What pressure is there to provide a hose and drogue option for the F-35A?

Why, two of the biggest JSF customers there are buying 1,000 or so of the aircraft who both use the hose/drogue method to refuel their aircraft……..the U.S. Navy and U.S.M.C. Both the -B and -C models will have retractable probes designed into the same airframe so there’s no reason I can see that a customer can’t specify which refueling option they want with little trouble.

So the F-111 support industry, having seen their cash cow exit stage right, is yearning for the next best thing; a unique to Australia F-15 variant?

That, or, just grasping at straws……..

Note that while the flyaway cost to partner nations is $58.7 million, the flyaway cost of the F-35A to the USAF is expencted to be ~$130 million to begin with – decreasing year-by-year until (hopefully) it is equal to or lower than the cost to partner nations.

So basically what you are implying is that for every one Export F-35 sale we are paying for one through our own pocket ? This is quite baffling and unprecidented , i doubt that US DOD would offer a 50% subsidy per export unit and would allow LM to sell the F-35 at half the production cost and foot the bill for the rest when they themselves dont have the money to buy enough of fighter aircrafts to begin with. I find this un acceptable and if it is so , i demand an immediate withrawl for export of this fighter …

Well, obviously, bring_it you are not familiar with the classic American practice of subsidizing the buyers of our products through the U.S. defense budget……i.e., pay double the price of a product for our services so that a foreign nation can have it at half the price conveniently precedented for us by the likes of the F-16, F-15, F-18, M-1, F-4 programs. In ALL of these cases we casually footed the bill for the product so that buyer nations could have them on the cheap and we didn’t do so much as cast aglance in the process. No big deal.

Assuming this, I still don’t know why nations around the world aren’t snapping up orders for the latest carriers and destroyers, Virginia-class subs, ABM systems, and Next Generation Bomber aircraft seeing as how we’ll simply eat the development costs in order to sell it to them at a “friendly” price…?

Contract………shmontract……….

bring_it_on gets “it”……..

Airframe price is one thing……..program cost is entirely something else. You cannot and will not tell me that the unit+program cost of buying 75 SHs plus associated support (engines, maintenance, etc.) will be equal to or more than the same for the F-35 for the same number of aircraft. The SH’s hardware is proven, in production in the hundreds, and in service today……..the F-35 is still testing all of it’s components in pre-production state. I”m not anti-F-35…..very, very far from it in fact. The F-35 is the future of U.S. tactical air power and it’s an impressive machine. And the U.S. is planning on using it around the world from a variety of basing platforms against all manner of opponents to perform numerous missions……..so far it’s proving out well for this. Is Canada going to use it’s new aircraft in the same manner or against the same opponents? NO. It’s not conceivable or likely in the least.

Try again, focus and concentrate on my point, for Canada’s unique needs (irregardless of contracts here) the SH can do as much for them for the money spent and saved as the F-35 can. This is the impetus of my original post……not which is most advanced or so on……which one will meet the country’s needs most economically.

For Canadian defense planners/buyers, the SH can be ordered today for minimal cost vs. the F-35 with uncertain cost fluctuations, and you can plan your other defense needs much more accurately around it. Heck, even the Aussies with much more pressing defense needs are buying it as a fall-back for many these same reasons.

2. Let’s get this Canada-Russia war idea out of the way: it won’t happen. It can’t happen. Look at a map, & think for about 10 seconds about the nature of the relationship between Canada & the USA, & you will see why.

A key reason for my post and reasoning above…..Canada is not going to get into any war with Russia as neither want or could afford it for very long.

First, there would be no bilateral conflict between the two but even if there was would 75 F-35s make that much difference vs. 75 SHs in the overall outcome? No. The F-35 is clearly more advanced but if Russia wanted to throw hundreds of Su-s, Migs-, and Tu-22/160s as well as cruise missiles and maximum naval assets into the conflict……Canada would need a whole lot more than 75 F-35s to make a difference.

Second, under what circumstances would Canada ever come up against a first-line air defense without U.S./NATO support in any conflict imaginable? Supporting NATO efforts in Afghanistan? No. I really can’t see any which makes me wonder why the F-35 for them is such a necessity.

2) Air to Air Refuelling – Does the F-35A support probe and drogue?

Since the USMC uses the hose/drogue method and the F-35 will be used by countries who use only that method for refueling, I don’t see why that hasn’t been considered in the design or production.

No, 75 Super Hornets would not be cheaper than 75 F-35s. And if you are so convinced that Canada is very unlikely to go to war with a major power in the conceivable near term, what do you even need the Super Hornet for? Of course you SHOULD be concerned with things BEYOND the near term…

The current unit price for the SH to the U.S. Navy is roughly $55.5 million per copy. The F-35 is now looking at a unit price of around $70-75 million per plane for the initial production run to begin in 2011………that’s a difference of $15-20 million per airplane. Inflation, economies of scale, etc., will all come into play but the F-35 will be more expensive to buy than the SH…….no question in that.

Canada should and must maintain a credible air combat force. It needs to defend it’s airspace, borders, and support its ground/naval forces from the air……..but does the F-35 do this effectively enough better than the SH to justify the extra cost considering the conflicts they are most likely to be in? That is the question. I say no. The U.S. Navy appears perfectly comfortable with entrusting at least half of its aerial roles over the next 20+ years to the Super Hornet.

I know it’s a moot point since Canada has signed onto the F-35 program as a partner and paid-in the money. But, it’s a good thing to toss about when considering hardware vs. money vs. return vs. alternative capabilities. For Canada, I would think Aurora replacements (P-8s presumably), AEW (MESA?), and better naval assets would do as much to secure the country for the money as F-35s. Think around $5.5 billion for 75 F-35s against $3.9 billion for 75 SHs…………….that’s a roughly $1.6 billion difference that could buy a good amount of other hardware that could be just as effective in the future.

We in Australia are still scratching our heads over the ‘purchase’ of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, as a so-called stop-gap measure replacement for the F-111 ‘Pig’, until the arrival of the continuously delayed and ever more expensive (and down graded!) F-35.

It’s been discussed here at length before, but the SH isn’t an F-111 replacement in any form. There is no real F-111 replacement on the Western market today and not even the F-15E/K/SG. The SH is being bought by the RAAF for the same reasons it’s being bought by the U.S. Navy…….it’s a capable stop-gap before the F-35 and more advanced UCAVs are available in numbers. The F-111’s job will be assumed by missiles and UAVs and naval capabilities.