Aviaţie

Eddy de La Motte, optimist fata de viitoarele contracte pentru Gripen

Gripen C No 251, Aerospace Forum Sweden 2012

Gripen C No 251, Aerospace Forum Sweden 2012

SAAB anunta ca viitorul pentru Gripen se inrozeste, dat fiind faptul ca Danemarca si Canada au dintii sterpeziti cand vine vorba despre F-35.

Astfel vanzarile modelelor curente de Gripen si mai ales de variantei NG ar putea depasi 300 de unitati in urmatoarele doua decenii – o zice Eddy de La Motte, seful pe Exporturi.

Acestor posibilitati se adauga acelea de a inchiria avioane Gripen catre Malaezia si o vanzare in Finlanda, urmata de un contract cu Thailanda.

“We can now offer a fixed price, fixed performance and fixed timetable,” spune de La Motte, adaugand: “The outlook is better than anything I’ve seen.”

Legat de discutiile cu Canada, acelasi de La Motte zice: “We have got a formal request”, adaugand apoi ca nu s-a luat inca decizia de a demara o campanie pentru vanzare.

De La Motte insa este realist si nu evita sa mentioneze>

“Canada has strong ties to the U.S. and we are really looking at trying to assess our chances,”

Sursa: Bloomberg

 

– Iulian Iamandi –

 

26 Comments

  • As vrea sa-i vad pe canadieni cum justifica o posibila achizitie de Gripen, avand in vedere faptul ca este monomotor – iar criticii din presa canadiana urla ca F-35 e prost ptr ca are un singur motor – si daca cedeaza deasupra articii? :))))

    Daca F-35 pierde in Canada, ceea ce nu cred ca se va intampla, va pierde probabil in fata F-18 E/F sau Eurofighter…nu a Gripen.

    • Atunci, brazilienii de ce nu zic ca ar putea sa ii cedeze deasupra junglei?

      Problema asta mi-am pus-o si eu, nu zic nu – doar sunt “pro” bimotoare.

      • Replica pentu ambii – Gripen-ul nu este primul supersonic monomotor care sa zboare in conditii arctice, calea a fost de mult timp deschisa de Draken , mai apoi de Viggen, inainte de alea a zburat F 86 si MIG 15…deci….se poate, Danemarca si Norvegia se pare ca nu si-au pus aceasta problema cand au achizitionat acum 2-3 decenii F 16 si daca ne uitam la rata de atritie a Gripen, Mirage 2000 si F 16 realizam ca deja motoarele sunt destul de fiabile pentru a nu ami fi redundante neaparat.

        • Mda si F-35 trebuie sa opereze deasupra Alaskai… si in Norvegia. Deci nu ar fi o prb extraodinara.

          Problema e alta ca in Canada s-a iscat furia jurnalistica pe ideea de monomotor – deci ar fi interesanta justificarea eventualei achizitii de Gripen din aceasta perspectiva.

          Competitia are toate sansele sa confirmea achizitia originala de F-35 pe de alta parte, cu toata nebunia din jurul subiectului in Canada, iar Gripen e practic outsiderul. Competitie e practic intre Boeing si LM.

          • @ George Visan stii cum va fi si la noi la orice achizitie de avion multirol vor iesi unii pe un post ca sa spuna ca se puteau baga in spitale scoli etc desi nici pana acum nu s-au bagat..deci furia trece deciziile raman….poate este PR-ul Boeing.

          • apropo de PR-ul de gripen 🙂 ca e george aici

            Gripen aircraft have now flown a total of over 150 000 flight hours. It is noteworthy that not a single Gripen aircraft has suffered an engine-related failure or serious incident during these 150 000 hours. This is unique among the world’s Air Forces.

          • Chestia interesanta e ca exista destule bimotoare care nu pot zbura cu un singur motor. Vad ca asta se mentioneaza mai putin. In alta ordine de idei romanii au avut recent un bimotor de vanatoare si s-a vazut cum si cat s-au descurcat cu el. Si nu, nici cu MiG-19 nu ne-am descurcat mai bine.

