Unit cost of modern fighter jets?

It's all about cost.

 

No, because the F-22 is primarily designed as an ait-superiority fighter. What that means is that it goes up against other air superiority fighters to determine who dominates the air over the region, or it goes against other aircraft like bombers.

Since the F-22 has limited air to mud capabilities, and the Libyan Air Force was largely a joke, the use of F-22 over their skies would have been a waste of time.

However, there was still a threat from ground based Air Defense systems, hence the use of the B-2 Stealth Bomber.

It has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with which aircraft is best for the mission, with the lowest risk of casualties.

Err, the Eurofighter myself and everybody else as far as I know is the Eurofighter Typhoon. And that is what you are talking about if you mention Eurofighter.

The only other Typhoon currently in use is the Panavia Tornado, designed in 1974. A good aircraft for it's time, it has largely been phased out in recent years. The GR4 upgrade has extended it's lifespan, but it still does not hide the fact that it is a 4th generation fighter, in what is becomming the 5th generation of aircraft.

But odds are that the European nations that are smart and able to will invest in all 3 aircraft. And use the Eurofighter for close in air defense and air superiority, and the F-35 for deep penetration and "wild weasel" type missions to take out enemy air defense systems.

 

No, look up at my last post. It is all about mission.

A nation typically does not need all of their aircraft to be of a single class. That mean air superiority, air to mud, or multi role aircraft. By the same token, a nation does not need nothing but stealth aircraft.

Such aircraft are great for penetration and offensive operations in enemy airspace, but not of much use in a a defensive situation.

Buying stealth aircraft for defensive operations is largely a waste, conventional aircraft in offensive operations (especially wild weasel) can be costly in lives and aircraft.

So it is not about cost, it is about the mission.

 

It's all about the mission if you have a huge budget like the US does, but for most nations it's about doing the mission as cheap as you can.

I agree, the UK should be able to do all 3, but the Eurofight alown can do all the mission, the problem is it can't be flown off a carrier, so couldn't do all 3 missions outside European waters, or on a British territory with an airfield, meaning the UK needs the F35 for the carriers and Eurofighter for the airforce.
The Eurofighter did 9 hour missions from the UK to Libya, and was as good as the Tornado, a jet build for that job. Maybe in 8-10 years the UK should replance the Tornado with F35's. But for now the F35 isn't needed, by the RAF.

 

Yes it is, for a mission I already listed. Wild Weasel missions.

Your fighters are going to have a hard time operating as long as there are people like me on the other side. What I mean is ground based air defense. "Wild Weasel" are some of the most dangerous missions that fighter pilots do, that is taking out the RADAR and/or launchers of the bad guy, to make things safer for all the rest of the pilots to do their job.

And for such a mission, you really want to have a stealth aircraft if possible, so that you will take as few casualties as possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_weasel

 

The British have the Reaper, and the US have their drones. Stealth jets are something the UK can't afford right now. The F35 is wanted as you said, but not needed. The types of nations the UK will be going up against is Libya or Argentina, not very good, not China, Iran or Russia. We don't need stealth jets for the RAF. Infact almost every body at the MOD is happy with the RAF, but says the UK needs more ships, helicopters, carriers and troops. But most normal people just think the troops should get paid enough, and a government job when the leave.

 

Not very good?

For a not very good nation, they sure gave the UK a black eye. 2 destroyers sunk (HMS Sheffield and Coventry), 2 Frigates (HMS Antelope and HMS Ardent), the Helicopter Transport Atlantic Conveyor, The Amphibious Warfare ship the Sir Galahad, and other lesser support ships.

If this was a "not very good" nation, I am afraid that a "Very Good" nation would have torn the UK apart.

And I have no idea why you have Iran listed here, they have never been known as having a real strong Naval presence, the same with Libya.

 

Had it not been for some faulty fusing on some of the Argies' bombs, it could have been much worse for the RN. The Argies were no slouches, as some would contend. Perhaps a generation behind technically speaking, but that was hugely offset by the distances involved for the Royal Navy. They were very nearly peer competitors.

The UK is not the military powerhouse it was seventy years ago. That's not to disregard them; far from it. I have great respect for them. They're just not as large as they once were and mass matters when your business is one of warfare.

 

The war was much closer then most people in the UK would ever admit to in public. San Carlos was a disaster for the UK, and where they lost a big chunk of their naval force. And remember, this is the "third rate" air force.

1950's era A-4 Skyhawks, Israeli Mirage 5 clones (1970's), the locally made Pucara, a propellor driven gound attack fighter, and the antiquated 1950's Mirage III.

I would have hated to have seen what a really modern Air Force like that of the Soviet Union would have done to that task force. Even 2 Soviets subs of the era would likely have destroyed most of it en route.

 

Sorry if you want to go into this then fine, it was the USA's fault the British lost those ships. We were going to send in the SAS to take out the Argentine airforce, but Raegan said NO. It is ok for the UK to be attack, but we can't attack them back. But apart from the British shot down 30 of there jets, and lost 6. If they were any good we would have lost whole fleet, and had to nuck them. But when it got to the Land battles the British were better by miles. No Iran doesn't have a very good navy but it does have China and Russia giving it better weapons all the time, Britain in a war would lose, but then there is the fact if Iran got a nuck the UK would be their second target. So if the US attacked Iran we would try and help like Iraq, but fail.

 

We were bigger at the Falklands then we are now, miles bigger, but our ships are better, so it's about the same. We may not be that good, be we are still the 3rd best in NATO.

 

That's what happens when you are forced to give up the greatest empire the would has ever seen.

 

Excuse me, but are you talking about Operation Mikado?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado
http://www.eliteukforces.info/articles/sas-versus-exocets.php#prof
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../SAS-suicide-mission-to-wipe-out-Exocets.html

That was a badly planned operation that was never given a high chance of success in the first place. The mission was largely blown on the insertion, and scrubbed by the Thatcher government. The US had absolutely no involvement in that whatsoever.

I would love to hear where Reagan ordered it (or any other mission) scrubbed though. Because I have been tracking this war for over 25 years.

 

I actually love this, because the more and more you continue, the more you appear to endorse the UK and other European nations attempt to regain their former colonies.

Nobody "forced" the UK, France, and other nations to give up their colonies. Thankfully most of them learned by the example of Indochina that attempting to hold onto them by force after WWII was pretty much impossible. That did not stop failed attempts to hold onto them (Belgian Congo, French Algeria, etc) however.

So yes, I guess you could say that the UK was forced to give up most of her Empire. It was those very subjects that she ruled that forced her to give it up.

 

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110526

 

What about Suez? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet

So are you telling me that Britain would have given up the Suez if the US wasn't stopping them, if they had kept the Suez they would have had a better chance of keeping those territories.

 

Interesting conversation, and I knew of that as well. That is simply part of Diplomacy. It does nothing to confirm your claim that this is what caused the UK to scrub Operation Mikado (or any other operation). In fact, this conversation happened almost 2 weeks after Operation Mikado was scrubbed (Operation Mikado was on 16 May, this conversation on 31 May).

 

It doesn't prove it, but is does prove the US doesn't want the Falklands to be British. So the US proberly wouldn't have wanted the UK to win the war.

 

OK, now I have absolutely no idea why you have a link to the British Pacific Fleet in a conversation about the Suez. But I will try here.

I assume you are now talking about the UK pulling out of the region around the Suez Canal. The US had nothing to do with that my friend, it was done in the way of the Italio-Abussininan War, back in 1936.

There was a war going on in Africa between Italy and other nations, mostly Ethiopia. And Italy was making nasty noises at invading Egypt to gain control of the Suez Canal. But with Egypt chaffing under UK control, it was decided that with WWII looming on the horizon, it would be much better to let the nation and canal go peacefully rather then have a revolution or insurgency possibly join what was being seen as "the enemy".

Under the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, the UK pulled out of Egypt, but maintained control of the Suez Canal. And the US had not a single thing to do with this.

 

Come on you must know what I am talking about. The Suez crisis, where Egypt nationalised the canel and the UK, France and Israel took it back, then the US said no, and was backing Egypt. One of the most retarded things the US government has ever done.

 

I'am not so sure about that.....the US did give us 'Sidewinder' missiles for our Harriers, and they were very effective.
I do remember Reagan having a little dig at Britain in a conference, in that he said 'The British were fighting over a little ice rock in the southern atlantic', or words to that effect.

Anyway i said dont mention the Falklands, we could spend ages on that topic.

Back to the topic in hand regarding the costs of fighter jets. Do members here see the next generation of fighters being manned or not manned.....or do you think we will see another generation of manned planes before the switchover? Or are there other possibilties?

 

The French sold the Argies a missile to sink our ships, which had a bigger impact on the war than the sidewinder. After all it didn't stop the UK losing 6 plane and 5 ships. That rock is the size of north Yorkshire, so it's not that small. I think Reagan was a very good leader of the US, maybe the best post WW2 leader the US ever had, but people over do how good he was to the UK. I still don't get why the US will not just say the Falklands are Britain and they should stay British, the south American nations are in no place to fob off the USA over it.

Both manned and unmanned, going on cost and the mission. If they make a suit the pilots can wear to take more than 9G then the jets will be manned, if not they will be both.

 

Do not forget, it was the US and the USSR behind that, and they did not force the UK to back down.

It was the United Nations that forced it to back down. And they also prevented the UK from attempting to remove Gamal Nassar as the leader of Egypt.

And I am sorry, but I think that was the right thing to do. During the 1950's the UK was trying to do whatever it could to hold onto it's crumbling empire. Nation after nation choose to leave the UK (and France), and they were trying to pretend that things would continue as they always did before.

I may not care much personally for the idea, but a free and independent nation has a right to nationalize a resource that is in their territory. As long as any costs associated with that resource has been paid off, you will not hear me saying that it should never be done. And the Suez Canal at that time was almost 100 years old, so there is no question that the builders had been paid back many times over.

 

Actually, the UK lost 10 fighters and 24 helicopters. and it was 7 ships, not 5. And many others damaged.

 

Well the proves my point.