Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: JSF program report to Dutch Parliament : F-35 is a disaster, the total sales could be as low as 1875
SlowMan    10/6/2009 9:43:54 AM
A 136 page report to Dutch Parliament on the latest estimate of total F-35 sales as of September 2009. < link > In other word, it is time to bail out on F-35 since now the expected average unit cost of F-35 is $99 million.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
SlowMan       10/21/2009 4:22:37 PM
@ Architect

> look Ecuador, it's a banana republic interested in gripen NG

And how many Gripen NGs could Ecuador afford???

The reality is, Gripen NG offers less value for money than F-16 Block60 or 70, and the countries that could afford a hundred Gripen NGs also stock weapons that are just too heavy to be carried by Gripen NG or even F-16.

The market for small efficient fighter is dying, and the market itself become polarizing. Either you go for big twin engine jets, or shop Russian/Chinese if you don't have the money.
 
Quote    Reply

Architect       10/21/2009 4:34:16 PM
India have already Su-27 and Gripen NG looks exactly as what they need to replace their old Migs, and 120 airplanes it's not an small number. I don't think that market it's died at all. Jus't americans are boicoting them.
 
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/21/2009 5:18:32 PM
Only 25% of the F-22 raptor original procurement have been built due to cost and political reason. I hope the math don't apply to the F-35. cause that would mean only 625 F-35s. I cant imagine United States with less then 1500 fighter. It would be suicidal.
 
Even more for my country, Canada only have buy 139 F-18 in 1980. if procurement budget is similar it would mean what? +-25 F35? Thats was already stupid to think you could defend Canadian airspace with 139 fighter. With only 20 fighter its just like if we were inviting everyone to invade us!
 
If F-35 prise go sky high, the Super hornet would be good and safe alternative for Canada. On the other side, there is alternative that could be cheaper.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       10/21/2009 6:42:58 PM

Only 25% of the F-22 raptor original procurement have been built due to cost and political reason. I hope the math don't apply to the F-35. cause that would mean only 625 F-35s. I cant imagine United States with less then 1500 fighter. It would be suicidal.

 

Even more for my country, Canada only have buy 139 F-18 in 1980. if procurement budget is similar it would mean what? +-25 F35? Thats was already stupid to think you could defend Canadian airspace with 139 fighter. With only 20 fighter its just like if we were inviting everyone to invade us!


 

If F-35 prise go sky high, the Super hornet would be good and safe alternative for Canada. On the other side, there is alternative that could be cheaper.


Currently the request is for 65 aircraft. Originally it was higher but the order has dropped quite a bit. I think we need as many as possible, hopefully they don't cut it again.
 
  link
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/21/2009 7:08:49 PM
I am really surprised not to see Canada buying Super Hornets, or a mix of Super Hornets and F-35s.  Those poor CF-18s are not getting any younger.  Canada always seems to leave fighters on the line long after they've reached obsolescence, such as with the CF-101.
 
I disagree (as usual) with SlowMan.  There is indeed a place for smaller fighters.  Not every country needs to carry gigantic missiles; the Gripen can still carry a very respectable load, and I'd hate to face it in a dogfight.  A Su-27 is gigantic and carries with it a gigantic RCS; the Gripen, less so.  Since a country like, say, Ecuador isn't likely to have to sink carriers or anything bigger than a destroyer, the Gripen would be an excellent choice if they can afford to do so.  There are other options besides "go big or go home."  Its comparatively short legs wouldn't make it a good choice for Japan or South Korea, for instance, but for smaller countries without a lot of land to cover, it's a good choice.  (With that in mind, I'm surprised South Africa bought it instead of the Typhoon, but cost probably had a lot to do with it.)
 
I can't see using the Gripen to replace or supplement the F-16, however.  There's nothing the Gripen can do that the F-16 can't, so it would just be a step sideways.  As much as I would like to see it happen, because I like the Gripen quite a bit and would love seeing it fly around.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Architect       10/21/2009 8:47:12 PM
The reason why Canada don't need new airplanes yet it's becouse it's old FC-18 are in very goog shape. For those who speak french here is a very nice reportage
link
What it says it's that they look for micro fisures and they replace the components long time before the real problems appears.
Even so, they update the electronics and can match any SU-what ever.
The natural step should be the Superbugs for Canada and Rafales for Quebec.... vive le Quebec libre.....
 
Quote    Reply

Architect       10/21/2009 8:48:10 PM
Here the link again
 
www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/decouverte/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=66328
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       10/21/2009 10:04:21 PM
I think Canada should wait for the F-35 and not make a stupid money wasting decesion like Australia with the SH's. The Hornets should soldier on for another decade until the F-35 replaces them.
 
PS: Who is going to invade Canada anyway? They have to go threw the US first. We are not going to stand by and let our little brothers up north get invaded by a foreign power.
 
Well on second thought, Obama might sell out Canada to Russia for nuclear reductions and sanctions on Iran.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       10/21/2009 10:23:06 PM

I think Canada should wait for the F-35 and not make a stupid money wasting decesion like Australia with the SH's. The Hornets should soldier on for another decade until the F-35 replaces them.

Our F-111's were costing an insane amount to keep in the air, something like $150 Million/year for ~20 aircraft. The F-18F's are going to cost $6 billion over 13 years including parts, fuel, ordinance, etc. While that is 460 Million per year, it includes the purchase costs of the fighters, and upgrades to the infrastructure in place to support F-111 so that it can support F-18F (so much of it is a single upfront cost, actual operational costs will be much lower).
 
Plus the F-18F is a much more viable strike platform then the 35-40 year old F-111's. On top of that, the cost of keeping the F-111's in service was only going to increase. As the F-111's would have to be replaced first, more CBR's would have to be carried out on Hornets. Now however, The Hornets can be replaced first and Super Hornest last, meaning that less CBR's need to be carried out on the Hornet fleet.
 
Quote    Reply

Architect       10/22/2009 1:21:45 PM
What Canada needs are Nukes.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy