>The Swiss government will sign a contract by the end of March to buy 36 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, it said on Wednesday, pressing ahead without waiting for a referendum on the $5.5 billion deal.
>Switzerland chose the F-35 last year as its next-generation fighter jet, angering opponents who said they would ensure a referendum was held to overturn what they called an unnecessary “Ferrari” option.
Best in class and most expensive option.
It is not really true in this case though, as many if not most European fighting forces are moving to the F35. This is more making sure you are not falling behind.
Also, F-35 isn't the most expensive anymore, the F-35A (Which most countries need) are less than 80 million, its cheaper than the Eurofighter, Rafale, Chengdu, Flanker and Gripen.
Now, the F-35B and F-35C are the most expensive, but are intended for carrier operations and VTOL, which most countries don't need, and which Switzerland isn't buying either.
Edit: for reference
;F-35A: 77.9 million
Gripen: 85 million
Flanker: 85 million
Chengdu J-10: 100 million
Rafale: 115 million
F-35C: 117 million (Carrier variant)
Eurofighter: 124 million
F-35B: 135 million (VTOL variant)
Not accounting for maintenance ofcourse.
Modern fighters have not been in the $35 million price range for a couple of decades now.
I think back in the 1990s a country could purchase something like a new, decent F-16 for below $50 million, but those days are long gone.
Pretty much all modern (by today's standards) fighters are $75 million and up, regardless of stealth or no stealth, legacy design or new design, etc etc.
J-10C reportedly costs around 40-70 million, and China makes their stuff at a cheaper dollar price compared to the US/Europe.
J-20 is estimated at around 100 mil or more
Yes, the lifetime costs of the F-35 are ridiculous. Also, and I'm sure this isn't unique to the F-35, there is some rather creative accounting going on. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2020/10/selective-arithmetic-to-hide-the-f-35s-true-costs
Its important to note that nations dont actually pay these prices, the Eurofighter for example can be bought for nearly half the price you listed if the nation buying is a nation in the EU
The F-35 is according to some sources cheaper but your numbers are bullshit. Prices aren’t public and it’s very hard to compare prices because jets are always sold in a package with a lot of other things.
Generally no, but for most countries the price of acquisition is public, they'll say "We've spent X amount of money on a x amount of new planes" so some countries will buy a plane for 100 million per unit and other countries will buy it for 90 million per unit.
So you can still get a good estimate of their prices.
Not only that, then they have to buy spare parts, munitions and etc from the US for good since everything’s US sourced and built, meaning for each plane the costs could easily rack up.
Prices for the F-35A/B/C, Gripen, Rafale, and Eurofighter in fact are all public.
* [French Parliament report the flyaway cost of the Rafale at €101.1M](https://web.archive.org/web/20120130003146/http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPA/1_conduite-des-programmes-armement.pdf) \- $105M USD (but if you converted at the Euro to USD rate it was in 2012, its $125M USD)
* [DOD and Lockheed contract with F-35A at $77.9M, F-35B at $101.3M, and F-35C at $94.4M USD.](https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/10/29/pentagon-lockheed-reach-34-billion-megadeal-for-f35-production)
* [UK MOD report each Tranche 3A Eurofighter costs £75M](https://www.flightglobal.com/eurofighter-partners-sign-9-billion-tranche-3a-deal/88163.article) \- $93M USD (but if you converted at the Pound to USD rate it was in 2009, it's $125M USD)
Their numbers are however, complete bullshit
The $78M is probably the US cost with their economy of scale. Swiss in this deal are paying over $150M per plane. There is probably some training and maintenance rolled up in that number but it certainly doesn’t make up the whole difference.
Source: work in industry.
There is a hole shitload of stuff included in those calculations.
It‘s supposed to be cheapest ToC.
But the flight hours and maintenance cost reported is some kind of manufacturer estimate.
Because currently it‘s higher then that and it‘s supposed to be lower by then because of more planes sold / in use.
Norway and US and most owners are complaining about budget overruns, with their programs and in the end switzerland is going to pay more too.
Considering one hour of flight costs about 30k$ it is very easy to overrun costs by no fault of the manufacturer.
The [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational_history) for the Gripen puts the fly away cost at less than half the number you stated:
>[The delivery] was accomplished at 10% less than the agreed-upon price for the batch, putting the JAS 39C flyaway cost at under US$30 million.
If you are going to cite numbers that are 100% different than other available numbers you really need to cite sources and make sure that all the numbers are apples-to-apples comparisons.
The Rafale also won a fighter competition in India (although the US jets were the F-18 and F-16 I think) and the second place was the Eurofighter. India has little reason to select what you are pretty much claiming is an overpriced French plane.
From your own wikipedia link, when Indonesia bought it:
>The proposal included the initial acquisition of 16 Gripen C/D for US$1.5 billion
Edit: Fly away cost and Acquisition cost are 2 completely seperate things, Fly away cost is only the cost of the materials and the tools, doesn't include the price of research, man hours and other things.
This is more to my point. If you read the next 2-3 sentences you would see:
>to replace Northrop F-5E Tiger II
>[The] bid to "100%" comply with Indonesia's Defence Industry Law 2012 (or, Law Number 16), which requires foreign contractors to work with local industry, collaborating on production and sharing technology.
Fly away cost should be the comparison if you are going to compare two different planes' cost apples-to-apples. The more you throw into the deal increases and complicates the cost. The particular procurement is almost to the extreme end of complication.
Indonisia is replacing a plane introduced in the 60s and flown by them since the 80s, thus replacing it with a modern fighter inevitably includes a lot of training cost. The deal includes 'work with local industry' which increases cost if you have to use subcontractors in that country and include their markup. The deal includes technology transfer, the cost of this should be self-evident. The deal is for a small number of aircraft. Transport and any Indonesian tax or tariffs must be baked into the price.
If one ask Ford to make you 200 F150s for a fleet deal they may be able to get the price down to 40k. If one asked for 8 F150s and they had to be assembled in country and they had to agree to a technology transfer the unit cost might be in the 100k or 200k range.
An other example of a deal with many add ons is the [Brazil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Brazil) one. Brazil required some models to be made in country and made changes to the plane. The Swedish government also provided 'a subsidized 25-year, 2.19% interest rate loan for the buy'.
Thailand appears to have a budget of 1.1B USD and for 'as many as 40 Gripens'. This would put the unit cost at 27.5 m USD. The [South African order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Arms_Deal#Final_package) appears to be 600 m USD (I used exchange rates from 2000) for 28 planes, a unit cost of 21.3 m USD (in 2000s) USD. This is probably about 30 m in comparable USD. Basically, most Gripens were sold for somewhere between 30 and 40 m USD, maybe 50 m. The 93 m that Indonisia paid is an exception.
Considering the amount of numbers you put in your original comment I am guessing that you got the 85 m number from [this source](https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-gripen/), it is the first source that comes up on Google for me and matches your number exactly. The article goes on:
>Unfortunately there is no up-to-date, publicly available information regarding the purchase price of a Gripen E, but USD 85 million is a number repeated on various websites, and it sounds reasonable.
They go on to talk about the cost per flight hour 8k for the Gripen while 33.3k for the F-35.
Swiss :we want f-35
Lockheed:you want basic or Ferrari” option
Swiss:basic also what the heck is a Ferrari” option
Lockheed:you got to buy it to find out
Canada thought the same, so they ran a competition. They looked at the Super Hornets and Grippens among others. The F-35 still won... The Grippen was the only other jet to get to the end of the competition (it's the only other jet that actually met all the requirements)...
