The F-35 was marketed as an affordable fighter required to replace on a 1:1 basis the already reduced fleets. Its development started in the 1990’s and everybody had already reduced their defense budgets. When you look at the projected prices, you can notice that most fighters you talk about went somewhat above, but not much, except the F-35 whose price went through the ceiling, forcing a reduction in numbers with pretty much every nation that preordered it

‘Price went through the ceiling’? How so? Its currently in the $110 million/unit range which will drop to $90-100 million at the end of the SDD. Lower still once production ramps up to the expected 200 aircraft per year. (All disregarding inflation of course). That’s comparable or better than most 4.5G aircraft.

Here’s a comparison that isn’t often made: you can pair France and China off against UK and India in pursuing alternative industrial-strategic paths — the former pair opted for self-sufficiency, the latter for market opportunities. The results can be seen today: France still maintains its strategic-industrial independence (even if reaching the end of its tether) and China is preparing to field indigenous fifth generation aircraft. In contrast the UK is in shambles, dancing to a combination of someone else’s drum and its own staggering incompetence (the -B/-C carrier switcheroo) and India can barely field a fourth-generation aircraft powered by someone else’s engine. Short-term expediency vs. long-term foresight indeed.

With respect to India and China, there is certainly some merit to that assertion (abandoning the Marut program for example was a major blunder). On the other hand, fact is since 80s, China has had far larger finances at its disposal than India. And its military-industrial development was driven as much by embargoes as it was through vision.

Also short term-long term outlook in the defence context is not the same as in business – making short term sacrifices for long term gains is not always viable, if fighting a war in the interim is a possibility. The PLAAF’s conventional edge vis-a-vis India has not been proportional to its budgetary advantage. In fact the edge itself came about only after large scale Flanker imports in the 90s.

Coming to UK & France, there’s little to separate them historically. While France unlike the UK did field a truly independent missile deterrent, it fielded a far smaller fleet of strategic bombers. Over the long term its made little difference, since the nuclear arsenals of both countries (independent or otherwise) serve no practical purpose today.

As things stand today, most criticism of UK’s supposed myopia appears to stem more from a visceral dislike of the F-35, than a dispassionate analysis of the facts. The MoD is certainly responsible for disastrous decisions (like the Nimrod) but the JCA isn’t one of them. Most observers agree that the Eurofighter is broadly equivalent to the Rafale. The UK’s F-35-EF fleet will remain numerically comparable to France’s Rafales but while providing greater net capability (albeit at a higher operating cost).

And whether one concurs completely with the 15% figure or not, the fact is that the industrial benefits to the UK are huge either way. Even for a lower estimate it still effectively amounts to an offset value far greater than 100%. At the same time, its managed 84 off-the-shelf export orders (with more looking likely) for the Eurofighter while the Rafale is yet to sign its first.

It’s odd to think that the eternal rivalry between France and England actually does have a coda: in the twilight of Europe, one nation has indeed proved to possess a greatness that the other does not.

‘Twilight of Europe’? Military-industrial decisions reflecting the ‘greatness’ of the nation? You might be getting a little carried away here.

Typhoon and EAP were not of British design. Actually, they are based on TKF-90 concept designed by German MBB. British designs comprised several suggestions like BAe P.96 (similar to F-18), BAe P.108 (similar to JAS39) and P.110 (not similar to anything) but the EAP was largely based on TFK-90. See for yourself.

On top of that, Typhoon’s design has been set and frozen three decades ago. The designers are most likely not even working in the industry anymore. That only undermines my position that British have not proposed a serious design for almost half century and concentrated instead on supplying parts for other projects. Which is a pity. :apologetic:

But they were just concepts. The actual demonstrator that the EF was based on was built by BAe i.e. EAP. Even the ACA model was built by BAe IIRC.

The worse case scenario should have been the RAF lose their Harrier fleet while retaining the Typhoon and Tornado force, which would have been fine as is the case now, what should have happened is that the FAA should have retained or took delivery of the RAF’s Harriers until sufficient numbers of the F-35 were in service. The Harrier GR9 could have been upgraded in the meantime, a Radar – and why not the Blue Vixen the FA2 had – not on all aircraft but enough to have a sufficient Air Defence capabilities, could have been perfectly acceptable to go with those options but, as always, PMs don’t think in a logical sense.

Problem is, merely transferring Harriers from the RAF to the RN would have achieved relatively little in terms of economies. Question at the time was – early retirement of a) Tornado or b) Harrier. The decision was understandable; Harrier retirement could be coupled with the decommissioning of the carriers. The Tornado and its bases were cheaper to operate, plus it could continue serving as a cruise missile platform.

do you consider opportunity costs. UK has limited skilled labor. by employing into JSF supply chain it will forgo alot of other fields.

:highly_amused:

Yes indeed. It’ll take away priceless workers from all those other industries starved for labour.

you cannot be assured of next 40 years. JSF production rampup is slow. Industrial supply chain in 2025 may not be the same.

Yup. Lockheed Martin might decide to simply weld the Super Hornet’s rear end to the F-35’s front fuselage, leaving the British industry in the lurch.

I highly doubt it is second largest financial industry. It is like including foreign subsidaries of banks

That’s your default setting.

VN – If the Marine goal is to replace Hornets soon, one early-IOC squadron is an expensive way to not get very far.

Why is that? The F-35 can be employed for air defence and training for two or three years, after which the software will be upgraded to a higher block. By the time they take delivery of the later Lots, the training regimen should be fairly advanced (allowing for faster operational conversion), plus they’d have created a greater degree of synergy with rest of the fleet.

Besides, what’s the alternative? They can either continue flying the Hornet regardless of the vastly reduced margin of safety, or ground the aircraft as well as the pilots that fly them. The current plan seems to be quite reasonable.

The USAF primary mission is stealth attack with some self-defense, which they might get in 3I. The Marines’ primary mission is CAS, which, pace Spudman, now requires Rover in almost all instances because it is a proven means of reducing blue-on-blue.

If we’re ready to make allowances for the RAF/AdlA’s immediate requirements at the time of the Rafale & Eurofighter’s IOCs, the same ought to apply to the F-35.

At this point the USMC’s focus is not on bolstering its CAS capability. Its quite simply to affect an immediate replacement of its F-18s that, having long run past their original service lives, are the end of their SLEP-ed lives. If at IOC the F-35B can do a third of what it was designed to do, its quite sufficient for their needs.