Executive summary: http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf
>>29921237
entertaining to see all the grumpy brolore posted in danish newsmedia over this
"muh IC4"
>>29921237
>f35 is better than inferior previous gen planes
wew lad
Full version: http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/typevalg-af-danmarks-kommende-kampfly-reduceret-vers-20160509.pdf
>>29921237
>surely F35 will turn out economically better than already existing airframes
we should have bought viggen, just for style points
>>29921237
Just get the Hornet and be done with it. No one, not even poor Russia wants Norway. Hitler only invaded because he literally wanted Aryan pussy to cleanse Germanic blood.
Vatniks and Pierre Sprey on suicide watch
>>29921471
Denmark, not Norway
There's leaked info on the missions that the jets were evaluated against here as well: https://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnytkampfly.dk%2Farchives%2F8356
>>29921408
these look cool but why aren't they clean?
>>29921471
this has to be bait
>>29921543
Billion years old
>>29921312
>>29921312
can we stop calling the F-35 and use it's proper name joint strike fighter?
Because they haven't lived in cushy environmentally controlled hangars.
These badboys lived the hard life on the STREET.
>>29921597
Only if we stop calling it the F/A-18 and use its proper name the Naval Strike Fighter
>>29921611
deal
>>29921471
good post, Ivan
>>29921471
Those fjords that hide battleships and subs alike is just a bonus
ANTI-F-35 SHILLS ON SUICIDE WATCH
I'm sure the test were fair and balanced. Parameters set out and voting done by air force brass and "experts".
Or as I like to call them; consultants to-be.
:^)
There hasn't been a fighter jet acquisition in history that hasn't revolved around tertiary concessions between countries and corporate backdoor shady dealings.
>>29921857
Fuck off Sprey
>>29921237
Eurofighter stronk.
Trillion dollar meme should die out now.
>>29921857
>BAWWWW I CANT GET OVER MY YEARS OF BIAS! CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY! I LITTERALLY CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!
God this shit gets me rock hard.
>>29921301
>>29921304
>>29921306
>>29921309
>>29921312
This is going to cause immense asspain.
It's weird that antis aren't posting in the thread. Kek
>>29921312
How do the numbers on that even work? Procurement of 15.5B DKK/28 planes = $84m per F-35, that sound fine as that obviously is just the future predicted cost of just the F-35 without anything else.
But SH with 30.9B DKK/38 = $125m per SH makes it more than double of the well established just the plane cost of $61m. What else did the Danes include in that number to fudge it up so much?
>>29922004
Beats me, but it also depends on when they plan on acquiring the jets; the Super Hornet went from around $65 million to $75 million between (IIRC) FY14 and FY15 (or maybe FY15 to FY16) due to the decrease in production rate. If Denmark plans on ordering in a couple of years, production will be that slow that there'll probably be additional costs involved. On top of that, Boeing might possibly have had something else (perhaps some partial Advanced Super Hornet tech) included in their offer.
Also, some more tables / charts from the full version of the report:
Aircraft survivability
Effectiveness at completing a mission
>>29922004
calculator sponsored by lockheeb martin.
>>29921301
>euro"""""fighter"""""
>>29921896
Facts and numbers usually do that
>>29922435
>being this butthurt
I just don't understand why people hate this plane.
Reminder that Super hornet was desperate enough to do bus stop ads
>>29922861
Lel, literally an old whore
>>29922065
>>29922071
That's pretty cool to see, no real surprises there. The "duelling" between Typhoon and Super Hornet makes perfect sense in terms of that outcome. Super Hornet does have more mature systems for the areas that it's high on involving ground attack (which is still growing on the Typhoon), while the Typhoon is, of course, pulling ahead on air-to-air. For Denmark's requirements (primarily air to ground) it makes sense they'd rate the one with more A2G integration higher.
I would be interested to know why the Super Hornet pulled ahead on survivability for S/DEAD though. Perhaps they're treating "Has an anti-radiation missile" as increasing survivability due to increased lethality? Given both Typhoon and Super Hornet have excellent countermeasures.
Either way, a smart choice from Denmark. I wouldn't have begrudged any of the choices, but more F-35 only makes it cheaper for the rest of us too!
>>29921543
Sweden hides their aircraft innawoods.
>>29922843
Because the Fighter Mafia poisoned the well on public discourse about appropriations, and a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has its boots on. Especially if it relies on exploiting layman ignorance.
>>29921892
Not that anon, but you would have to be willfully ignorant to think it doesn't factor in heavily.
>>29922843
because it's a dank meme to hate the f-35 bruh
>>29923295
>New plane found to be better than old plane
Wow, definitely a lot of bribing going on.
>>29923348
>woosh
>>29921523
>the tests were bias in favor of the F-35 because they simulated high threat environments
>the tests were bias because the SH and Typhoon couldn't perform as well
>preparing for high threat environments is considered bias
What an absolute load of horse shit.
>>29922435
kek
I can understand Boeing, them not getting this one means the line in St. Louis is kill, but why did EF even bother? Denmark is a JSF-partner nation and this was more than a done deal, best they could have hoped for is that the Danes wouldn't have gone full Norway with fudging the numbers to get the "correct" answer from the evaluation
>>29923710
Typhoon has been marketing in Denmark since long before the JSF even entered the competition, and Denmark has tons of cross industry potential with Germany.
Just Germany are fucking SHIT at promoting the Typhoon. Both BAE and Leonardo from UK and Italy have scored exports with the plane, but every time the Germans tried they just fucked it up. India, Switzerland now Denmark.
Key point here - Don't let the Germans market the damn thing. They'll just take along their downgraded Typhoons and completely miss the point because they have fuck all experience in selling planes like this.
So basically, to go back to the original point, it was a play for getting in early and for using the "German weigh in" factor. In the end, however, F-35 is just a good fucking plane and they ended up becoming a partner for it.
Combination of Germany being idiots and Denmark being a partner removed aforementioned benefits for the Typhoon. It's no great loss, Typhoons already done plenty well in exports.
>>29921301
>>29921304
>>29921306
>>29921309
>>29921312
Oh my god.
>>29921237
Saw this news and read the report. Then did what any self respecting analyst would do. I did my own research into the very numbers that aren't subjective. Namely the cost.
Well the Netherlands was so kind as to actually give us the actual cost of purchase of their F-35 fleet and the expected running costs. For those that do not remember, it's 4.5 billion Euros for 37 aircraft and 270 million Euros per year for the fleet in maintenance.
Now if we use those numbers for the purchase of 28 aircraft and convert it to Danish Krone, the contract would actually be 25,334,522,078.442. So lets say about 25.3 billion Krone. Or almost 10 billion Krone more than predicted.
And if we take the 270 million per year and multiply it times 30, the expected lifespan of the aircraft, and convert to Danish Krone, we get 45,605,639,616.748. Or about 45.6 billion Krone. That is over 20 billion Krone extra.
This changes the cost from 42.2 billion Krone, to 72.7 billion Krone (while keeping risk the same). That is nearly a doubling of the cost of a potential purchase and use. And takes the cheapest, to most expensive spot. And that is even with a smaller fleet. than either the F-18 or Eurofighter.
So I am calling bullshit on their cost assessment. I would be fine with them claiming they could get a slight reduction in cost compared to the Netherlands because they may be purchasing their aircraft later and economy of scale will have lowered costs. But a 50% reduction in costs is just wishful thinking.
>>29924457
We all know that the only reason Demark is looking at it is because some person from Lockheed went and had a lovely evening with some people from the Danish government, a nice bit of dining, and maybe an escort or two for a quiet few hours afterwards.
I would rather the F-35 Drakken be used, it will more than likely win in "WVR" fighting, as the F-35 is expected to be a missile only plane ...
>>29924457
As for the subjective features of the report. It seems a lot of them come down to "Use what allies have." and "Keep America happy".
As an F-16 user I am not surprised to see Denmark following behind every other nation that is replacing their F-16s so far. It is also likely why they rate the F-35 as having the least risk for purchase, because they are already familiar with the company and nations involved. Meanwhile, Denmark doesn't use any German aircraft, which is why they likely consider that a greater risk, because it is a greater unknown quantity.
You saw the same results in the Indian MRCA competition. Where India's already existent purchase and use of Dassault aircraft proved to be the deciding factor for the Rafale winning the contract.
Of course a large amount of you guys here are idiots and still believe that these contracts are awarded based on the merits and capability of the system. Rather then a heavily politically and economically influenced competition with just a tiny bit of merit influencing things.
Heck with my fucking day job I sometimes give contracts to a company that while more expensive, I am at least familiar with and happy with the service they provide. You would be dumb not to have that weigh in on these multi-billion dollar contracts.
>>29924662
>Most advanced, capable platform wins
>waahhh, contract corruption, muhwaaaaahhhhh!
>>29924592
>I would rather the F-35 Drakken be used, it will more than likely win in "WVR" fighting, as the F-35 is expected to be a missile only plane ...
U wot m8?
The F-35A is roughly an even contender with F-16 and F/A-18, the most common version has a gun for how little import that has these days, and just like the F-22, combat between it and 4/4.5 Gen fighters will almost entirely be on the 5th Gen's terms.
>>29923019
>I would be interested to know why the Super Hornet pulled ahead on survivability for S/DEAD though. Perhaps they're treating "Has an anti-radiation missile" as increasing survivability due to increased lethality? Given both Typhoon and Super Hornet have excellent countermeasures.
That would be my conclusion too. Except the F-16 can also carry the HARM. The fact of the matter is though, Dernmark does not have any anti-radiation missiles in inventory and is not going to purchase them. S/DEAD is not a task Denmark performs in the wider NATO framework. So I wonder just how much it influenced the final numbers. Since by their own mission tasking, it should weigh in very little.
Personally I think the UK made an extremely dumb decision when they retired ALARM and didn't push for integration on the Typhoon for it. There is talk of reviving the old plane to make a Meteor missile based ARM, but I doubt they would get the funding for it. Instead they are shilling their SPEAR3 as some kind of S/DEAD capability.
>>29924592
Possible, but not entirely needed. As I stated. It's likely that the biggest factor for LockMart winning has more to do with them applying some creative accounting to the cost of the aircraft and their maintenance. Then add in the familiarity factor the Danish air force already has with LockMart for supplying F-16 parts, and very little wining and dining is needed to convince them to say you are the best.
>>29921237
>>29924457
Well, the economics chart caught my eye. Did I read that right that they consider the plane that doesn't have a working software yet as the one with the least economic risk?
>>29924592
>it will more than likely win in "WVR" fighting, as the F-35 is expected to be a missile only plane ...
You know modern WVR fighting is done with missiles right?
>>29924774
>Personally I think the UK made an extremely dumb decision when they retired ALARM and didn't push for integration on the Typhoon for it. There is talk of reviving the old plane to make a Meteor missile based ARM, but I doubt they would get the funding for it. Instead they are shilling their SPEAR3 as some kind of S/DEAD capability.
You and me both, pal. ALARM was a fucking great missile too. Had a long time left as being on top.
I've heard of the Meteor ARM and it makes my pants happy, but it's so unlikely. The time to develop it you'd be looking at 2030 by which time they'll probably be like "fuck it, why bother integrating now?"
But as ever, the "UK" didn't make the decision out of smartness or forgetting their use.
The Treasury surrounding the 2010 SDSR did out of cheapness because while it was awesome, the other munitions were far more valuable to hold on to when the Treasury told them to cut munition numbers.
And I still hate them to this fucking day. Typhoon with ALARM woulda been brilliant. The thought of F-35 with it...oh baby.
>>29921655
>secret Nordic mega-empire of billions of demigod engineered Aryan-Angelic Titan loyalists with thousands of crazy nazi superscience battleships fleets and flying engine leviathan armadashiding in secret bases Norway's Fjords confirmed.
>>29925358
Except the plane has working software.
>>29924457
>>29924662
>>29924774
>no actual refutations, instead relying on vagueness and implying implications
>>29925358
They consider it to have less risk based off of future users and experience dealing with LockMart I suspect.
But it's funny that they consider the F-18 which has a lot of users and support and is already in production without issue, to have higher risk.
There has to be some shilling involved.
>>29925686
>implying
Ah the dumb meme of /k/ and the reason this board is going to shit.
Read what I wrote faggot. I point out that their estimated numbers for F-35 costs are 50% lower than the Dutch order. I make no speculation as to why.
As to the subjective qualities, I merely point that a large part that influenced their decision, by their own admission mind you, was integration with neighbours, allies and the US. And those very same figures are again revealed in the results.
You are the faggot who doesn't contribute shit to this thread or board.
>>29925666
The "Full warfighing capability" software isn't done yet, at all.
I like the F-35, but to say its working is a stretch.
Not a massive issue, its how software development goes, but don't need to get defensive about it.
>>29925754
>'implying' is a /k/ meme
Hello newfriend.
>>29925843
>not working
>not done
Two totally different things friend
>>29925843
>software being used right now doesn't count because it's not in its final form
Hello goalposts.
>>29926160
If it malfunctions so often its difficult to maintain a single flight, I wouldn't call that "working".
>>29926170
If my internet banking system allowed me to transfer money but not look up my statements because its in version v0.8 and not the full thing, would you describe that as a "working" internet banking system?
No.
Again, they don't really give a shit about IOC software; the risk is in the development of what they actually want - full operational capability. Which isn't properly working yet.
>>29926160
>>29926170
which is relevant to the economic risk argument how exactly?
>>29926249
>>29926258
Jesus Christ. It's in development and there's literally no reason to think the bugs won't be working out like they were with the previous block software.
>get software
>time between failure is high
>work on it
>mean time between failures drops to acceptable level
>use this software while the next block is being developed
>upgrade
>get new software
>time between failures is high
>work on it
>mean time between failures drops to acceptable level
>use this software while the next block is being developed
>repeat
Moderate risk because there's so much support and it's a program that is too big to fail at this point. Notice that the risk assessment is where its weakest.
>>29926350
>time between failures is high
I meant low
>>29926350
>Moderate risk because there's so much support and it's a program that is too big to fail at this point. Notice that the risk assessment is where its weakest.
I find the risk assessment to cost being the lowest suspect. Not because they are going to make so many F-35s it will drive the cost down. But rather because the F-35 is still in development. Delays and cost overruns are still a very real possibility. Meanwhile the Eurofighter and Super Hornet are in production. There is no risk of delays or cost overruns.
Also see. >>29924457
>>29926249
>If it malfunctions so often its difficult to maintain a single flight, I wouldn't call that "working"
This is why discussing the F-35 devolves into a shitfest so often, the 'anti' will blatantly lie.
>>29926414
>Delays and cost overruns are still a very real possibility
The F-35's maturity level and development trends make that dubious.
>>29926350
I haven't said anything that disagrees with what you just said, so I have no idea why you're talking like you're informing me of something.
>>29926438
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/10/f-35-test-pilot-edwards-air-force-development/84042220/?utm_content=[%27link%27]&utm_source=[%27fark%27]&utm_medium=[%27website%27]
>I-its all lies
>>29926518
Did you notice the aircraft in question has an early version of the 3F software, at a time when 3i wasn't even done?
>>29926472
>The F-35's maturity level and development trends make that dubious.
The vast majority of testing still isn't done. Some pierces of equipment integration still need to occur. Each is a potential failure and a potential delay.
Are you even aware of how you perform a risk assessment?
Could someone explain what S/DEAD is?
>>29926589
In other words, its not fucking finished or working properly, yes.
Like I said at the beginning, but you knee-jerked into defense mode like a retard at the mere mention that maybe not everything is 100% functional on the F-35.
>>29926134
Nice argument cunt
>>29926624
anti-AA missions
fly in, blow up the AA emplacements, radar, missiles, etc so that other planes can move in more or less unopposed and drop their loads
>>29926624
Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses.
>>29921608
Moose strike<bird strike
>>29921608
Have Gripens actually ever been used in anger?
Ever?
>>29926667
>>29926706
cheers. have some GWG
>>29926654
Except that's not what he said at all.
He's saying you're a fucking moron because you're referring to an older model that doesn't have the latest changes that fix them.
>>29926982
>you're referring to an older model that doesn't have the latest changes that fix them.
It has the Blk3F, and it was just over a week ago.
I'm not sure I can accept you being that much of a shill if you're saying the software has been "fixed" in a week.
>>29926249
>If it malfunctions so often its difficult to maintain a single flight, I wouldn't call that "working".
On the ground during start-up; they got the in-flight glitches to practically stop.
>>29926666
>stop pointing out that I am a retard
No, I enjoy seeing you flop around.
>>29927049
>they got the in-flight glitches to practically stop.
>>29926518
If you say so
>>29926667
>>29926859
Also (according to the Danish mission sets) do so while avoiding or simultaneously defeating a few enemy fighters.
>>29927086
>But the new, improved version of 3i is a significant improvement, according to the JPO. The new version showed approximately twice the level of stability as the previous load, Block 2B, and three times better stability than the original 3i software, JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova wrote in a Monday email.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/09/f-35-program-office-signs-off-air-force-3i-software/84138390/
The final version of 2B was already almost on the same level as other fighters (eg F-15Es with AESAs)
>>29927160
Which is for 3i.
Becoming a kind of autistic argument now. 3F isn't ready, which was the entire point.
>>29927207
3i = base of 3F; what gets fixed in 3i gets rolled into 3F
>>29921309
Candidate risk?
>>29927929
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23011
See page 70-73
>>29928078
They assess their mission requirements as impacting risk. Their mission requirement is heavily favoured towards stealth. This explains why the F-35 scores so low on risk despite not even being in production yet. And from that they correlate a low risk of cost increases.
kek
Also another thing I noticed. Only one picture of the Eurofighter aircraft. The only other pictures of it are 2 cockpit pictures. That is less images of the plane in general, but also the visual aspect of the plane than all the others. Even the F-16 has more pictures in this evaluation paper.
Germany really dropped the ball on this sale attempt if there is so much contempt for showing images of the aircraft. Yet again highlighting you should NEVER go into business with the German government.
>>29928801
>Their mission requirement is heavily favoured towards stealth.
How so?
>Germany really dropped the ball on this sale attempt if there is so much contempt for showing images of the aircraft
I think you're reading WAY too much into this
>>29928801
or maybe the eurofighter is a pile of shit huh?
>>29929152
Anon is just trying to rationalize why the results do not fit his worldview, so there is a bit of this going on.
>>29921312
>Comparing the lifetime costs of 34 Eurofighters against 28 F-35s against 38 Super Hornets
So whoever did this was on crack right? Why would you compare unequal numbers for cost?
>>29929800
Because 28 F-35's has more 'worth' than 38 Eurofighters or Super Hornets.
>>29925711
True but super hornet manufacturing is kinda nearing the end of its rope.
F35 production will continue for a LONG time.
Pretty soon asking for a new SH will be like asking for a new F4 or even an old F-86. Sure you have the cash, but good luck convincing the contractors.
>>29929800
Because the requirements they set mandate that they need to be able to fly 7466.667 hours per year with their fleet for 30 years. With F-35A's promised frame lifetime of 8000h they only need 28 to meet it. Super Hornet on the other hand has been rated to 6000h in carrier environment and thus they would need to get 37.333 Super Hornets, which obviously gets rounded up to 38 since they can't get 1/3 of a fighters
>>29929800
It's because Eurofighters only have a 6000 flight hour lifespan, while F-35s have an 8000 flight hour lifespan. The end result is that you have to have more jets to replace ones that die from old age. Also, Typhoons and Super Hornets are designed to use two-seaters for training, while the F-35 simulators are that realistic that they replace those early phases of training, reducing the operating cost.
>>29929152
If you read the full report they basically assign mission survival as one of the highest criteria. And then (rightfully) say stealth increases this.
Though I personally don't see the rather compromised stealth shaping of the F-35 having a long future with the continued development in not only passive sensors, but also radar technology. Stealth is going to be an all or nothing thing in the near future. Where designs that look more akin to the B-2 bomber will still see a big enough reduction in radar cross section for it to be of tactical use.
>>29929275
Hardly a fanboy of any jet. More interested in geopolitics and the art of the deal. Personally if I were the Danes I would have bought the Gripen and used the money saved from the low running costs of the aircraft to set up a fund that can be used by the Ministry of Defence to pay for sudden costs.
Something the British MoD has finally managed to have. It's about the best thing to come out of the abysmal SDSR2015.
>>29929192
>>29929192
Hardly. All the jets are very capable. The Super Hornet would have been the least risky purchase as it is an in production and feature complete aircraft.
The Typhoon would be a little more risky. It's an aircraft that is in production, but is not fully feature complete yet. It does however have a lot more growth potential than the Hornet.
The F-35 is the most risky purchase, as the aircraft is not in production and will be some time still before it is feature complete. In fact Denmark is likely to purchase aircraft that will need to be sent back to the factory to be brought up to a more complete state, well before they need a mid-life refit, if they are to purchase them in 2020.
The Danish assessement does not take any of this into consideration. Instead risk is simply assessed based off of mission performance according to their parameters.The assumption that the aircraft will be delivered on time and on budget without any need for future upgrades. And finally whether or not the US uses it and other NATO allies.
>>29930179
Training aircraft has nothing to do with it. Denmark is too small to have it's own frontline jet training program. They instead have pilots do that final training in the US currently. So no trainers need to be bought.
>>29926741
They did some recon stuff in Lybia but didn't drop any bombs I think. Don't think Swedes brought any to Afghanistan. Does intercepting random russian aircraft count as in anger?
>>29931085
>as the aircraft is not in production
It's been in production since 2006
>will be some time still before it is feature complete
About 18 months, which is before any Danish F-35s would be built or delivered.
>The Danish assessement does not take any of this into consideration.
Page 70-73 shows aircraft risk sorted into acquisition, operation, future proofing, survivability and mission effectiveness, each being weighted evenly.
>Training aircraft has nothing to do with it. Denmark is too small to have it's own frontline jet training program. They instead have pilots do that final training in the US currently. So no trainers need to be bought.
90% of what fighter pilots do is train; I have no doubt that they do a portion of their training in the US, but looking at page 75, it states that on average, each year, per jet, they're going to be flying 198.97 hours in the F-35, 204.2 hours for the Typhoon and 230.1 hours for the Super Hornet.
It also just outright explains the reasons why the aircraft quantities are different:
>Two factors are dimensioned for the number of airframes:
>1. Airframes candidates are designed to be fly a certain number of hours during service life. This number of hours compared with the overall demand for flying hours determines the number of airframes.
>2. Logistics structure for all candidates are sized to produce 250 hours per aircraft in the domestic structure [standard peacetime], 260 hours per aircraft in a deployed defense readiness and 290 hours per aircraft during international operations. The annual need of flight hours is therefore also determine the number of airframes.
>>29931210
>It's been in production since 2006
Developmental prototypes don't count. They Considering that there is quite a big difference between each airframe. And upgrading those earlier airframes to the same capabilities and standards as the later ones is prohibitively expensive.
>About 18 months
Kek.
It's 18 months at current prediction for meeting the minimum requirements for service. And that will be with half the weapons they want it to carry. Those will be developed later on. And those planes bought before then will need to be upgraded to the later standards if they want to use those weapons.
You saw this shit with the Typhoon where the Tranche 1 aircraft were only air-to-air capable. And only Tranche 2 and later aircraft had air-to-ground capability. And now all those Tranche 1 aircraft have are hangar queens as they are too expensive to upgrade to Tranche 3+ standards. And not as capable as the later aircraft.
Fuck, Spain has even tried to sell it's Tranche 1 aircraft.
This same shit you can also see with the F-16 where a block 50 aircraft is far more capable than a block 30 one. And upgrading a block 30 to a block 50 standard is prohibitively expensive.
>90% of what fighter pilots do is train
Yes. And they don't do that in a fucking twin seater with an instructor. They are already certified pilots. They fly the normal frontline combat aircraft in exercises.
And no, the reason they will be flying so much less in the F-35 has nothing to do with "muh simulators" but because of the prohibitive expense of and man hour requirements of maintaining stealth. Fuck the F-22 pilots because of maintenance reasons failed to meet the 180 hours per annum minimum that NATO sets out.
Heck as a cost saving measure the RAF in 2004 actually dipped below the 180 hour minimum.
This is what we call clever accounting. And it fools people who have no idea what the fuck they are on about.
>>29931357
>Developmental prototypes don't count.
Fine, so 2011 for the first non-RDT&E F-35.
>And upgrading those earlier airframes to the same capabilities and standards as the later ones is prohibitively expensive.
Meh it's not that prohibitively; it's roughly $1.5 billion for ~200 jets to be modified; about $7.5 million per jet on average (obviously weighted heavier towards the older jets). The earliest jets have been used in destructive testing.
>It's 18 months at current prediction for meeting the minimum requirements for service.
You're defining IOC, which was about 10 months ago for the USMC and in about 5 months for the USAF (including the delays). The 18 month figure also includes current estimated delays; the objective date for 3F is August 1st 2017.
>And those planes bought before then will need to be upgraded to the later standards if they want to use those weapons.
If by upgraded you mean receive a software update.
>This same shit you can also see with the F-16 where a block 50 aircraft is far more capable than a block 30 one.
And? Buy a Block 2 Super Hornet now and you'll be paying even more to keep it relevant; CFTs, IRSTs, new cockpits, enhanced RWR, etc don't come cheap.
>And they don't do that in a fucking twin seater with an instructor.
Sometimes they do, but that's besides the point. There's mandatory training, which is most of a pilot's flight hours, and then there's training exercises, etc. More of that mandatory training is done in a sim for the F-35.
>but because of the prohibitive expense of and man hour requirements of maintaining stealth.
According to the Danish evaluation and their cost metrics, a Super Hornet (F model; only type considered by them) will cost $18k per flight hour, an F-35A will cost $17k per flight hour.
>Fuck the F-22 pilots because of maintenance reasons
Good thing the F-35's coatings are way more durable
>>29931459
>According to the Danish evaluation and their cost metrics, a Super Hornet (F model; only type considered by them) will cost $18k per flight hour, an F-35A will cost $17k per flight hour.
And if you look at the Dutch funding allocation subtract the flight hours from that. You get at 29k Euros (not dollars) per flight hour. How is it that the Danes estimations are so much lower than a real payment? Could it be that as with pretty much every major contract, people are lying?
Man it's been hilarious seeing just how far off the Danish estimates are from the Dutch reality.
Thank you Netherlands for actually making all figures public. It makes finding the shills so easy.
>>29931586
>How is it that the Danes estimations are so much lower than a real payment?
Different nations and different services use different metrics. Think about what *can* be included in a CPFH; there's pilot wages, fuel costs, scheduled maintenance costs, unscheduled maintenance costs, operational support, contractor wages, etc.
The USAF for example calculate the maintenance for their CPFH figures by taking their annual O&S costs (including things like the cost of replacement parts) and dividing that by the number of flight hours. The Danes probably don't do that; they probably use metrics more akin to that of the Swedes, only looking at things like fuel burn and pilot training costs.
>Thank you Netherlands for actually making all figures public.
On that, link?
>>29931068
>the rather compromised stealth shaping of the F-35
[citation needed]
>>29922843
I hate lockheeb because their "cost projections" are basically just lies.
>>29932182
>Nothing that's true: the post
>>29933282
they're projecting marginal costs of production 5+ years ahead, excluding the engine, completely ignoring billions in development costs and then claim their plane is cheap.
>>29933360
They're projecting the cost of the F-35A in FRP based on the falling LRIP contract unit prices that are based on each stage's reduced production costs, combined with projected mass production inefficiencies. That ~$85m is pretty much guaranteed.
>>29931068
So camouflage by that logic is all or nothing, you need perfect chameleon
Abilities or neon lights
>>29933393
>ignoring engines
>ignoring billions in development costs
>>29933467
That $85m includes engines, and Lockheed is now absorbing extra costs.
If you're simply buying a plane, then you don't have to worry about development costs.
If you're a partner, lots of parts are produced in those countries, offsetting those costs.
>>29933493
Shhh, you'll trigger him for using facts to counter his beliefs!
>>29933493
>>29933510
fucking shills. lockheeb has a development costs overrun of 20 goddamn billion dollars and NOW you're telling to not worry about the development costs? also the official figures and fucking lockheeb themselves clearly show that the price you're citing is without engines.
https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost
>>29933493
>>29933510
and here's the source for you to choke and die on:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669619.pdf
>>29934490
>>29934503
Look out boys, he's triggered!
>the official figures and fucking lockheeb themselves clearly show that the price you're citing is without engines.
The numbers on that page are for old Limited Rate Initial Production lot 7 aircraft. We're talking about Full Rate Production prices when development has finished. That figure DOES include an engine: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/bogdan-predicts-f-35s-for-less-than-80m-engines-included/
Also
>comparing figures from before the re-baseline
Also also, that GAO report is out of date, here are the two newest:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676576.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676584.pdf
>>29934490
>>29934503
>Unexpected costs in a program developing new technologies never happen unless it's corruption!
Choke and die, Spreyfag.
>>29934577
>bogdan-predicts-f-35s-for-less-than-80m-engines-included
a professional shill makes a prediction, whoop-a-fucking doo. 2019 the costs will be nowhere near that figure and you'll still be shilling.
>http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676584.pdf
read appendix I and choke on it.
>>29934701
>if I repeat old costs over an over I can ignore current costs
>>29934701
>Christopher "leaving office in two months" Bogdan making any predictions
>>29926741
>Gripen
check the picture again and apply yourself
>>29934781
are you this fucking dense?
>>29933457
Camouflage is an annoying to quantify in that it is very hard to get an objective result. It's all subjective.
The thing is though, camouflage is just paint you slap on. It doesn't have any performance impact. Stealth shaping however has a negative effect on aerodynamics and restricts other things like the internal payload dimensions.
The F-35 has had a lot of stealth shaping go into the frontal aspect of the plane. But very little for the side aspect and next to none of the rear. Especially when it comes to IR stealth.
The Russian T-50 also seems to go for a more limited stealth with almost no rear aspect stealth shaping. Unless the future engines are to change things around a bit, but I doubt it.
Personally I think stealth is a waste of money to put on the entire fleet of aircraft.
It's maintenance intensive and expensive. Useless during peacetime. Useless when fighting dumb dune coons in mud huts. Which we do 99% of the time when it comes to conflicts. And it is going to see diminishing returns on investment with every year.
>But we will go in starting with stealth and then use external stores when there is no threat left
Yeah they keep saying this. But despite that, we still fly the F-22 in full stealth when bombing ISIS.
Better to have a mixed fleet of dedicated full stealth bombers and then non-stealth far cheaper shit backing it up.