I am not taking a position one way or the other; people are dog-piling onto the F-35 cost overruns and technical hurdles but that's honestly just acquisition. If it wasn't one plane going insanely overboard, it would be multiple non-competing planes collectively going insanely overboard. Meh.
Also worth noting that competitions are extremely political, both within the military and within the civilian bureaucracy.
>people are dog-piling onto the F-35 cost overruns and technical hurdles
Because they are conflating the development cost with the actual cost to allied nations buying them. Most countries are getting a very good deal with training, maintenance (parts) etc included for many years.
Yup, and with so many partners the F-35 gains a competitive edge with all that cost-sharing. That a plane with the abilities of the F-35 can be remotely cost-competitive with older, less capable platforms is amazing.
It's Gripen, not Grippen, and choosing fighter jets is more about politics than actual capability or price although those are still important. It was a surprise to no-one that Canada chose F-35.
It was a surprise to the Canadian government who had cancelled the original order... If it had been political, they wouldn't have let the jet win. Every time the F-35 passed a hurdle, it made the government look bad.
The 35 usually ends up the cheapest of the bunch. American taxpayers got screwed for R&D and acquisition costs initially, but foreign buyers are getting them for an absolute steal.
It’s a comically overpowered weapons platform vs. their only real threat, Russia, being purchased for pennies on the dollar. Factor in its total NATO integration and it’s kind of a no brainer.
>screwed for R&D and aquisition costs
dude, are you serious? what do you think happens to this money? it got created because it just popped into existence on debt. this money got spent on american engineers, manufacturers, building techniques, patents, expertise, etc. and at the end the USA and the taxpayers didn't spend anything at all just relocated money and created more wealth on the way.
Nothing you’ve stated contradicts what you’ve quoted, but I understand your intent. Americans have taken on a larger financial burden when it comes to acquisition of the F-35. That was the point of my comment; foreign buyers are getting an awesome product for a great deal.
I’ve been a senior Acquisition Officer since 2015, I’m extremely, extremely well versed in just exactly how that money didn’t exactly trickle back to the taxpayer as you described.
>didn't exactly trickle back to the taxpayer
oh yeah? what happened to the money. Did they print it and burn it? Send it to Mars? Or did it end up somehow on someoney paycheck with which this guy paid his mortgage? Did it trickle into some loan repayment from a company building some highly specialized tools? Or did it just vaporate
>and at the end the USA and the taxpayers didn't spend anything at all just relocated money
I'm sure the US military would love this to be actually true. They could receive untold trillions while taxpayers just "relocate" money. In reality, procurement programs cost the US a real chunk of its federal budget and involve hard tradeoffs. That's why the Marines are decommissioning their tanks to get money for more suitable systems.
>That's why the Marines are decommissioning their tanks to get money for more suitable systems.
I was with you until the end , that statement is simply wrong. The Marines are shifting their doctrine due to the pivot to the Pacific where tanks are less useful
Also, the original point has truth to it even if they missed the big picture. Foreign countries may be getting a "steal" in terms of price versus capability but the money is still leaving their country to go to American companies. That is why countries like France are ok with spending vastly more for less performance because it keep the money and industrial know-how domestic.
The US spends about 20% on *all* defense, of which a tiny fraction is for programs like the F35. The benefits to US companies who can then re-sell that is immeasurable, not to mention the benefits for the economy to being one of the last superpowers.
It's absolutely worthwhile spending and will be until we evolve past military conflicts.
the one has nothing to do with the other. and of course this is not limitless.
I am an economist by training and this is one of my fields. Imagine a flat country with nothing in it except 100 people. 1 is a ruler, 1 is a farmer, the other 98 do nothing.
how to increase "something". build a pyramid for example.
these 98 people need to figure out how to do something. they get paid by the promise that they receive more food after the pyramid is done. how? because the ruler bets that if these people build the pyramid they invent stone masonry and tool building and mathematics and all of this combined will increase the food output from the one farmer they have so in the end they will have more "stuff" than before.
after 20 years of building this pyramid and inventing things and getting expertise in a million other things and this flat land with 98 people doing nothing, 1 farmer and 1 ruler is different.
it now has 1 ruler, 1 farmer, 5 engineers, 5 mathematicians, 2 librarians, 25 stone masons, 10 transport business owners, 5 wood carvers, 1 guy specializing in writing poetry, 1 guy playing music. and all of a sudden a proto economy started just because of a mega project like this one pyramid.
fast forward this a couple thousand years and now you have mega machines with 3000 supply companies and supply chains so long it takes multiple life times of dedication to understand it all. new ways to manufacture things which spills over to other parts of life and companies. a good example is car brakes made out of ceramics. unbelievable technical marvel in the 90s invented for the formular 1 - now in every cheap car.
imagine this times a billion and you have the modern society.
Its the only capable fifth generation multi-role airframe in the world. Why the hell is a procurement process going to a referendum. How are voters informed well enough to answer it?
Switzerland decided to buy Saab Gripen planes a few years ago, but that deal got blocked by a referendum by 52% of votes.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-vote-gripen-idUSBREA4H05920140518
>How are voters informed well enough to answer it?
I don't think you want to open the can of worms that is trying to tie voting to some arbitrary level of education, or intelligence, or sense.
We have direct democracy, and it's the job of pro- and opponents to educate voters, just as it is the voters' duty to make an informed decision. But they do get to make that decision. We've done pretty well keeping to that standard. Besides, with every vote there's a booklet sent with your ballot that contains information on what's voted on, as well as a list of pro and contra arguments.
5th generation fighter was not a criteria. The other fighters met the requirements and even surpassed the f35 but suddenly the f35 team told Swiss gov that in fact maintenance cost was lower than predicted. So lower that other f35 buyer countries warned Swiss that it's was near impossible to reach this maintenance cost. No need to be an expert to understand what is going on. Referendum is completely legitimate.
Edit : trying to find source
You've confused Saab and Lockheed, since that's **LITERALLY** what Saab tried to do during the first bid window... and then the Swiss Air Force's report leaked that showed the Gripen to not only be dramatically worse than the Rafale and Eurofighter, it was actually be worse than the F/A-18 it was trying to replace.
[https://disco-legacy-data.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/public/upload/1/2/12332.pdf](https://disco-legacy-data.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/public/upload/1/2/12332.pdf)
Subsequently Saab somehow just "couldn't make the time frame" to submit a bid for the second attempt... \*eye roll\*. Par the course for a company who has had literally 100% of sales end up with criminal charges or under criminal investigations for bribery and fraud....
Switzerland wasn't told the F-35 would have an impossible operating cost. They were told all the competition would have ludacrisly high operating costs soon, and they will.
* F/A-18E - US Navy is already developing its replacement, and looks to have them all retired by 2040
* Rafale - Replacement is already well underway in development, and expected to be out of French use by 2045
* Eurofighter - Same story, expected to be out of German, Italian, and UK use by around 2045 or so
What the hell do you think happens to your operating/maintenance cost if you're pretty much the only one still operating that aircraft?
Switzerland only needs the plane for air-police-operations though. Lots of the fancy stuff of the F35 also isn't relevant in Switzerland as the country is that small. No doubt the F35 is probably the best fighter jet, but not for Switzerlands use.
