The F-35 thread, Mk II
QSaid to be the cheapest option." 
That got my attention as well. Wonder how much Eurofighters or Rafales have been?
Regarding the swiss statement of price; as Finns are having the HX tender for up to 64 fastjets to replace aging F/A-18's and final offers are out, Lockheed Martin stated last month that their offer for Finland includes up to 64 F-35's for the 10bn limit (including weapons systems etc). In essence, you'll get a F35 with the same price as super hornet, Saab, Rafale, eurofighter et al. So with the swiss news it seems the F-35 prices are coming down. Someone somewhere wants to get them out of the factory.
Regarding the swiss statement of price; as Finns are having the HX tender for up to 64 fastjets to replace aging F/A-18's and final offers are out, Lockheed Martin stated last month that their offer for Finland includes up to 64 F-35's for the 10bn limit (including weapons systems etc). In essence, you'll get a F35 with the same price as super hornet, Saab, Rafale, eurofighter et al. So with the swiss news it seems the F-35 prices are coming down. Someone somewhere wants to get them out of the factory.
LM haven't done a search through their old Lockheed company archive's for a folder marked "Big brown envelope F-104 sales proceedures" have they...
Ex-USAF Lockheed pilot upgrading from F-16 Production & Training pilot to F-35:
Lockheed Martin's First Female F-35 Production and Training Pilot Takes Flight (f35.com)
Lockheed Martin's First Female F-35 Production and Training Pilot Takes Flight (f35.com)
Definitely a victory for the LM press machine. $2bn (sorry don't have a Euro symbol) cheaper over 30 years than the competition apparently - I guess if they don't fly them much it could be true...
AFAIK their evaluation concluded that the F-35 was "far superior" to all other offers. That goes for the technical functionality and operational efficiency "for Swiss needs" as well.
Not related to LM in any way just watching the press conference on YouTube.
Not related to LM in any way just watching the press conference on YouTube.
Thing is, if you decide that you need to operate a stealthy 5th gen strike fighter then it has to be F-35. Other 4/4.5 gen types may or may not be able to compete on cost, but if they can't compete in the air what's the point?
Definitely a victory for the LM press machine. $2bn (sorry don't have a Euro symbol) cheaper over 30 years than the competition apparently - I guess if they don't fly them much it could be true...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021...ability-cliff/
Watchdog group finds F-35 sustainment costs could be headed off affordability cliff
WASHINGTON — Under current estimates, the U.S. Air Force will reach a tipping point where projected F-35 sustainment costs become too expensive, forcing the service to either cut its planned buy of the Lockheed Martin-made jet or drastically reduce flying hours, the Government Accountability Office found in a new report.
As the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps’ F-35 operations reach their peak in 2036, it will be exponentially difficult for the services to afford sustaining the F-35 if the cost per tail remains at current estimates, the GAO said in a July 7 report. Cost per tail per year is the measurement the Pentagon uses to measure how much money it takes to sustain a single aircraft annually.
Specifically, the Defense Department will face a $6 billion gap in 2036 between the actual cost of sustaining the services’ F-35s and the cost the services can afford, the GAO said.
About $4.4 billion of that expense will be billed to the Air Force, which plans to buy 1,763 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing jets throughout the program of record.…..
The stakeholders of the F-35 program—which include the F-35 joint program office, the services and prime contractor Lockheed Martin — have “unique and differing perspectives on affordability,” which ultimately make it difficult to develop a shared plan for cutting sustainment costs, the GAO said.
For example, Air Force officials have noted that, even if it could somehow obtain all spare parts for its F-35 fleet for free, F-35 sustainment costs would still exceed affordability targets by 14 percent…..
Watchdog group finds F-35 sustainment costs could be headed off affordability cliff
WASHINGTON — Under current estimates, the U.S. Air Force will reach a tipping point where projected F-35 sustainment costs become too expensive, forcing the service to either cut its planned buy of the Lockheed Martin-made jet or drastically reduce flying hours, the Government Accountability Office found in a new report.
As the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps’ F-35 operations reach their peak in 2036, it will be exponentially difficult for the services to afford sustaining the F-35 if the cost per tail remains at current estimates, the GAO said in a July 7 report. Cost per tail per year is the measurement the Pentagon uses to measure how much money it takes to sustain a single aircraft annually.
Specifically, the Defense Department will face a $6 billion gap in 2036 between the actual cost of sustaining the services’ F-35s and the cost the services can afford, the GAO said.
About $4.4 billion of that expense will be billed to the Air Force, which plans to buy 1,763 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing jets throughout the program of record.…..
The stakeholders of the F-35 program—which include the F-35 joint program office, the services and prime contractor Lockheed Martin — have “unique and differing perspectives on affordability,” which ultimately make it difficult to develop a shared plan for cutting sustainment costs, the GAO said.
For example, Air Force officials have noted that, even if it could somehow obtain all spare parts for its F-35 fleet for free, F-35 sustainment costs would still exceed affordability targets by 14 percent…..
This will most likely go to popular vote.
Question being what would be the mission of stealth fighters in Switzerland.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Interesting. The only published roles of the Swiss Air Force are airspace protection, air transport and airborne intelligence gathering - and I am unaware of any weapon purchases or training beyond those roles.
The Air2030 requirements are here https://www.vbs.admin.ch/de/verteidi...030-d.pdf.html
and include: ...in the event of an armed attack, combat aircraft in parallel to meet the air defense task for aerial reconnaissance and for combat ground targets can be deployed from the air.
and include: ...in the event of an armed attack, combat aircraft in parallel to meet the air defense task for aerial reconnaissance and for combat ground targets can be deployed from the air.
Doable doesn't mean it's optimum or desirable ..................
I've seen this said a few times, but as someone not familiar with the Swiss system can you explain why an F-35 purchase might go back to a vote while a Rafale/Eurofighter/Super Hornet purchase would (presumably) not? I thought the whole point of having the referendum before the selection was to avoid such an occurrence.
Obviously our Swiss constitution is not the ideal place to put a ban on a certain airplane (F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter ... you name it), but technically it would be feasible. All it needs is a group or a party collecting signatures of 100'000 registered voters, proposing a change of the consititution and reqesting to vote about it.
The Swiss referendum on new fighter planes did end up with 50.1 % "yes" only (check "Eidgenössische Abstimmung über die Beschaffung neuer Kampfflugzeuge" on Wikipedia for detailed results - I'm not allowed to post a direct link). Would it have been known that the Swiss government would be choosing the F-35, I'm pretty sure the referendum would have ended with a solid "no". Thus it's probable - but not sure - that somoene will start collecting signatures for a "Volks-Initiative" aimed at changing our constitution, specifically excluding the F-35 from being acquired. It's pretty sure that no one would bother doing this if the Rafale or the Eurofighter would have benn chosen.
To make things more complicated, such a change of our constitution has to be accepted not only by the majority of the voters (as with the Referndum), but by
a) the majority of the voters and
b) the majority of the Cantons
Looking at the results of the initial Referendum (see link above) it's quite probable that the majority of the voters would vote against the F-35, but possible that the majority of Cantons will vote "pro F-35".
I hope this clarifies the issue, at least as far it is possible at the moment.
S
Pentagon services face unaffordable F-35 operations and sustainment costs by 2036
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...-costs-by-2036
The 2020 JPO estimate of the F-35A sustainment cost per tail per year in steady state is USD7.8 million, up from the USD7.1 million cost estimate in 2018. The F-35A affordability constraint for sustainment cost per tail per year is USD4.1 million, representing a gap of USD3.7 million between projected cost and affordability constraint.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/...-in-the-world/
Pilots have raved about the jet’s performance. In its first Red Flag, F-35s scored a 20-to-1 kill ratio against a simulated enemy. In another, it flew 16 simulated offensive counter air missions, eliminating 100 surface-to-air missile sites without losing a plane. That’s not just good performance—it’s unmatched performance.