“The best bomber we never had” was how it was described. It was killed by the incoming Labour administration in the mid-1960’s for financial reasons (in part because General Dynamics claimed they could supply the F-111 at about half the cost per airframe and Denis Healey naively believed their claim).

Where would it have gone without the politicians cancelling it? Into service in the sixties, negating the need for a strike version of Tornado to be developed in the seventies. How long would it have remained in service? Don’t know but the Canberra – which it would presumably have replaced – remained in service for 50+ years.

How patronizing… *Sigh*.

South Korea will purchase an aircraft (American) for political concerns, simple as. However, the F-15 is the best choice anyway when one considers commonality in a wide field of areas; local factories, weapons, training, ‘know-how’, familiarization and the integration to their network. It (not necessarily talking about the “Silent Eagle” since it isn’t flying yet) is more established than Typhoon and certainly more established than the F-35 regarding operational capabilities. But, I’m sure South Korea will follow Japan’s decision despite what Slowman/InternationalPirate claims.

One will have to see next month.

One will have to see whether the uncertainty on the Korean peninsular pushes SK to buy an aircraft that will be delivered and fully operational sooner rather than another which may be considered more useful but which would be operational later. I imagine that there are few countries capable of buying advanced jets which are under so much threat of attack in the short term as is South Korea.

$10 billion seems a rather small amount for three countries each with a very large military shopping list of their own. I don’t think BAE Systems will be worried about a 60+ Typhoon order even if the UAE do order 26 additional F-16s. Oman ordered Typhoons shortly after they ordered F-16s.

Thing is, why would UAE order any more fighters in the near future if they have a good complement of modern aircraft? I gather there is increasing concern over Iran. Is UAE looking to increase capability on account of this? 60 Eurocanards would be a big step up from 60 M2K’s.

It will be interesting to hear what the British PM and the UAE prince discuss in terms of defence co-operation when he visits the UK soon. It seems very likely to me that Cameron will want to include a Typhoon deal in the discussions.

The Obama administration is to announce a $10 billion arms package to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that will be the centerpiece of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s visit the countries next week, according to a U.S. official.

…the UAE is likely to buy 26 F-16 jet fighters…

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-19/u-s-to-announce-10-billion-arms-sale-in-middle-east.html

Likely to push any Rafale/Typhoon order to the right?

Re: TomcatViP reply in F-35 news

You can’t make such a comparison. The Gripen and the F35 hve not the same mission nor the same characteristics.

For example, how would you compare the cost to operate both aircraft Vs the range of OP. Extra tanker support cost a lot as well as the lower mission rate. What would you say to Netherland taxpayer: we made a 100M$ bargain yith Grip but needs to pay for extra costly 330 tankers the EADS. etc… etc…

The 35 makes mores sense: fully NATO integrated with full USAF support. Good relationship btw LM and Eu company to begin with a MLU upgrades in the future.

Grip is a good aircraft but it has not the same capacity of power projection that is at the base of small countries like Be/Nth.

Regarding F-35 costs for Netherlands v alternative aircraft (Gripen):

Yes, F-35 is more capable but let’s look at what the Netherlands and other F-16 users were looking for when they got involved in F-35.

They were looking for an F-16 replacement this decade. They were offered an aircraft (a) with comparable purchase cost (b) with lower operating costs (c) with greater capability. Irresistable combination and the best option for F-16 replacement.

However, (a) and (b) have not been realised and will certainly not be realised for the window for F-16 replacement, if ever.

The fact that F-35 is more capable than Gripen does not invalidate cost comparison. My guess to procure and operate 6,000 hours:

F-35 procurement: minimum $100 million
F-35 operation: minimum $144 million @ $24,000 pfh

Total: minimum $244 million

Gripen procurement: maximum $70 million
Gripen operation: $45 million @ $7,500 pfh

Total: $115 million

The primary role of Netherlands fighter aircraft is air patrol / air defence at a reasonable cost. It is not to enable RNAF to join international offensive missions against defended air space. While analysis of F-35 cost and performance v Gripen in that role is interesting, it is entirely hypothetical if the F-35 is unaffordable – which it appears to be without cutting other elements of defence. Furthermore, the USA will have a lot of F-35 aircraft to do jobs for which the F-35 is best suited. Other NATO nations do not need to contribute a few dozen F-35 aircraft for offensive missions against defended air space if there are already hundreds at NATO’s disposal. In fact NATO offensive operations would be more easily achieved with a mix of F-35 and Gripen since Gripen costs so little to fly.

Back to the reality of what the Netherlands can do. The country may decide it does not want to finance F-35, nor as an alternative to reduce its navy, army and other air force activities and capabilities in order to fly F-35. IMO to do the latter would be irresponsible and damage its ability to contribute to NATO.

The F-35A is expected to cost about 10% more to operate than the F-16 it is intended to replace for the U.S. Air Force and other international military services, according to U.S. government officials.

USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer overseeing the F-35 program, told Dutch government officials that the cost per flying hour for the F-35A, which The Netherlands intends to buy, is $24,000, according to Capt. Natasha Waggoner, an Air Force spokeswoman. Bogdan provided the data to Dutch legislators, including a “side-by-side comparison of flying hour costs between the F-16 and the F-35,” she says.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_04_18_2013_p0-570862.xml

The useful thing is to have an indication of F-35 cost per flying hour.

I have a feeling the Dutch will have a good idea what it costs them to fly the F-16. I’m also sure it won’t be $22,800+ (10/11 x $24,000). Countries bought F-16 because it was relatively cheap to purchase and fly.

I think F-35 probably costs at least $10,000 per hour more to fly than the Dutch pay to fly F-16, so I think each F-35 would cost at least $60 million more to operate than each F-16 over 6,000 hours.

Since Gripen is the most likely alternative to F-35, how would it compare with F-35 over 6,000 hours? All reports I have read put Gripen CPFH between $4,500-$8,000. If it were $7,500 CPFH, each F-35 would cost $99 million more to operate than each Gripen over 6,000 hours (Gripen would cost $45 million against $144 million for F-35).

I won’t bother playing silly games with percentages…

GAO: F-35 Program Has ‘Stabilized’

http://defensetech.org/2013/04/18/gao-f-35-program-has-stabilized/#more-19984

The phasing out of MiG-21 has been slowed down.

Tejas Mk1 is an advance on MiG-21. Rather than risking getting into a situation where Rafale/Tejas Mk2 is late and needing to extend the life of MiG-21 aircraft, why not double Tejas Mk1 production? It’s a cheap insurance policy.