Why would the Rafale M be any different?

The Gripen was not offered to Norway with a ‘chute, while the F-35 had to be provided with one. Why should that be the case?

If the F-35C, admittedly heavier but with a 45 per cent larger wing (area) and 8 feet more span, has an approach speed of 145 knots, would you expect the F-35A to be the same?

It is also not all about approach speed.

Summary on the Norwegian report (plus some other points that were overlooked):

First, what is actually documented in the report: The price for the F-35 is low even by URF standards. The Norwegians arbitrarily inflated the Gripen price quoted in the RBI by 20 per cent. No source is given in the report for the Gripen’s allegedly higher operating costs.

Second, from Saab’s contemporary statements: The Gripen offer was fixed-price for the entire package in current NOK and included initial training, initial spares and all mission planning and support systems. This makes the estimated F-35 price even less realistic, because it is more comparable to a weapon system procurement cost in US terms.

Third, contemporary reporting citing a Norwegian defense source: The operating cost estimate for Gripen was inflated by adding very large non-recurring costs for upgrades, and the report had been deliberately written to quash debate in Norway.

Fourth, Eurofighter had decided almost a year earlier that the Norwegian contest was a joke, and consequently bailed out of a 56-aircraft market.

Good luck to the Noggies. Especially as they’ll be flying half the year with a huge RCS-augmenting wart on the jet’s back end.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]234798[/ATTACH]

Who knows. I checked November when the report was published. it was 0.13. But you can cherry-pick dates within the year if you want.

And the padding of the operational costs is unchallengeable. The report was a fraud, intended to quash domestic opposition to the JSF decision. Norway is a very small country that is significant because of its position and latterly because of its oil.

Eskodas,

Instead of screaming at everyone who doesn’t put much stock in a six-year-old report that was heavily disputed at the time, why not respond to factual criticisms?

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133321-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2015)&p=2197516#post2197516

It is clearly shown that the JSF acquisition cost was a joke (far below even the rosiest predictions for rock-bottom URF) and that there was no evidence for the assertion that operating costs were higher for the Gripen.

Mods – You know what to do if this newbie continues this disruptive behavior.

After a certain point in STOL it’s not the lift that is the problem, it’s the control – and in a multi-engine aircraft the driving case is usually engine-out. The cross-shaft in the Breguet system solves that problem.

A 1980s GD briefing.

FBW – That’s not a very realistic analysis, mainly because you get tripped up on the language. Confining the discussion to haters makes as much sense as talking only about fanbois.

The core of the argument has always been that the F-35’s stealth technology and STOVL will not deliver enough of an operational advantage to be worth the price – in terms of development and acquisition cost, and in terms of capabilities that have been compromised to gain that STOVL and stealth.

Edit – What MSphere said. If in the first place nobody had claimed that the F-35 would be 400-600 per cent better in air-to-air, 8:1 better in ground to air, cost less to acquire and to maintain than anything else, and be in service in 2012… people might be more apt to believe the program’s advocates today.

Actually, the JPO has not rebutted any of the facts cited in the Beast. For instance:

Contrary to a report in the online Daily Beast, the EOTS will enter service with the ability to transmit still images to joint terminal attack controllers on the ground using the aircraft’s Link-16 transmitter.

The Beast never made such a claim. The Beast report concerned video, which the JSF cannot transmit to the ground. Likewise, the Beast never said the program was behind its own schedule with the gun – just that it won’t be operational until the 3F software is operational, in 2018 (objective) or 2019 (threshold).