11 ms·

From what I know, we only have single military airport capable of supporting F-35. Fully loaded F35 needs 2.5 km of high quality concrete. It also needs extensi

From what I know, we only have single military airport capable of supporting F-35. Fully loaded F35 needs 2.5 km of high quality concrete. It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle! There are also civilian airports, but we would propably run out of those very soon. And using civilian infrastructure for military purposes (like bombing foreign country) would not be politically very digestible!

thunderbird120 3y ago
>It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle! I don't know where you heard that but it's completely untrue. Some older radar absorbent material required intensive maintenance but the F-35 is not like that. It's not that much more difficult to maintain than a previous generation fighter. It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.
- Thoeu388 3y ago
  Right now that is not verifiable. It is a clasiffied information, only supported by claims from manufacturer. And maintaince cost is already dispuded at court in Switzerland. >It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight. And? Maybe it is every 2nd or 10th flight, that does not make it much more practical. Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. Old Soviet airplanes we had could take of from grassy fields!
  - avereveard 3y ago
    And their circle of hit probability with preprogrammed missiles is misured in hundreds meters instead of a handful. The war for which they were built never materialised, and their performances now largely obsolete. And who's going to sell you replacement parts anyway if your principal adversary is also your plane supplier? You want suppliers that don't threaten to nuke you every other week. Soviet planes came at a much higher cost...
    - Thoeu388 3y ago
      I get your point. But: - right now we have fighters from Sweden (not Soviet design obviously) - Soviet planes came with technical plans, we would be probably capable to fix them by our selves to huge extend. Ukraine maintained their Soviet planes for 10 years during war. Also we manufactured some airplanes ourself, and even today Czechia produces fighter jets. - Many countries produces Soviet derived planes and spare parts. Ukraine, India, China.. Half of world operates those, and there is a huge market. - For Slovakia (and other NATO countries) that operate Migs, Russia was actually supplying spare until very recently. They sabotaged spare parts AFTER it was announced that Migs were going to be send to Ukraine, which was against the support contract.
      - KeplerBoy 3y ago
        Calling the L39 a jet fighter is a bit of a stretch. It's a trainer that can be armed and used to intercept general aviation aircraft.
        Thoeu388 3y ago
        If F35 gets grounded again for some software error, or virtual helmet reality problem, that will be our only air defense :(
        KeplerBoy 3y ago
        At least you guys have a backup. If the Eurofighter gets grounded Austria has no airforce, because we retired the Saab 105 without buying L39s or Grippens as replacement.
        Thoeu388 3y ago
        Honestly, I would just prefer good S300 system. At Ukraine it covered sky for almost a year. Jet fighters for air superiority are obsolete.
  - luuurker 3y ago
    What's your source for "it also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating"?
    - Thoeu388 3y ago
      Different stealth airplanes. Some documentaries that celebrate Raptor and F35 as technical marvel (highly complex). I have not really observed any maintenance difference or break throughout between F22 and F35. And nobody really provided any solid numbers. If numbers are good, it would be easy to prove. There is a lawsuit going in Switzerland. Swiss do not believe official maintenance cost. Other countries (Japan and South Korea) have stealth program that has similar issues. Some disagreements with F35. South Korea fighter should cost 30% of F35 maintenance. But that goes into spare parts and features, not coating... And frankly Russian program ran into a lot of troubles and cost overruns with stealth fighters. I believe Russians have better science and technical knowledge to deliver such airplane cheaply (without software integration). And they did not made any breakthrough that would magically reduce maintenance costs.
      - luuurker 3y ago
        So you don't have any evidence (solid or otherwise) that backs up your claim about the F-35 requiring a "complete overhaul" after each flight. Do we even know where the maintenance costs go to? I also fail to see how the Russians are in a better position to build a stealth plane (cheaply or otherwise) when historically they've always been behind the US in that regard. Anyway, opinions aside, big claims should be backed up with evidence and I'm not seeing anything that supports the idea that the F-35 needs that level of maintenance.
        Thoeu388 3y ago
        I wrote "extensive overhaul". I guess better wording would be "extensive inspection and coating overhaul". Far from "quick refuel/arm and launch" original post wrote. F-35 has internal bomb bays, and those have to be opened and closed to add bombs. Those have to be resealed to maintain stealth. It has polymer based coating, how that stuff survives transsonic speeds with friction and heat? F-22 maintenance cost was quoted at $72000 per flight hour (10 years ago). Stealth used as main cause. Is F-35 somehow different or cheaper? Russians do not have cost overruns and technical feature creep, the way US does. Go ask on military forums. Problem are finances, not science. Anyway, I do not believe claim that F-35 needs extensive and expensive maitenance is somehow extraordinary. "Overhaul" of stealth coat cold be some spray on stuff and inspection. F-35 has a long track of cost overruns and proper maintenance cost is yet unknown.
  - dralley 3y ago
    >Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. It's high but considering the expected number of flight hours the airframe can take, it's on par or not significantly worse than others. For example the Eurofighter is a $120 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 6,000 flight hours, whereas the F-35 is an $85 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 8,000 hours. Even with higher maintenance costs the tradeoff is still pretty favorable. Compare that to the Gripen E which is cheap to operate, but still costs $85 million, isn't stealth, and is less capable in many respects.
- hylaride 3y ago
  Difficult, no. But it does require different and new support mechanisms for long term use (eg not a temporary site). A lot of the controversy in Canada with our F-35 purchase is that we're going to have to completely overhaul our military airports with new maintenance and storage hangars, though honestly we didn't keep them as up to date as we should have.
  - ben7799 3y ago
    That probably would have happened with any new aircraft that was purchased. Some of overhaul is buying and installing all the new tools and support systems, etc..
chipsa 3y ago
A Boeing 787 needs 2.8km of high-quality concrete for a runway. A F-35 is known to have low maintenance stealth coatings, so you don't need extensive overhaul every flight. If you're fighting other countries from Czechia, the most likely countries to fight are either Russia, or it's minion Belarus. In which case you're probably not worrying about the politics of using civilian infrastructure.
- gostsamo 3y ago
  Or you are part of a NATO operation against Serbia. Mentioning it, because the conflict in Kosovo is not resolved yet.
  - golergka 3y ago
    Last time Serbia attempted to commit literal genocide, for the second time in less than a decade, for NATO to get involved. Do you think they'll start mass murders again?
    - formerly_proven 3y ago
      Well we did have WW2 only 20 years after WW1...
    - gostsamo 3y ago
      What I know is that serbians who were assigned to northern Kosovo do not recognize the authority of Prishtina. This is still a major issue between Serbia and Kosovo and it is a regular reason for increased tension between the two. More than anything else, the perspective for EU membership keeps the tensions down, but do not expect that Serbia will disregard the problem just because.
      - golergka 3y ago
        Yes, there are border tensions, I'm well aware. Stupid things like car registration numbers. But thankfully, it's nowhere near actual mass murders of civilians, so I don't see any reason for NATO getting involved.
ummonk 3y ago
There's no phenomenon that causes the F-35 to magically lose its stealth coating at the end of exactly one flight. You can obviously delay maintenance for a few flights just fine.
- NikkiA 3y ago
  I'm not so sure, the US at one point did talk about how if the F35 wasn't kept in climate controlled hangars then its stealth abilities would be negated rapidly.
  - luuurker 3y ago
    Has that ever been confirmed? Because some variants operate from carriers and I'd be surprised if they have special hangars inside.
    - tolien 3y ago
      It does look like they develop a sort of "rust" through exposure to sea air [0], though what effect that has on low-observability remains to be seen. 0: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar-absorbent-skin-is-looking-pretty-rough-after-months-at-sea https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar...
  - dralley 3y ago
    You are thinking of the F-22 or perhaps the B-2. The stealth coatings on those are a lot more fragile.
    - NikkiA 3y ago
      I'm absolutely not, because I remember the argument was part of 'factor in the cost of improving hangars to be climate controlled when considering the purchase cost of the F35 from the US', in particular, I think it was when the canadian purchase of the F35 was being discussed. Since the F22 and B2 are not exported at all, not even to canada, it cannot possibly have been a factor in purchasing either of those.
dotnet00 3y ago
Think about it this way, if the F35 needed an extensive overhaul after each flight, there's no way it'd be suitable for the harsh environment of carrier operations.

thunderbird120 3y ago

>It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle! I don't know where you heard that but it's completely untrue. Some older radar absorbent material required intensive maintenance but the F-35 is not like that. It's not that much more difficult to maintain than a previous generation fighter. It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.

Thoeu388 3y ago
Right now that is not verifiable. It is a clasiffied information, only supported by claims from manufacturer. And maintaince cost is already dispuded at court in Switzerland. >It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight. And? Maybe it is every 2nd or 10th flight, that does not make it much more practical. Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. Old Soviet airplanes we had could take of from grassy fields!
- avereveard 3y ago
  And their circle of hit probability with preprogrammed missiles is misured in hundreds meters instead of a handful. The war for which they were built never materialised, and their performances now largely obsolete. And who's going to sell you replacement parts anyway if your principal adversary is also your plane supplier? You want suppliers that don't threaten to nuke you every other week. Soviet planes came at a much higher cost...
  - Thoeu388 3y ago
    I get your point. But: - right now we have fighters from Sweden (not Soviet design obviously) - Soviet planes came with technical plans, we would be probably capable to fix them by our selves to huge extend. Ukraine maintained their Soviet planes for 10 years during war. Also we manufactured some airplanes ourself, and even today Czechia produces fighter jets. - Many countries produces Soviet derived planes and spare parts. Ukraine, India, China.. Half of world operates those, and there is a huge market. - For Slovakia (and other NATO countries) that operate Migs, Russia was actually supplying spare until very recently. They sabotaged spare parts AFTER it was announced that Migs were going to be send to Ukraine, which was against the support contract.
    - KeplerBoy 3y ago
      Calling the L39 a jet fighter is a bit of a stretch. It's a trainer that can be armed and used to intercept general aviation aircraft.
      - Thoeu388 3y ago
        If F35 gets grounded again for some software error, or virtual helmet reality problem, that will be our only air defense :(
        KeplerBoy 3y ago
        At least you guys have a backup. If the Eurofighter gets grounded Austria has no airforce, because we retired the Saab 105 without buying L39s or Grippens as replacement.
        Thoeu388 3y ago
        Honestly, I would just prefer good S300 system. At Ukraine it covered sky for almost a year. Jet fighters for air superiority are obsolete.
- luuurker 3y ago
  What's your source for "it also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating"?
  - Thoeu388 3y ago
    Different stealth airplanes. Some documentaries that celebrate Raptor and F35 as technical marvel (highly complex). I have not really observed any maintenance difference or break throughout between F22 and F35. And nobody really provided any solid numbers. If numbers are good, it would be easy to prove. There is a lawsuit going in Switzerland. Swiss do not believe official maintenance cost. Other countries (Japan and South Korea) have stealth program that has similar issues. Some disagreements with F35. South Korea fighter should cost 30% of F35 maintenance. But that goes into spare parts and features, not coating... And frankly Russian program ran into a lot of troubles and cost overruns with stealth fighters. I believe Russians have better science and technical knowledge to deliver such airplane cheaply (without software integration). And they did not made any breakthrough that would magically reduce maintenance costs.
    - luuurker 3y ago
      So you don't have any evidence (solid or otherwise) that backs up your claim about the F-35 requiring a "complete overhaul" after each flight. Do we even know where the maintenance costs go to? I also fail to see how the Russians are in a better position to build a stealth plane (cheaply or otherwise) when historically they've always been behind the US in that regard. Anyway, opinions aside, big claims should be backed up with evidence and I'm not seeing anything that supports the idea that the F-35 needs that level of maintenance.
      - Thoeu388 3y ago
        I wrote "extensive overhaul". I guess better wording would be "extensive inspection and coating overhaul". Far from "quick refuel/arm and launch" original post wrote. F-35 has internal bomb bays, and those have to be opened and closed to add bombs. Those have to be resealed to maintain stealth. It has polymer based coating, how that stuff survives transsonic speeds with friction and heat? F-22 maintenance cost was quoted at $72000 per flight hour (10 years ago). Stealth used as main cause. Is F-35 somehow different or cheaper? Russians do not have cost overruns and technical feature creep, the way US does. Go ask on military forums. Problem are finances, not science. Anyway, I do not believe claim that F-35 needs extensive and expensive maitenance is somehow extraordinary. "Overhaul" of stealth coat cold be some spray on stuff and inspection. F-35 has a long track of cost overruns and proper maintenance cost is yet unknown.
- dralley 3y ago
  >Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. It's high but considering the expected number of flight hours the airframe can take, it's on par or not significantly worse than others. For example the Eurofighter is a $120 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 6,000 flight hours, whereas the F-35 is an $85 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 8,000 hours. Even with higher maintenance costs the tradeoff is still pretty favorable. Compare that to the Gripen E which is cheap to operate, but still costs $85 million, isn't stealth, and is less capable in many respects.
hylaride 3y ago
Difficult, no. But it does require different and new support mechanisms for long term use (eg not a temporary site). A lot of the controversy in Canada with our F-35 purchase is that we're going to have to completely overhaul our military airports with new maintenance and storage hangars, though honestly we didn't keep them as up to date as we should have.
- ben7799 3y ago
  That probably would have happened with any new aircraft that was purchased. Some of overhaul is buying and installing all the new tools and support systems, etc..

