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

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
2,068
1,542
Republic of Wadiya
"The MADL [F-35] has a range of literally hundreds of miles, much better than [NATO's standard system] Link 16." Data also travels via Link 16 during the flight. “It has a shorter range and lower bandwidth, although the characteristics of radio signals do not use much bandwidth. But SAR radar imaging data, for example, cannot be transferred over Link 16. In addition, the signal on the Link 16 is wide, making it easier to detect, interfere with, and mimic. The closer you get to the distractor, the worse Link 16 is available. ”

I don't think meteor was included in the contest. The one where Rafales radar and the one way data link was, limiting it's engagement. I would have remembered? I think it came later.
They are persisting with Link 16 just for interoperability purposes and as a backup mode I believe. Otherwise L16 can’t handle the data traffic required for F35 formations during combat scenarios.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,676
3,014
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
It was a small, built to scale demonstrator program. Have you seen pictures? It's like a model aeroplane. It would have provided some experience to France, SAAB and Sweden.
Not so small

 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
so your rebuttal to the the costs and comparisons of infrastructure conditions, needs and what is included regarding the Cf-18, SH and F-35 for Canada is "I used google earth and the hangars look big enough"

??

I wouldn't think I would have to explain that we can fit fewer larger aircraft compared to our current smaller aircraft but here we are, Your analysis seems juvenile and glib.

Jets are not pushed into hangars like livestock, unless there's a hurricane. There's massive amounts of clearance, enough for a whole jet to pass through all the other jets. Your hangars can hold as many Flankers as Hornets.

We have a hornet training squadron. We would not need that training squadron if we bought F-35s. We train at Luke AFB in Arizona. Then we need fewer aircraft and fewer pilots. We don't need dedicated trainers this way and all our aircraft are combat, so we can have easier and more efficient rotations and deployments, we need fewer pilots and fewer maintainers and this is good, because we struggle with retention and have for years. there is more to it than hangars and how thing look from google earth. my god I can't believe I have to explain this.

Retention is a problem for all air forces. You need a training squadron regardless of what you're buying. It's gonna be hilarious if a large air force like Canada lacks instructor level pilots of their own in their own territory. I'd really like to hear the RCAF officially say they are outsourcing training completely.

yes but the Mig-21 doesn't have the F-35 sensors a point made already. if we are going to say "anything with link 16" means interoperable, then yes everything will be. i can put one in a Cessna 172. But there is more to it than that.

Yeah, there is. But in Canada's setting, your dependency on AWACS and maritime aircraft is greater than your reliance on the F-35's sensors. It's because of the massive distance between you and your potential enemies. Hell, the F-35 cannot even reach Russia's mainland on its own

The only time you will need the full capabilities of the F-35 is when the USAF has been destroyed to the point that air combat in Europe has actually reached Canadian shores. Makes it pointless at that point, don't you think?

Anyway I think you're confused between patrol link and datalink. You can forget about the USAF's patrol link being important to the RCAF. The USAF flies on their own. You can have your own patrol link though.

False. and again you don't understand what you are talking about this begins another problem with your comparison. The pods that are going to magically replicate an F-35 won't be cheap or free. In which case again, we can simply buy F-35. instead of buying Super hornets, and then buying again and again to keep them up with F-35s which is the point. You also don't seem to understand the RCAF at all. But I am not surprised, as that wouldn't show up on google earth. its more complicated than you think but the short answer is, we want to be a good ally to the US, not a helpless contributor that must be looked after. We also have things like September 11th, when Canadian aircraft were the first over New York. If we need the Americans to babysit us for every patrol, we might as well give up having an air force. that is the short version. its critical that we are able to undertake NORAD missions when it is our rotation or sector, and fulfill any NATO, NORAD or even UN missions. in 1999 the CF-18s were almost sent home when our aircraft lacked encryption ability to keep up. we have to carry our weight do our part of the lifting, even in coalition war. it is hard to thing to explain and very unique position.

Due to the upgradeability of pods, their ability at surveillance is greater than the F-35. Any major F-35 upgrade is a 5+ year project. A pod upgrade is a 1-year project. The USAF have better assets for surveillance than the F-35 anyway, like the RQ-170/180.

As for everything else you said, it's a combination of your own investment and believing in the fact that your current platform is suitable for the mission. It doesn't matter if it's the F-35 or the SH, you need relevant capability to be useful, and you're gonna have to invest in it. In 1999, the Hornet was still cutting edge, and if there were problems, then your air force merely failed to keep up. And this is liable to repeat irrespective of the platform you buy.

Rest assured that after 2030, if you're not operating the NGAD, then the weight you pull will be limited by default anyway. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and your main air threats are bombers. If you go closer to your main enemy in Europe, then you are still second rung. At least with the SH, you can bring in complementary capabilities, like acting as a missile truck. Hell, I'd even say the F-15EX is a better option than the SH, if you actually wanna contribute.

And you forget that when it comes to protecting North America, minus Alaska, even the Americans are comfortable with modenised F-15s. It goes back to the fact that fighter jets from Russia today cannot reach North America from anywhere but your West, and even there they have to go through the USAF first. Canada's completely outside Russia's fighter range.

did you forget that we are talking about not only upgrades but the cost of those upgrades? and that Canada as one of the few Super Hornet operators going in 20 years would be responsible nearly 100 percent for developing and implementing those? I am talking about 2 important things. Cost and capability. you keep saying capability is irrelevant because we can always just more later. and my point is with the F-35 we won't be paying nearly as much over time. How much money are we going to spend to get less than an F-35, at more expensive than F-35 costs? And then spending billions more? At that point the CPFH cost becomes irrelevant.

None of that's guaranteed. Only the initial procurement cost is.

both the GaN radar on our hornet and EPAWSS on the eagle were developed and paid for by the US. much like the L3 upgrade the US Marines years ago we piggy back off their already paid for development. You seem to think money grows on trees for every aircraft except the F-35. "why don't we just spend billions of dollars independently designing and installing your own upgrades?"

Your SH upgrade R&D will be paid for by the USN through NGAD. It trickles down. All SH export customers are gonna piggyback on the massive SH and Growler fleet, especially the Growler fleet that the USN plans to use until 2060-70. So at least one major USN-supported MLU is in the offing for all customers that buy in the 2020s.

You really have no idea and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. we are also talking again about lifetime costs. This matters to us. Maybe it does not to you, but over the last 10 years the Canadian CF-18 replacement saga has been highly complicated and most people, even many Canadians don't know exactly what the goals and parameters are. I can't catch you up on 10 years in a few posts. if you are actually interested in looking into this stuff there are plenty of places to look.

Whatever you are referring to is a duplicate of all of Europe. All rich countries are spending less and less on defence, people are less interested in security and more interested in getting faster medical appointments. This makes the military an easy target.

Other than Canada, Switzerland, and Denmark likely Finland here soon, saying F-35 is cheaper, how can we know the F-35 is cheaper?

Through price manipulation. Like comparing the SH B2's 6000 hours airframe versus the F-35's 8000 hours? Boeing quit the Belgian tender because the Belgians decided they will calculate flyaway cost on a per hour basis and then add the SH's SLEP to it because they wanna calculate it for 8000 hours. So real unit price / (6000 + 2000) for the SH and the F-35 gets fictional unit price/8000 hours. Very fair. They ignored the fact that the B3, the jet actually offered, is qualified for 9000 hours. The best part is the F-35A is yet to compelete fatigue tests to get to 8000 hours and the Belgians don't plan on going beyond 6000 hours anyway. Hilarious.

You can't defeat fictional costs with manipulated costs.

Swiss which operate F-18s, rejected the Super Hornet, and said it costs over $2 billion more than the F-35? this would seem to be a very important development and a recent one that would put the whole thing to bed. how strange that the Super Hornet is always cheaper, and then all of the sudden when its time to put up or shut up, the Boeing option ends up costing more than F-35. put on your detective cap and think about that.

Based on the F-35's future costs.

Frankly, being a Canadian a lot of people seem to think we are simpletons. we can calculate costs and have constantly for the last 12 years. we know fighters. we know what we are doing. Canada has a proud aerospace industry. Canada more than any other nation, thanks to political pressure has analyzed the F-35 cost probably to a greater extent than most realize. I don't know of any country that hired a civilian firm to take the costs out for 4 decades from acquisition to the cost of retiring them in the 2060s and then updated that assessment for years afterward like we did. The Canadians made several mistakes, but these costs are not one of them. this was verified over the years and with a great assist from Boeing when their promised "65 million Super Hornet half of the price of the F-35!" Turned out to be off by about 500 percent. The liberals thought after years of being told "65 million!" that they were about to pay about 1 billion dollars for 18 aircraft. So where do we sign? oops. The cost is actually over 5 billion now. This is from the group that relentless badgered the last government about insane cost escalations and unaffordable fighters. 5 billion for 18. they said 9 billlion for 65 F-35 was too costly for years. There is a reason Trudeau put a gag order on people in the RCAF and DND. this has been a running theme with Boeing. The Super Hornet is cheaper than the F-35A. and then when its time to actually view the numbers, the Super hornet costs more. this has happened in 3 countries so far. one just last summer

But the fact is those 65 SHs will end up costing $9B when economies of scale come into play, whereas the F-35s will end up costing way more than $12B when actual costs are used.

Civilians don't have a clue anyway. So their opinions are irrelevant beyond politics. But I'd really like to see a fair contest in Canada for the same number of jets. At least the Canadians cannot pull the Belgian trick with the B3 already operational.

I will try and summarize as best as I can. The F-35 already costs less than the Super Hornet. The Super hornet will not last as long in American service this will leave Canada paying the majority of the upgrade costs completely by ourselves. this is unaffordable and Something we struggle with even when the Americans do the majority of the work and pay for the development and testing. Even when we do buy upgrades, we struggle. only 36 CF-18s are being upgraded at the cost of over 800 million dollars. your solution is to just throw money at the problem in the interest of "savings".

I believe the opposite will happen.

Actually, if it's capability you want, I'd like to see Canada waiting and going for the NGAD instead. You wanna be relevant in combat after all, not just become a mere participant like most of Europe.

basic as it sounds, just buying F-35s would be the easiest way to stay interoperable with F-35s.

Since you've assumed the SH and F-35 are not interoperable, then can I assume the F-35 is not gonna be interoperable with the NGAD?
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
"The MADL [F-35] has a range of literally hundreds of miles, much better than [NATO's standard system] Link 16." Data also travels via Link 16 during the flight. “It has a shorter range and lower bandwidth, although the characteristics of radio signals do not use much bandwidth. But SAR radar imaging data, for example, cannot be transferred over Link 16. In addition, the signal on the Link 16 is wide, making it easier to detect, interfere with, and mimic. The closer you get to the distractor, the worse Link 16 is available. ”

Yeah, it's like a 2G mobile connection over 4 or 5G. NATO needs to upgrade to 5G soon. So that's gonna take care of this problem right away.

I don't think meteor was included in the contest. The one where Rafales radar and the one way data link was, limiting it's engagement. I would have remembered? I think it came later.

Meteor was the European BVR choice back then although testing was conducted using older weapons.

The Meteor was a problem for France's older jets with PESA, plus the fact that it only affects France. All others have AESA. The datalink is a non-issue.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
They are persisting with Link 16 just for interoperability purposes and as a backup mode I believe. Otherwise L16 can’t handle the data traffic required for F35 formations during combat scenarios.

The MADL is required to communicate with other F-35s and some other assets carrying the MADL link, like the AB class ships, carriers, Patriot batteries, MPAs, AWACS etc for targeting, basically assets that are big and powerful enough to carry this link. The Link 16 is needed by the F-35 to communicate with all of NATO. So they have two separate functions.
 

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
If AIM260 is so impressive, why integrating Meteor on F35 ?

Its so Europeans can have them and brag on the internet
It is called [email protected] And flew for yearSSS

Thats ok bub, you clearly didn't understand the question. You tried

Not so small

Because Rafales are so massive!
Jets are not pushed into hangars like livestock, unless there's a hurricane. There's massive amounts of clearance, enough for a whole jet to pass through all the other jets. Your hangars can hold as many Flankers as Hornets.



Retention is a problem for all air forces. You need a training squadron regardless of what you're buying. It's gonna be hilarious if a large air force like Canada lacks instructor level pilots of their own in their own territory. I'd really like to hear the RCAF officially say they are outsourcing training completely.

Bad weather in Canada!? never! This isn't india you need to stop going with what you think you know. It was always the plan with F-35 to do training that way. our instructor and mid-level pilots are already leaving droves thanks to the knowledge that they will be stuck flying CF-18s the rest of their careers. Many are leaving for other air forces or going to fly in the civilian world. yo uave a very superficial way of thinking that doesn't apply to the real world, and you keep trying to apply india, and your own ideas to us. Doesn't work like that.

Yeah, there is. But in Canada's setting, your dependency on AWACS and maritime aircraft is greater than your reliance on the F-35's sensors. It's because of the massive distance between you and your potential enemies. Hell, the F-35 cannot even reach Russia's mainland on its own

The only time you will need the full capabilities of the F-35 is when the USAF has been destroyed to the point that air combat in Europe has actually reached Canadian shores. Makes it pointless at that point, don't you think?

Anyway I think you're confused between patrol link and datalink. You can forget about the USAF's patrol link being important to the RCAF. The USAF flies on their own. You can have your own patrol link though.

You really have no idea what you are talking about here. It would be nice if you exercised a little humility. all I can do is tell you that you are clueless of what you speak of. I can't explain just how wrong unfortunately it would take days of posting, and even if I did, there's no guarantee you would understand it apparently, even if you wanted to. You don't seem to even understand the nature of our missions, or the fact that aircraft can be refueled in the air.

Due to the upgradeability of pods, their ability at surveillance is greater than the F-35. Any major F-35 upgrade is a 5+ year project. A pod upgrade is a 1-year project. The USAF have better assets for surveillance than the F-35 anyway, like the RQ-170/180.

As for everything else you said, it's a combination of your own investment and believing in the fact that your current platform is suitable for the mission. It doesn't matter if it's the F-35 or the SH, you need relevant capability to be useful, and you're gonna have to invest in it. In 1999, the Hornet was still cutting edge, and if there were problems, then your air force merely failed to keep up. And this is liable to repeat irrespective of the platform you buy.

Rest assured that after 2030, if you're not operating the NGAD, then the weight you pull will be limited by default anyway. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and your main air threats are bombers. If you go closer to your main enemy in Europe, then you are still second rung. At least with the SH, you can bring in complementary capabilities, like acting as a missile truck. Hell, I'd even say the F-15EX is a better option than the SH, if you actually wanna contribute.

And you forget that when it comes to protecting North America, minus Alaska, even the Americans are comfortable with modenised F-15s. It goes back to the fact that fighter jets from Russia today cannot reach North America from anywhere but your West, and even there they have to go through the USAF first. Canada's completely outside Russia's fighter range.

if we already agreed the F-35 is superior to Super Hornet why are you going on about this? I think I explained several times that we can't afford upgrades I even tried to have a nice little summary for the slow witted at the end. as for NGAD we were not allowed to buy F-22 even if we could afford to. So does that mean we are forever behind even with F-35? what makes you think we can afford or will be allowed to buy NGAD? F-35 is the minimum capability going into the future. You need to drop it. it seems the last thing we have to debate is the SH vs F-35 costs. I have explained all of this several times and used real world examples. You are either picking a fight and a stupid fight at that, or just that stubbornly ignorant. I can't even decide.


None of that's guaranteed. Only the initial procurement cost is.
yes and F-35 costs less. You stupidly repeating "economy of scale" doesn't change that for several reasons. The first of which being that the Boeing line is already scaling back production from 36 a year to 24 and then the fact that the F-35 is going to produce over 150 for the next few years. Your argument fails on its own measure.
Economy of scale yes! and F-35 has more. it will have more in the future too.

Your SH upgrade R&D will be paid for by the USN through NGAD. It trickles down. All SH export customers are gonna piggyback on the massive SH and Growler fleet, especially the Growler fleet that the USN plans to use until 2060-70. So at least one major USN-supported MLU is in the offing for all customers that buy in the 2020s.

its not going to be the same thing. we already know this, and you would too if you bothered to actually do research instead of measuring hangars on google earth.

Through price manipulation. Like comparing the SH B2's 6000 hours airframe versus the F-35's 8000 hours? Boeing quit the Belgian tender because the Belgians decided they will calculate flyaway cost on a per hour basis and then add the SH's SLEP to it because they wanna calculate it for 8000 hours. So real unit price / (6000 + 2000) for the SH and the F-35 gets fictional unit price/8000 hours. Very fair. They ignored the fact that the B3, the jet actually offered, is qualified for 9000 hours. The best part is the F-35A is yet to compelete fatigue tests to get to 8000 hours and the Belgians don't plan on going beyond 6000 hours anyway. Hilarious.

You can't defeat fictional costs with manipulated costs.
Based on the F-35's future costs.

So far you have 4 "rules" that make no sense but you are using as a guideline

1. We can't tell the future, but we know NGAD
2. Economies of scale bring down costs, but only for the Super Hornet not the F-35 even as the F-35 has far more
3. Future costs only apply to the F-35, not at all to the Super Hornet, which you can upgrade for nearly nothing
4. Upgrade costs that affect the super hornet to the tune of billions don't count. F-35 CPFH does count

But the fact is those 65 SHs will end up costing $9B when economies of scale come into play, whereas the F-35s will end up costing way more than $12B when actual costs are used.

The F-35 has more scale. You need to pick an argument and stick to it. if Economy of scale bringing down costs is your argument, then the F-35 has more. The end. it wins. and this before getting into the FACT that we already saw the 18 Super Hornet offer to Canada.

over 5 billion for 18 SH
9 billion for 65 F-35

I know math is hard, but I believe in you. Now if the math becomes too difficult, don't worry. You can look at other real world examples that show the Super Hornet costs more money, try the Swiss. You must be very hard headed to insist that as a Canadian I don't know the above. We had an entire funny scandal about it. The liberals thought they would buy 18 super hornets for about 1.1 billion, then all of the sudden it was 5.4 billion. a laugh riot. you keep trying to gaslight people into thinking this never happened. Super Hornet production is actually cooling. F-35 production is increasing. You keep trying to tell me not to believe my own lying eyes, and that you know my country and our requirements better than I do. You should be embarrassed if you are capable of such things.



Civilians don't have a clue anyway. So their opinions are irrelevant beyond politics. But I'd really like to see a fair contest in Canada for the same number of jets. At least the Canadians cannot pull the Belgian trick with the B3 already operational.

We have already seen it. I don't know why you insist on thinking reality is not so. to put it briefly, Boeing told us for years that the SH was cheaper. "65 million!" and finally the liberals accidently called the bluff 18 X 65 million= 1.1 billion ok!, and the price was suddenly 5.4 billion when it was time to sign. It was such a surprise that the current government had to actually call the Americans and confirm it was true. The liberals had taken Boeing at their word, and actually thought that was the real price. This is of course just flyaway cost, while the F-35 which they said was too expensive at "137 million each!" was using the full procurement costs. once Boeing had to to do the same they ended up costing more. This is a running theme with Boeing and the Super Hornet.

I understand that India may be buying Super Hornet, so you must blindly support it now, but the fanboy stuff doesn't work here. Your loving devotion to the lie doesn't change reality. You will learn soon enough.

Actually, if it's capability you want, I'd like to see Canada waiting and going for the NGAD instead. You wanna be relevant in combat after all, not just become a mere participant like most of Europe.


Since you've assumed the SH and F-35 are not interoperable, then can I assume the F-35 is not gonna be interoperable with the NGAD?
you can't keep pulling this double standard where we have no idea what the F-35 will cost in 10 years but we know everything about NGAD. You need to make up that limited mind of yours.

No I don't have all day to spoonfeed you everything so lets review our current loggerheads

> we both think the Super Hornet is inferior but for some reason Canada should buy it and be stuck with it for the next 40 years
> we know the upgrade costs for the Super Hornet will be unaffordable over time in Canada
>we both agree that economy of scale brings down costs, but the F-35's scale is 6 fold higher than Super Hornet
>we are now arguing costs, which should be very easy because we have several years of proof the F-35 costs less, and real world comparisons to see

if we want to just argue costs, and costs for an inferior aircaft that will be outdated faster, I would say that I have won my argument. Even if the Super Hornet costs less, its the inferior specimen and will end up costing more over time, and doesn't work well with our closest ally, when one of the big criteria for Canada is operating with the US, and specifically the USAF

I think I have explained our upgrade mentality several times. if we just focus on cost in our little row the F-35 wins. but lets debate costs from here on out, because I can't spoon feed you about the upgrades anymore. hopefully others have understood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
It is very offensive to be constantly told and expected to believe that we should purchase an inferior product for more money and that the Super Hornet and F-35 are tactically the same. These are the Boeing talking points, and I am very worn out with them. Canadians are not simpletons.


F-35 is best at the lowest price. This should be all we need to know. Its been proven, and recently. an F-18 operator chose F-35 over SH based on cost and performance. The end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Bad weather in Canada!? never! This isn't india you need to stop going with what you think you know. It was always the plan with F-35 to do training that way. our instructor and mid-level pilots are already leaving droves thanks to the knowledge that they will be stuck flying CF-18s the rest of their careers. Many are leaving for other air forces or going to fly in the civilian world. yo uave a very superficial way of thinking that doesn't apply to the real world, and you keep trying to apply india, and your own ideas to us. Doesn't work like that.

Since you don't have bad weather in Canada, then you don't need to change your hangars.

I'd really like to see a link from whoever from Canada claiming your hangars are too small, 'cause we park the Flankers in even smaller hangars.

You really have no idea what you are talking about here. It would be nice if you exercised a little humility. all I can do is tell you that you are clueless of what you speak of. I can't explain just how wrong unfortunately it would take days of posting, and even if I did, there's no guarantee you would understand it apparently, even if you wanted to. You don't seem to even understand the nature of our missions, or the fact that aircraft can be refueled in the air.

I think you should try. "Exercise a little humility 'cause I know everything and you know nothing and won't understand even if I tell ya", isn't exactly the definition of humility.

if we already agreed the F-35 is superior to Super Hornet why are you going on about this? I think I explained several times that we can't afford upgrades I even tried to have a nice little summary for the slow witted at the end. as for NGAD we were not allowed to buy F-22 even if we could afford to. So does that mean we are forever behind even with F-35? what makes you think we can afford or will be allowed to buy NGAD? F-35 is the minimum capability going into the future. You need to drop it. it seems the last thing we have to debate is the SH vs F-35 costs. I have explained all of this several times and used real world examples. You are either picking a fight and a stupid fight at that, or just that stubbornly ignorant. I can't even decide.

We are on the same page when it comes to capability. But not on costs.

yes and F-35 costs less. You stupidly repeating "economy of scale" doesn't change that for several reasons. The first of which being that the Boeing line is already scaling back production from 36 a year to 24 and then the fact that the F-35 is going to produce over 150 for the next few years. Your argument fails on its own measure.
Economy of scale yes! and F-35 has more. it will have more in the future too.

The SH already has achieved economies of scale. All you need is a sufficient order to make use of the scale the USN has already achieved. 18 jets doesn't take advantage of scale.

So far you have 4 "rules" that make no sense but you are using as a guideline

1. We can't tell the future, but we know NGAD
2. Economies of scale bring down costs, but only for the Super Hornet not the F-35 even as the F-35 has far more
3. Future costs only apply to the F-35, not at all to the Super Hornet, which you can upgrade for nearly nothing
4. Upgrade costs that affect the super hornet to the tune of billions don't count. F-35 CPFH does count

1. More like you already know the F-35 even though it's expected to be ready only in 2029.
2. The F-35's economies of scale will be achieved when the number of operational jets cross a particular threshold that only the LM knows, and that could vert well be well after at least 2000 units have been delivered.
3. Future costs apply more to the F-35 with an unpredictable future than the SH with a predictable future. The only thing left for the SH is sufficient number of Block 3s ordered so they and Growlers can be upgraded in the 2040s. As for the F-35, first the US should actually commit to getting all 2443 F-35s for it to maintain promised costs. The US drops a few hundred, cost controls are gonna go for a toss.
4. For the same reason as 3. The F-35 needs to number well above 2000 for costs to be managed. The US seems more interested in the NGAD instead.


Otoh, regardless of whether the USAF chooses NGAD or F-35, the cost for the development of SH tech is still gonna be cheap.

I know math is hard, but I believe in you. Now if the math becomes too difficult, don't worry. You can look at other real world examples that show the Super Hornet costs more money, try the Swiss. You must be very hard headed to insist that as a Canadian I don't know the above. We had an entire funny scandal about it. The liberals thought they would buy 18 super hornets for about 1.1 billion, then all of the sudden it was 5.4 billion. a laugh riot. you keep trying to gaslight people into thinking this never happened. Super Hornet production is actually cooling. F-35 production is increasing. You keep trying to tell me not to believe my own lying eyes, and that you know my country and our requirements better than I do. You should be embarrassed if you are capable of such things.

SH is at its peak, it doesn't matter if its production is cooling, since economies of scale has already been achieved. I don't get how you do not understand this. It's at a place where the F-35 will be after 2000 are produced.

We have already seen it. I don't know why you insist on thinking reality is not so. to put it briefly, Boeing told us for years that the SH was cheaper. "65 million!" and finally the liberals accidently called the bluff 18 X 65 million= 1.1 billion ok!, and the price was suddenly 5.4 billion when it was time to sign. It was such a surprise that the current government had to actually call the Americans and confirm it was true. The liberals had taken Boeing at their word, and actually thought that was the real price. This is of course just flyaway cost, while the F-35 which they said was too expensive at "137 million each!" was using the full procurement costs. once Boeing had to to do the same they ended up costing more. This is a running theme with Boeing and the Super Hornet.

That's not how costs are calculated. For 1 squadron, 1 base, it's gonna be freaking expensive. But when the second and third and fourth squadrons come in, the sticker prices reduces a lot.

I told ya this already, the first order of 36 cost India $9B, but a second order for the same would cost us $5B. So the Rafale's price comes down to $194M per jet, and this is including $2B in R&D. Without R&D, it would be $166M. This price is much more than competitive with the F-35.

Also the so-called DSCA price of $5.23B is actually an overestimate of the actual price. Not to mention it came with a lot of weapons.
You can read it here.
It's a full package from start to end.

Here is how it works:
The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Poland of thirty-two (32) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft with support for an estimated cost of $6.5 billion.

No weapons in the Polish deal. Not a full package. But the contract was signed for $4.6B.

With actual price and without weapons, the contract would have been even lesser for the SH, the same as the F-35.

I understand that India may be buying Super Hornet, so you must blindly support it now, but the fanboy stuff doesn't work here. Your loving devotion to the lie doesn't change reality. You will learn soon enough.

Don't be silly. My opinions have nothing to do with India's plans of buying the SH. We are simply not fooling ourselves, that's the only difference.

We are not making a show of saving costs or penny-pinching. We have requirements and we are buying whatever we want based on requirements. Cost is not a factor in our decision-making. It's why we paid extra to bring the Rafale up to higher standards than the French ASF Rafales.

you can't keep pulling this double standard where we have no idea what the F-35 will cost in 10 years but we know everything about NGAD. You need to make up that limited mind of yours.