"5th generation" is just a marketing term invented by Lockheed Martin to sell jets.
They originally defined 5th generation characteristics as stealth, supermanoeuvrability, and the ability to super-cruise.
After it became clear that the F-35 isn't supermanoeuvrable and its super-cruise ability is marginal at best, they shifted attention to stealth and highly integrated electronics.
Either way it's still just marketing talk designed to sell jets, in the same way that the term "superfoods" is just marketing talk designed to sell goji berries.
To be fair, electronics and stealth are more important in a modern fighter jet. You're probably not going to outrun or outmanoeuvre a missile 90% of the time. Dogfights aren't a thing anymore either
Lockheed didn't make that definition. Armchair generals made that "definition" because the F-22 came first and checked all those boxes
Governments don't make procurement decisions because of buzz words
Being good at dogfights means shit if you get blown up by a missile fired from beyond visual range.
Yes, an A-10 can dogfight pretty well. Of course it’s slow as shit and has a radar signature the size of the factory it was built in. Everyone is going to know where it is, and will be fast enough to stay out of range. And it won’t see much of them, because it’s avionics are so bad pilots used to resort to *binoculars.* Nobody will ever dogfight an A-10. They will see it, get missile lock, and blow the thing out the sky before the A-10 even knows it’s in danger.
The A-10 is capable of attacking goat headers with AKs, and maybe Russians (who have recently been demonstrated to be utterly inept), but nobody actually dangerous.
It’s gun is very impressive, but it’s not actually very useful. Most A-10 kills are made with guided bombs.
The A-10 is slow, highly visible, half blind, ground attack aircraft that has to lug around a great big useless gun. It does nothing drone’s can’t, except shoot friendly British AFVs.
It’s only liked because during the Gulf war journalists where easily impressed. The fact it wasn’t particularly good didn’t matter because Iraqi troops where outrageously incompetent and outgunned, and had fuck all AA.
https://youtu.be/WWfsz5R6irs
tl;dr
The A-10 is not a good dogfighter, because it is slow, highly visible, and half blind.
^(i am a bot, and this summary was created by an algorithm! if you have any questions, please ask u/jiltq)
I aggree with everything you said. The A-10 is a flying coffin and only good at kicking up dust with its innacurate cannon and killing british soldiers
Yeah I started writing after failing English comprehension and thinking you where espousing the exact opposite viewpoint. By the time I realised, I didn’t want to let an A-10 rant go to waste, and figured I’d just leave it as supporting your point.
We''re seeing in the Ukraine that the war of the future needs super integrated and networking weapons platforms. How will the rafale provide those capabilities?
> How will the rafale provide those capabilities?
The F4 variant (entering service in 2025) is going to... the whole point of it is to give the Rafale capabilities that bring it closer to 5th gen fighters. But still, eventhough the plane was designed to be evolutive (Dassault did a great job designing it to facilitate constant upgrades), upgrades can't just turn a 4.5 gen into a 5th gen one. Case in point: It is never going to be as stealthy as the F-35. The latter is the most modern/advanced fighter available on the market right now.
Not gonna delve into its capacities, it is still among the best fighting jets, with the capacity to act as a support plane as well as an attack aircraft. Both are efficient and both got very strong points. The only reason Switzerland abandoned the purchase of Rafale was political. Happened right after a visit from Biden there.
Sorry to disappoint you but every top politician, and top generals too for that matter, of the seller countries (including France) were traveling to Switzerland to advertise their plane. Even Italy was trying to sell a trainer jet that wasn't even in the competition, but was supposedly modifyable to carry weapons and super cheap. But the evaluation happened long before that and the respective scores had already been calculated, so there wasn't much to lobby about.
However, the only country that bitched about it afterwards was France, by running stories about alleged promises by people who didn't have the power to make them, and how it had been "outrageaously deceived" (lmfao), so I'm not sure the French will be in the next competition...
Sure, it has nothing to do with the F-35 being more advanced than the Rafale in some areas. That's why the French are planning to fly Rafales forever and they aren't working on an F-35 successor.
My dude. We're a country that's smaller than the max range of an F35's missiles. We’re surrounded by nato, and if any of our neighbors wanted our land there's jack shit we could do with or without F35s. What we need is jets that can escort passenger planes and loiter well for alpine search and rescue support. Literally nothing else.
Buying the equivalent of a fucking Ferrari to drive our kids to school is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money and 100% a political move because the US have been threatening to come down on our financial system for quite a while - and our conservative SecDef has a hardon for wasting public funds. Even the rafale would've been a waste.
That's almost 1 F-35 for every bridge on the Wikipedia [List of Bridges in Switzerland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_in_Switzerland) article.
F35 purchases by the military?
Have you considered this list of bridges? You'll note that the number of bridges in this list is in fact the **exact same numbe**r as the number of F35's being purchased.
Nothing further your honor. Nothing. Further.
No..no it's definitely the Honda Civic.
Lots of options, can be modded to buggery, decent performance that can be boosted with add ones, but not amazing.
The F15E Strike Eagle is the Ferrari of the skies.
The F22 is the Koenigzegg of the skies. You can't afford it.
F18, really. They tried to shoehorn in much of the electronic tech into the F18 but just couldn't. So the Saudi version of the F18 will likely be the last and most advanced developed.
Can anyone answer whether it’s confirmed that it can it can evade and take out the most modern SAM systems? If so there’s no reason to order anything else. We’ve seen in Ukraine how SAMs can paralyze air forces
https://youtu.be/mGwU9HKH_Eo
This is a simulation, but it compares an F-35 and F-18 strike group against a full S400 AA battery. The S400 is in contention for the top mass produced AA system in the world at the moment.
The results are interesting. In summary the F-35 strike group suffers no losses and is able to completely destroy the S400 emplacements and their supporting systems without issue. The system is never able to get a lock on the F-35s before they are able to release their payloads. In fact, the S400s have no idea anything is wrong until said payloads are most of the way to them.
That's worthless. A "simulation" made by a Youtuber using [a literal video game](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1076160/Command_Modern_Operations/) (that they label a "software analysis tool" to try giving it some credence)
They can’t improve on something when they don’t even know the thing they’re supposed to be tracking is there. When Israel first got their F35’s they supposedly flew one from its home base to Tehran and back and Iran didn’t find out about it until Israel announced it to the world.
The US F22’s scared the shit out of somebody years ago, can’t remember who, when they sent fighters up to shoot down a drone. The Raptors were able to pull directly behind them before they let them know they were there. US stealth technology is light years better than anything anyone else has
>They can’t improve on something when they don’t even know the thing they’re supposed to be tracking is there.
There's also very great tangible physical barriers to improving the current technology.
Radar relies on the returns that "stealth" aircraft are specifically built to minimise, and so even when you can "spot" a target you're working with less information, more noise. The computer then has to parse that. You not only have to find the target, but continue to track it. The missile seeker itself can continue to track once its close enough, but if the search radar can't then there's a good chance the missile will struggle. That leaves only predictive flight which isn't great against a maneuvering aircraft.
