5 ms·
Since when is cost effectiveness an "arbitrary" requirement? The plane was years late and massively over budget. It has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism. I
by mthoms 5y ago
Since when is cost effectiveness an "arbitrary" requirement? The plane was years late and massively over budget.
It has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism. I have no idea where you got that from.
- dmoy 5y agoThe plane being over budget for the US doesn't necessarily affect the unit cost going forward though. For a specific example here, the F-35, which costs more than the F-18, is still cheaper than the Gripen, which is still in contention for this bid. In fact of the three planes remaining, the F-18 was the cheapest. The only remaining planes are substantially more expensive.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThe F-35, if not localized, is slightly more expensive than a localized Gripen, yes. However it will cost much more to maintain in the future.
- nickff 5y agoMaintain, almost certainly, but sustainment costs could be higher for the Gripen. They’ve only made 270 Gripens, so any upgrades will be amortized over a smaller installed base.
- sudosysgen 5y agoI don't think that Canada will need or go for any updates beyond weapon integration anyways.
- nickff 5y agoThe CF-18 got two rounds of modernizations, so I’d assume any replacement that served for a similar period of time would get at least one.
- mthoms 5y agoAs I understand it, The Gripen has a much lower operating cost than the others [0]. At any rate, I never said cost was the only factor - only that it was an important (read: non-arbitrary) one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Usability_and_maintenance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Usability_a...