it isnt my problem that you dont know that the full cost of running fast jets is significant, did i tell you we got them for the bargain price of $54m flyaway

The Dutch are reconsidering. The Brits have the worst govt finances since World War II and must be reconsidering. The UK govt has decided that the current position of public finances is untenable and that drastic cuts in expenditure are absolutely necessary. The items on the spending agenda to receive closest scrutiny are those projects involving the biggest government outlay. Where future UK defence spending is concerned, F35B would be a very, very big ticket purchase.

If that figure includes all costs – design, build, all costs associated with operating the aircraft, the cost of each SH would be $90,000 x 5000 = $450 million over a life of 5000 hours. Can that be right?

like italy, turkey, there is talk of not being in the testing dutch have ordered test planes and the new gov will decide if that goes ahead, as a minor party is against it
there is no talk about not buying production f-35’s

do you have a creditable link to the UK making a decision between the f-35 and SH and changing the carriers to CATOBAR and changing CONOPS

australia brought 24 SH at a total cost of au$270m each for a 15yr period, our flyaway was us$54m
3000 hrs or 200 hrs a year its au$90,000 an hour

when will we find out that they are even seriously considering scrapping the f-35 and buying SH

The graph of F-22 matches the one i saw on USAF site perfectly,
and the graph of F-35 matches it’s design goal, and what i expect.
Are you saying you expect something else ?

so you think the f-35 will fly at SL and all altitudes at the ~same speed ?
have you ever seen a doghouse plot that looks anything like the one they made for the f-35 ?

Those are only speculations in one biased article.

come on, let them spout a “buy more f-22” spin, i find it amusing, even more funny is they missed the glaring omissions in the power point and what is wrong with that doghouse flight envelope graph

NAVAIR are professional, they do costings on every scenario, it would of been irresponsible of them not to do it.
J.E.T costings have be shown to be wrong, the premise of which the navair is based is invalid and statements have been made to this effect
there are ample links to this that was shown at the time of the report and i question why you didnt inform yourself of the full facts and still seem to be sprooking it as true
further to this it has absolutely nothing to do with the UK cost of buying and running the f-35

that indeed could be the problem, so the SH won on risk too
pepe is the guy who said the SH has a rcs 100 times bigger than the rafale, it might be an idea to seek another source

Kovy said
no the SH won on the price of the plane and the costs of ownership due to cheap US spare parts and weapons. Which can be explained by the rather big production for the US navy, weak dollar and the poor ToT package (a package that does not come for free in the rafale offer).

gripen won on cost as far as i know

If it was on pure performance/capability the rafale would be the winner:D

no, that was the one SH won, by air having an increase from 5% to 10% performance requirement in the eval, it took a 40% TOT to knock it out
dont embarrass yourself by having a SH vs Rafale capability debate

it has been clearly said there wont be a contract before the election, its time to start a FX 3 page here