              • MiG-29 – tinut in serviciu doar 10-11 ani, nu stiu prin ce “minune” dar Romania a fost capabila “sa-i epuizeze resursa” cel mai repede din toti operatorii, intre timp reusind si sa accidenteze vreo 3 aparate.
                MiG-19 despre care gen. Horia Opruta declara in anii ’90 ca a fost un avion “complet nereusit” din cauza caruia pierdusem un mare numar de piloti si aproape jumatate din avioane.
                Realitatea e ca RoAF nu a facut casa buna cu aparatele complexe. Cine a avut succes la noi: aparate simple, monomotoare, de tip “samaliot-soldat” gen MiG-15 pastrat in serviciu vreo 30 de ani (mai zburau inca la inceputul anilor ’90) si MiG-21 cu care deja ne apropiem de depasit recorduri ca durata de exploatare.

                • Trist dar Stelian are dreptate….din pacate oricat ne-am lauda si oricati piloti buni am avea nu prea am facut casa buna cu avioanele complexe…MIG 19 un succes in Vietnam era considerat de tehnicii nostri “un avion facut de MIG cand s-a supart pe tehnicieni” – MIG 29 avion de exploatat 20-25 de ani minim la noi nu a servit decat 10 ani -12 maxim 13 in conditiile in care tari ca Slovacia, Bulgaria si asa mai departe l-au stiut expoloata pana azi – ca sa nu mai vorbesc de Polonia.
                  Odata si odata trebuie ca sa se schimbe mentalitatea in RoAF altfel vom ramne in continuare intr-o groapa din Balcani.
                  Iranul de care toti rad mentine in serviciu din 1977 F 14 Tomcat care numai simplu nu este de exploatat, avion cu geometrie variabila in zbor si cu un sistem de armament foarte complex.

                  • Trebuie sa se schimbe mentalitatea la politicieni care nu mai trebuie sa ignore situatia economico- sociala a tarii si cea tehnica in care se afla armata romana.Cei din aviatie raspund la intrebari, se conforemaza, insa nu ei iau deciziile.Daca era dupa cei din aviatia militara, in perioada 2006-2008, Romania si-ar fi cumparat 48 de avioane noi, si ar fi beneficiat si de offset.Tariceanu, politician, s-a opus, asa ca nu a mai contat ce au vrut militarii.

                • @sorin: unul din bimotoarele care nu pot zbura intr-un motor este MiG-29. Probabil mai sunt si altele. Nu stiu Su-27 sau F-14 cum fac fata. Din ce am inteles F-14 nu face fata stralucit la oprirea unui singur motor, intra intr-un fel de vrie din care e practic imposibil de scos. Din cauza departarii motorului fata de axul de simetrie, nu poate compensa din directie. Depinde si de situatia in care se opreste motorul. Daca e un flame-out in timpul unei evolutii acrobatice si F-18 se descurca greu. Au fost cazuri in care au picat. In evolutii acrobatice un motor ramas in functiune poate face mai mult rau decat bine pentru redresarea motorului. La aeronave civile e cerinta speciala ca un bimotor sa poata zbura cu un singur motor dar avioanele civile sunt proiectate special pentru asta. Iar probabilitatea cea mai mare ca un motor sa cedeze e in timpul evolutiilor acrobatice, fie din motive de perturbare a fluxului de aer in motor, fie ca urmare a suprasolicitarii mecanice a motorului, fie ca urmare a defectarii instalatiei de combustibil. Deci te lasa cand ai mai mare nevoie de el. In zbor drept mai greu cedeaza, un motor cu reactie e o masinarie cu functionare foarte constanta, in mod relativ uzual pot functiona si zeci de ore fara oprire dar fac fata destul de slab la fluctuatii de parametri. Cred ca adoptarea solutiei bimotor la aparatele militare nu tine doar de redundanta cat de arhitectura generala a aparatului: aerodinamica, optimizarea consumului de combustibil, solutii de racire, gabarit al motorului, disponibilitatea de spatiu pentru pilonii de acrosare, samd. Trebuie tinut cont ca 2 motoare nu inseamna doar de 2 ori mai multa siguranta ci si de 2 ori mai multa probabilitate de a avea o defectiune si de 2 ori mai multa mentenanta. Si daca vbim de preferinta US Navy pt bimotoare “pentru ca sunt mai sigure” trebuie amintit ca US Navy are si a avut si destule monomotoare: F-8 Crusader, A-7 Corsair, A-4 Skyhawk, T-45 Goshawk, samd. Dezavantajele monomotorului pt. portavioane nu tin numai de redundanta ci ies la iveala si odata cu F-35: un monomotor e un avion ingust si inalt, tren de aterizare inca si mai ingust – deci greu de aterizat, dificultati de amplasare a carligului de acrosare, dificultati de racire (mai multa caldura intr-un singur punct), samd. Bimotoarele sunt mai plate si mai stabile, au mai mult loc sub burta pentru incarcat armament, samd. Revenind la RoAF, cum arata si istoricul acestei organizatii care nu are nimic a face cu “politicienii” (ma rog, au si ei treaba lor dar problema e mai veche), un bimotor ar fi mai degraba “more of a liability than an asset” cum spun americanii. Adica mai degraba o bataie de cap decat un atu: mententanta complexa, un numar prea mic de aparate cumparabile cu aceeasi suma de bani (cand ajungi sa te tii in cateva zeci de aparate, 36 e oricand mai bine decat 24) + motivul istoric amintit mai sus a unei slabe integrari a aparatelor complexe in RoAF.

