You can look at any one metric and use it against any weapons system. You can look at cost and say it isn’t. Broader aircraft comparisons however involve multiple parameters. Go speak to pilots if possible, maintainers as well. They’ll speak their mind. At the end of the day its they who have to fly the damn things and ultimately it is the pentagon that develops plans and pays for them. I am yet to meet a single F-22 pilot who transitioned from the F-15 that doesn’t think it is a quantum leap in capability. Higher maintenance has to be traded off with higher capability. From my interaction with pilots, against an F-15 and the capability that weapons system fields – the answer is YES from that community (F-22 and F-15 pilots). Availability is also a function of cost from a planning perspective. How much availability can you afford is often the question, with rates seeing dramatic improvements if one is willing to spend more money to get them. Its as much a logistical thing as it is a system or a platform thing.

You are giving him a much more serious answer than his comment really warrants.

Apparently, Egypt will be first export customer….

Well, sooner or later it has to be someone.

It seems like the USAF is beginning to think that the F-35A will be a bit limited against the next generation of adversaries.

Certainly that is what a couple of agenda driven guys in the media would like people to think.

I don’t doubt the USAF is already starting to consider future versions of the F-35 and now 6th generation clean sheet designs. That is simply part of the business of staying ahead of the curve. It doesn’t mean the current version of the F-35 is somehow deficient.

To remind you which country belonged Berlin after World War II? Why did the British and Americans did not leave Berlin? They wanted a new war?

To protect it obviously. Compare the end results 50 years later. One half of Germany turned into an economic powerhouse and one of the leading nations of Europe and the world. The other half was a police state that had to have most of its industries totally revamped at great expense once exposed to Western competition.

Seriously, this isn’t even a debate outside of viewership of Russian media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-44_MANTA

The USAF says there IS the money for development in the budget.

They would have a much more accurate idea about their budget than you.

Don’t forget you are dealing with someone who is convinced they know better than not only the USAF/USN/USMC, but also a long list of other highly regarded forces…

Looks like things are getting serious on the 6th generation fighter front.

WASHINGTON • The Pentagon said on Wednesday its fiscal 2016 budget proposal will fund early technology development and prototyping of a “next-generation X-plane” that would eventually succeed the F-35 fighter jet being developed and built by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Defense Undersecretary Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s chief arms buyer, said the funding would be part of a new “aerospace innovation initiative” aimed at ensuring that the U.S. military continued to dominate the skies despite development of so-called fifth-generation stealth fighters by China and others.

…

Lockheed, Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. have urged the department to start funding a new major aircraft development program given the dearth of new programs in recent years.

Kendall said the new project was meant to ensure continued work for industry design teams as development of the F-35 neared an end.

He told reporters the project would also include work on development of a next-generation propulsion system, which has already been funded under a separate program.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/u-s-military-budget-to-start-funding-post-f-/article_97a28568-f015-57e1-8d11-1660f628a532.html

Earlier in the day, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall told a Senate panel that there is money in the next budget for the Air Force to begin work on its 6th generation fighter

“It will be a program that will be initially led by DARPA,” Kendall said, “but it will involve the Navy and the Air Force as well. And the intent is to develop prototypes for the next generation of air dominance platforms, X-Plane programs, if you will.”

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been working on a series of studies on 6th generation fighter technologies for the past several years, and Air Force officials have said they expect to begin flying the next-generation jets by as early as the 2030s. Industry teams are also known to have started internal research and development projects on potential 6th generation technologies.

The DARPA 6th generation fighter program has been dubbed the Air Dominance Initiative.

In keeping with the push by Kendall and Work to increase competition for programs and get the department the best deal — and the best technology possible — he added that in order to be competitive, “the Navy and the Air Force will each have variants focused on their mission requirements. There’ll be a technology period leading up to development of the prototypes.”

Kendall confirmed that “this will be in our budget” in 2016.

The initiative will be a key component of the Better Buying Power 3.0 plan that Kendall has championed, which seeks to find efficiencies in the technology development phase of new programs, while tapping allies to share some of the cost of prototyping and development.

The work will eventually “lead to the systems that will ultimately come after the F-35,” he said, adding that “part of the program is an airframe-oriented program with those X- plane prototypes.” Another is a jet engine development program “for the next generation, also competitive prototypes for the next generation propulsion.”

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/28/f-35-replacement/22477329/

I have expressed myself very clearly in my response and don’t see a need to repeat myself. It is not my problem that you read something else than written.. The BDAF cost are on the other side of the scale but they are valid and relevant. For a die-hard F-35 worshipper it may be unthinkable that there are countries with annual defense budget only slightly exceeding $2 billion and air force budget of ~$300 million and that even these countries can and do operate reasonably sophisticated fighter aircraft.

:stupid:

You threw out some random numbers without context or a source, ultimately attributable to a Bangladeshi defense blog…

From your source:

The much talked-about MIG-29 aircraft cost much less to maintain than it was previously thought. 8 MIG-29 aircraft cost just Tk.22.2 crores ($2.2 million) annually for maintenance as opposed to the published figure Tk.100 crores back in 2001. Low flying hours and wages for the airmen may be the reason for such low maintenance cost for MIG-29s.

http://www.defencebd.com/2010/11/real-maintain-cost-of-mig-29.html

Of course you would like to take this claimed “maintenance cost” and pretend that it represents total operational costs, then following from that, throw out brain-dead theories about operating 50+ Mig-29s for the price of a single F-35.

Lets suppose for a moment that the numbers on the blog are accurate. All we have learned is that according to some method of accounting Bangladesh spends very little maintaining its fighters. Does that include spare parts? Are major airframe or engine inspections/overhauls considered maintenance? Perhaps (as the blog itself suggests) they simply don’t fly much and aircraft that sit on the ground weeks at a time don’t need a lot of maintenance. :rolleyes:

In any case that isn’t how you presented the numbers:

Norwegian projections on 30-yr long operation of 52 F-35s are ~$40 billion. Which is extreme cost, by all means. Let us look at the other extreme.. Bangladesh AF have operated sixteen F-7BGs for 4 years at $7.4 million total cost and eight MiG-29s for over 9 years at $31.71 million.

That makes it:
RNoAF F-35A – $25.6 million per plane per year
BDAF MiG-29 – $0.44 million per plane per year
BDAF F-7BG – $0.12 million per plane per year

Note that the MiG-29 is regarded as relatively expensive to maintain and operate.. Of course, I am aware of differences in technology, weapons, local wages as well as flight hours clocked yearly, but you still gotta think about this twice: in practical sense, one F-35 can under circumstances cost as much as a fleet of 58 MiG-29 Fulcrums or 213 F-7s.

You tried to pretend those numbers represented total operational costs, which of course they don’t. Maintenance is only one part of a much much bigger picture. This btw, is why providing sources is helpful, we can’t take your word for things because you simply can’t manage to keep the basics straight.