plane where you become deaf to what other nations that fly GripenE and french plane competitor usually caused by fingers blocking the ear canal.

View attachment 21894

I'm the one providing proof, you're the one posting your picture. Never seen a more narcissistic guy on a forum. This ain't Instagram, bruh.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil

Radars will gain eyes

A group of specialists on the basis of the Research Institute of Long-Range Radar is developing a fundamentally new X-band radar station operating on the basis of radio-photon technologies.

The work is headed by the head of the working group of the Scientific and Technical Council of the Military-Industrial Commission on Radiophotonics Alexei Nikolaevich Shulunov. The first steps have been taken, which can be considered successful. It looks like a new era is opening in classic radar, which now seems like a fantasy.

Probably everyone who graduated from high school knows what radar is. And what a radio-photon location is, is not known to a very large circle of specialists. To put it simply, the new technology makes it possible to combine the incompatible - radio waves and light. In this case, the flow of electrons must be converted into a flow of photons and vice versa. The problem, which yesterday was beyond the bounds of reality, can be solved in the near future. What will it give?

For example, the basis of radar systems for missile defense and tracking of space objects is made up of huge radar complexes. The rooms in which the equipment is located are multi-storey buildings. The use of photonic technologies will make it possible to fit all control and data processing systems in significantly smaller dimensions - literally in a few rooms. At the same time, the technical capabilities of radars to detect even small objects at a distance of thousands of kilometers will only increase. Moreover, due to the use of photonic technologies, not a target mark will appear on the radar screen, but its image, which is unattainable with classical radar. That is, instead of the usual luminous point, the operator will see what is actually flying - an airplane, a rocket, a flock of birds or a meteorite, it is worth repeating, even thousands of kilometers from the radar.

Now all radar systems - military and civilian - operate in a strictly defined frequency range, which complicates technical design and leads to a variety of radar nomenclature. Photonic radars will allow for the highest degree of uniformity. They are able to instantly tune in a very wide range of operating frequencies - from meter values to millimeter ones.

It has long been no secret that the so-called stealth planes are clearly visible in the meter range, but most accurately their coordinates are better given by centimeter and millimeter-wave stations. Therefore, in air defense systems, both meter stations with very large antennas and more compact centimeter ones work at the same time. But a photonic radar, scanning space in a long frequency range, will easily detect the same "invisibility" and, instantly reconfiguring to a broadband signal and a high frequency, will determine its exact coordinates in height and range.

This is only about the location. Revolutionary changes will also take place in electronic warfare, in the transmission of information and its protection, in computing technologies and much more. It is easier to say that it will not affect radio photonics.

In fact, a fundamentally new branch of the high-tech industry will be created. The task is extremely difficult, therefore, many leading research centers of the country, university science, and a number of industrial enterprises are involved in its solution. According to Shulunov, work is going on in close connection with the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Science and Education. The President of Russia recently took control of them.
 
Thank you for defending the Rafale a little against all this nonsense. Having to correct all these biases is tiring me out, I'm too old.
its actually not that hard to post factual information, its as easy as linking things about airshows. The best F-35 airshow I saw was the Swiss this last summer.
MiG-35 ($ 45 m), F-16 ($60 m), F/A-18 ($60.5 m), Gripen ($82.2 m), Rafale ($ 85.5 m) and Typhoon ($124 m).
So F-35 is cheaper than Rafale. That was easy. thanks!

Which "americans" are saying super hornets are cheaper to run than F-16s? Super Hornets have only ever been cheap for the US Navy. Everyone who buys them pays a lot more. They tried to sell some some to us a few years back and gave our poor PM a heart attack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate
Thank you for defending the Rafale a little against all this nonsense. Having to correct all these biases is tiring me out, I'm too old.
Oy vey. Are you really that sensitive? Listen the truth is sometimes going to hurt but it should never hurt when it comes to something so insignificant like a jet fighter which is nothing but pride for you. If calling out your BS is too much than just stay at airdefense where people who think like you are treated with sensitivity and keep out evil F-35 fanboys that critique Le french plane with the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Optimist
So F-35 is cheaper than Rafale. That was easy. thanks!

Er... Sure. I've not been saying otherwise.

Cheaper to buy... yeah
Cheaper to operate on a daily basis... yeah
Cheaper to operate over its entire lifetime... ??? Who knows? Overhaul costs come into the picture.

I was never interested in costs anyway, I'm more interested in capability. If the Rafale turns out to be inferior to the F-35, forcing the Finnish to pick the F-35, then okay, that's fine. If it is the other way round, then the only Western competitors to the Su-57 will be jets that don't even exist today. Then that's a problem for the free world. Stuff like this is gonna make both Russia and China more aggressive.

Have you considered I'm more interested in the upcoming Su-57 vs F-35 contest after 2025 in India?

Which "americans" are saying super hornets are cheaper to run than F-16s?

Q. Boeing has said that as a twin engine fighter, the cost to operate F/A-18 Super Hornet over its lifecycle is still cheaper than a single engine fighter. Please elaborate.

A. The F/A-18 Super Hornet not only has a low acquisition cost, but it costs less per flight hour to operate than any other tactical aircraft in US forces inventory. As a twin engine fighter, the Super Hornet costs less to operate than single engine fighters. Part of its affordability is because the Super Hornet is designed to need far less maintenance, which translates into the high mission availability it is known for.

Ease of maintenance (supportability) results in lower maintenance man-hours per flight hour. Plus, the Super Hornet does not require any scheduled Depot-Level maintenance and the engine does not require any scheduled maintenance between overhauls.


Right now, AFAIK, the F-35, Rafale and SH are the three operational jets that no longer have scheduled maintenance. This implies they use preventive maintenance and deal with problems whenever they crop up. This gives the jet a massive advantage in terms of cost. The new Gripen and LCA should have the same advantages in the near future.

Super Hornets have only ever been cheap for the US Navy. Everyone who buys them pays a lot more. They tried to sell some some to us a few years back and gave our poor PM a heart attack.

Sure. But we are comparing American costs with other American jets.

I think the SH is more expensive due to customisation costs rather than the jet itself. The IN contest between the Rafale and SH should clear that up in the near future.

Btw, the Kuwait deal.
The USD2.7 billion deal for Kuwait...

But...
Boeing was awarded a $1.5 billion contract to build 28 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the Kuwait Air Force, according to a Wednesday Pentagon contract announcement.

On March 30, Boeing was awarded a $1.16 billion contract to research, development and testing for the Kuwait deal.


$1.5B is likely only the initial costs, as per the article from Jane's.

Spares and service is separate.
The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has approved F/A-18 C/D Super Hornet aircraft services and support to Kuwait for an estimated cost of $420 million.

Separate contract for weapons.
The Government of Kuwait has requested a possible sale of sixty (60) AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM Missiles including containers and other related services. The total overall estimated value is $110 million.

Etc... etc... A bad habit of America to break down the contract into smaller bits to hide actual costs.

But it's the R&D costs that actually pushes the price up. Not such a big problem with the F-35 since the only option available is the stock version.

Otoh, DSCA estimated $10.1B for 40, at $252M per jet. It's obviously gonna cost less than that.

Anyway, the SH doesn't seem expensive if you want the USN's stock version. Both Rafale and SH must have suffered in Swiss hands due to customisation requirements. I mean, if you want to choose the F-35 beforehand, then all you gotta do is ask for some tech the others don't have. That way you can add the R&D cost of customising the jet with that tech, and that jacks up the price for the jets without that tech. So a breakup of the contract like the above is necessary.