No I don't have all day to spoonfeed you everything so lets review our current loggerheads

> we both think the Super Hornet is inferior but for some reason Canada should buy it and be stuck with it for the next 40 years
> we know the upgrade costs for the Super Hornet will be unaffordable over time in Canada
>we both agree that economy of scale brings down costs, but the F-35's scale is 6 fold higher than Super Hornet
>we are now arguing costs, which should be very easy because we have several years of proof the F-35 costs less, and real world comparisons to see

1. 'Cause it's cheaper. Neither SH nor F-35 are suitable to deal with Russia or China.
2. No. It will be cheaper, 'cause it's only an upgrade. It's the same reason why he F-16V upgrade is cheaper than anything to do with the F-35.
3. The F-35's current scale is likely 4 times lower than the SH. The higher scale is only your hope or wish for the future.
4. With fake numbers and manipulated calculations.

if we want to just argue costs, and costs for an inferior aircaft that will be outdated faster, I would say that I have won my argument. Even if the Super Hornet costs less, its the inferior specimen and will end up costing more over time, and doesn't work well with our closest ally, when one of the big criteria for Canada is operating with the US, and specifically the USAF

Only once the US actually buys all 2443 as promised. Until then, all you have is a piece of paper, a promisory note, saying the costs will eventually be cheaper. And if they fail, you gotta pay the big bucks to keep your previous investment, 'cause they are not gonna give you a discount.

I think I have explained our upgrade mentality several times. if we just focus on cost in our little row the F-35 wins. but lets debate costs from here on out, because I can't spoon feed you about the upgrades anymore. hopefully others have understood.

You're basically trying to say an F-5 upgrade will be more costly than an F-16 upgrade today.

Old jets are cheaper to upgrade. This is a known fact. When the SH comes in for upgrades, since the USN's gonna be paying for R&D costs, it's gonna be cheap, for the same reason the F-16V is cheap to upgrade.

Lastly, somewhere in the wall of text, you pointed out that the NGAD won't be available. It doesn't matter, you can go for the USN's NGAD. It's gonna be cheaper and more capable than the F-35. All you gotta do is get through a few more years with the Hornet than planned, which isn't difficult. Plus you will only need half the number, with the rest made up of drones, and you will actually be able to contribute in a war with Russia.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Bon Plan

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,676
3,014
73
France
transition.wifeo.com

House Eyes Competition for F-35 Sustainment

The House-passed version of the fiscal 2022 defense authorization bill is eyeing possible competition to help reduce sustainment costs for the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35 fighter.

The House passed its $768 billion fiscal 2022 defense authorization bill in late September with a bipartisan 316 to 113 vote, but the Senate has yet to pass its version, and, even after that, the two chambers will have to meet in conference to resolve differences between the two bills (Defense Daily, Sept. 24).

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) “is concerned about rising sustainment costs in the F-35 program, as these costs create affordability challenges for the [military] services,” per a report on the House-passed bill. “As such, the committee is interested in determining the Department of Defense’s plans to increase competition within the F-35 enterprise, including what intermediate steps could be taken in the near term to leverage the whole of industry outside the original equipment manufacturers. Increased competition for F-35 sustainment could reduce lifecycle costs, increase efficiency, and drive innovation while strengthening the overall viability of the program.”

The House bill would require Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to brief HASC by March 1 next year “on the department’s efforts to reduce sustainment costs by driving competition into the F-35 program,” the bill report said. “The briefing should include information on known barriers that must be overcome to facilitate a competitive sustainment environment, as well as recommended solutions.”

Before Lockheed Martin beat Boeing [BA] to win the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition on Oct. 26, 2001, there was concern at top levels of the Pentagon that the “winner take all” JSF acquisition strategy outlined by former Defense Secretary William Perry in 1996 could result in higher acquisition and sustainment costs. An idea was broached, but never adopted, to have Boeing, if it lost, use its experience with commercial airliners to institute a system to deliver needed JSF parts promptly. DoD acquisition executives looked to Caterpillar, Inc. [CAT] as another model of an advanced supply chain.

Beside sustainment, DoD thought also was given to bringing Boeing on as a second supplier, if Lockheed Martin fell short, and in having Boeing build the F-35 tail section, in part to help retain a minimum of 3,000 engineers as a critical mass on Boeing fighter development, rather than have such talent move on to other “capture” efforts on future contracts.

“There is a great deal of merit to the idea of having multiple contractors building a weapon,” said Dan Grazier, the Jack Shanahan military fellow at POGO’s Center for Defense Information and a retired U.S. Marine.

“It has been used successfully in the past where the contractor with the better price received 70 percent of the contract with the other getting 30 percent to keep their workforce engaged,” Grazier said. “The competition helps to control prices. The separate teams also find ways to improve the design. An example of this is the A-10 ammunition. The different manufacturers fiercely competed against each other which dramatically reduced costs. The only way such a plan would work is for the government to acquire all the intellectual property rights for the weapon which solves another huge problem with the F-35 program now. Because Lockheed Martin controls the data rights for the program, the government has no choice but to award Lockheed with the sustainment contracts year after year. Other than bad public relations, there is little incentive to reduce costs.”

Both the House-passed fiscal 2022 defense authorization bill and the one under consideration by the Senate contain provisions on F-35 sustainment costs.

The House bill, for example, would require the U.S. Comptroller General to conduct annual reviews of F-35 sustainment efforts for the aircraft and the engine between fiscal 2022 and 2025. The bill would also require Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to submit a plan by March 1 next year to reduce F-35 sustainment costs, and the bill would mandate the defense secretary’s annual certification between 2022 and 2026 that the F-35 is meeting sustainment cost metrics.

The draft fiscal 2022 Senate defense authorization bill under consideration would require the Pentagon to move the management of F-35 sustainment from the F-35 Joint Program Office at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., to the military services by Oct. 1, 2027–the U.S. Air Force for the F-35A and the U.S. Navy for the F-35B and F-35C.

One F-35 analyst said, however, that such Air Force and Navy management would balloon F-35 sustainment costs.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Amarante

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
Since you don't have bad weather in Canada, then you don't need to change your hangars.

I'd really like to see a link from whoever from Canada claiming your hangars are too small, 'cause we park the Flankers in even smaller hangars.

we are not you. I'm comparing hornet to hornet. Space is the obvious reason but since you are too dense for that, I can assure you there is a lot to it.


I think you should try. "Exercise a little humility 'cause I know everything and you know nothing and won't understand even if I tell ya", isn't exactly the definition of humility.
I've posted references that prove the costs. As I have said you are asking me to compress a decade worth of information into a few posts. Its like me saying wild things about the history of india, and then expecting you to unpack pages and pages of information. How long would you spend trying to explain all this, and how would I even be sure when you think "infrastructure" encompasses comparing hangar size on google earth? its easier just to point out you're ridiculous than spend days explaining this. I understand that sounds snobby and elitist, but I am not sure you even care to learn. its very obvious you don't know the subject, and you have access to information yourself, plenty of it.


