That is why high performance fighters are used with the ability to carry the loads and the ability to operate hot and high.

Wrong. High performance fighters are used for their speed. Frankly their hot and high performance is terrible in most cases, you would be suprised on the load limits, and even time limits, which some of your favourite aircraft operate under.

As for tactical climbouts, when was the last time we lost an aircraft on takeoff?

Particularly in mountanous areas fast jets are going to have problems keeping eyes on to the target, unless they are exceptionally manouvreably.

If your comments had an relevance then AC gunships wouldn’t be used at all.

In many situations speed saves lives in CAS and it is a capability we need. Saying that there are many limits (such as ramp space at Kandahar not to mention political meddling) placed upon our ability to deliver CAS.

At present it is either fast jets which operate under reduced payloads due to the hot and high conditions found, or Apaches operating from Bastion.

I very much agree with Sens in that many CAS taskings could be undertaken by airframes which are more cost effective. Not sure I’d go for the Hawk though, turboprop powered (something along the lines of the Super Tucano) aircraft would be sufficient. To be clear on this not to replace the fast jets entirely, merely to add another layer of capability between rotary and fast jet.

For instance patrolling likely IED sites is something which fast jets are not ideal for, not to mention escorting supply helicopters, recon and comms rebro.

I think its worthy of it’s own thread.

I only used dollars so that it was directly comparable to the other values quoted in this and other threads.

We agree that Tranche 2 fighters rolled off the production lines at just less than £40 million each so I don’t think we’re disagreeing.

Any current prices would depend upon the Tranche 3 costs which, TTBOMK, have not been released.

I think you’ve missed the point. Costs for each tranche are set at the time of the contract signing, hence using the then current exchange rate is correct.

If the international exchange rates fluctuate then there are various financial ways of mitigating the possible increase in costs or using foreign exchange reserves. In an international programme such as the Eurofighter, where work is carried out in several different countries, exchange rate fluctuations arn’t such an issue.

The F 16 blk. 60 is ~ 80 mil $. While it has AESA, it doesn’t supercruise.

Thats the programme cost, which includes the $3 billion that the UAE paid LM to develop the aircraft in the first place (total programme deal was $6.8 billion for 80 aircraft). The UAE’s aircraft can’t supercruise due to the CFTs installed however the airframe is capable of supercruise with the same engine installed and CFTs deleted.

You need to differentiate between programme costs and unit flyaway costs. The F35 figures quoted are flyaway costs.

UK production costs are restricted information, the costs I quoted above were based upon the German’s tranche 2 costs, as quoted in their parliament.

The price of the tranche is paid up front, when the contract is signed, so using the then current exchange rate is correct. At the time it equated to just less than £40 million per jet.

What did a Typhoon cost in the first couple of years of production in current dollars???

Do you expect me to google it for you?

Don’t get me wrong, in no way am I arguing that the Eurofighter is a cheap aircraft, indeed I personally think its price is on the verge of precluding buying such a system in the requisite numbers.

A Tornado with two JP 233 and ETs is unable to reach 600 kt even in max burner, when every kt above 500 is welcome.

You make 600 kt sound slow! Saying that I’m not sure you’re correct.