Unit cost of modern fighter jets?

Well, considering most nations are short of cash at the moment, i think even though its been incredibly expensive, the British forces by 2020 should have an airforce with a full complement of Typhoons and the Navy will have 2 brand new aircraft carriers carrying America's advanced F-35's.
I think thats a pretty, good scenario at present. Small forces they wiil be, but using the best equipment around.

Forget a naval version of Typhoon, it would be hideously expensive to convert..........particularly as the Typhoon has been the most expensive European military project, and i dont think that at its conception the design of the Typhoon took into account it being navalised in the future.

Anyway, if the F-35 wan't available, it had been suggested buying the F-18 Hornet, as thats an excellent plane and built for purpose as a naval fighter.

 

Fair enough. That's what I have been saying. Then you get wing man 2 and 3 saying I am wrong, they aren't good enough to be wing man 1. Would you want the Europeans to build another stealth fighter together?

 

The main reason the UK is not useing Naval Eurofighters is that they do not exist. All that exists is a single prototype, with at this time no plan to build any others.

I did not say I was a pilot. My training is in shooting down aircraft, not flying them.

OK, we have your opinion here. And what kind of training, experience, and expertese do you have that gives this claim some creedence?

And you do not even seem to know the difference at all between the various aircraft you keep throwing around. The F-35B and F-35C are two very different aircraft. The B is a STOVL aircraft, and is not designed to operate from traditional aircraft carriers. The B can carry less ordinance, less fuel, shorter range, smaller wings, and can not turn as quickly as the C version.

I keep telling you, Apples and Oranges, Apples and Oranges. The 3 different versions of the F-35 should really be considered as totally different aircraft. Think of the F-35A as being like an F-16, the F-35B as being like the Harrier, and the C-35C as being like the F/A-18. 3 different aircraft, 3 different missions, 3 different sets of flight characteristics.

 

...the hell are you talking about here?

Mushroom is not the pilot. I am. No, I have never flown an F-35 and I highly doubt we could ever entice on of the TPs to come on here to talk about it, but you are significantly more ignorant about it than those of us in the military. Your opinion is noted, but you lack the experience and education to be taken seriously.

 

I have said I have no military experience,I never said I did, you are the one saying you fly jets and you know everything because of it.

Yes I know, A is for the airoforce, B for the marines and C the navy. But B was also going to be for the navy, but the UK couldn't afford it, which was the main reason, and the F35c is better.

They were going to build a naval Eurofighter until they found out how much it would cost.

 

The Marines are buying both the B and C models.

 

The US military is vastly superior in every aspect. The only ones who even come close are the Brits, the Israelis, and the Russians.

 

So have you flown a Eurofighter? I was calling you and mushroom, wing man 2 and 3, because you aren't good enough to be wing man 1.

I am talking for the British point of view and you the US point of view. So why don't you education me then? I admit I was 100% wrong about the F22 and it's use on carriers. I am not wrong in saying that for the RAF, the Eurofighter is better than the F35A, that is mainly because of the cost of buying new jets.

 

It's really flown off navy ships to back up the marines.

 

So are you agreeing with what I have said?

 

No, I have not flown the Eurofighter either. I have logged hours in the F-15C and F-15E. We are not good enough based on what? Again, what the hell do you even mean?

That is fine. What you said was that the Eurofighter is better than the JSF without putting your opinion in context.

 

Gee, thanks Einstein. I was always curious how that worked...

 

Not unless you think the US is the best.

 

The US is the best overall, but not at everything.

 

It is an insult.

I have put into context befor in this thread.

 

Wow, I don't know Americans did sarcasm, hahaha. What I ment to say was the F35c's o the carriers will be used by both the marines and navy.

 

I never said I flew jets. Here, let me place the entire chain down here, and maybe you can follow it this time:

The pilot I was talking about was Governor. I was clearly talking about myself when I mentioned air defense.

Once again, Apples and Oranges. The C is better for a platform that will operate off of traditional carriers, it is not "better" then the B. Because "better" depends on the mission and operational requirements.

And the main reason they did not intend to create a Naval Eurofighter is that when they designed the original, there was no thought as to making one for the export market. With the existing aircraft and those in development (F/A-18, Harrier, F-35), there was no need to make one for domestic use. And they were not thinking of any real commercial value in exports. Since then, they have made a single prototype, nothing more.

At this time, they still have not made a "Naval Eurofighter", and they probably will not buid any in the future. Think of the Naval Eurofighter as the European version of the Boeing X-32. A really cool prototype that will likely never have a buyer.

 

In other words, we do not agree with you, so we suck.

And now we have thrown into the mix, the F-35A. Will you please make up your mind as to what we are exactly discussing here! We keep bouncing around various naval aircraft and carrier operations, now we are suddenly comparing land based aircraft.

This is what I think we are finding the most frustrating. You keep bouncing from discussion to discussion, constantly changing the paramaters as you go. First we were talking about naval aircraft and their comparison as to why one is chosen over the other, now we are on land based. This is a totally different topic, and a great many more things have to be taken into consideration here.

Just to make a point, you now have to take into consideration the impact of enemy air defense systems. Much more then you ever did when discussing naval based air. If you do not believe me, think about this.

The F-35 is a stealth multirole fighter. The Eurofighter is just a multirole fighter. Do you really want to send your pilots into an area with heavy air defense assets in a Eurofighter, if you can instead use an F-35? Air Defense is not as important in naval operations, because of the nature of the battlefield. But over land, it becomes a major consideration when sending in your air forces.

 

This thread is going around in circles now!............but for some reason i enjoy reading the posts!

btw:- who is Wing man 1?

 

.......anyway 'mynoon1999', u do realise that the UK is a major contibutor for the F-35, i believe the UK had a 10% stake in the development costs.
Where i live near Cambridge, there is a company there, which is working on the F-35......maybe the only difference between the US F-35 and the UK F-35 is that we will have a different steering wheel design.

 

I thought the UK version would need to fly on the left side of the sky....

 

Please, we both know the US holds technology back from the UK and France, we make the old weapons as good as they can be, while the US moves on to a new better thing, mainly because we couldn't afford the new thing. Also the UK has cut the number is it buying.

 

As I said befor I am coming from a British point of view, and as I said befor the F35B just costs to much money to replance the Harrier, so the UK went for the F35C to save £20 million per plane. I am saying the that for the UK the F35B doesn't work for any mission, only the F35C does.

The Harrier is out of date, the Falklands proved that, the UK would never buy F18's for political reasons, so they only thing left was which is cheap the F35B or F35C, the C is cheaper.

They built that prototype because India needs better planes to go on it's new carriers, but found it would cost to much money to make a naval Eurofighter. I have said this. they will be exporting the Eurofighter to the Indian airforce, if they win the contract, which I think the Eurofighter will win because the nations that made the Eurofighter are willing to give over more technology and more of the building to India, than France or the US.

 

I get the wingman joke. I do not get why we suck. We actually have experience in this field. Something to take into consideration when you run your mouth off to us acting like you know better.

 

We are discussing which jet is the best for how much it costs, 1 for the airforce and 1 for the navy.

Look at Libya, where any F22's used? Most of the early work was done by US and UK naval power, to take out the air defense, then the jets went in, or the US used the B2 bomber which only they can afford. At night in supercruise nobody will be able to see the eurofighter, and the day after the navy has destroyed the air defense the Eurofighter could shoot down any enemy aircraft, that is what it was made to do. Plus it is as go at dropping bombs as the Tornado GR4 or the Rafale, by guess would be the F35A would replace the Tornado not the Eurofighter, but for now the Eurofight for an airforce is better.