I know that this may be hard for some to understand, especially where ESL is concerned, but there is a distinct difference between “most expensive plane” and “most expensive program”.

The Dutch eval put the F-35 as cheaper to buy and operate than the EF.

Economic aspects
The economic evaluation compares the candidates’ estimated life cycle costs on the basis of calculations in the quantitative economic model. The life cycle costs cover costs linked to procurement, ongoing operations and sustainment as well as quantifiable risks over a period of 30 years.

The estimated life cycle costs are lowest for the Joint Strike Fighter, second-lowest for the Super Hornet and the highest for the Eurofighter. The reason is primarily that the airframe of the Joint Strike Fighter is designed to be capable of flying 8,000 hours, whereas the Eurofighter and the Super Hornet are both designed to fly 6,000 hours. In order to perform the required portfolio of tasks over a period of 30 years, fewer Joint Strike Fighter airframes are therefore required compared to the Eurofighter or the Super Hornet. The calculations in the economic model have identified a need for 28 Joint Strike Fighter airframes, 34 Eurofighter airframes and 38 Super Hornet airframes, respectively, in order to perform the same portfolio of tasks. Another reason is that the Super Hornet is a two-seat aircraft, which implies a greater need for flight instruction hours and training of crews than the Eurofighter and the Joint Strike Fighter. Furthermore, the Eurofighter has higher maintenance costs per flight hour than the Joint Strike Fighter and the Super Hornet. The procurement price per aircraft is the highest for the Eurofighter.

Figure 0.2 shows the estimated life cycle costs broken down by procurement, sustainment as well as risks. The vertical line shows the degree of uncertainty of the estimate. Sensitivity analyses show that the result of the economic evaluation is in general robust with regards to changes to key preconditions such as airframe lifespan.1

http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf

Not sure which part you object to, but considering that the F-35 (per the latest SAR) has a CPFH only 14% higher than an F-16, I doubt that an EF, even in Germany, can do CPFH cheaper.

Creating an API & securely deploying it is relatively easy. Remember that per the JPO, every F-35 (at each block) is flying with exactly the same software. When it boots, it queries the hardware, determines what model it is (A/B/C), and then determines functionality based on what country it is (ie what IFF codes to use, etc). Nuke capability would certainly fall into this later category.

To use it you have to know “how” to enable the nuke functions and they can be secured by actual unique hardware in a dedicated ICP card. Think “dongle” in early PC parlance.

It would require the release to the US of the entire source code of the aircraft to integrate the specific command systems required for nuclear delivery.

I don’t see that happening.

The F-35 is built around a series of APIs, the most known of which is UAI which specifically addresses weapons. While I don’t know if it includes a nuke interface, it would make sense.

One of my favorite lines about the prior DOT&E:

Winters said his conversations with the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, David H. Duma, tell him that the organization “has taken a more reasonable approach” to clearing the 3F than that of predecessors. Although “they’re … sticklers and they’re pushing,” the DOT&E looks “at the value of where we are, and the maturity of where we are, and so we have a very good working relationship with IOT&E now.”

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2018/January%202018/F-35-Exiting-the-Pattern.aspx

No they did not. They chose to give a “side offer” that was secret.

Color me shocked that Rafale did not want to be part of an open competition. :stupid: