Norway to reduce F-35 order?

Should be comparing cost per effect. How much does it cost to accomplish mission X with Vipers? How much does it cost with Panthers? How much equipment is blown up with each? Casualties?

That's the whole point -- F-35 requires more people and thus additional costs. It also has infrastructure requirements that are more demanding than a 4. gen or 4.5 gen platform. Further driving costs.

F-35 actually has demonstrably fewer "infrastuctrues" it goes from a 3 high level maitaince structure to just 2.

That's gonna completely depend dude. You're talking out your a$$. Marine F-35 squadrons are actually smaller in size. Its easier to work on than what the USMC has now, and the high level maintaince and overhead is reduced.

BAS 60 and roadside operations cost more, thats why they stopped doing them.

youre talking about something you have no clue about. I know Gripen fans think theyre experrs on maint. and cost, but I assure, thats not the case. Marines deploy on the boat with just pieces of the squadron. When we come back from the det, we have far more people to service the airplane. and it can flex throughout the year. thats why people look even beyond annual cost and look at blocks of years. So years you fly more, some less. some more deployments, some fewer. Sometimes the squadron is fat, and sometimes its slim. sometimes we get chopped into other groups. some things require more personnel, some fewer.

Again you really have no idea what the hell you're talking about. in the US Military you get paid year round. We don't "clock in and clock out" you get paid whether you sleep all day or work all day. no overtime either. Sometimes we drag people along just to have extra hands. it really varries

So what did loke do wrong? he took one narrow example and applied it to the whole. You can't make an assessment on maint. cost in such a fashion. The USMC is going to have 30 percent fewer Marines needed to Maintain a force of F-35Bs than if we kept the current structure of Prowler, harrier, f-18. We have a net savings.

its really too complicated because you have to be able to look at the entire picture. and make judgements from there. heres a hypothetical: imagine my deployment takes a larger proportion of people to deploy, but the squadron overall is smaller everyday, of every year forever? less than say a Prowler unit. Did I save money? the answer is yes.

if my CPFH went up 10 percent, but thanks to simulators I can fly ten percent less, did my cost go up? You have to know these things to make an assessment. Even if everyone was using the exact same and honest measure of CPFH, its still not an accurate comparison because some airplanes fly more. Harriers take a lot more practice, they fly more. Same with landing on ships in a hornet. If a harrier costs 10 percent less than an F-35 CPFH, but I have to fly it 20 percent more, do I save money?

so in order to make an overall, actual cost comparison you need more data than a deployment with a "fat" security force thats also supposed to be working with and training the host country

some of this stuff is literally unquantifiable. We still don't know what all the F-16 upgrade costs over the decades have actually added up to. then we have to factor in inflation... theres other aspects too. If I'm doing a Red flag, I don't have to bring any security, since the USAF provides it. does that reduce my costs? not really because my squadron gets paid the exact same regardless of Red flag or not, whether we fly or turn a single wrench or not... but does the USAF cost add to it? one of my buddies went to jump school and he has a small stipend for it. our pay also fluctuates on how long one has been in. so if I have yougin's working I'm technically "saving" compared to the salts 9but again not really, because they get paid either way). If a pilot comes out and lends a hand, now our "CPFH" has really gone through the roof. Marines who are married get paid more. if they have kids medical support costs really go thru the roof, but thats not a part of squadron budget. its actually in the Navy's.

This could go on and on endlessly.

Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr compares the F-35 to a Ferrari, due to the high costs:

Your comparing flight costs with security costs?

“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” he said. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays."

https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launc ... gen-minus/

its been planned to have reduced hours made up for by the simulators since the start.

Car analogies and airplanes are always bad. Was the F-16 a Honda civic or something?

1. You spend quite a lot of time talking about F-35B. I talk about Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the USAF. Meaning F-35A, which is a different aircraft. Many of your "F-35B" comments don't apply to the situation with the A.
2. I was not clear when I mentioned "infrastructure". What I meant is that for countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland that are operating 4. gen a/c today, significant investments in new infrastructure is necessary when switching to the F-35. I have the numbers for Norway somewhere, and they are big, very big.
3. You do a lot of handwaving above, ignoring your own advice, which is to focus on numbers. I gave you numbers: 110,000 NOK per F-35 flight hour, 65,000 NOK per F-16 flight hour. Same air force.
4. If you want more numbers, they are not hard to find. See for instance this article:

Both CAPE and the F-35 Joint Program Office arrived at similar projections for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant’s cost per flying hour in FY24, with CAPE estimating $36,000 per hour and the JPO pegging costs at $34,000 per hour, said Daigle, who is stepping down later this month. (The two organizations did not provide an estimate for FY25, which is outside of the regular five-year budget cycle.)

Either figure would be an improvement from the FY18 rate, in which one hour of flight time in the "A" model cost about $44,000. However, the oldest F-35s will begin to move into long-term depot maintenance in the mid 2020s, causing a moderate rise in price during the later portion of the decade.

“After 2024, projections are that the cost per flight hour are going to flatten out and then increase a little bit because the planes are starting to age where you’re going to have to start bringing them back to the depot,” Daigle said.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05 ... ttainable/

You also ignore what General Brown is saying: The F-35 is too expensive to allow for an "all 5.gen fleet", which was the USAF wet dream a few years back.

Don't get me wrong: I fully understand and appreciate how capable the F-35 is. However it also costs an arm and a leg to operate. For some countries it's not a problem, they simply reduce the number of a/c. Since each F-35 is so much more capable than, say, the F-16 it is replacing, you can do the same with much fewer aircraft. This is what Holland, Denmark, and Norway is doing.

However some will struggle: If the number of a/c falls below a threshold then you simply don't have enough units to meet the "quantity" requirement. Ironically the USAF, one of the largest air forces in the world, seem to be in this category. They need a massive amounts of a/c to meet missions requirements. Seems they cannot afford to operate the 1,736 F-35A that they originally have planned. At the same time they realize that most missions don't need the F-35 but can be done by e.g. a 4.5 gen fighter jet instead. Or perhaps unmanned.

1. You spend quite a lot of time talking about F-35B. I talk about Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the USAF. Meaning F-35A, which is a different aircraft. Many of your "F-35B" comments don't apply to the situation with the A.

explain the difference between the USMC squadron structure and those of the USAF, Norway, Denmark, and Finland. In detail please. I'd like personnel numbers and such. no rush.

well yeah the F-35B is a great example it actually requires more maint than the A, and my experience is with the Marines and ergo the USN. experience is this thing you get when you actually do the thing people on the internet talk about... its complicated.

2. I was not clear when I mentioned "infrastructure". What I meant is that for countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland that are operating 4. gen a/c today, significant investments in new infrastructure is necessary when switching to the F-35. I have the numbers for Norway somewhere, and they are big, very big.

compared to what?

3. You do a lot of handwaving above, ignoring your own advice, which is to focus on numbers. I gave you numbers: 110,000 NOK per F-35 flight hour, 65,000 NOK per F-16 flight hour. Same air force.
4. If you want more numbers, they are not hard to find. See for instance this article:

Both CAPE and the F-35 Joint Program Office arrived at similar projections for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant’s cost per flying hour in FY24, with CAPE estimating $36,000 per hour and the JPO pegging costs at $34,000 per hour, said Daigle, who is stepping down later this month. (The two organizations did not provide an estimate for FY25, which is outside of the regular five-year budget cycle.)

Either figure would be an improvement from the FY18 rate, in which one hour of flight time in the "A" model cost about $44,000. However, the oldest F-35s will begin to move into long-term depot maintenance in the mid 2020s, causing a moderate rise in price during the later portion of the decade.

“After 2024, projections are that the cost per flight hour are going to flatten out and then increase a little bit because the planes are starting to age where you’re going to have to start bringing them back to the depot,” Daigle said.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05 ... ttainable/

they've been saying this for years, and its going to be a work in progress. this is a "snapshot" of an airplane we are going to be flying into the 2060s. as I explained elsewhere this is going to be a long "event" and the price will vary

You also ignore what General Brown is saying: The F-35 is too expensive to allow for an "all 5.gen fleet", which was the USAF wet dream a few years back.

STRAWMAN ALERT

which wet dream? the strike eagles were supposed to stay on until the 2040s, f-16s were going to hang in there until the 2030s. USMC for example is going to have either a combo of Hornets or Harriers until 2030 (they keep switching which will be gone first) So we knew for a long time there was going to be 4th generation fighters 4.5 gen fighters with the USN. so youre now saying the USAF will fail to do something we knew they were decades from accompllishing anyway from the get-go.

Were you misinfomed?

Thats still going to happen eventually we all knew that its just a matter of when. We don't still tool around in F-4s bruh. and everything is too expensive come budget time, nothing that can't be fixed with more money. I don't foresee "Delivering the last F-35 being retired to a museum and the pilot flying home in an F-16" in 2070 (like the old huey joke) eventually everything will be replaced. In japan for example they are actually retring their F-4s and replacing with F-35s which is to be expected. In the intelligent version of "round robin" the oldest airplanes are retired FIRST not LAST. They'll "back fill" with F-35s until they run out, and then retire and replace whatever legacy airplanes are left. if enough F-35s keep getting produced and we get by the current "clog" then theyll eventually replace more and more and more until they're replacing even early block F-35s.

at any given moment the entire air force is constantly falling apart, everything is being manage, everything is being reorganized and mitigated and rearragned. This isn't new, its new to you. What going to happen is theyre going to shuffle things around until they balance. Bringing F-22s in meant ending F-117. Then the F-22 bases were consolidated to save yet again. and on and on it goes. Remember when the USAF was going to retire the A-10? and then they magically started a fight that got them money to keep them... weird...



I'm saying buckle up. When isn't there budget and cost drama with the F-35? the sky is falling again?

However some will struggle: If the number of a/c falls below a threshold then you simply don't have enough units to meet the "quantity" requirement. Ironically the USAF, one of the largest air forces in the world, seem to be in this category. They need a massive amounts of a/c to meet missions requirements. Seems they cannot afford to operate the 1,736 F-35A that they originally have planned. At the same time they realize that most missions don't need the F-35 but can be done by e.g. a 4.5 gen fighter jet instead. Or perhaps unmanned.

Thats crazy, the worlds most powerful air armada always acts helpless to get more money? thats crazy. amazing how the air force is always falling apart at the seems when its money time.

even if the USAF decided to cut F-35 total numbers to say 1050, its going to be 10 -12 years of 48-60 a year before that number is reached. 2031-2033. and of course we were going to add unmanned stuff anyway, and theres multiple schools of thought on generations vs "they realize" based on what the threat is determined to be do this month.

Remember when people laughed that the F-35 would ever fall under 85 million flyway? they're playing the same skyfall game with CPFH, by the time they get whatever the alternate is, the price will be lower, then lower, then low and behold it will be almost silly to have bought the alternate, but by then it will be too late. better buy F-16s and F-35s! oops! no refunds!

not unlike your suggestion to bring back the F136. lets discuss. Which do you think is easier? restarting a new engine program at the cost of tens of billions of dollars, years of test and certification, introducing it to the fleet in about 5 years, or maybe just working on improving and possibly expanding the depot system we have now to get more F135s back in service? Think real hard as to which you think will get the costs lower and the airplanes in the air sooner. Think about what adds new infrastructure costs... Think really really hard. Thats why f136 got killed in the first place. "Give me billions, and I can save you millions... through "competition" " wow I can't believe they realized that was redundant and expensive. I had an Aussie flat out tell me he was disappointed at that decision because now he couldn't make "twice as much" funny that. Ever since F136 was killed off, every single F135 problem or setback has been used to try and bring the F136 back from the dead. its not charity purposes, and so far, no one has actually fallen for it.

2017:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102811068/

2012
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... e/1680069/


2008:

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Speeches-Ar ... -strategy/

I'll betcha there's going to be force structure problems every year for next 2 dozen years. its not unlike managing a busy hospital. No one in there is "well"

hey look at that, first B-1B retirement today...

Year

2009 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2010 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2011 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2012 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2013 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2014 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2015 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2016 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2017 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2018 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2019 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2020 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2021 < you are here <The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2022 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2023 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2024 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2025 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2026 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2027 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2028 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2029 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2030 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2031 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2032 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2033 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2034 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2035 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2036 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2037 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2038 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2039 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2040 The F-35 is expensive and we may have to cancel and curtail orders
2041 notional production end date. The F-35 is excellent and we are placing more orders
2042 more orders placed as line cools down
2043 more orders placed as line cools down
2044 more orders placed as line cools down
2045 Block X F-35, a vast improvement that gives F-35 new lease on life. now directly competing with other programs
2046 Block X F-35 order approved, line given new lease on life
2047 The F-35 is excellent and we are placing more orders
2048 The F-35 is excellent and we are placing more orders
2049 Evergeen F-35 is still excellent and we are placing more orders

EXACTLY ! ! !

Old timers have actually seen this happen before our very eyes over and over and over again.

You. Start. To see. A pattern.

Only the yung'ins bleating about CPFH like it really concerns anyone.

$25 trillion national debt and all you hear is crickets. $35k / hour operating cost and we're all going to die.

Give me a break. Go away and grow up. Come back in 30 years and we'll talk about the F-35 program.

2. I was not clear when I mentioned "infrastructure". What I meant is that for countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland that are operating 4. gen a/c today, significant investments in new infrastructure is necessary when switching to the F-35. I have the numbers for Norway somewhere, and they are big, very big.
3. You do a lot of handwaving above, ignoring your own advice, which is to focus on numbers. I gave you numbers: 110,000 NOK per F-35 flight hour, 65,000 NOK per F-16 flight hour. Same air force.
4. If you want more numbers, they are not hard to find. See for instance this article:

Both CAPE and the F-35 Joint Program Office arrived at similar projections for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant’s cost per flying hour in FY24, with CAPE estimating $36,000 per hour and the JPO pegging costs at $34,000 per hour, said Daigle, who is stepping down later this month. (The two organizations did not provide an estimate for FY25, which is outside of the regular five-year budget cycle.)

Either figure would be an improvement from the FY18 rate, in which one hour of flight time in the "A" model cost about $44,000. However, the oldest F-35s will begin to move into long-term depot maintenance in the mid 2020s, causing a moderate rise in price during the later portion of the decade.

“After 2024, projections are that the cost per flight hour are going to flatten out and then increase a little bit because the planes are starting to age where you’re going to have to start bringing them back to the depot,” Daigle said.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05 ... ttainable/

You also ignore what General Brown is saying: The F-35 is too expensive to allow for an "all 5.gen fleet", which was the USAF wet dream a few years back.

Don't get me wrong: I fully understand and appreciate how capable the F-35 is. However it also costs an arm and a leg to operate. For some countries it's not a problem, they simply reduce the number of a/c. Since each F-35 is so much more capable than, say, the F-16 it is replacing, you can do the same with much fewer aircraft. This is what Holland, Denmark, and Norway is doing.

However some will struggle: If the number of a/c falls below a threshold then you simply don't have enough units to meet the "quantity" requirement. Ironically the USAF, one of the largest air forces in the world, seem to be in this category. They need a massive amounts of a/c to meet missions requirements. Seems they cannot afford to operate the 1,736 F-35A that they originally have planned. At the same time they realize that most missions don't need the F-35 but can be done by e.g. a 4.5 gen fighter jet instead. Or perhaps unmanned.

Finland for example had to do pretty extensive infrastructure work when we bought Hornets in the 90s. That same thing would've been required to be done if we chose Gripen then. Both were far more advanced than MiG-21s and Saab Drakens and had far more capabilties that needed far better infrastructure to support operations. Same is true with F-35 vs. old F-16s.

Danish view of going from F-16 to F-35: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/269310082.pdf

Security measures will also be substantially increased for the areas housing the aircraft and their information
systems, as they will have highlyclassified mission files, sensor data, and logistics information that belong to the larger JSF programme. ‘The F-35 is more supercomputer than bomb truck – it is a flying data hub … But that capability presents a new set of challenges: protecting sensitive technology and sovereign information shared between international operators over the aircraft’s vast network'. Each F-35 and each F-35 base will be rich in classified and sensitive information that will require protection from the efforts of unfriendly intelligence agencies.

Danish security measures will have to meet standards set by the JPO and NATO, and – beyond protecting the base from a direct attack by an opposing military force – will necessarily include controlling physical access to sensitive areas of the air base, monitoring access to areas beyond the base (where aircraft will approach for take-off and landing), measures against drones (both for surveillance and the physical impediment of air operations),119 cybersecurity measures, and hardening against electronic warfare threats. It is important to understand that there will be sensitive areas beyond the property of the base, and security will entail measures that the local community has not seen since the Cold War.

Most of those things would be required in any case, regardless of aircraft selection. I'm sure that Gripen also has a lot of advanced and sensitive systems and data that needs to be protected better than ancient F-16 systems. Some of the work is done to increase efficiency and to reduce long term costs. That is also not required because of F-35, but because now there is an opportunity to improve things significantly. That costs money in the short term, but saves it in the long term.

Another factor is that F-35 is completely new aircraft and operating costs tend to be far higher in the beginning when equipment and personnel are being introduced to service. Initially there is low number of aircraft flying but training, maintenance, support and logistics systems and personnel is being built to support the whole fleet of aircraft. That means there is a lot of costs involved that artificially increase flight hour costs. For example is quite common for maintenance people to do a lot of unnecessary stuff just to learn how to do that stuff when it's actually necessary. That increases costs in the beginning, but is a lot better long term.

1. You spend quite a lot of time talking about F-35B. I talk about Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the USAF. Meaning F-35A, which is a different aircraft. Many of your "F-35B" comments don't apply to the situation with the A.

explain the difference between the USMC squadron structure and those of the USAF, Norway, Denmark, and Finland. In detail please. I'd like personnel numbers and such. no rush.

well yeah the F-35B is a great example it actually requires more maint than the A, and my experience is with the Marines and ergo the USN. experience is this thing you get when you actually do the thing people on the internet talk about... its complicated.

2. I was not clear when I mentioned "infrastructure". What I meant is that for countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland that are operating 4. gen a/c today, significant investments in new infrastructure is necessary when switching to the F-35. I have the numbers for Norway somewhere, and they are big, very big.

compared to what?

3. You do a lot of handwaving above, ignoring your own advice, which is to focus on numbers. I gave you numbers: 110,000 NOK per F-35 flight hour, 65,000 NOK per F-16 flight hour. Same air force.
4. If you want more numbers, they are not hard to find. See for instance this article:

Both CAPE and the F-35 Joint Program Office arrived at similar projections for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant’s cost per flying hour in FY24, with CAPE estimating $36,000 per hour and the JPO pegging costs at $34,000 per hour, said Daigle, who is stepping down later this month. (The two organizations did not provide an estimate for FY25, which is outside of the regular five-year budget cycle.)

Either figure would be an improvement from the FY18 rate, in which one hour of flight time in the "A" model cost about $44,000. However, the oldest F-35s will begin to move into long-term depot maintenance in the mid 2020s, causing a moderate rise in price during the later portion of the decade.

“After 2024, projections are that the cost per flight hour are going to flatten out and then increase a little bit because the planes are starting to age where you’re going to have to start bringing them back to the depot,” Daigle said.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05 ... ttainable/

they've been saying this for years, and its going to be a work in progress. this is a "snapshot" of an airplane we are going to be flying into the 2060s. as I explained elsewhere this is going to be a long "event" and the price will vary

You also ignore what General Brown is saying: The F-35 is too expensive to allow for an "all 5.gen fleet", which was the USAF wet dream a few years back.

STRAWMAN ALERT

which wet dream? the strike eagles were supposed to stay on until the 2040s, f-16s were going to hang in there until the 2030s. USMC for example is going to have either a combo of Hornets or Harriers until 2030 (they keep switching which will be gone first) So we knew for a long time there was going to be 4th generation fighters 4.5 gen fighters with the USN. so youre now saying the USAF will fail to do something we knew they were decades from accompllishing anyway from the get-go.

Were you misinfomed?

Thats still going to happen eventually we all knew that its just a matter of when. We don't still tool around in F-4s bruh. and everything is too expensive come budget time, nothing that can't be fixed with more money. I don't foresee "Delivering the last F-35 being retired to a museum and the pilot flying home in an F-16" in 2070 (like the old huey joke) eventually everything will be replaced. In japan for example they are actually retring their F-4s and replacing with F-35s which is to be expected. In the intelligent version of "round robin" the oldest airplanes are retired FIRST not LAST. They'll "back fill" with F-35s until they run out, and then retire and replace whatever legacy airplanes are left. if enough F-35s keep getting produced and we get by the current "clog" then theyll eventually replace more and more and more until they're replacing even early block F-35s.

at any given moment the entire air force is constantly falling apart, everything is being manage, everything is being reorganized and mitigated and rearragned. This isn't new, its new to you. What going to happen is theyre going to shuffle things around until they balance. Bringing F-22s in meant ending F-117. Then the F-22 bases were consolidated to save yet again. and on and on it goes. Remember when the USAF was going to retire the A-10? and then they magically started a fight that got them money to keep them... weird...



I'm saying buckle up. When isn't there budget and cost drama with the F-35? the sky is falling again?

However some will struggle: If the number of a/c falls below a threshold then you simply don't have enough units to meet the "quantity" requirement. Ironically the USAF, one of the largest air forces in the world, seem to be in this category. They need a massive amounts of a/c to meet missions requirements. Seems they cannot afford to operate the 1,736 F-35A that they originally have planned. At the same time they realize that most missions don't need the F-35 but can be done by e.g. a 4.5 gen fighter jet instead. Or perhaps unmanned.

Thats crazy, the worlds most powerful air armada always acts helpless to get more money? thats crazy. amazing how the air force is always falling apart at the seems when its money time.

even if the USAF decided to cut F-35 total numbers to say 1050, its going to be 10 -12 years of 48-60 a year before that number is reached. 2031-2033. and of course we were going to add unmanned stuff anyway, and theres multiple schools of thought on generations vs "they realize" based on what the threat is determined to be do this month.

Remember when people laughed that the F-35 would ever fall under 85 million flyway? they're playing the same skyfall game with CPFH, by the time they get whatever the alternate is, the price will be lower, then lower, then low and behold it will be almost silly to have bought the alternate, but by then it will be too late. better buy F-16s and F-35s! oops! no refunds!

not unlike your suggestion to bring back the F136. lets discuss. Which do you think is easier? restarting a new engine program at the cost of tens of billions of dollars, years of test and certification, introducing it to the fleet in about 5 years, or maybe just working on improving and possibly expanding the depot system we have now to get more F135s back in service? Think real hard as to which you think will get the costs lower and the airplanes in the air sooner. Think about what adds new infrastructure costs... Think really really hard. Thats why f136 got killed in the first place. "Give me billions, and I can save you millions... through "competition" " wow I can't believe they realized that was redundant and expensive. I had an Aussie flat out tell me he was disappointed at that decision because now he couldn't make "twice as much" funny that. Ever since F136 was killed off, every single F135 problem or setback has been used to try and bring the F136 back from the dead. its not charity purposes, and so far, no one has actually fallen for it.

2017:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102811068/

2012
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... e/1680069/


2008:

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Speeches-Ar ... -strategy/

I'll betcha there's going to be force structure problems every year for next 2 dozen years. its not unlike managing a busy hospital. No one in there is "well"

hey look at that, first B-1B retirement today...

I didn't suggest to bring back the F136, I suggested that perhaps it should not have been terminated. Big difference. Each Navy/Air Force could then have a choice, either F135 or F136. Just like for the F-16/F-15. Also many commercial planes offer a range of engines to choose from.

I am not really into the details of the F-35B and how UMSC operates but it seems evident that it's quite different from what Norway and Denmark are doing with the F-35A. I am not sure why you believe they are so similar? Different aircraft and different circumstances.

I didn't suggest to bring back the F136, I suggested that perhaps it should not have been terminated. Big difference. Each Navy/Air Force could then have a choice, either F135 or F136. Just like for the F-16/F-15. Also many commercial planes offer a range of engines to choose from.

The reason it was terminated is because it would have added redundant costs. I love how people complain about the cost of the F-35 then offer "solutions" that would inflate the price tag further. Why?

You'll notice Gripen E picked F414 and never deviated. Shouldn't the SwAF have a choice? When will Sweden fund an alternate engine?

I am not really into the details of the F-35B and how UMSC operates but it seems evident that it's quite different from what Norway and Denmark are doing with the F-35A. I am not sure why you believe they are so similar? Different aircraft and different circumstances.

sigh, you seem to be all over the map. I'm pointing out that you are trying to make cost assertions based on little to no evidence, regarding Norway. Security needs flex and change. This isn't a business, we don't hire people as needed. They pull security whether they are in Norway or on deployment. We sometimes bring extra people just to get them out of the office.

Does Sweden only hire additional personnel when they do exercises? "Help wanted! Need some truck drivers, doing road ops!"



The next big mix up is freaking out over the USAFs future force structure, which is constantly in flux, which is also like the F-35 CPFH. The cost is going to come down, like it always does. The dumbest thing the USAF can do right now is convince itself this gen 4.5idea won't be like Pegasus, Osprey, or F-22, or F-35. That they have some kind of new secret sauce to finally get it right. They always think they have secret sauce. "This won't be like the last 6 times, baby! I swear!"

Regarding F-35, things happen when you get into service and go out into the field. Its kind of like how people rarely injure themselves watching TV on the couch, but if one gets out into the world poo tends to happen. Training injuries are the price one pays for not living a life of couch potato.

to put it simply you seem to be freaking out, but you have no comparative idea, or perspectives on cost evolutions. The 1st plane off the production line is more expensive than the 300th, 500th is cheaper than that, and eventually things flatten. We've known this since the 1930s. An airplanes initial serivce costs is higher, and in 10 years, and in 20 years it tends to become more cheap as effieciencies and knowledge improve. NORWAY, doesn't have the high number of early block F-35s that is freaking out the USAF. because they're basically sweating that just as the costs come down, theyll have to pay big bucks to enter the older, less refined F-35s into heavy maint. Again, this is a uniquely US Problem, as most of the other nations bought very few early block F-35s. Most nations (even the US, but just by sheer volume we have lots of early blocks) are going to get the majority of their F-35s in late blocks, main production lots.

Now we can contrast this with "aging legacy platforms" as the older teen series airplanes get older and spares dry up, we are watching the backend cost increase occur. I think its around 7 percent cost increase annually now. Eventually these two curves will meet, and then head opposite directions. The F-35 will be cheaper, the legacy platform will increase in upkeep. why? because costs fluctuate which is what the USAF is having to deal with. They need to decide what to do as right now all the curves are hitting at once. The plan seems to be to introduce a new curve and another mouth to feed, which will end exactly how I expect, we will have an "F-36" section here and it will quickly go over time and over budget, all the cool stuff that was supposed to prevent that will have failed, but we will all get to argue about it. I don't think the tech has evolved enough to make this dream come true, and more to the point the bureaucracy isn't going anywhere. DOT&E is going to go in dry on this program. theyll have to endlessly test and verify. Its worth noting that X-35, and even X-32 were relatively quickly produced (2 years I believe). the prototypes phase is actually easiest. Mission X was done in what, 2001? its been 20 years. that's the easy part. The part the USAF thinks they can do even better now! yes yes. now just that pesky 95 percent to go!" Rapid prototyping!! Whooooo!

lastly, this is a 50 year timeline. If costs are high initially, but settled for the next say, 40 years, then its quickly forgotten. how often do people actually hold Gripens initial troubles against it? 1990s were so 20 years ago. when we talk about Gripen do we mention it breaking the bank? crashes? software issues? of course not. its a model airplane now isn't it? The reason Norway rejected gripen NG was they knew that costs would only be lower for half its life, and then increase to a degree that the savings were wiped out as support dried up. so it was rejected. Canada and Finland face the same question now. Canada to an even worse degree because Gripen E will be expected to keep up with F-35s and F-22s that will continue to be upgraded constantly, before a gen 6 or 5.5 or whatever is adopted in the US for NORAD work too. They'll break the bank trying to keep Gripen E up to date with the US's standards. CPFH at that point, is nothing but a dark joke. They don't even have a way to meet the "Eyes" requirement without paying up

I've watched this cycle so many times I'm bored with it. V-22 sucks and will never work, F-22 sucks and will never work, Super Hornet sucks and will never work. Super Hornet was the most jarring, They spend the late 1990s and most of 2000s saying how bad SH sucks. It was the "JSF of its day" then suddenly, overnight, a switch flipped. The SH was actually great. amazing actually. Way better than that F-35 debacle! the next thing will suck worse than the JSF i promise. Especially because it will be unmanned as an option at the least. The same people saying "muh guns"! and "only the A-10 can CAS" are going to be cool with a gunless robot plane? LOL sure. I await them to come running back to the F-35 "least its got a gun and a man! Tell ya what!"

its too early to tell, and you have no perspective to even tell anyway. settle in dude, you've got decades. think of all the things with the F-35 that were such show stoppers over the years that are now not even mentioned. Remember when the B was on probation and was going to be canceled "any day"? Remember the C's tail hook? Remember the show stopping engine fire? its almost like people want to generate clicks so the world is always ending. its 2020 and things cost money! They only have 30 years to bring down the costs after thousands of more units!!

The weirdest thing about JSF is the press vs the program never seem to match up. "Its in a death spiral!" he shouts as another 100 are ordered. Never seen a wider gap between the government opinion and the public's

Slightly OFF TOPIC but... because I'm reading old material some comments about the F-35 really stand out to go to the last paragraph of 'zandaCrue' post above. See attached PDF - I'll have to extract the quote now.... The caption of the photo is just BRAIN DEAD: 'waved off' ??? No SireeBob the BEE is being LAUNCHED 'wave off' is a whole other thing boyo.

"...The F-35 became a jack of all trades, but master of none, and compromises to merge the three variants still plague the aircraft...." 31 March-6 April 2020 | Flight International

Slightly OFF TOPIC but... because I'm reading old material some comments about the F-35 really stand out to go to the last paragraph of 'zandaCrue' post above. See attached PDF - I'll have to extract the quote now....

"...The F-35 became a jack of all trades, but master of none, and compromises to merge the three variants still plague the aircraft...." 31 March-6 April 2020 | Flight International

Doesn't even know the history of the program he's criticizing



Marines go to skunk works in the early 1990s "We love the F-18 and we love the harrier, can you combine them?"

Skunkworks comes up with STOVL Liftfan system

Marines like it "Thanks! unfortunately, we are dealing with the Osprey and thats the priority, this will have to wait"

USAF gets a new boss in the mid 1990s, boss starts touring bases, stops by Area-51. They show them some stuff they're working on including this now cast away USMC idea. Area-51 engineers say "we did this for the Marines, you could take out that lift fan and add a fuel tank, bingo bongo you got an F-16 replacement" Boss loves it

Marines and Air Force combine. Marines are ecstatic and are happy to have the USAF paying big bucks to get snazzy stuff they could never dream of getting otherwise. Marines constantly differ to the USAF plans "sure, as long as its STOVL"

At some point the UK Royal Navy says "hell yeah, we want in!" UK become highest level partner-- STOVL is the reason.

many more nations join program at various levels, F-18 and F-16 nations that see it as logical replacement

US Navy eventually gets in on the action (turns out they're the biggest problem children, as F-35C is the most unique and specialized variant, but we didn't know that yet ) the program goes through several iterations and names before JSF is settled on and Boeing (after kicking and screaming) and LM are given the go ahead to produce X planes. Battle of the X planes ensues. LM wins.

Navy begins throwing weight around. Demands 2000 lb bomb load instead of the 1000 lbs everyone was fine with as an example.

plane goes overweight as original building concept won't work. They refine the aircraft and shed several thousands of pounds of weight for the STOVL variant. STOVL makes the airplane better and less heavier and inefficient. A and B are still more parts common than the F-35C which has no export orders. F-35C is the most specialized and unique orphan variant.

Marines ruin everything. its all the Marines fault. Marines blamed to this day when multiple nations have signed onto the B and its one of the most demanded models, and was a deal breaker for Italy and the UK as well. many nations are now jumping into the STOVL game thanks to B. And its actually one of the few things the USMC really liked with its new plans.

People think they had a good thing going and then the Marines jumped in and ruined it. That was never the case. The Marines had an idea, and weren't even going to go for it, until the USAF rescued the concept, and the USMC was happy to let them take the lead. Even the F-35 maint practices that evreyone agreed on are a departure from the USMC's navy style and adopt the USAF model/ALIS/ODEN style

Much of the story omitted because I have already been on the net too long today and yesterday. V-22 was a 4 service joint program at first (navy and Army dropped out, Navy is back, army is likely to adopt their own tiltrotor now), the Marines just happened to be the biggest buyer, and it wasn't wacky Marine ideas that created it, it was born from Desert One, which is still one of the biggest debacles in US Military history. CH-53K is exactly what they always say they want "don't go reinventing the wheel now! just redo what you got!" Other than the 53K, the Marines are being good boys and going joint, trying to be LESS of a unique headache. 53K likely to get more orders, likely US Navy and hopefully some others as well. There is a demand for it

in conclusion, the Navy sucks


now rereading the article the USAF wanted more F-22s anyway, thats not the F-35s fault. The F-35B ended up being one of the few things the USMC is happy with in the China fight, so I don't know when it was written. its typical to pick on the Marines because they are the least understood service. (the F-22 was not a giant waste of money of course, and neither are the USAF's V-22s, but the Marines are just the worst) as indicated above, the author doesn't even know the history of what he complains of. its amazing that an aviation publication published this drivel. I would expect this from standard garbage media sources, but wow. He doesn't mention the highly successful H-1 program, The Harvest Hawk, HIMARs adoption or anything else.

1980s F/A-18A-D--Jack of all trades master of none-- not as fast as an F-4, can't carry the bombs of a SLUF, or A-6

1990s: F/A-18F--Jack of all trades master of none-- No F-22, a compromise that not as good as the A-6 and F-14 it replaces

YOU ARE HERE: F-35--Jack of all trades master of none-- Compromised by 3 services, STOVL especially, not as good as F-16/F18 it replaces


why do we still think "Jack of all trades master of none" is an insult again? Eurocanards and other pure fighters (F-14) have also been "modified" to be multi role, or made that way from the start. There isn't a single dedicated Fighter or Attack squadron in all of NAVAIR, and hasn't been in 15 years. LOL

Not intending to HI Jack! this thread but 'zander' said above last paragraph now: "...The weirdest thing about JSF is the press vs the program never seem to match up. "Its in a death spiral!" he shouts as another 100 are ordered. Never seen a wider gap between the government opinion and the public's." Here is some now slightly OLD news from 2020 - all aboard!

International F-35 sales update [5 page PDF of article attached]
Mar 2020 Alan Warnes

"Fifth-generation fighters are a priority requirement for many of the world’s leading air forces. As Alan Warnes explains, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the weapon of choice for the US and many of its allies...."

Source: AirForces Monthly Magazine March 2020 #384

. For some countries it's not a problem, they simply reduce the number of a/c. Since each F-35 is so much more capable than, say, the F-16 it is replacing, you can do the same with much fewer aircraft. This is what Holland, Denmark, and Norway is doing.

Then what are the personnel problems? Its not that personnel is not a big issue, because it is, Personnel is a huge expense in military budgets, but with fewer airplanes to maintain (and the biggest, fewer pilots which are some of the most expensive personnel if not the most expensive) personnel. My point with the Marines was the point you made with the 130 person force to Iceland-- You may well be paying less overall Even consolidating bases (though as you've said theres some danger there) saves money. Its not all CPFH. What the Marines discovered was the more expensive CPFH costs completely paled in comparison to the money saved with personnel cuts. Its no contest. If you were to say "well CPFH is 10 percent more, but you can cut 10 percent of your personnel" Theres not an air force around that won't take that. for the Marines it was thousands fewer people, to house, train, feed, keep healthy etc. Those numbers could be used to shore up other areas in need.


In Norways case imagine the scenario being "we need to bring 10-15 percent more people when we deploy yes, but year after year we need fewer people overall" that's a net savings. So you might be getting upset over what amounts to less money spent overall.

This is why, yet again. Cost is more than the dozen ways people measure "CPFH" Thats where the reality of the Gripen falters, somethings aren't scalable. Canada for example has about 140 fighter pilots for about 70 some odd CF-18s Go to 120 fighters like some have suggested you're easily talking 240 fighter pilots, then all the people to maintain them. Net it might just be smarter to buy 88 F-35, or at the worst 88 Super Hornets. Its also why you don't see for all the talk of "a Gripen costs half as much so buy twice as many!" That doesn't usually happen for the same reason. Before it was upgraded to 88 CF-18 replacement it was 65 F-35s, again Canada planned on saving big bucks this way. It would also mean not needing an OCU squadron, they wouldn't need a squadron of instructor pilots further saving.

so frankly, it might well be much ado about nothing.


Back on Norway now, sorry for the distractions

Norwegian F-35As deploy to Iceland [PDF of item attached]
Apr 2020 AFM

"FOUR F-35As from the Luftforsvaret (Royal Norwegian Air Force, RNoAF) embarked on their first international mission when examples from 332 Skvadron at Ørland began a NATO-led Airborne Surveillance and Interception Capabilities to meet Iceland’s Peacetime Preparedness Needs (ASIC IPPN) tasking. Norway will be responsible for the quick reaction alert task for a period of three weeks, operating from Keflavík Airport, where the jets arrived on February 19....

...Also involved in the mission are personnel from the Control and Reporting Centre (CRC) at Sørreisa, who will assist in forming the surveillance picture and training their Icelandic colleagues. The Norwegian detachment consists of 130 personnel."

Source: AirForces Monthly April 2020 Issue 385

And they are ready for this years deployment at Island.

In March, Norwegian F-35s will guard Icelandic airspace. This is the Norwegian fighter aircraft's second and final foreign mission before they take over the QRA for the F-16 at Evenes from 2022.
https://www.forsvaret.no/aktuelt-og-pre ... andre-gang

Similar to when the assignment "Iceland Air Policing" (IAP) was carried out by Norway in March 2020, the so-called detachment now numbers around 150 people.

As Teknisk Ukeblad has previously mentioned, in comparison, there were approximately 60 people who followed the load the last time this assignment was performed by Norwegian F-16 - in 2016.

The Air Force has explained that the F-35 requires more than the F-16 for support, safety and support systems to plan and carry out missions and analyze them afterwards. Among other things, the so-called safety footprint is staff-intensive.

https://www.tu.no/artikler/samme-dag-so ... rag/507138