chipsa 3y ago

A Boeing 787 needs 2.8km of high-quality concrete for a runway. A F-35 is known to have low maintenance stealth coatings, so you don't need extensive overhaul every flight. If you're fighting other countries from Czechia, the most likely countries to fight are either Russia, or it's minion Belarus. In which case you're probably not worrying about the politics of using civilian infrastructure.

gostsamo 3y ago
Or you are part of a NATO operation against Serbia. Mentioning it, because the conflict in Kosovo is not resolved yet.
- golergka 3y ago
  Last time Serbia attempted to commit literal genocide, for the second time in less than a decade, for NATO to get involved. Do you think they'll start mass murders again?
  - formerly_proven 3y ago
    Well we did have WW2 only 20 years after WW1...
  - gostsamo 3y ago
    What I know is that serbians who were assigned to northern Kosovo do not recognize the authority of Prishtina. This is still a major issue between Serbia and Kosovo and it is a regular reason for increased tension between the two. More than anything else, the perspective for EU membership keeps the tensions down, but do not expect that Serbia will disregard the problem just because.
    - golergka 3y ago
      Yes, there are border tensions, I'm well aware. Stupid things like car registration numbers. But thankfully, it's nowhere near actual mass murders of civilians, so I don't see any reason for NATO getting involved.

ummonk 3y ago

There's no phenomenon that causes the F-35 to magically lose its stealth coating at the end of exactly one flight. You can obviously delay maintenance for a few flights just fine.

NikkiA 3y ago
I'm not so sure, the US at one point did talk about how if the F35 wasn't kept in climate controlled hangars then its stealth abilities would be negated rapidly.
- luuurker 3y ago
  Has that ever been confirmed? Because some variants operate from carriers and I'd be surprised if they have special hangars inside.
  - tolien 3y ago
    It does look like they develop a sort of "rust" through exposure to sea air [0], though what effect that has on low-observability remains to be seen. 0: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar-absorbent-skin-is-looking-pretty-rough-after-months-at-sea https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar...
- dralley 3y ago
  You are thinking of the F-22 or perhaps the B-2. The stealth coatings on those are a lot more fragile.
  - NikkiA 3y ago
    I'm absolutely not, because I remember the argument was part of 'factor in the cost of improving hangars to be climate controlled when considering the purchase cost of the F35 from the US', in particular, I think it was when the canadian purchase of the F35 was being discussed. Since the F22 and B2 are not exported at all, not even to canada, it cannot possibly have been a factor in purchasing either of those.

dotnet00 3y ago

Think about it this way, if the F35 needed an extensive overhaul after each flight, there's no way it'd be suitable for the harsh environment of carrier operations.