ObiBiber schrieb:

Zitat:Specifically, National Defence now has only $76 million in wiggle room for purchasing 65 F-35s within the Conservative government’s self-imposed $9-billion budget envelope as the price of buying the warplanes rose $266 million, or three per cent.

aha...ein Flieger soll in der Anschaffung 266 Mio Dollar kosten...
hier wären die Werte der anderen Kandidaten auch interessant...

Zitat:Der Auftrag für die 58 F-35A entspricht einem Wert von 12,4 Milliarden australischen Dollar (11,5 Milliarden US Dollar), daraus lässt sich ein Systemstückpreis von 213 Millionen australischen Dollar ableiten. In dieser Summe sind Logistikleistungen, Simulatoren und eine Teilbewaffnung enthalten.

Zitat:Südkorea wird vorerst 40 F-35A kaufen, das Budget für diese Kampfjets liegt bei 7,8 Billionen Won (6,8 Milliarden US Dollar, für 60 F-15SE hätte man 8,3 Billionen Won bereit gestellt. Das Militär bevorzugte die F-35A wegen ihrer überlegenen Stealth Fähigkeiten.

Zitat:Die kleine Kammer beschloss mit 27 zu 17 Stimmen, die Ausgabenbremse von 3,126 Milliarden Schweizer Franken zu lösen und ebnet damit die Beschaffung des Kampfjets aus Schweden.

ObiBiber schrieb:eine Gripen E/F ca 70-80 Mio $
F35 -> 150 Mio $ (ich rechne hier mit 2018er Preisen...

Zitat:Das sind die realen EINKAUFS!Kosten wenn man ein halbwegs einsatzfähiges Kampfflugzeug auf der Gripenbasis Variante E kaufen möchte.

Zitat:To put the F-35-boosters’ claims in context, Winslow Wheeler, an analyst at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C., has calculated the true current cost of an F-35. It’s way more than anyone in official circles likes to admit.
Forget the $85-million or $60-million figure being bandied about in the press. Each of the 29 F-35s the Pentagon is purchasing from Lockheed in 2014 costs between $182 million and $299 million. And that’s leaving out research and development spending since the late 1990s, which could soon exceed $50 billion and add $16 million to true long-term acquisition cost of each F-35.

Zitat:By that measure, one Air Force F-35A—the simplest of the three JSF models—currently costs $182 million. A vertical-landing Marine F-35B sets taxpayers back $252 million. The Navy’s carrier-compatible F-35C, still mired in serious development problems, comes in at a whopping $299 million per plane.

Zitat:[T]he need to accommodate different service requirements in a single design or common design family leads to greater program complexity, increased technical risk, and common functionality or increased weight beyond that needed for some variants, potentially leading to higher overall cost, despite the efficiencies.

Zitat:The quantitative analysis summarized in this report shows that, contrary to expectations, historical joint aircraft programs have not saved money compared with single-service aircraft programs. Although a joint approach has the theoretical potential to lower acquisition costs by pooling RDT&E resources and increasing production runs, historical joint aircraft programs show substantially higher acquisition cost growth than single-service programs. This higher cost-growth percentage is about twice the maximum theoretical joint acquisition savings percentage for a typical fighter program. In addition, whereas a joint approach can save O&S costs by taking advantage of economies of scale, analysis of actual fighter O&S data shows that the potential savings percentages are small and are not likely to counteract the higher average joint aircraft RDT&E and procurement cost-growth rates. On net, joint aircraft programs have not saved overall LCC compared with single-service aircraft programs.

Zitat:But it’s not true. Not by a long shot. The much-maligned, single-engine F-35—which suffers from a complex design and a lack of maneuverability—currently costs twice what its proponents are projecting. And don’t buy the argument that the jet’s sticker price will substantially drop in coming years. Lockheed’s been making that claim for a long time now, and it hasn’t happened yet.

Zitat:The first JSF jet fighter aircraft will arrive in the Netherlands in 2019, ministers have told MPs. The Netherlands will buy eight aircraft a year from 2019, taking the total to 37.
The first of the jet fighters will be stationed at the air force base in Leeuwarden. Later, the base at Volkel will also be equipped to take them. The JSF is replacing the current fleet of ageing F-16 jets.
Most of the JSFs will be used for training purposes and to defend Dutch air space. Just four will be available for military missions abroad, the cabinet said in its 51-page briefing.
The cost of the 37 planes is put at €4.6bn, while operating costs will run at ‘a maximum’ €285m a year.
In the briefing, the cabinet says the noise nuisance which will be caused by the jets is ‘acceptable’. This had been an important point for coalition partner PvdA to approve the purchase, broadcaster Nos points out.
In particular, when JSFs are based at Volkel, most of their night flights will be made elsewhere, the cabinet said.

Zitat:EDITOR’S NOTE: We will follow up on the Dutch government report to Parliament on the F-35 program in the coming days.
For the time being, suffice it to say that the €285 million annual fleet cost works out to €7.7 million per aircraft.
This allows flight hour costs to be estimated as ranging from €38,500 (for 200 flight hours/year) to €48,000 (for 160 flight hours/year).
Converted to US dollars, the range is from $46,200 to $57,600 per flight hour.)

ObiBiber schrieb:bzgl Betriebskosten...
das ist nicht wirklich günstig... läge aber doch etwas über den Kosten für einen Eurofighter... jedoch nicht wesentlich... passt also ganz gut ins Gesamtbild dass die F35 am Ende in allen Bereichen ca 20-30% teurer sein dürfte als der Eurofighter... und entsprechend teurer als andere Muster.

Artikelauszug schrieb:Einer dem Neuen Deutsch­land vor­liegenden Antwort der Bundes­regierung auf eine parlamen­tarische Anfrage zum "Neuburger Jagd­geschwader 74" zufolge sind 2011 die Gesamt­kosten pro Euro­fighter-Flug­stunde binnen eines Jahres um 14.5 Prozent auf 88.086 Euro angestiegen.

Zitat:Both the UK and Italy will operate a mixed Eurofighter and F-35 fleet. Both have operated the Tornado, which is reaching the end of its service life.

A key element of this transformation will be reworking the connectivity among air, sea and ground systems as well as shaping the weaponization approaches of joint and coalition forces.

In part, this is a Eurofighter transition whereby the radars are upgraded, and weapons added; in part this is the coming of the F-35 and its impact on reshaping air enabled combat operations.

And associated with this will be fundamental changes over time in C2, and the approach to strike operations.

The UK and Italy already fly together in operations through their use of Tornados and Eurofighters and have clearly shared combat learning with regard to the use of these platforms; as the F-35 comes on line this combat learning cycle will continue into the next generation of aircraft, and shaping ways to approach fifth generation warfare.

And both will be operating F-35Bs from sea bases so can lead in shaping an understanding of how sea-based and land-based air can work together to great a significant operational effect as well.

Zitat: The new radar will increase the range at which Typhoon pilots can identify potential targets, as well as allowing them to scan a 200-degree field of vision, greater than rival fighters, giving them a tactical advantage.

The addition of the radar will take Typhoon’s capabilities ahead of other fourth-generation fighters such as France’s Rafale and Sweden’s Gripen, making it more attractive to export clients looking to upgrade their air forces.

Zitat:The F-35 will function as a forward scout, a passive sensor strike force, a forward battle management fleet, and generally operate in ways, which will enable the rest of the strike forces to operate much more effectively.

Zitat:For the plane will evolve over time, into a significant role as well a weapons caddy for the F-35 enabled Italian and British strike forces.

The RAF has already caught a glimpse of what 5th generation aircraft can do for its Typhoons in training with the F-22s. The experience of training at Langley AFB was quite clear: and to quote the Typhoon pilot: “The situational awareness of the F-22 enhanced our survivability and lethality.”

Zitat:One way to think about the way ahead is to continue to use 4th generation aircraft in surging mass to more classic airpower situations. One would use the F-35 as the key asset up against the distributed operational settings or for operations in denied air space. Another way to look at it will be to find ways to gain more synergy between the F-35 and the legacy fleet. How can we better utilize our older assets during the process where the F-35 fleet becomes a reality?

Shaping combinations of 4th generation with the F-35s will be a mix and match opportunity in tailoring airpower to the missions ahead.

Zitat:Eurofighters forward deployed on land bases and operationally integrated with the F-35s can provide a lethal expansion of the strike capability of the overall force as the F-35 prioritizes targets and identifies strike support which the Eurofighters can provide as weapons carriers and launchers.

Nelson schrieb:Statt so um die 200 Mio pro F35B rauszuhauen würde ich ja eher die Mittel nutzen, uns a) Als gleichberechtigte Partner in die Force de Frappe einzukaufen, oder b) Eine ganz eigene nukleare Abschreckung mit ca. 30 taktischen und 120 strategischen Waffen aufbauen. A) würde ich bevorzugen, da es leichter und wesentlich schneller umsetzbar und finanziell günstiger wäre, und wir damit mehr Geld für Tanaris und Co hätten. Denn was schreckt Moskau wohl mehr - ein, zwei dutzend F35b auf deutschen Autobahnflugplätzen oder die Aussicht auf eine Megatonnenexplosion überm Kreml?

Ansonsten wäre ich grundsätzlich für die F35b, da man diese- so man dies denn je machen wollte - auch auf (improvisierten) Flugzeugträgern verwenden könnte.

Zitat:Quintus es steht sogar in der PDF (von 2008) die du mir verlinkt hast drin! Ich habe einfach nur ibs in kg umgerechnet. Sprich 5200ibs entsprechen ca. 2360kg und eben nicht wie du vorher behauptest hast 1.360kg.

Zitat:Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[255][259] and two internal bays with two pylons each[255] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[239]

Zitat:Aber selbst wenn die F35 vorher aufgeklärt werden sollte, die besagten Tanks kann sie ja immer noch abwerfen und das VLO ist wiederhergestellt, was zudem dazu führen würde das die ankommende Rakete wie das feuernde Flugzeug die Radar Erfassung verlieren würde.

Zitat:Quintus, die F35 kann 5200ibs Intern tragen, das sind in kg umgerechnet ca. 2360kg !
1 Kg = 2,20462262 lbs