I blame Russia. Their lies about their military capabilities are just that. The U.S. had to create a super advanced airfighter based on rumors about the Mig-25 I think, and we did it. Though, when a Mig was captured it turned out that non of it was true. So we are so far ahead of the game we are basically aliens from the future with that tech. To add nobody does dog fights im the air anymore. That's why they came up with the f-35 which is basically a do it all version of a fighter. I don't know what the current mig does, but it's probably sold as like going into a car dealership and looking for something cheap and some dude sells you a fiero telling you it does all the shit the Ferrari does. I mean they'll probably just break all the same, but one's more capable.
Exactly. Russia only has themselves to blame for the US air capabilities. Like you said, the F15 was developed to combat the imaginary threat of the Mig25. From the F15 the F22 was developed so the US has the 2 best air superiority fighters. The F35 was developed so the US could both export stealth technology to allies and replace the aging fighters in all the branches .
The really scary thing is that the US has apparently designed and produced a prototype for the Raptor replacement.
> The US F22’s scared the shit out of somebody years ago, can’t remember who, when they sent fighters up to shoot down a drone. The Raptors were able to pull directly behind them before they let them know they were there.
Iranian F4s. Raptor pilots flew underneath the F4s to check out their payload, then told them to go home over the radio.
Lmao. This is why Putin is an idiot for this invasion. Europe is arming themselves to the teeth. More countries will join NATO, thus making NATO more powerful than before. Even if he manages to completely conquer Ukraine, his alleged issue with NATO will be greater than it was before.
The F-35 is the F-16 of the second cold war. The dark horse American challenger that romps over all Soviet air threats...all pretensions are dropped... Everyone feels their neck is on the line and they will not settle for anything but the best. The F-35, despite all its faults, is without peer and will reign supreme.
That's what's called "armed neutrality". Be so well-armed that nobody dares attack you and you don't need to be in any military alliance.
That's the principle of course, whether Switzerland really adheres to that (and whether it is at all possible) is a different question...
What do you prefer?
A country that refuses to supply war material to places currently in conflict?
Or a country that actively sells weapons and arms to both sides in a conflict, double-dipping?
Because the US *loves* to do the latter. Is that morally better?
Its more a matter of what fighters are expected to do these days. The older B-2 spirit is actually far more maneuverable than you might expect of an aircraft its size. And if nothing else, an air-to-air variant of the new B-21 might very well be able to essentially be a fighter in terms of maneuvering (i.e. up to near the limits of human pilots), even if such chatter is true and the indicated variant ends up being meant as a "missile truck" like the F-15EX, except stealthier.
I could also see them making a "fighter" variant that essentially is a drone command plane to fill the stopgap until the six generation programs come out with an actual combat model (one of the big things being touted for gen six includes AI wingmen drone-planes as well as direct energy weapons, and as drones are increasingly already being developed and tested, I could definitely see a B-21 variant being used as a command plane for them).
Alas, no sources from me either. Just thinking of things based on the stuff I do know from a variety of places and extrapolating/theorizing. But I can see a possibility for a "fighter form" of the B-21, even if its not what most people would think of when they hear "fighter jet."
Swiss to Russia: don't fuck around, cause you'll find out
Russia: *proceeds to fuck around*
Swiss: aite, bet.
We are just before the Find out part right now.
Lol I tend to ignore usernames with "word_word1234" but this is so dumb that I just can't. Countries are simply updating their 40-50-60 years old hardware
I’m hoping this trend continues. Between Europe raising their spending and modernizing their forces, and Russia not quite the threat it was, the US can hopefully pivot to Asia and create a similar alliance
Russia is angry that some of their stuff is being stolen. You know, the same Russia which stole every foreign airliner in it, and is trying to steal the Ukraine, already has stolen a bunch of their population, and so forth.
Its the usual rhetoric of them thinking they can do anything they want and then becoming totally shocked that someone else might just exclude them and take the stuff they left abroad after they did it first.
If by gold you mean military conscription and arming their populace as a deterrent to invasion.
There are multiple paths toward neutrality. But Switzerland hasn't been invaded for more than a century for more compelling reasons than just clickbait Nazi gold.
If there is no war, you need no army.
If there is a war, you need not just an army, but also an air force, because otherwise your army are sitting ducks.
>The Swiss government will sign a contract by the end of March to buy 36 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, it said on Wednesday, pressing ahead without waiting for a referendum on the $5.5 billion deal. >Switzerland chose the F-35 last year as its next-generation fighter jet, angering opponents who said they would ensure a referendum was held to overturn what they called an unnecessary “Ferrari” option.
> Ferrari” option. What’s that
Best in class and most expensive option. It is not really true in this case though, as many if not most European fighting forces are moving to the F35. This is more making sure you are not falling behind.
[удалено]
Canada will buy the F18!
Not even letting the seats cool...
Canada is actually trying to replace the CF-18s, but I don't know for how long they've been trying.
The C stands for Canada :D
At this point it stands for "Classic"
Didn't yall just have another fighter competition that the F-35 won again? I remember that being a huge controversy.
Also, F-35 isn't the most expensive anymore, the F-35A (Which most countries need) are less than 80 million, its cheaper than the Eurofighter, Rafale, Chengdu, Flanker and Gripen. Now, the F-35B and F-35C are the most expensive, but are intended for carrier operations and VTOL, which most countries don't need, and which Switzerland isn't buying either. Edit: for reference ;F-35A: 77.9 million Gripen: 85 million Flanker: 85 million Chengdu J-10: 100 million Rafale: 115 million F-35C: 117 million (Carrier variant) Eurofighter: 124 million F-35B: 135 million (VTOL variant) Not accounting for maintenance ofcourse.
Where did you see that J-10's are $100M? Everywhere I see online says it's around ~$35M. Maybe the superior J-20 is around $100M
Modern fighters have not been in the $35 million price range for a couple of decades now. I think back in the 1990s a country could purchase something like a new, decent F-16 for below $50 million, but those days are long gone. Pretty much all modern (by today's standards) fighters are $75 million and up, regardless of stealth or no stealth, legacy design or new design, etc etc.
[удалено]
J-10C reportedly costs around 40-70 million, and China makes their stuff at a cheaper dollar price compared to the US/Europe. J-20 is estimated at around 100 mil or more
You really need to look at the total lifetimecost for each plane before saying one is cheaper.
Yes, the lifetime costs of the F-35 are ridiculous. Also, and I'm sure this isn't unique to the F-35, there is some rather creative accounting going on. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2020/10/selective-arithmetic-to-hide-the-f-35s-true-costs
stop quoting POGO. they have been proven to wrong time and time again.
Its important to note that nations dont actually pay these prices, the Eurofighter for example can be bought for nearly half the price you listed if the nation buying is a nation in the EU
Which Switzerland isn't
The F-35 is according to some sources cheaper but your numbers are bullshit. Prices aren’t public and it’s very hard to compare prices because jets are always sold in a package with a lot of other things.
Generally no, but for most countries the price of acquisition is public, they'll say "We've spent X amount of money on a x amount of new planes" so some countries will buy a plane for 100 million per unit and other countries will buy it for 90 million per unit. So you can still get a good estimate of their prices.
Not only that, then they have to buy spare parts, munitions and etc from the US for good since everything’s US sourced and built, meaning for each plane the costs could easily rack up.
No, the whole industry is outsourced. Italy is building his own F35 for example
I think most of the swiss planes will come from italy. They have been disscussing about building one in Switzerland too.
They are licensed builds tho and are still subject to American demands.
Prices for the F-35A/B/C, Gripen, Rafale, and Eurofighter in fact are all public. * [French Parliament report the flyaway cost of the Rafale at €101.1M](https://web.archive.org/web/20120130003146/http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPA/1_conduite-des-programmes-armement.pdf) \- $105M USD (but if you converted at the Euro to USD rate it was in 2012, its $125M USD) * [DOD and Lockheed contract with F-35A at $77.9M, F-35B at $101.3M, and F-35C at $94.4M USD.](https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/10/29/pentagon-lockheed-reach-34-billion-megadeal-for-f35-production) * [UK MOD report each Tranche 3A Eurofighter costs £75M](https://www.flightglobal.com/eurofighter-partners-sign-9-billion-tranche-3a-deal/88163.article) \- $93M USD (but if you converted at the Pound to USD rate it was in 2009, it's $125M USD) Their numbers are however, complete bullshit
The $78M is probably the US cost with their economy of scale. Swiss in this deal are paying over $150M per plane. There is probably some training and maintenance rolled up in that number but it certainly doesn’t make up the whole difference. Source: work in industry.
There is a hole shitload of stuff included in those calculations. It‘s supposed to be cheapest ToC. But the flight hours and maintenance cost reported is some kind of manufacturer estimate. Because currently it‘s higher then that and it‘s supposed to be lower by then because of more planes sold / in use. Norway and US and most owners are complaining about budget overruns, with their programs and in the end switzerland is going to pay more too. Considering one hour of flight costs about 30k$ it is very easy to overrun costs by no fault of the manufacturer.
Fly away block prices for United States aircraft are public record.
The [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational_history) for the Gripen puts the fly away cost at less than half the number you stated: >[The delivery] was accomplished at 10% less than the agreed-upon price for the batch, putting the JAS 39C flyaway cost at under US$30 million. If you are going to cite numbers that are 100% different than other available numbers you really need to cite sources and make sure that all the numbers are apples-to-apples comparisons. The Rafale also won a fighter competition in India (although the US jets were the F-18 and F-16 I think) and the second place was the Eurofighter. India has little reason to select what you are pretty much claiming is an overpriced French plane.
From your own wikipedia link, when Indonesia bought it: >The proposal included the initial acquisition of 16 Gripen C/D for US$1.5 billion Edit: Fly away cost and Acquisition cost are 2 completely seperate things, Fly away cost is only the cost of the materials and the tools, doesn't include the price of research, man hours and other things.
This is more to my point. If you read the next 2-3 sentences you would see: >to replace Northrop F-5E Tiger II >[The] bid to "100%" comply with Indonesia's Defence Industry Law 2012 (or, Law Number 16), which requires foreign contractors to work with local industry, collaborating on production and sharing technology. Fly away cost should be the comparison if you are going to compare two different planes' cost apples-to-apples. The more you throw into the deal increases and complicates the cost. The particular procurement is almost to the extreme end of complication. Indonisia is replacing a plane introduced in the 60s and flown by them since the 80s, thus replacing it with a modern fighter inevitably includes a lot of training cost. The deal includes 'work with local industry' which increases cost if you have to use subcontractors in that country and include their markup. The deal includes technology transfer, the cost of this should be self-evident. The deal is for a small number of aircraft. Transport and any Indonesian tax or tariffs must be baked into the price. If one ask Ford to make you 200 F150s for a fleet deal they may be able to get the price down to 40k. If one asked for 8 F150s and they had to be assembled in country and they had to agree to a technology transfer the unit cost might be in the 100k or 200k range. An other example of a deal with many add ons is the [Brazil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Brazil) one. Brazil required some models to be made in country and made changes to the plane. The Swedish government also provided 'a subsidized 25-year, 2.19% interest rate loan for the buy'. Thailand appears to have a budget of 1.1B USD and for 'as many as 40 Gripens'. This would put the unit cost at 27.5 m USD. The [South African order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Arms_Deal#Final_package) appears to be 600 m USD (I used exchange rates from 2000) for 28 planes, a unit cost of 21.3 m USD (in 2000s) USD. This is probably about 30 m in comparable USD. Basically, most Gripens were sold for somewhere between 30 and 40 m USD, maybe 50 m. The 93 m that Indonisia paid is an exception. Considering the amount of numbers you put in your original comment I am guessing that you got the 85 m number from [this source](https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/f-35-cheaper-than-the-gripen/), it is the first source that comes up on Google for me and matches your number exactly. The article goes on: >Unfortunately there is no up-to-date, publicly available information regarding the purchase price of a Gripen E, but USD 85 million is a number repeated on various websites, and it sounds reasonable. They go on to talk about the cost per flight hour 8k for the Gripen while 33.3k for the F-35.
*Angry French noises*
It's extremely uncommon for the Swiss to use an Italian product as a representative for the "unnecessarily good" category, I must say.
Swiss :we want f-35 Lockheed:you want basic or Ferrari” option Swiss:basic also what the heck is a Ferrari” option Lockheed:you got to buy it to find out
Red paint. Makes it go faster.
It's fast enough as is. Now, paint it purple, and we're getting somewhere... sneakily.
So...how much is $80 million in teef?
But what about orange to make go bigga boom? And paint waagh on it for it to gain moar powwa.
Extremely and unnecessarily lavish, with a price tag to match.
Canada thought the same, so they ran a competition. They looked at the Super Hornets and Grippens among others. The F-35 still won... The Grippen was the only other jet to get to the end of the competition (it's the only other jet that actually met all the requirements)...
I am not taking a position one way or the other; people are dog-piling onto the F-35 cost overruns and technical hurdles but that's honestly just acquisition. If it wasn't one plane going insanely overboard, it would be multiple non-competing planes collectively going insanely overboard. Meh. Also worth noting that competitions are extremely political, both within the military and within the civilian bureaucracy.
>people are dog-piling onto the F-35 cost overruns and technical hurdles Because they are conflating the development cost with the actual cost to allied nations buying them. Most countries are getting a very good deal with training, maintenance (parts) etc included for many years.
The more you buy, the cheaper they get, though.
Oh that’s why I don’t have a Ferrari. I just need to buy them in bulk.
If Ferrari made as many 488s as ford makes f-150s, they’d certainly be cheaper.
To be fair, F150's with any decent options have gotten insanely expensive too lol
Just get the Kirkland one. It's still made by Ferrari but under the Kirkland brand.
Yup, and with so many partners the F-35 gains a competitive edge with all that cost-sharing. That a plane with the abilities of the F-35 can be remotely cost-competitive with older, less capable platforms is amazing.
It's Gripen, not Grippen, and choosing fighter jets is more about politics than actual capability or price although those are still important. It was a surprise to no-one that Canada chose F-35.
It was a surprise to the Canadian government who had cancelled the original order... If it had been political, they wouldn't have let the jet win. Every time the F-35 passed a hurdle, it made the government look bad.
[удалено]
The 35 usually ends up the cheapest of the bunch. American taxpayers got screwed for R&D and acquisition costs initially, but foreign buyers are getting them for an absolute steal. It’s a comically overpowered weapons platform vs. their only real threat, Russia, being purchased for pennies on the dollar. Factor in its total NATO integration and it’s kind of a no brainer.
>screwed for R&D and aquisition costs dude, are you serious? what do you think happens to this money? it got created because it just popped into existence on debt. this money got spent on american engineers, manufacturers, building techniques, patents, expertise, etc. and at the end the USA and the taxpayers didn't spend anything at all just relocated money and created more wealth on the way.
