Just a litle bit of information that might be in order, a JDAM complete with the explosive bit, in FY2015, costs the Pentagon 28K US$, or roughly the CPFH of one Viper. That amount in Pentagon budget “talk” is “zero, zilch, nada, niente, nothing”.
What this means is that sticking a gps receiver and a pair of wings in a dumb bomb is inexpensive by comparison with using conventional amunitions (number of sorties versus precision), and thats the main reason why NATO went into “PGM” mode full scale. Another way to see this ATG phenomenon, in 1991 a Paveway would cost the American taxpayer roughly the same amount that he payes today for a JASSM/JASM-ER.

Cheers

Trudeau has explicitly stated that he opposes the F-35 and will seek “more affordable” fighters.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-vows-to-ditch-f-35
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-f-35-heads-to-the-polls-in-canada-417872/

So any “fair” competition will exclude the F-35 if Trudeau’s campaign promises are to be met. As I stated above, what this realistically means is that Canada will not be replacing the CF-188 any time in the near future.

An open competition will likely take years, and by then, we could be looking at the next Parliamentary election cycle. MMRCA anyone?

There is no doubt this is a political black eye for L-M’s marketing of the F-35. If Canada chooses the Rhino, it could keep Boeing in the fighter game and keep that production line warm post 2018.

The cancellation of the 65 aircraft production run will most likely have negligible impact on production ramp up or unit cost as Japan and Korea would move up in the queue and Canada did not have firm orders.

Congratulations to Boeing might be in order…

You focus on the fact that it is an LO fighter, that point is irrelevant. It is an asset, what matters is how well it can perform a task. It has excellent sensors, good persistence, speed, excellent load carrying ability, basing flexibility.

Being LO is far from irrelevant, it brings an associated cost, both in terms of acquisition as sustainment, the rest of qualities you´ve mentioned are present in a Super Hornet or a Sufa.

Never said “ideal for Afghanistan” per se.

True, i´ve just added that its a bloody big overkill for most of the tasks in that theater.

It is ideal for the types of missions that NATO has engaged in, strike, area denial, ISR, not to mention with three versions the program is well suited to the types of expeditionary warfare that have been common as of late.

Bit disputable, most of NATO air time has been against second or third tier air defenses (when they existed) and almost nill air threat.
If i wanted to make a strong case for the JSF i wouldnt throw A´stan, Jugoslavia and Libia (probably because i am simply tired of some French Joker repeating “our Rafale´s went first”… 🙂 ), i would probably say to like (to the Fins) “did you notice that those S400 cover the Airspace of Helsinki, (to the Poles) “Konigsberg… oooops i mean Crimea, oh sorry, you do have a border with Kaliningrad dont you?”, and so on.

Afghanistan is just one (with unique challenges- poor infrastructure, lack of good airfields, short windows of target opportunity).

Precisely, couldnt agree more.

It is also an instructive example as you hear people on this forum, and some op-ed pieces about fast jets being overkill, and that COIN prop planes, ect. could meet challenges. The answer is yes, and no. Some assume the mission is “fly over said target, launch hellfire, or sdb on coordinates and fly home”. Would be nice, but it ain’t.

Yes, but i am not one of those 🙂

Cheers

Really, what is the CPFH of a F-15E carrying 5k of bombs?

The last official CPFH released for the F-15E that i am aware was for 2010, it was precisely 28.636$, i would imagine that with inflation and the fleet being used to the “bone” (pun intended) that CPFH went up quite a bit. Anyone has a more recent official number? Thanks in advance.

What is the Flyaway cost of a F-15E if bought today?

FY2015? Roughly one full third less according to the Koreans?
Now an interesting question, that “Flyaway cost” that you mention is with (the numbers that the USAF Comptroller uses) or without (the numbers that Bogdan and Delanova uses) the non recurring costs (concurrency, non recurring tools and equipment, etc)?
Very recently someone pointed to me that the tools and the production costs associated with a certain 2014 Titaniun Bulkhead should be entering the 2015 accounts as “non recurring”… If true, its… well… interesting.

Do you think the Mk1_Eyeball is better than EOTS & EODAS, especially at 5k+ feet, not to mention of the SAR modes for the APG-81?

I think that its probable that a dedicated operator using the likes of the AN/APG-82/AN/APG-66(V3) and something like the LITENING 5 should have a real advantage over a pilot operating the F-35 systems in the air to ground arena. Both the radar and the LDP that the i´ve mentioned are arguably superior to the ones on the JSF and it has another brain/eyes solely operating them. And did i forget to mention ROVER?

Off course that i might be entirely wrong, i dont have absolutely no experience on the matter.

Another obvious thing, the F-15E is a niche aircraft in the USAF inventory, it counts for a very small % of CAS sorties in A´Stan, on the other hand the F-35A will compose around 80% of that same USAF fleet, what this means is that almost EVERY flight will have associated costs that would rival the ones if that flight was made with a Strike Eagle.
Wich is all very and nice if you´re trying to go after an S400 battery around Saint Petersburg, but its stupid on a grand scale if you´re bombing Kalash wielding bearded guy´s in “Cameland” (AKA A´stan).
And this comes to my original point, the F-35A is not particulary well suited for A´stan.

Cheers

I don’t think it’s that off the mark. 1995-2005 was pretty quiet in terms of advancements in actual fielded capability. A whole lot was going on behind the scenes of course, the fruits of which China is enjoying now, but that’s not what your bolded line is referring to.

In that time frame the PLAAF fielded roughly 150 new Flankers, by comparison, the Russian Air Force went into “complete rust mode”, in the east the Taiwanese fielded around ten new Mirage 2000´s and 130 Ching Kuo´s, the Japanese Air Force fielded eight new Eagles and in the south the Indians fielded 18 new SU-30MK´s. By comparison with their regional rivals claiming that “its overall capabilities relative to most of its potential rivals will diminish over the next ten years” IMO RAND was wide off the mark.
Off course that what happened in the decade afterwards is breathtaking.

Cheers

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) does not constitute a credible offensive threat against the United States or its Asian allies today, and this situation will not change dramatically over the coming decade. If anything, its overall capabilities relative to most of its potential rivals will diminish over the next ten years. These circumstances are a product of constrained strategic thinking in China about the role of airpower, the lack of funds needed for a comprehensive modernization program, logistics and maintenance problems, the limited training available to its pilots, and the absence of a capability to develop and manufacture advanced airpower weapon systems. Although some modern aircraft will be introduced into the PLAAF inventory during the next ten years, the rate and scale of these acquisitions will remain incremental and demonstrably insufficient to redefine the regional airpower balance.

Written in 1995 by RAND in cooperation with the USAF…

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR580.html

That sure was spot on… Oh wait…

You would have an argument if F-18s F-16s
And AV-8s have never been used in A-stan but they have. It seems to be missed by some that the F-35A in a short ranged conflict is a monster of a bomb truck.
In fact as proved above its the best in its class. Maybe BETTER in a permissive environment than a F-15E, and cheaper.

You didn’t even understood my argument.
The F-35A brings an entirely unneeded layer of costs and support problems to a place like A’Stan because this particular aircraft is a LO platform. Any recent Viper/SH/whatever twin seater will do as well or better than a F35 at a lower cost.
Like I’ve said previously, I can understand the Norwegians or the Fins but A’Stan?!
Both of you and Spud seem to think that every answer to every question on delivering air power is the “JSF”. It’s not.

There is a popular misconception that these missions in A’stan, etc. just require a “cargo plane with bomb racks”. Nope, there was a reason the B-1b became the most effective CAS weapon after the sniper pod was fitted. There is a reason that the F-22 is being employed primarily as am ISR platform and “Quarterback” in Syria.

http://theaviationist.com/2015/08/15/f-22-kinetic-situational-awareness/
http://www.afcent.af.mil/Units/380thAirExpeditionaryWing/News/Display/tabid/303/Article/616369/f-22-adapts-to-oir-conflict-cleared-hot-in-iraq-syria.aspx

The F-35 will be even more effective in this role. Note- this is not about CPH and close air support. There is no doubt that F-35 will be expensive.

The single most expensive asset CPH over Afganistan? The B-1B (it also dropped the most ordinance, and arguably been the most effective asset). The A-10? flew less than 20% of CAS missions in Afghanistan. Cost and effectiveness are separate variables.

I am on a phone, so this is going to be short, the idea that somehow the F-35A is “suited” to A’Stan is, and I am going to be blunt, bordering the outrageous.
The reason why aircraft’s like the B1B and the Strike Eagle have been very sucessfull there is precisely because they are bloody big “trucks with racks”, if stealth was needed (the only thing that makes the F-35A meaningfully diferent from half of the other flying kit out there), then B2’s would be swarming all over A’Stan.