SiddarDunno. But that’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that F-35 was meant to be as cheap to buy and operate an an F-16. Lots of countries planned around that and got burned and now can’t afford enough jets, even if they sacrifice other capabilities (e.g. Dutch).
When was it stated that F35 was going to be cheaper then a F16? I had always heard it was intended to be equal to the cost of a F16. That doesn’t seem to be in the plan anymore but depending on what year and model F16 purchased and what year and model F35 purchased there getting into roughly the same ballpark.
SiddarExcept them boffins at DoD have stated that their main expectation is that an F-35 will be about 25% more expensive to run than an F-16 over the course of the F-35 life.
But then in Scooterland, the only people that know anything are the JSF Program Offce.
And adjust for inflation – have we had 100% inflation since sales to Oman, Pakistan and Iraq? I want some of what you Plane X Fanbois are smoking. :eagerness: EDIT and that applies to the Rafale/Eurofighter/J-XX/T-50/JAS-39 crowd as well! 😛
How much of that 25% is fuel costs for a larger plane?
SiddarSo the smaller European countries with extremely small defence budgets have to gut their far more useful ground and naval forces, so they can subsidise France and Germany in case of WWIII? :stupid:
If you buy only 1-2 squadrons of F-35s, your ability to contribute is poor. At best you have no sustainability and at worst you have no expeditionary capability (e.g. Czech, Hungarian, Slovak airforces).
And what about the lost ground units, lost naval assets?
Whats so much more useful about a tank battalion? Compared to a aircraft squadron?
Of the two which one is actually likely to be used in next 40 years? The panes are the tanks?
If you’re a small European country and you spend any of your defense budget based upon the need to somehow fight off other European countries then your doing it wrong and in fact are wasting all the limited resources placed into that effort.
Siddar250 Predator drones and 108 Reaper drones is what mostly replaced all those F4 recon planes. Then you have some black projects as well like RQ-170 Sentinel.
SiddarMany small European countries need to buy F35 to offset the failure of France and Germany to produce a 5th generation fighter from a European collective military perspective. Let Germany and France provide heavy armor and primary air defense fighters while others provide the primary 5th generation strike aircraft and more infantry centered units.
There is no reason that a small country that will only ever take military action as part of a coalition to always think small in its weapons purchases.
SiddarI think every pound of extra thrust is at least another pound of fuel the F35B can get into the air with off a ship and another pound of weight that F35B can land with.
So more thrust is important for F35 program even if F35A and F35C may not gain as much benefit as F35B from more thrust,
Siddar– a mediocre, overweight, untested P.O.S. with unit price tag exceeding $180mil and rather obscene operating cost, a worse half of a fighter once promised to be delivered.
If this very accurate prediction makes him a clown, then count me in for the circus.
I see nothing accurate about the above.
F35 is by no mean mediocre when total program is considered. Its actually a quite spectacular all things considered. Most people doubt there will ever be a program like F35 ever again.
F35 is currently underweight from what I’ve heard.
F35 is untested, this is just laughable there is a massive F35 testing program underway.
F35 is a PoS again nothing to support this not a single country has left F35 program and all information suggests the F35 is the plane that turns almost all non 5th generation aircraft into PoS.
F35 costs 180 million again is completely inaccurate cost most likely using selective intial production costs and willfully ignoring the decline in production costs on later built F35.
F35 current operating costs are stated as 20% higher then F16 that number is likely lower then Typhoon, Rafale, F15, and also any Russian 4th generation fighter.
The above errors are not just a few minor issues. its the ranting of a lunatic completely divorced from reality in regards to the F35.
SiddarCurious statement, I think China had a larger military at the time and I would argue the USA was superior when it came to its ability to globally project power. Then again WARPAC forces were rightfully feared at the time. BOAR survivability was seen as a matter of hours if WW3 kicked off, I have a colleague at work who in the 80’s was a commander of a Swingfire launcher. He only had the details of his first reload, after that he fully expected his tracked launcher would be destroyed and NATO forces having to make use of tactical nuclear weapons to stop the thrust into Germany.
US had a better navy, China may have had more numbers (not sure about that though) in 1982 but as you say it was clear Soviets had the most capable ground army and reliance on nuclear weapons as a counter to that was central to western defense.
1982 was early in US Reagan era defense build up and the large shift from older equipment to the 80s era weapons that tilted military balance back from being completely hopeless for the west hadn’t occurred in mass yet. Carter era was the peak of Soviet power it was a fairly bleak time for the west. 1982 was just the start of western push back against that but it was still at a very early stage in 1982.
SiddarHere is what west thought Soviet forces looked like in 1982.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46474734/Soviet-Military-Power-1982
Ill just add that in 1982 the USSR clearly had the largest and most capable military force on the planet. Nuclear weapons are what prevented Soviets from using that power against the rest of the world. Argentina was a flea to a Soviet elephant.
Also if you believe US would have helped Argentina against Soviets then you also have to accept that US would have prevented Argentina from starting the conflict to begin with for the reasons I just stated above.
SiddarEdit Sidar rather than a Sov Pwn Argie post could you suggest how they would operate effectively at those ranges.
Faster probably isn’t possible either if only because of fleet transit time, would be no better and possibly worse for the SU as their bases are arguably further away
I don’t think your going to find very many in depth answers.
To give a more complete answers requires allot of historic data on what exact equipment the Soviets had at the specific time of Falklands war. I don’t have that info and nether do vast majority of posters in this thread, I can tell you that Soviets has more Subs, Ship, transport aircraft, helicopter, marine units, airborne units, special forces units, and lite armored vehicles better suited to transport by air then the UK did. The only place where UK held a advantage over Soviets was carriers. Soviets had access to bases in Cuba and Angola shortening there supply chain to roughly the same as UK operating out of ascension. Weather in Northern Atlantic and Southern Atlantic will be close enough to each other to not be a major issue for Soviets. Soviet nuke subs will have no issues with endurance and could base out of Cuba and Angola between months long deployments.
Soviets pwning Argentina in Falklands war is simply what would happen.
SiddarThe statement that Quantity has a Quality of its own comes to mind.
The Soviets would have simply flooded area with ships and had a enough long range transport aircraft to send tens of thousands of airborne troops.
Really Soviets would have retaken Falklands faster then brits but would have taken higher casualties in doing so.
SiddarIn indian MMRCA Typhoon scored overall better notes than MiG-35, F-16E/F and F/A-18E/F with AESA radar. Technical evaluation in Leh was a true challenge for competitors, not a paper BS. Same was true for Rafale at that time. AESA gives some advantage, but is not a magic toys.
You can believe what you want but India wont purchase ether Rafale are Typhoon without a AESA.
SiddarTyphoon with AESA will cost more then a F35. That’s why the Canadian government is willing to take price bids for other planes because it knows those planes will cost more then F35. By the way once you factor in recent US projected cost reduction on F35 it will turn the increased cost estimates on F35 made in past year by Canada into a laughable joke.
SiddarTyphoon needs a in service AESA and also in service Meteor missile to be competitive in current market.
AESA is now a basic requirement for any likely purchase. Meteor missile likely wont be purchased in initial purchase but the capability would be factored into consideration for the future. Typhoon with ASEA and Meteor is what puts Typhoon on a equal footing versus US teen planes with AESA and gives it a advantage over them when Meteor is added. Europe’s failure to get AESA into service is crippling Airbus in fighter compititions around the world.
SiddarDoes Typhoon have any real chance of being ordered?
When European countries bring a aesa into service on Typhoon it will have a chance against US teen series fighters.
Sign In