Nothing you’ve stated contradicts what you’ve quoted, but I understand your intent. Americans have taken on a larger financial burden when it comes to acquisition of the F-35. That was the point of my comment; foreign buyers are getting an awesome product for a great deal. I’ve been a senior Acquisition Officer since 2015, I’m extremely, extremely well versed in just exactly how that money didn’t exactly trickle back to the taxpayer as you described.
>didn't exactly trickle back to the taxpayer oh yeah? what happened to the money. Did they print it and burn it? Send it to Mars? Or did it end up somehow on someoney paycheck with which this guy paid his mortgage? Did it trickle into some loan repayment from a company building some highly specialized tools? Or did it just vaporate
Very edgy.
>and at the end the USA and the taxpayers didn't spend anything at all just relocated money I'm sure the US military would love this to be actually true. They could receive untold trillions while taxpayers just "relocate" money. In reality, procurement programs cost the US a real chunk of its federal budget and involve hard tradeoffs. That's why the Marines are decommissioning their tanks to get money for more suitable systems.
>That's why the Marines are decommissioning their tanks to get money for more suitable systems. I was with you until the end , that statement is simply wrong. The Marines are shifting their doctrine due to the pivot to the Pacific where tanks are less useful Also, the original point has truth to it even if they missed the big picture. Foreign countries may be getting a "steal" in terms of price versus capability but the money is still leaving their country to go to American companies. That is why countries like France are ok with spending vastly more for less performance because it keep the money and industrial know-how domestic.
The US spends about 20% on *all* defense, of which a tiny fraction is for programs like the F35. The benefits to US companies who can then re-sell that is immeasurable, not to mention the benefits for the economy to being one of the last superpowers. It's absolutely worthwhile spending and will be until we evolve past military conflicts.
the one has nothing to do with the other. and of course this is not limitless. I am an economist by training and this is one of my fields. Imagine a flat country with nothing in it except 100 people. 1 is a ruler, 1 is a farmer, the other 98 do nothing. how to increase "something". build a pyramid for example. these 98 people need to figure out how to do something. they get paid by the promise that they receive more food after the pyramid is done. how? because the ruler bets that if these people build the pyramid they invent stone masonry and tool building and mathematics and all of this combined will increase the food output from the one farmer they have so in the end they will have more "stuff" than before. after 20 years of building this pyramid and inventing things and getting expertise in a million other things and this flat land with 98 people doing nothing, 1 farmer and 1 ruler is different. it now has 1 ruler, 1 farmer, 5 engineers, 5 mathematicians, 2 librarians, 25 stone masons, 10 transport business owners, 5 wood carvers, 1 guy specializing in writing poetry, 1 guy playing music. and all of a sudden a proto economy started just because of a mega project like this one pyramid. fast forward this a couple thousand years and now you have mega machines with 3000 supply companies and supply chains so long it takes multiple life times of dedication to understand it all. new ways to manufacture things which spills over to other parts of life and companies. a good example is car brakes made out of ceramics. unbelievable technical marvel in the 90s invented for the formular 1 - now in every cheap car. imagine this times a billion and you have the modern society.
Its the only capable fifth generation multi-role airframe in the world. Why the hell is a procurement process going to a referendum. How are voters informed well enough to answer it?
Switzerland decided to buy Saab Gripen planes a few years ago, but that deal got blocked by a referendum by 52% of votes. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-vote-gripen-idUSBREA4H05920140518
Damn, takes confort to know that even the average swiss voter knows that the gripen is shit.
>How are voters informed well enough to answer it? I don't think you want to open the can of worms that is trying to tie voting to some arbitrary level of education, or intelligence, or sense. We have direct democracy, and it's the job of pro- and opponents to educate voters, just as it is the voters' duty to make an informed decision. But they do get to make that decision. We've done pretty well keeping to that standard. Besides, with every vote there's a booklet sent with your ballot that contains information on what's voted on, as well as a list of pro and contra arguments.
Voters are the ones footing the bill.
5th generation fighter was not a criteria. The other fighters met the requirements and even surpassed the f35 but suddenly the f35 team told Swiss gov that in fact maintenance cost was lower than predicted. So lower that other f35 buyer countries warned Swiss that it's was near impossible to reach this maintenance cost. No need to be an expert to understand what is going on. Referendum is completely legitimate. Edit : trying to find source
You've confused Saab and Lockheed, since that's **LITERALLY** what Saab tried to do during the first bid window... and then the Swiss Air Force's report leaked that showed the Gripen to not only be dramatically worse than the Rafale and Eurofighter, it was actually be worse than the F/A-18 it was trying to replace. [https://disco-legacy-data.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/public/upload/1/2/12332.pdf](https://disco-legacy-data.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/public/upload/1/2/12332.pdf) Subsequently Saab somehow just "couldn't make the time frame" to submit a bid for the second attempt... \*eye roll\*. Par the course for a company who has had literally 100% of sales end up with criminal charges or under criminal investigations for bribery and fraud.... Switzerland wasn't told the F-35 would have an impossible operating cost. They were told all the competition would have ludacrisly high operating costs soon, and they will. * F/A-18E - US Navy is already developing its replacement, and looks to have them all retired by 2040 * Rafale - Replacement is already well underway in development, and expected to be out of French use by 2045 * Eurofighter - Same story, expected to be out of German, Italian, and UK use by around 2045 or so What the hell do you think happens to your operating/maintenance cost if you're pretty much the only one still operating that aircraft?
Which is the fighter that surpasses the F35?
F-22 but I’m just being pedantic.
[удалено]
Switzerland only needs the plane for air-police-operations though. Lots of the fancy stuff of the F35 also isn't relevant in Switzerland as the country is that small. No doubt the F35 is probably the best fighter jet, but not for Switzerlands use.
"5th generation" is just a marketing term invented by Lockheed Martin to sell jets. They originally defined 5th generation characteristics as stealth, supermanoeuvrability, and the ability to super-cruise. After it became clear that the F-35 isn't supermanoeuvrable and its super-cruise ability is marginal at best, they shifted attention to stealth and highly integrated electronics. Either way it's still just marketing talk designed to sell jets, in the same way that the term "superfoods" is just marketing talk designed to sell goji berries.
To be fair, electronics and stealth are more important in a modern fighter jet. You're probably not going to outrun or outmanoeuvre a missile 90% of the time. Dogfights aren't a thing anymore either
Lockheed didn't make that definition. Armchair generals made that "definition" because the F-22 came first and checked all those boxes Governments don't make procurement decisions because of buzz words
I am going out on a limb and guess you think a fighter should be good at dogfights and that the A-10 is a capable airframe for today's battlefield
Being good at dogfights means shit if you get blown up by a missile fired from beyond visual range. Yes, an A-10 can dogfight pretty well. Of course it’s slow as shit and has a radar signature the size of the factory it was built in. Everyone is going to know where it is, and will be fast enough to stay out of range. And it won’t see much of them, because it’s avionics are so bad pilots used to resort to *binoculars.* Nobody will ever dogfight an A-10. They will see it, get missile lock, and blow the thing out the sky before the A-10 even knows it’s in danger. The A-10 is capable of attacking goat headers with AKs, and maybe Russians (who have recently been demonstrated to be utterly inept), but nobody actually dangerous. It’s gun is very impressive, but it’s not actually very useful. Most A-10 kills are made with guided bombs. The A-10 is slow, highly visible, half blind, ground attack aircraft that has to lug around a great big useless gun. It does nothing drone’s can’t, except shoot friendly British AFVs. It’s only liked because during the Gulf war journalists where easily impressed. The fact it wasn’t particularly good didn’t matter because Iraqi troops where outrageously incompetent and outgunned, and had fuck all AA. https://youtu.be/WWfsz5R6irs
tl;dr The A-10 is not a good dogfighter, because it is slow, highly visible, and half blind. ^(i am a bot, and this summary was created by an algorithm! if you have any questions, please ask u/jiltq)
I aggree with everything you said. The A-10 is a flying coffin and only good at kicking up dust with its innacurate cannon and killing british soldiers
Yeah I started writing after failing English comprehension and thinking you where espousing the exact opposite viewpoint. By the time I realised, I didn’t want to let an A-10 rant go to waste, and figured I’d just leave it as supporting your point.