                  • sorin la f14 care era un bimotor fara fbw
                    28% of all F-14 accidents were attributed to the engine. – care e rata foarte mare, din cele 7 gripene pierdute nici unul nu a cazut de la motor

                    la astea moderne cu fbw, pur si simplu lumea e focusata sa il faca sa mearga cum trebuie in conditiile in care motoarele merg, din cauza de fbw au fost pierdute mai multe avioane decat din cauza de motoare in istoria recenta, si la rusi si la americani si la gripen, cand nu merge un motor cine stie daca au acoperit toate cazurile cum sa misti suprafetele de comanda functie de inputul pilotului si conditiile de moment ale avionulu, se prea poate sa nu zboare bine cu un singur motor si sa o ia razna

                    In plus fata de ce zicea Stelian, la civile este o cerinta a FIA ca toate defectele la motor sa fie “self contained”, adica daca de exemplu se rupe o pala de la turbina, sa nu iasa din carcasa motorului si sa taie conducte sau sa se infiga in fuselaj sa omoare la pasageri – la militare nu e cerinta asta si in foarte multe cazuri cand s-a rupt vreo pala a facut prapad in jur – 2 motoare inseamna probabilitate de doua ori mai mare sa patesti asa ceva
                    aici e un Mig29 unguresc – unde se intampla ce zic
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YMZnWVo9M-4

                    aici un f18 canadian care a facut flame-out in timp ce exersa trecerea la viteza mica si unghi de incidenta mare (ce face la noi dl Stancu la bias, cu un singur motor batran si fara fadec) –
                    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297283/Canadian-Airforce-pilot-ejects-fighter-jet-moments-crashes-ball-flame.html

                    Forma unui avion bimotor are si alte dezavantaje – avionul mai “lat”, mai mare rezistenta care nu se transforma in portanta (parasitic drag), si petrolul costa

      • Sau americanii deasupra marii, in cazul F35 exploatat pe portavion.Basme.Totul se limiteaza exclusiv la modul cum sunt cheltuiti banii publici care in acest moment, cu exceptia Chinei, pe nimeni nu il incurca ca sunt prea multi.Fiecare, care este rational si de caracter, incearca sa cheltuiasca cat mai eficient banul public.Este mult mai ieftin la achiztie si de exploatat un Grifon NG decat un F35.Canadienii stiu asta.

    • George depinde ce vrei de la un avion, are si gura pacatosilor dreptate cu bimotorul

      Uite la americani, aceleasi statistici referitoare la avioane pierdute din cauza penelor la motor – f16 si f15 echipate cu p&w f100-220, care e motor cu fadec, chiar state of the art pana pun la punct astia altceva
      http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1825834&postcount=8 – sunt doua atasamente
      (oricum, foarte putine pierdute din cauza de motoare)

      daca vrei ceva long range – bimotor
      navalele iarasi bimotor, nu doar de anduranta, e usor de pus carligul unde e structura aia din cadre frezate intre motoare fara sa mai ingreunezi extra cu altceva
      o parte din avantajele monomotorului la f35 – le-au anulat ei cu forma aia ciudata, a fost mai important sa fie stealth decat low drag si asta a fost compromisul ales

    • Nu cred ca este mai frig in nordul Canadei decat in nordul Suedediei(nu ca in Alaska ar fi mai cald).Si canadienii stiu acest aspect.Canadienii urla cel mai tare din cauza banilor.Fiind un stat social-democrat, Canada prefera sa isi cheltuiasca banii pe programe sociale si de dezvoltare regionala decat pe armament scump.Au facut ei aceasta prostie, inclusiv cu britanicii, insa acum incet-incet isi revin si devin mai grijulii cu cheltuirea banului public.

    • unde ai vazut tu furie in Canada pe ideea de monomotor? nu mai vezi asa dezbatere in nicio tara, nu mai exista ideea ca iei 2 motoare sa ai backup daca se strica unul – dimpotriva probabilitatea de scurt circuit e dubla daca ai doua motoare, in zilele de azi cu motoarele electronizate.

      am urmarit dezbaterea din Canada si e toata despre ideea de costuri. A fost si o motiune de cenzura pe tema asta, cu ascunderea costurilor reale, si chiar a cazut guvernul respectiv (apoi a ajuns iar la putere). acum insa guvernantii au angajat o firma privata, KPMG sa le faca un studiu de costuri si au ajuns la concluzia ca flota de 65 avioane F-35 ar costa 45 miliarde de dolari, mult peste bugetul alocat.

      asa ca au inceput o competitie, unde au invitat 5 producatori, aceeasi ca si Romania – Dassault, Saab, Lockheed, Boeing, Eurofighter.

      Boeing e considerat favorit din perspectiva amprenteti industriale din Canada si posibilitatii de producere acolo, intr-adevar, se intampla ca e bimotor – dar depinde ce oferte vor face. Saab a fost invitat si are avantajul ca se pot lua mai multe avioane Gripen la acelasi pret si se poate acoperi teritoriul canadian mai bine. Si aici depinde ce se va oferi Canadei, cat de canadian va fi avionul.

      Eu as zice ca Boeing pleaca cu prima sansa. F-35 nu e mort si ingropat in Canada, dar nici bine nu se simte. Rafale si Eurofighter au costuri prea mari si e putin probabil sa fie selectate de o natiune care se uita la bani.

    • daca chiar esti curios, uite aici cum justifica canadienii cummpararea de Gripen:

      http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/07/why-canada-should-buy-the-saab-jas39-gripen-e-next-generation-fighter/

      Narrowing Down The Alternatives: Gripen vs Eurofighter vs F-35A

      Factor 1: Cost

      The cost-to-performance ratio is what makes the Gripen so appealing. The Gripen C/D has very similar performance and technology of the Eurofighter, but comes at half the price. The Gripen costs $60 million per plane[3] whereas the latest Eurofighter costs $125 million per plane.[4] The F-35A, by contrast, is currently projected to cost $107 million per plane by 2017[5]. However, the Canadian government currently projects initial procurement costs for 65 F-35As at $9 billion [6], putting the initial procurement cost at $138 million per plane. That same $9 billion would buy 150 Gripens or 72 Eurofighters. This ambiguity in the true cost of the F-35A makes projections difficult, leading to uncertainty. However, whatever the true cost is, it will be enormous and not reflective of the F-35A’s limited capabilities. In terms of initial procurement cost, the Gripen is the clear winner.

      Not only are the initial procurement costs of the Gripen low, it is also the least expensive modern fighter jet to operate at approximately $4,700 per flight hour[7]. Conversely, the Eurofighter costs $18,000 per flight hour[8] and the F-35A costs an enormous $21, 000 per flight hour.[9]

      A fleet of 65 F-35As is currently projected to cost Canada $45.8 billion[10] over the course of a 40+ year lifespan. If $9 billion is to actually purchase the planes, then the operating costs for a fleet of 65 F-35As for 40+ years will be approximately $36.8 billion. The Eurofighter’s operating costs are 85%[11] that of the F-35A , therefore the operating costs of a fleet of 72 Eurofighters over 40+ years would be approximately $34.6 billion[12]. The Gripen’s operating costs are 15%[13] that of the F-35A, therefore the operating cost of a fleet of 150 Gripens for 40+ years would be approximately $12.7 billion[14]. In terms of operational cost, the Gripen is the clear winner.