We are on the same page when it comes to capability. But not on costs.
and I have already shown the Swiss contest. that is just the most recent example of several. you are either wiliingly ignorant or "don't know math good"

its basic division, bub you can do it. I believe in you

The SH already has achieved economies of scale. All you need is a sufficient order to make use of the scale the USN has already achieved. 18 jets doesn't take advantage of scale.

orders are not production scale. increased orders does not necessarily mean increased production. and again comparing production scale, the F-35 wins. so by your own argument the F-35 is cheaper.

so you don't understand what you are arguing. 24 SH per year is what Boeing churns out, down from 36 perviously. thats moving the opposite way of the F-35 which is at 150+. so you once again, really don't know what you are talking about.

You said the SH is cheaper, you came up with the above as an excuse. fails by your own logic. I am not going to address everything because you continue to argue about things that have already been proven false but here are some of the highlights

2. The F-35's economies of scale will be achieved when the number of operational jets cross a particular threshold that only the LM knows, and that could vert well be well after at least 2000 units have been delivered.
LOL thats not the way "economy of scale" works. :ROFLMAO:
3. Future costs apply more to the F-35 with an unpredictable future than the SH with a predictable future. The only thing left for the SH is sufficient number of Block 3s ordered so they and Growlers can be upgraded in the 2040s. As for the F-35, first the US should actually commit to getting all 2443 F-35s for it to maintain promised costs. The US drops a few hundred, cost controls are gonna go for a toss.

the US Navy is cutting Super Hornet orders and says the aircraft isn't viable. combine this with the failure of the Confromal Fuel Tanks, and the fact that the navy says it will be second line in 2030. This is what I mean. once the US cuts down on Super Hornets Canada would be responsible full stop for developing upgrades on its own, and we can't afford to do that. If we buy F-35 we simply jump onto whatever the US has been doing. the end. the Super hornet future is going to be shorter and more questionable not least of which because its already shown to be inferior currently as you already agreed.


4. For the same reason as 3. The F-35 needs to number well above 2000 for costs to be managed. The US seems more interested in the NGAD instead.


They have said F-35 will be a cornerstone of the future, and they may not even order 100 NGAD as an F-22 replacement. we have no idea what they will cost to build or maintain either, or if they will even be available for export. if NGAD means the F-35 is obsolete, then Dassaults revelation of NGF means Rafale is even more obsolete. its now twice removed from the cutting edge


SH is at its peak, it doesn't matter if its production is cooling, since economies of scale has already been achieved. I don't get how you do not understand this. It's at a place where the F-35 will be after 2000 are produced.

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

That's not how costs are calculated. For 1 squadron, 1 base, it's gonna be freaking expensive. But when the second and third and fourth squadrons come in, the sticker prices reduces a lot.

I told ya this already, the first order of 36 cost India $9B, but a second order for the same would cost us $5B. So the Rafale's price comes down to $194M per jet, and this is including $2B in R&D. Without R&D, it would be $166M. This price is much more than competitive with the F-35.

We have an equal comparison in F-35 vs SH Switzerland, and your rebuttal is to talk about Rafale in India. Your reubttal to "the SH is more expensive than F-35" is: yes, but for a reason!

so we agree its more expensive? but wait! theres more!:


Also the so-called DSCA price of $5.23B is actually an overestimate of the actual price. Not to mention it came with a lot of weapons.
You can read it here.
It's a full package from start to end.

Here is how it works:
The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Poland of thirty-two (32) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft with support for an estimated cost of $6.5 billion.

No weapons in the Polish deal. Not a full package. But the contract was signed for $4.6B.

With actual price and without weapons, the contract would have been even lesser for the SH, the same as the F-35.


so 18 (EIGHTEEN) SH for $5.23 billion vs 32 '(THIRTY-TWO) F-35 for $4.6 billion?

You are like my own biggest helper. it looks like the Poles could throw a billion more dollars in weapons. and still have 14 more F-35s for 370 million more dollars.

You got me there!!

Now do the Swiss costs!!
3. The F-35's current scale is likely 4 times lower than the SH. The higher scale is only your hope or wish for the future.
4. With fake numbers and manipulated calculations.
You don't understand production scale and how it works, you also don't seem to understand numbers so I am betting lots of things seem "fake"

Only once the US actually buys all 2443 as promised. Until then, all you have is a piece of paper, a promisory note, saying the costs will eventually be cheaper. And if they fail, you gotta pay the big bucks to keep your previous investment, 'cause they are not gonna give you a discount.

for the 3rd time that is not how this works. the F-35 is already cheaper than the Super Hornet. Not in the future, not after they produce 2000 of them, but right now. The contracts have already been signed, the payments sent and the aircraft being produced at 150+ per year. This pales in comparison to any other fighter out there. There is no greater economy of scale than what the F-35 is doing right now. Rafale, SH, and Typhoon combined, are not producing in a year what the F-35 does. Do you understand that? You for some insanely hilarious reason think the other aircraft have more economy of scale, despite being of much smaller scale. Super Hornets are being produced at just 1/6 the rate of the F-35. the conclusion you draw from this is that the smaller scale is actually bigger, and then you tried to tell us that the scale shrinking further, made no difference.

I don't even know if you understand the words you are using now, but I actually feel bad for the French posters here, because with every post in which you try to help you end up looking more inept. There seems to be a real theme with Rafale fans and not understanding things like words and math, and economics. with friends like this, who needs enemies.

You're basically trying to say an F-5 upgrade will be more costly than an F-16 upgrade today.

Old jets are cheaper to upgrade. This is a known fact. When the SH comes in for upgrades, since the USN's gonna be paying for R&D costs, it's gonna be cheap, for the same reason the F-16V is cheap to upgrade.

I'll ty and break it down for you very simply, after this it is just crayons that will have to use while asking you not to eat the crayons.

Canada will buy aircraft for 40 years.

The US Navy will be retiring the Super Hornet likely by 2040 (19 years from now)

The US Navy is already pivoting away from the Super Hornet

The Super Hornet is already inferior, and the CFT hopes are not happening.

Canada would be buying an inferior aircraft, and then would be on the hook to upgrade it in an attempt to stay relevant but even then, can't upgrade to the point of being an F-35.

Canada would have to spend far more money because it would have to develop these upgrades on their own, after the US retires SH

There is no amount of upgrades that can bring a super hornet to an F-35 level

Your argument is that we should buy more expensive, less capable aircraft so we can spend even more money upgrading them, and still not be on the level of the F-35 since that is "cheaper"

The Swiss have already destroyed your entire argument

Paying even one dollar more to buy lesser gear is not "cheap" its a waste of money

you are saying things like "upgrades are great because you will have a better screen!" but that doesn't fix things like failed CFTs and no stealth.

The Super Hornet, starts behind, and will never be able to overtake the F-35 while costing more money. Even if the F-35 cost more money, the above would still mean its smarter to pick it.

The F-35 has more orders, more production, more produced, more customers, and a longer timeline than the Super Hornet. Its future is more assured and obviously so.

Your main argument now is that yes Super Hornets are inferiors, yes they cost more (thanks for the help!) but in principal the upgrades which would never catch up to F-35 anyway, will be cheap. So I guess we are arguing on principal now?

we have never seen a competition, an actual bid an actual tender, where the Super Hornet is shown to be superior in price. You try to explain that away using Rafale in india.

Lastly, somewhere in the wall of text, you pointed out that the NGAD won't be available. It doesn't matter, you can go for the USN's NGAD. It's gonna be cheaper and more capable than the F-35. All you gotta do is get through a few more years with the Hornet than planned, which isn't difficult. Plus you will only need half the number, with the rest made up of drones, and you will actually be able to contribute in a war with Russia.
Thats unbelievably stupid and no matter how many times I try to explain it, buying another USN jet is not wise going forward. if you want to argue that every time a new generation fighter comes out (when it comes out) that it makes all the other fighters obsolete, then the entire Indian and French and many other air forces has been made obsolete by the F-35.
 
Last edited:

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
75
Canada
I think you should try. "Exercise a little humility 'cause I know everything and you know nothing and won't understand even if I tell ya", isn't exactly the definition of humility.


Lastly, somewhere in the wall of text

I don't know what level of explanation I can give you that would be acceptable. It is easier to say you are simply wrong which is indeed true, but then when i try and explain why you are wrong its a "giant wall of text" beyond Canada you don't seem to know a lot of this stuff and make "shoot from the hip" wild guesses. (just put on a new targeting pod! thinking that is integrated sensors) basic mathematics, concepts like economies of scale in and out of production, shared costs, etc just seem to be alien concepts to you.
I really don't know how to make it any more plain to you. the Swiss an F-18 operator like us, just did an evaluation and found the F-35 to be better than the Super Hornet, and cost less money. and even according to you, or one of your many personalities, all that information from the evaluation is legally binding. its also recent. This is not a projection from 2010. its not even 6 months ago in a full fledged competition comparing equal amount to equal amount. And guess what the F-35 is cheaper.
Even our initial argument over "infrastructure" was yourself claiming that since we operate CF-18 the switch to Super Hornet would save. I pointed out that wasn't the case I used one of many examples, one I believed would be simple to grasp and you decided to fight over it and tried to google earth hangar size in an effort to prove me wrong even when we have F-18 operators like the Aussies and the Americans who have already done this.

At what point to you acknowledge that F-35s are less expensive than SH? for 5 years Boeing fed us that lie along with many others that their product was cheaper. It was not. never has been. that's why you have to use examples like Rafale in india. Where it begins to get even crazier is you make arguments that actually solidify my points while denigrating your own. like your economy of scale assist. Economies of scale make things cheaper! Yes they do, and there are 600 percent more F-35s produced than Super Hornets. Thats how F-35 is cheaper! Lets have a beer since we agree, but then you work completely backwards! economy of scale doesn't work suddenly for the fighter that is producing 150 a year, but does work for the fighter that is producing 24, down from 36?

Can you give me an example of the Super Hornet being cheaper? Yes! The Rafale in india!

take your meds!
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
we are not you. I'm comparing hornet to hornet. Space is the obvious reason but since you are too dense for that, I can assure you there is a lot to it.



I've posted references that prove the costs. As I have said you are asking me to compress a decade worth of information into a few posts. Its like me saying wild things about the history of india, and then expecting you to unpack pages and pages of information. How long would you spend trying to explain all this, and how would I even be sure when you think "infrastructure" encompasses comparing hangar size on google earth? its easier just to point out you're ridiculous than spend days explaining this. I understand that sounds snobby and elitist, but I am not sure you even care to learn. its very obvious you don't know the subject, and you have access to information yourself, plenty of it.



and I have already shown the Swiss contest. that is just the most recent example of several. you are either wiliingly ignorant or "don't know math good"

its basic division, bub you can do it. I believe in you



orders are not production scale. increased orders does not necessarily mean increased production. and again comparing production scale, the F-35 wins. so by your own argument the F-35 is cheaper.

so you don't understand what you are arguing. 24 SH per year is what Boeing churns out, down from 36 perviously. thats moving the opposite way of the F-35 which is at 150+. so you once again, really don't know what you are talking about.

You said the SH is cheaper, you came up with the above as an excuse. fails by your own logic. I am not going to address everything because you continue to argue about things that have already been proven false but here are some of the highlights


LOL thats not the way "economy of scale" works. :ROFLMAO:


the US Navy is cutting Super Hornet orders and says the aircraft isn't viable. combine this with the failure of the Confromal Fuel Tanks, and the fact that the navy says it will be second line in 2030. This is what I mean. once the US cuts down on Super Hornets Canada would be responsible full stop for developing upgrades on its own, and we can't afford to do that. If we buy F-35 we simply jump onto whatever the US has been doing. the end. the Super hornet future is going to be shorter and more questionable not least of which because its already shown to be inferior currently as you already agreed.




They have said F-35 will be a cornerstone of the future, and they may not even order 100 NGAD as an F-22 replacement. we have no idea what they will cost to build or maintain either, or if they will even be available for export. if NGAD means the F-35 is obsolete, then Dassaults revelation of NGF means Rafale is even more obsolete. its now twice removed from the cutting edge




:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:



We have an equal comparison in F-35 vs SH Switzerland, and your rebuttal is to talk about Rafale in India. Your reubttal to "the SH is more expensive than F-35" is: yes, but for a reason!

so we agree its more expensive? but wait! theres more!:





so 18 (EIGHTEEN) SH for $5.23 billion vs 32 '(THIRTY-TWO) F-35 for $4.6 billion?

You are like my own biggest helper. it looks like the Poles could throw a billion more dollars in weapons. and still have 14 more F-35s for 370 million more dollars.

You got me there!!

Now do the Swiss costs!!

You don't understand production scale and how it works, you also don't seem to understand numbers so I am betting lots of things seem "fake"



for the 3rd time that is not how this works. the F-35 is already cheaper than the Super Hornet. Not in the future, not after they produce 2000 of them, but right now. The contracts have already been signed, the payments sent and the aircraft being produced at 150+ per year. This pales in comparison to any other fighter out there. There is no greater economy of scale than what the F-35 is doing right now. Rafale, SH, and Typhoon combined, are not producing in a year what the F-35 does. Do you understand that? You for some insanely hilarious reason think the other aircraft have more economy of scale, despite being of much smaller scale. Super Hornets are being produced at just 1/6 the rate of the F-35. the conclusion you draw from this is that the smaller scale is actually bigger, and then you tried to tell us that the scale shrinking further, made no difference.

I don't even know if you understand the words you are using now, but I actually feel bad for the French posters here, because with every post in which you try to help you end up looking more inept. There seems to be a real theme with Rafale fans and not understanding things like words and math, and economics. with friends like this, who needs enemies.



I'll ty and break it down for you very simply, after this it is just crayons that will have to use while asking you not to eat the crayons.

Canada will buy aircraft for 40 years.

The US Navy will be retiring the Super Hornet likely by 2040 (19 years from now)

The US Navy is already pivoting away from the Super Hornet

The Super Hornet is already inferior, and the CFT hopes are not happening.

Canada would be buying an inferior aircraft, and then would be on the hook to upgrade it in an attempt to stay relevant but even then, can't upgrade to the point of being an F-35.

Canada would have to spend far more money because it would have to develop these upgrades on their own, after the US retires SH

There is no amount of upgrades that can bring a super hornet to an F-35 level

Your argument is that we should buy more expensive, less capable aircraft so we can spend even more money upgrading them, and still not be on the level of the F-35 since that is "cheaper"

The Swiss have already destroyed your entire argument

Paying even one dollar more to buy lesser gear is not "cheap" its a waste of money

you are saying things like "upgrades are great because you will have a better screen!" but that doesn't fix things like failed CFTs and no stealth.

The Super Hornet, starts behind, and will never be able to overtake the F-35 while costing more money. Even if the F-35 cost more money, the above would still mean its smarter to pick it.

The F-35 has more orders, more production, more produced, more customers, and a longer timeline than the Super Hornet. Its future is more assured and obviously so.

Your main argument now is that yes Super Hornets are inferiors, yes they cost more (thanks for the help!) but in principal the upgrades which would never catch up to F-35 anyway, will be cheap. So I guess we are arguing on principal now?

we have never seen a competition, an actual bid an actual tender, where the Super Hornet is shown to be superior in price. You try to explain that away using Rafale in india.


Thats unbelievably stupid and no matter how many times I try to explain it, buying another USN jet is not wise going forward. if you want to argue that every time a new generation fighter comes out (when it comes out) that it makes all the other fighters obsolete, then the entire Indian and French and many other air forces has been made obsolete by the F-35.

Wow, while you do not understand your own arguments, you have made a mess of mine too.

The hangars aren't an issue. The SH is not special enough to need a magical new hangar only for itself. Your hangars are fine even for a Flanker, and if it's fine for a Flanker, it is fine for anything short of a large transport or bomber. If you think your hangars are too small, other than defying logic, you are going to have to explain how that works out. A source would be helpful, 'cause really, it defies logic. The only information I have found is the SH deal did not come with some hangar equipment, presumably because some of the Hornet's hangar can be put to use, and will need to be inspected.

The F-35's economies of scale is yet to be reached. You misunderstand, it's not just about the unit cost, it's about everything related to it, including spares production. Multiple lines have been built all across the West, and hasn't been recouped yet. Hell, even FRP hasn't begun and you have already accorded it the tagline of the cheapest fighter. I sincerely do not get that logic at all.

And no, the SH is not as capable as the F-35, and its upgrade will also not make it as or more capable than the F-35's future potential. It's simply cheaper. My entire argument is if Canada goes for the F-35, the decision will be based on capability, not cost. The SH is cheaper, but Canada can easily manipulate costs to make the F-35 look cheaper. The SH is cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and cheaper to upgrade, and it's not as capable as the F-35. So all I'm saying is you can go for cheap or you can go for capability, but don't go around saying the F-35 is cheaper and more capable just yet. The F-35 has a long road to travel before costs actually come down to what is being promised in tenders. At the very least, it needs to begin FRP.

And yeah, once the NGADs show up, pretty much all jets outside Russia and China, 'cause we don't know what they are up to, will become outdated or obsolete, including the F-22 and F-35. Which means the moment you receive enough F-35s, it's gonna be outdated. So your options really are, 1) Buy SHs 'cause they are actually cheap, but fail to contribute, 2) Buy the F-35, pay a bit more, and still fail to contribute, 3) Extend the life of the Hornets, buy the NGAD at a cheaper cost than any other jet, and actually contribute. The F-35 was supposed to have its Block 4 configuration ready in 2019, and Canada could already have been receiving these jets now. But with Block 4 said to become ready only in 2029, tentative date, it makes sense to look at something else instead. Does it matter if it's air force or navy as long as it's better than the F-35? And only you claimed the AF-NGAD won't be available for export, it very well could be, especially to one of the Five Eyes.

so 18 (EIGHTEEN) SH for $5.23 billion vs 32 '(THIRTY-TWO) F-35 for $4.6 billion?

Tsk, tsk, if you're comparing costs like that, then it's $5.23B for the 18 SHs with weapons and $6.5B for 32 F-35s without weapons.

I still don't get why you haven't yet understood this.

Rafale for 18 jets = $5.4B. Per jet = $300M
Add 18 more jets = $2.6B. Per jet for 18+18 = $222M

Second batch of 18 jets = $3.6B. Needs an additional base, $1B. Per jet for 36+18 = $214M
Add 18 more jets = $2.6B. Per jet for 54+18 = $197M

Do you see how prices dropped from $300M for 18 to $197M for 72? That's 4 squadrons in 2 bases. Pretty much the same as what Canada wants.

Are you at least able to understand such basic math? It's really elementary.

This is how economies of scale works in procurement.

Drop R&D costs and weapons and we get 10.6$B. In fact it should be $10M lesser per jet since we are removing customisation costs from the flyaway price too, so at least let's make it $10B. So 72 Rafales for $10B, ie, $138M, whereas Australia's DSCA estimate for 58 F-35s was $11.5B, ie, $198M. Poland's $4.6B contract in a similar vein costs $143M, similar to Rafale's $138M. Whoa! How did that happen? See how quickly I could dismantle costs with just open source stuff?

But to be fair, Poland's $143M is for 32, whereas Rafale's at 72. Let's drop Rafale's numbers by half, then remove R&D and weapons, we get $150M. Now it makes sense, eh?

And let's not forget the euro is 20% more expensive.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Bon Plan

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
(just put on a new targeting pod! thinking that is integrated sensors)

Pods and other externals can be integrated with the MC, has been done elsewhere. The Americans have not bothered doing it.

all that information from the evaluation is legally binding.

Er... no. The sustainment costs are not, only the procurement cost is. Post the procurement deal, you're gonna be signing multiple 5-year deals for sustainment. And the upgrade cost is also not legally binding.

Stuff that actually makes the F-35 expensive are not legally binding.

At what point to you acknowledge that F-35s are less expensive than SH? for 5 years Boeing fed us that lie

$80-90M (fictional) for F-35 vs $60-70M (real) for SH.
$25000 (fictional) for F-35 vs $18000 (real) for SH.

So yes, the SH is more expensive. :rolleyes:

economy of scale doesn't work suddenly for the fighter that is producing 150 a year, but does work for the fighter that is producing 24, down from 36?

Er... yes. One's only beginning and is still running an unoptimised production line. The other's finishing up after having optimised the production line.



The F-35 is yet to reach the red box. It was made for 250+ a year, not 150.

Can you give me an example of the Super Hornet being cheaper? Yes! The Rafale in india!

take your meds!

My previous post's breakdown covers that.