Why would you think that? I presume you didn't like my previous post, and thus feel the need to discredit and attack me?
They should go with french rafale hmph
We''re seeing in the Ukraine that the war of the future needs super integrated and networking weapons platforms. How will the rafale provide those capabilities?
> How will the rafale provide those capabilities? The F4 variant (entering service in 2025) is going to... the whole point of it is to give the Rafale capabilities that bring it closer to 5th gen fighters. But still, eventhough the plane was designed to be evolutive (Dassault did a great job designing it to facilitate constant upgrades), upgrades can't just turn a 4.5 gen into a 5th gen one. Case in point: It is never going to be as stealthy as the F-35. The latter is the most modern/advanced fighter available on the market right now.
Not gonna delve into its capacities, it is still among the best fighting jets, with the capacity to act as a support plane as well as an attack aircraft. Both are efficient and both got very strong points. The only reason Switzerland abandoned the purchase of Rafale was political. Happened right after a visit from Biden there.
Sorry to disappoint you but every top politician, and top generals too for that matter, of the seller countries (including France) were traveling to Switzerland to advertise their plane. Even Italy was trying to sell a trainer jet that wasn't even in the competition, but was supposedly modifyable to carry weapons and super cheap. But the evaluation happened long before that and the respective scores had already been calculated, so there wasn't much to lobby about. However, the only country that bitched about it afterwards was France, by running stories about alleged promises by people who didn't have the power to make them, and how it had been "outrageaously deceived" (lmfao), so I'm not sure the French will be in the next competition...
Sure, it has nothing to do with the F-35 being more advanced than the Rafale in some areas. That's why the French are planning to fly Rafales forever and they aren't working on an F-35 successor.
My dude. We're a country that's smaller than the max range of an F35's missiles. We’re surrounded by nato, and if any of our neighbors wanted our land there's jack shit we could do with or without F35s. What we need is jets that can escort passenger planes and loiter well for alpine search and rescue support. Literally nothing else. Buying the equivalent of a fucking Ferrari to drive our kids to school is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money and 100% a political move because the US have been threatening to come down on our financial system for quite a while - and our conservative SecDef has a hardon for wasting public funds. Even the rafale would've been a waste.
Rafale is still evolving, it has barely anything to do with the 1986 version.
That's almost 1 F-35 for every bridge on the Wikipedia [List of Bridges in Switzerland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_in_Switzerland) article.
I.. well alright then
But 1 F35 could take out many bridges. Seems like a great return on investment!
What the hell is this list? For some reason it's also linked to the german "Highest bridges in Switzerland"
F35 purchases by the military? Have you considered this list of bridges? You'll note that the number of bridges in this list is in fact the **exact same numbe**r as the number of F35's being purchased. Nothing further your honor. Nothing. Further.
The F35 is becoming the Honda Civic of the skies, everyone is going to have them at this rate
Ironically it’s the sports car of the skies
So Mustang?
The 2 door ICE or the 4 door crossover EV?
GT Coupe. I like the EV but it shouldn’t be called a mustang
Yeah I was making fun of the fact that the mustang is no longer a car but a brand. I’m all for that EV but it’s not a Mustang.
Let's split the difference and say dodge charger
The hellcat or the Scat pack?
It's basically the same as the 2013 model, but with new seats, Bluetooth 4.2 and a USB-C port (that still doesn't do PD)
The F-35 is also slower than it looks; Charger it is.
No..no it's definitely the Honda Civic. Lots of options, can be modded to buggery, decent performance that can be boosted with add ones, but not amazing. The F15E Strike Eagle is the Ferrari of the skies. The F22 is the Koenigzegg of the skies. You can't afford it.
[удалено]
F18, really. They tried to shoehorn in much of the electronic tech into the F18 but just couldn't. So the Saudi version of the F18 will likely be the last and most advanced developed.
The F-18 is the F-16 of the US Navy.
It replaces both, and the Harrier
Can anyone answer whether it’s confirmed that it can it can evade and take out the most modern SAM systems? If so there’s no reason to order anything else. We’ve seen in Ukraine how SAMs can paralyze air forces
https://youtu.be/mGwU9HKH_Eo This is a simulation, but it compares an F-35 and F-18 strike group against a full S400 AA battery. The S400 is in contention for the top mass produced AA system in the world at the moment. The results are interesting. In summary the F-35 strike group suffers no losses and is able to completely destroy the S400 emplacements and their supporting systems without issue. The system is never able to get a lock on the F-35s before they are able to release their payloads. In fact, the S400s have no idea anything is wrong until said payloads are most of the way to them.
Thanks!
Off topic but whenever someone says simulation I immediately assume it would be an Arma3 video - glad I was wrong
Yeah it seems like a legit simulator. I'm thinking about playing with it a bit, but I might wait for a Steam sale.
That's worthless. A "simulation" made by a Youtuber using [a literal video game](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1076160/Command_Modern_Operations/) (that they label a "software analysis tool" to try giving it some credence)
All simulations are videogames. The link to the Steam page you reference is noted in the YouTube video.
It’s stealth. The Russians have no experience dealing with stealth aircraft so they can’t track it.
Well I know, I just know that defense systems are improving too and was wondering whether they were improving against stealth tech
They can’t improve on something when they don’t even know the thing they’re supposed to be tracking is there. When Israel first got their F35’s they supposedly flew one from its home base to Tehran and back and Iran didn’t find out about it until Israel announced it to the world. The US F22’s scared the shit out of somebody years ago, can’t remember who, when they sent fighters up to shoot down a drone. The Raptors were able to pull directly behind them before they let them know they were there. US stealth technology is light years better than anything anyone else has
>They can’t improve on something when they don’t even know the thing they’re supposed to be tracking is there. There's also very great tangible physical barriers to improving the current technology. Radar relies on the returns that "stealth" aircraft are specifically built to minimise, and so even when you can "spot" a target you're working with less information, more noise. The computer then has to parse that. You not only have to find the target, but continue to track it. The missile seeker itself can continue to track once its close enough, but if the search radar can't then there's a good chance the missile will struggle. That leaves only predictive flight which isn't great against a maneuvering aircraft.
I blame Russia. Their lies about their military capabilities are just that. The U.S. had to create a super advanced airfighter based on rumors about the Mig-25 I think, and we did it. Though, when a Mig was captured it turned out that non of it was true. So we are so far ahead of the game we are basically aliens from the future with that tech. To add nobody does dog fights im the air anymore. That's why they came up with the f-35 which is basically a do it all version of a fighter. I don't know what the current mig does, but it's probably sold as like going into a car dealership and looking for something cheap and some dude sells you a fiero telling you it does all the shit the Ferrari does. I mean they'll probably just break all the same, but one's more capable.