      Despite the fact that these figures are estimates and will likely vary, the massive gap between the F-35A, Eurofighter, and the Gripen are difficult to ignore. The Gripen and Eurofighter cost projections are likely to be closer to reality given that it they are based on proven systems with much more fight time. There is no real world combat date on the F-35A and its true cost for Canada can only climb higher, particularly given issues such as the F-35A’s incompatibility with certain weapons and Canada’s CC-150 Polaris refuelling tankers, which are examined later.

      Part problem with the Eurofighter and F-35A is that their dramatically higher costs do not translate into a proportional increase in performance and capability. The Gripen, however, has performance very nearly equal to the Eurofighter, but comes at half the cost. Even though the shortfall in performance is, as will be examined later, negligible, the money saved by procuring the Gripen could be put towards arming Canada’s Gripen fleet with the best weapons available, providing Canadian Gripen pilots with the best training, and leave room for future upgrades as technology improves. This, along with the increase in the sheer numbers of Gripen fighters Canada could purchase, would more than make up for the negligible shortfall in performance or capability. The F-35A, by comparison, is a relatively poor performer.

      Other countries are rethinking their commitments and re-evaluating their options, such as Italy,[15] Australia,[16] and the U.S.[17] The Netherlands has cancelled their F-35 order altogether.[18] This means that the F-35 will likely cost more than current projections estimate. If other countries are rethinking or outright abandoning their F-35 purchases, Canada should take note and conduct serious review of alternatives.

      Factor 2: Performance

      With regard to specifications, the Gripen and Eurofighter are about equal, save for the fact that the Saab has obtained AESA radar[19], an asset the Eurofighter currently lacks[20], and the Gripen is a single engine fighter whereas the Eurofighter is a twin engine fighter. They both have similar power-to-weight ratios and wing loading capacities and, although the Eurofighter enjoys a very slight advantage, they are so close in performance that any advantage enjoyed by the Eurofighter is negligible, particularly when compared to the vast difference in price. Both fighters have very similar, armament, top speed, capacity, fuel capacity, range, sensor technology, sensor fusion, helmet-mounted display, situational awareness, speed, and manoeuvrability. American General John Jumper is the only person to have flown the Eurofighter and the U.S.A.’s top air superiority fighter, the F-22A, and was quoted as saying, “I’ve flown all the [American] Air Force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter.”[21] The key difference is that the Eurofighter costs $65 million more per plane, but does not deliver an additional $65 million worth of improved performance over the Gripen. Both are very impressive and capable fighters. Though equal in performance, the cost of the Gripen makes it the clear winner.

      By comparison, the F-35A is a poor performer. It is not designed to include supercruise capability[22] and can only maintain supercruise for a mere 241km.[23] Both the Gripen and Eurofighter have full supercruise capability at mach 1.2. [24] [25] The F-35A is also slow by fighter jet standards. With a top speed of 1,930kmph[26] (mach 1.6), it lags far behind the Gripen, Eurofighter, which can both reach speeds above mach 2.[27] [28] The F-35A is even slower than the Super Hornet[29] and F-16 Fighting Falcon[30] it is meant to replace.

      Manoeuvrability is also an issue with the F-35A.[31] Its small wing design does not allow for quick manoeuvres using tight turn radii.[32] The Gripen and Eurofighter excel in the area of manoeuvrability,[33] providing an additional advantage in a combat situation.

      Though the fact that the Gripen is a single engine fighter might be seen as a disadvantage, the fact that the Canadian government was so eager to procure the F-35A indicates that the single/twin engine difference is not a significant factor.

      Another disadvantage that reduces the F-35A’s capabilities is its limited internal weapons capacity. With four internal hardpoints, the F-35A cannot deliver nearly as much in payload, particularly when compared to the Russian Su-35, which has twelve hardpoints[34], the Eurofighter, which has thirteen hardpoints[35], and the NG Gripen, which will have twelve hardpoints.[36] The F-35A can carry additional fuel and weapons externally using its six external hardpoints, but this negates the F-35A’s already questionable stealth advantage, which is examined later, and would not be advisable in a combat situation.

