3 ms·

It absolutely does matter. This is not municipal bus fleet, capabilities have to match the threats. The costs are however much more manageable than what early

by varjag 9y ago

It absolutely does matter. This is not municipal bus fleet, capabilities have to match the threats. The costs are however much more manageable than what early critical pieces stipulated.

mistermann 9y ago
What threats are you referring to?
- varjag 9y ago
  Other warplanes and air defence systems commonly deployed. In case of Norway here, it's the assets of Russian 45th Air Force and Air Defence Army.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    The US was lagging behind Norway in air warfare capabilities? I've always been under the impression that they were a world leader.
    - varjag 9y ago
      Pardon?
      - mistermann 9y ago
        >> It does not matter how good the fighter is if it can't fly enough sorties for reasonable price. > It absolutely does matter. This is not municipal bus fleet, capabilities have to match the threats. Who was the US not matching in capability, such that they needed to develop a new fighter (with incredibly high maintenance costs) to compete?
        varjag 9y ago
        The U.S. has to stay atop of Russia. The thread, however started about "small countries buying this piece of shit plane", and Norway (my country) is one of F-35 operators. Its current small fleet of F-16 is not enough to deter Russia; but 52 F-35s are to a great extent. Is the rationale clear? Are we on the same page? The objective for Norway is to have efficient combat airforce, not an airshow crew or a check mark on some NATO list, "has fixed wing aircraft". Now, to the maintenance costs, so far they do not exceed the rates calculated on purchase, and are lowest among the 5th generation fighters of the world (the only other one being F-22).
        mistermann 9y ago
        I see what you mean now, although I honestly wonder if the actual real world (that will ever be used) advantage is worth the ticket price. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-4th-and-5th-generation-fighter-aircrafts https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-...
nabla9 9y ago
Quality can be maxed out. The bang for the buck calculation is easily reversed. Fighter that is impossible destroy and carries 4 medium range missiles can kill max 4 enemies per sortie and it can be only in one place at the time. In practice Pk ratio of missiles missiles etc. brings it down significantly. If you get two cheaper fighters for the same price, they can cover larger area, loiter twice as much, carry 8 missiles and fly more sorties for the same money.
- varjag 9y ago
  You can load an Airbus 320 with 400 missiles and try that maybe. Even more cost effective.

by varjag 9y ago

It absolutely does matter. This is not municipal bus fleet, capabilities have to match the threats. The costs are however much more manageable than what early critical pieces stipulated.

mistermann 9y ago

What threats are you referring to?

varjag 9y ago
Other warplanes and air defence systems commonly deployed. In case of Norway here, it's the assets of Russian 45th Air Force and Air Defence Army.
- mistermann 9y ago
  The US was lagging behind Norway in air warfare capabilities? I've always been under the impression that they were a world leader.
  - varjag 9y ago
    Pardon?
    - mistermann 9y ago
      >> It does not matter how good the fighter is if it can't fly enough sorties for reasonable price. > It absolutely does matter. This is not municipal bus fleet, capabilities have to match the threats. Who was the US not matching in capability, such that they needed to develop a new fighter (with incredibly high maintenance costs) to compete?
      - varjag 9y ago
        The U.S. has to stay atop of Russia. The thread, however started about "small countries buying this piece of shit plane", and Norway (my country) is one of F-35 operators. Its current small fleet of F-16 is not enough to deter Russia; but 52 F-35s are to a great extent. Is the rationale clear? Are we on the same page? The objective for Norway is to have efficient combat airforce, not an airshow crew or a check mark on some NATO list, "has fixed wing aircraft". Now, to the maintenance costs, so far they do not exceed the rates calculated on purchase, and are lowest among the 5th generation fighters of the world (the only other one being F-22).
        mistermann 9y ago
        I see what you mean now, although I honestly wonder if the actual real world (that will ever be used) advantage is worth the ticket price. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-4th-and-5th-generation-fighter-aircrafts https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-...

nabla9 9y ago

Quality can be maxed out. The bang for the buck calculation is easily reversed. Fighter that is impossible destroy and carries 4 medium range missiles can kill max 4 enemies per sortie and it can be only in one place at the time. In practice Pk ratio of missiles missiles etc. brings it down significantly. If you get two cheaper fighters for the same price, they can cover larger area, loiter twice as much, carry 8 missiles and fly more sorties for the same money.

varjag 9y ago
You can load an Airbus 320 with 400 missiles and try that maybe. Even more cost effective.