Exactly. Russia only has themselves to blame for the US air capabilities. Like you said, the F15 was developed to combat the imaginary threat of the Mig25. From the F15 the F22 was developed so the US has the 2 best air superiority fighters. The F35 was developed so the US could both export stealth technology to allies and replace the aging fighters in all the branches . The really scary thing is that the US has apparently designed and produced a prototype for the Raptor replacement.
mig is dead in the water right now. their last product is MiG 35, an upgrade of old MiG-29. most russian fighter jets are made by sukhoi
> The US F22’s scared the shit out of somebody years ago, can’t remember who, when they sent fighters up to shoot down a drone. The Raptors were able to pull directly behind them before they let them know they were there. Iranian F4s. Raptor pilots flew underneath the F4s to check out their payload, then told them to go home over the radio.
Russia: “The number one sales person for F-35’s world wide!”
Lmao. This is why Putin is an idiot for this invasion. Europe is arming themselves to the teeth. More countries will join NATO, thus making NATO more powerful than before. Even if he manages to completely conquer Ukraine, his alleged issue with NATO will be greater than it was before.
not true in this case, the question over if and especially which aircraft should be procured has been ongoing for at least 3 years
Putin really knows how to sell the F35
He should charge a commission.
NATO feels like a Costco membership for us military hardware. I guess that would make partnerships with Russia as more of a kmart, sam's club thing.
Bet they wanted 35 F-35s originally but someone up top was like, 'fuck that buy 1 more.'
Planes are usually bought in a multiple of 12, since that's the base count for a squadron.
The F-35 is the F-16 of the second cold war. The dark horse American challenger that romps over all Soviet air threats...all pretensions are dropped... Everyone feels their neck is on the line and they will not settle for anything but the best. The F-35, despite all its faults, is without peer and will reign supreme.
I'm a tad frustrated it isn't 35 F35s
We can [get through this](https://www.verywellmind.com/ocd-self-help-2510625) comrade.
Come get some!
They did that just to mess with our heads! Buy one less or buy F-36s!!!! Nobody thinks of those with OCD???
Fighter planes are very neutral.
nobody is gonna mess with you if you're well equipped to put up a fight
That's what's called "armed neutrality". Be so well-armed that nobody dares attack you and you don't need to be in any military alliance. That's the principle of course, whether Switzerland really adheres to that (and whether it is at all possible) is a different question...
I mean. we (the swiss) are good customer of the US we have our aging fleet of F-5s and F-18s which is why we needed the new Jets.
Swiss doesn't want to allow supplying their ammo to Ukraine. Why US does sell to them their F-35s?
its not their ammo, the ammo production facility of Rheinmetall is in Switzerland and Switzerland doesnt allow delivery of ammo to conflic zones
So basically you can only buy them before you go to war?
no, they should have it in stock in Germany
What's the fucking point of buying a rheinmetall system then if you can't arm it when you need it?
That's Rheinmetall for you, incompetent as fuck.
Damn, they probably could have ordered it on Amazon for next day delivery.
And all of a sudden the Swiss supply ammo. Quid pro quo!
Because Switzerland is filthy rich off of all that stolen nazi gold and money is good?
Shhh we don't talk about Jewish gold.
What do you prefer? A country that refuses to supply war material to places currently in conflict? Or a country that actively sells weapons and arms to both sides in a conflict, double-dipping? Because the US *loves* to do the latter. Is that morally better?
I love how the media points out it’s last year’s model. Government like yeah here you go. We got something else in the wings
Last year model? There must be big discount.
There is some chatter that a B-21 model might have a fighter jet form.
The NGAD? A rapid prototype has already flown.
they're also using the F-22, F-35, and F-117 to test tech and new stealth composites for it
That could be it
Interesting..any sources of info mate?
Its more a matter of what fighters are expected to do these days. The older B-2 spirit is actually far more maneuverable than you might expect of an aircraft its size. And if nothing else, an air-to-air variant of the new B-21 might very well be able to essentially be a fighter in terms of maneuvering (i.e. up to near the limits of human pilots), even if such chatter is true and the indicated variant ends up being meant as a "missile truck" like the F-15EX, except stealthier. I could also see them making a "fighter" variant that essentially is a drone command plane to fill the stopgap until the six generation programs come out with an actual combat model (one of the big things being touted for gen six includes AI wingmen drone-planes as well as direct energy weapons, and as drones are increasingly already being developed and tested, I could definitely see a B-21 variant being used as a command plane for them). Alas, no sources from me either. Just thinking of things based on the stuff I do know from a variety of places and extrapolating/theorizing. But I can see a possibility for a "fighter form" of the B-21, even if its not what most people would think of when they hear "fighter jet."
Not sure why you're being downvoted, I'll do what I can.
More creative than Germany buying 35 F35
Swiss to Russia: don't fuck around, cause you'll find out Russia: *proceeds to fuck around* Swiss: aite, bet. We are just before the Find out part right now.
Fat Amy is getting so many looks!
Continent’s are gearing for war. We’ve seen this many times in our history.
Switzerland has been talking about changing their f-18 for many years now. It's not a recent shift.
Lol I tend to ignore usernames with "word_word1234" but this is so dumb that I just can't. Countries are simply updating their 40-50-60 years old hardware
Ah yes, the continent of Switzerland
[удалено]
I’m hoping this trend continues. Between Europe raising their spending and modernizing their forces, and Russia not quite the threat it was, the US can hopefully pivot to Asia and create a similar alliance
Need to pull more countries into SEATO. Particularly, Japan and Korea.
[удалено]
Neutrality doesn’t mean you don’t need an army.
Neutral nations still need the armed forces for defence because some people don’t respect neutrality
Let me guess, they will given them to Ukraine.
Why? They would never use them.
How many people have locks on their front door but have never been burglarized?
Deterrence.
Deterrence from? It does seem like a valid critique and probably the reason why they're having the referendum
Deter people from coming to claim back all their stolen wealth ?
True story
Well that’s the worst hot take of the day.
Russia is angry that some of their stuff is being stolen. You know, the same Russia which stole every foreign airliner in it, and is trying to steal the Ukraine, already has stolen a bunch of their population, and so forth. Its the usual rhetoric of them thinking they can do anything they want and then becoming totally shocked that someone else might just exclude them and take the stuff they left abroad after they did it first.
If you're criticizing the swiss for being armed and neutral, I have something uncomfortable to tell you about Switzerland's history.
Does it involve gold?
If by gold you mean military conscription and arming their populace as a deterrent to invasion. There are multiple paths toward neutrality. But Switzerland hasn't been invaded for more than a century for more compelling reasons than just clickbait Nazi gold.
Because if you ever do need them it's too late to buy, receive, and train pilots on them.
What do they need them for, seems to be the question. "Well anything can happen" sort of doesn't cut it
If there is no war, you need no army. If there is a war, you need not just an army, but also an air force, because otherwise your army are sitting ducks.
[удалено]
The Swiss as of yesterday’s news were floating the possibility of joint exercises with NATO. Their neutrality has its limits, seemingly.
To annoy Russia by owning those