I think you’ve misunderstood the term “bang for the buck”.
The current and most recent unit cost for the LRIP F-35A is $94.8 million [excluding the engine]. And that’s without any specific national requests. It has gone down from the LRIP 1 prices, as expected, but it’s not close to its target goal.
The hopeful estimate of $60MUSD per F-35A was quoted at around 3000 A/C being manufactured in total, which included full orders from all expected customers and potential customers. The production rate has been ramped down with 20 A/C aswell. And this is all without experiencing any new problems that might ramp up the price. The costs are going down, I’m not arguing you on that, but to such a level that the F-35 would be cheap to buy, maintain and operate, now that’s a bold claim. Especially since the F-35 is still significantly more expensive to operate than the F-16 and F/A-18.
Finlands “bang for the buck” is however something still rooted deep within its military structure. This is something the Gripens thrives in. The Gripen has excellent records of low maintenance per flight hour, low operational costs and is yet a fighter with relatively long range, more than capable of covering Finlands needs. Not to mention national cooperation and local industrial benefits that the Finns seem to value highly.
The Gripen stands well above “a small chance” in Finland.
Another factor to weigh in is how much it costs to adjust the air force bases for the F-35. Norway and Australia is using well over 1 billion USD for this purpose alone.
I believe Sweden uses a C130H as a tanker? I may be wrong.
There is one but it is only used for training the pilots for international missions. It’s not used in the daily activities of the air force. This is unlikely to change in the future.
Sign In
