So, just read in the newspaper that Belgium will most likely replace their f-16's with F-35's.
I know next to nothing about the f-35, so just out of curiosity i thought i'd ask a group of military enthousiasts i know. ;)
So what's up with the f-35 gang? (no political point to make, just curious about the fighter!)
A mate of mine is on the UK procurement team, I'll send you his details!
From the little I understand (and I am definitely no expert), the F-35 has a much lower radar signature (i.e., stealth) which is no bad thing with modern radars and longer range guided missiles - so, on paper, not a bad choice. You don't have aircraft carriers* so won't have to put up with the choice we made (UK) which is the vertical take-off variant of the F-35 (which, to accommodate the VTOL features, can't include cannon! - if you want cannon, you have to fit a separate pod to the wing or something - which probably increases the radar signature?). I say, "Good for Belgium" if you can afford it. If my country (Scotland) was independent, I would probably advocate funding a squadron of Gripen-E's - a very capable fighter and whilst not having the alleged 'stealth' capabilities of the F-35, is much cheaper to buy and maintain (and when it can land on a straight road, be maintained and replenished from a Lay-by, who needs VTOL?)
* on which we have spent an absolute fortune so can't pay the extra for steam catapults (or the modern equivalent, if there is any)
Does Scotland have any straight roads?
Dammit! I knew there was a catch somewhere! ;D
Underpowered, overpriced and designed for a style of war that, should it occur, would probably end in an extinction level event for Homo Sapiens.
Other than that? Great aircraft :)
Or do like Republic of Ireland, whose Air Corps have no jets. Defence of Irish Air Space is entrusted to.......the RAF.
In 2015 the RAF scrambled Typhoons to intercept a Russian TU95 Bear on course for Shannon Airport. No doubt interested in USAF stopovers.
It is not confirmed if the UK is paid for this service.
The RNZAF has also disposed and retired its jet fighter/aggressor capacity.
From my friend in F35 procurement
Of course Gripen E is cheaper!
The latest price for the F-35A is $88M (production batch LRIP 11) .
The latest price for the Gripen E is $150M, where Brazil ordered 36 aircraft for $5.4 billion in 2014.
LRIP 12 will drop the price a little more and I'd expect it to bottom out around 80M$.
Belgium would buy Conventional Take Off and Landing Variant (Ctol).
I'm not sure about Gripen E's connectivity with other arms but F35 is more than a Stealth Fighter, it's systems communicate it's sensors with the rest of the battlefield ops without the pilot needing to use eyeballs.
And as for the servicing comment, given that they've only made a couple of hundred Gripen E's, and F35 will be approx 3500, parts availability and cost in 25 years will be either comparable or less for F35 IMHO.
And his second part
The cost is a scale thing, not a gadget thing (although that does play a part of course). If you make high production (and Fort Worth looks more like a car plant with a moving production line) you can drive down cost with economies of scale. Gripen is more "hand built" small scale, just like Typhoon and F22, and they're all pricey!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 22 October 2018, 08:48:02 AM
And his second part
The cost is a scale thing, not a gadget thing (although that does play a part of course). If you make high production (and Fort Worth looks more like a car plant with a moving production line) you can drive down cost with economies of scale. Gripen is more "hand built" small scale, just like Typhoon and F22, and they're all pricey!
We will probably see an increasing dichotomy in warbird production.
The nations who need them (for defence and prestige ) will go for the big bucks state of the art.
The smaller nations with need for more modest air defence will opt for budget trainers upgraded for interception - like the BA Hawk, Aero and the AMX strike aircraft - the pocket Tornado.
First crash was late September over in Carolina, the Marine Corps pilot ejected safely. Cause is currently under investigation. Not much of a problem for the Yanks but a large hole ($88m) in our cash-strapped budgets.
Quote from: mad lemmey on 22 October 2018, 08:47:21 AM
From my friend in F35 procurement
Of course Gripen E is cheaper!
The latest price for the F-35A is $88M (production batch LRIP 11) .
The latest price for the Gripen E is $150M, where Brazil ordered 36 aircraft for $5.4 billion in 2014.
LRIP 12 will drop the price a little more and I'd expect it to bottom out around 80M$.
Belgium would buy Conventional Take Off and Landing Variant (Ctol).
I'm not sure about Gripen E's connectivity with other arms but F35 is more than a Stealth Fighter, it's systems communicate it's sensors with the rest of the battlefield ops without the pilot needing to use eyeballs.
And as for the servicing comment, given that they've only made a couple of hundred Gripen E's, and F35 will be approx 3500, parts availability and cost in 25 years will be either comparable or less for F35 IMHO.
That's interesting to hear from someone in the know, Lemmey, although not quite sure why he says, "Of course Gripen E is cheaper" but the figs above say it costs almost double(?). As I mentioned, I am no expert, but I do have the feeling these costs do not compare like for like (presumably back-up support, training, spares and upgrades, etc. will fudge the issue?). I must have been thinking of the Gripen C/D which has/had a reported unit cost of $60m - I probably wrongly assumed the upgrade to E would not cost too much more (in expensive jet fighter terms). I also see that unit costs for the UK's F-35B's (Belgium will go for the much cheaper CTOL F-35A) were put at $161m in the recent past but that this has now gone down to approx $121m (why so high in the first place? something taken out?) only for some new announcement in March stating that the UK will be paying for an upgrade - we've hardly got the plane and we are already upgrading it? All very confusing.
Ireland and New Zealand's geographical positions help in their decisions to save money by not having expensive (to buy and run) fighter jets but similarly sized (population wise) countries like Denmark, etc., don't have that luxury and so have to spend money in that way (Denmark has about 30 F-16s)(there was also a heated debate in the Irish parliament about the Russian incursion and their lack of fighter cover). An independent Scotland is a hypothetical situation, of course, and the need and prohibitive costs for defence were one of the
many factors I considered in our own recent independence referendum before making my decision (I voted "no" btw - as a Scot who knows more about his country's history than most "yes" voters, it was a very hard decision, and sometimes one that does not sit easy with me). Scotland is not only geographically closer to Europe but would also have oil fields to defend. It not only wants to be part of Europe (Brexit poll results) but the SNP told us, also a member of NATO (Ireland is neutral) so would need to spend. As much as I love the nifty Hawk (and have previously looked at it as a possible solution), I would not like to be the politician who faces the families of downed pilots who were sent to defend oil wells in what is still essentially an upgraded trainer. Unless awash with cash, I would guess some small countries who have a need for air defence may have to go second-hand but with the much cheaper unit cost for the F-35A and the carrot of mass production keeping future costs down, who knows? All in all, in spite of the recent crash, in my opinion it looks like it is still a good candidate for Belgium's future air defence, Peter.
Anyhoo, flying away now (pun intended) - must bow out of the discussion as I have to focus on writing a wedding speech for my daughter's wedding! Yikes! :-S
Quote from: mad lemmey on 21 October 2018, 10:16:23 PM
Does Scotland have any straight roads?
Just no flat uns
I think Lem was going for sarcasm, but missed by $62M - oops! best hope the plane doesn't.
Thanks for the info all!
Have been reading about it myself a bit, and from my understanding the dutch air force will be getting the same ones, and we work togheter quite a bit, so that looks to be a factor as well.
And for what it's worth, i remember one of our f-16's crashing during training years ago, so sadly those are things that happen. My guess if it's a production failure, and it can be pointed out, that would be insured ( i think).
And meanwhile we had a decent forum discussion about contemporary airpower.
A good friend of mine is a member of the Irish Senate. Over the last decade the Irish have - to put it bluntly - compromised their neutrality, over allowing the USAF " facilities" at Shannon. This did not go unnoticed in Moscow. Hence the Bears going on the prowl.
The Czechs offered six L159s at a bargain basement price, but it was the cost of new radar and support that the Irish balked at. Since the crash of 2007, the Irish Gov has been tight fisted on defence. Irish GDP/per head is 43k Euro. Finland by comparison (almost equal pop) has GDP/per head of 36k Euro and over fifty F18 Hornets !
One corollary of Brexit is that the Irish have joined PESCO, and are getting a bid ready to tender for an EU military training centre at the Curragh.
With the UK leaving the EU, the argument that NATO will suffice Europe will weaken, and the lobby for an EU army will be stronger.
My understanding of the F35 is that it is supposed to be able to to anything - ground attack, air superiority, VTOL, carrier.
Logic would suggest that's not really possible. Either that or the commonality between versions is fairly low.
Is this a marvellous Swiss Army Knife of an aircraft or a jack of all trades, master of none?
But for countries with small air forces isn't that exactly what you need?
Quote from: Matt J on 23 October 2018, 08:31:29 AM
But for countries with small air forces isn't that exactly what you need?
Its the prohibitive cost of these hi tec aircraft. Most small nations with limited budget will go for surplus F16s, F18s, Gripen etc,. If the budget/threat is smaller still, then the Hawk 200 would fit the bill.
The qualification is when you have proximity to a hostile neighbour with loads of logistics. In the Good Old Days of the 1970s the USA subsidised the sale of F-5s to such nations.
I was thinking more small NATO nations like Belgium and Netherlands.
QuoteWestmarcher - * on which we have spent an absolute fortune so can't pay the extra for steam catapults (or the modern equivalent, if there is any)
The answer is rail guns, always rail guns.
Well, a linear magnetic accelerator, anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System)
Which will be working properly aaaaaany tiiiime nooooooow...
Finland has 50+ F18's because the Russians are right next door ;) In contrast Ireland's neutrality has always been a bit less robust and has had a serious nod a wink at worst to full on official if somewhat blank faced co-operation; see WW2 and the cold war; they're just carrying on the "we're neutral but on your side, just don't say it out loud" policy they've maintained since WW2. If they were next to the Russians I suspect they'd have a much more robust military but be far more careful about exactly how neutral they were...
The thing with "next gen" aircraft is that they're likely to be incrementally better except in the cases where they're really not and there's a sudden jump in capability that renders last gen obsolete. Is the F-35 that? Raptor was supposed to be (but is a dedicated air superiority craft), Typhoon the same (but multi-role), Rafale was cheap and the sales pitch was "eeeee, never mind the quality, feel the width!". It's the sort of thing you only find out in anger, and good logistics, pilot training and munitions can cover a multitude of sins...
Perhaps ask the Israelis, they seem pleased with F-35 so far...