      Factor 3: Compatibility and Weapons Capacity

      The F-35A cannot yet carry the upcoming MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile; the most advanced NATO compatible air-to-air missile in the world, which is a major disadvantage in air-to-air combat, particularly in terms of engaging a target that is beyond visual range.[37] Plans to modify the MBDA Meteor to fit into the F-35A’s internal weapons bays have been proposed, but these plans are uncertain and adds to the already monstrous price tag. The Gripen and Eurofighter are both already compatible with the MBDA Meteor, along with virtually every other NATO compatible weapon available, giving them a significant combat advantage over the F-35A. Even if an F-35A compatible version of the Meteor is developed in the future, that would not increase the capability of F-35A to such an extent as to justify the exorbitant price and poor performance in other areas.

      The F-35A also cannot carry the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missile as it does not fit in the internal weapons bay. It can be equipped on one of the external hardpoints, but this greatly diminishes what little stealth advantage the F-35A enjoys. In order to use internal weapons to take out ground-based targets, Canada would have to buy the Brimestone air-to-ground missile, pushing the cost of operating the F-35A beyond its already unreasonable figure.

      This means that on retirement of the CF-18s, all ammunition that is not compatible with the F-35A’s internal weapons bay becomes practically useless. The RCAF would have to spend additional funds to purchase new ammunition that is compatible for use on the F-35A. However, the KPMG report states that the ammunition budget will be slashed from $270 million to $52 million,[38] which significantly limits the quality and quantity of ammunition Canada could acquire. The RCAF would have the funds to buy and maintain fighter jets, but lack the funds to actually arm them. A fighter jet without weapons is not good for anything other than giving the enemy target practice. The Gripen and the Eurofighter are compatible with all the weapons Canada currently stock piles, the future MBDA Meteor, and every other NATO compatible weapon. As the Gripen costs substantially less, the ammunition budget would not have to be reduced, providing Canada’s forces with the greatest flexibility to provide the right weapons for whatever task is at hand.

      The F-35A also presents a problem in terms of integration into Canada’s existing air-infrastructure due to its method of midair refuelling: the “flying boom” method. The flying boom method is only used by the U.S. Air Force. Virtually every other air force in the world, including Canada, uses the “probe-and-drogue” method[39]. Canada’s CF-18s and CC-150 Polaris aerial tankers[40] use this method. An off-the-lot purchase of F-35As would mean Canada could not refuel its fighters midair and they would have to land for refuelling, use an allied or private midair refuelling tanker, or be modified to use the probe-and-drogue method. Landing to refuel is impractical and severely limits Canada’s operational capacity due to its inflexibility. Using an allied or private midair refuelling tanker adds to the already exorbitant costs and means Canada cannot operate its fighter jet fleet independently. It reduces Canada’s operational flexibility by an unreasonable degree. Modifying the F-35A to use a probe-and-drogue system is possible, but it adds to the ever-increasing costs. As the a Canadian procurement of the F-35A would result in the infrastructure upgrade budget being slashed from $400 million to $244 million[41] funds to solve the midair refueling problem would be scarce. Much like with the limited weapons capacity and compatibility problem, not only could Canada not afford to arm a fleet of F-35As properly, it could also not afford to refuel them using its existing infrastructure and equipment. The Eurofighter and the Gripen do not have these problems as they are compatible with all NATO weapons and the probe-and-drogue method. The Eurofighter and Gripen are equal in terms of compatibility, but the Gripen is the clear winner due to the fact that it is half the cost.

      Factor 4: Sensors and Situational Awareness

      Part of the reason the F-35A was developed was to provide excellent situational awareness to the pilot. This is achieved through a wide range of sensors, data link capability, sensor fusion, Link 16 data link, and a helmet mounted display. The Gripen C/D already offers all these features[42] and the NG Gripen will expand and improve on them.[43] For example, the NG Gripen will include the ES-05 Raven AESA radar[44], an upgrade over the C/D Gripen’s PS-05/A radar. The Eurofighter offers a similar sensor suite, but lacks the AESA radar that the Gripen and F-35A possess. The Eurofighter and Gripen lack the F-35A’s MADL data link, but it is of primary use for stealth aircraft and its usefulness compared to cost is questionable. The F-35A’s sensor features, while impressive on paper, have yet to be fully developed and are still being tested. The Eurofighter and Gripen sensor suites have been more thoroughly tested, so their capabilities are firmly known. The F-35A’s sensor technology is not so significant that it justifies the overall poorer performance in other areas and the vastly increased cost. It comes back to the cost-to-performance ratio. The F-35A simply costs too much and delivers too little.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: