So the US is paying for Israel to buy the aircraft, you will also find that Israel are funding certain equipment not in that $96m each i.e extras to the flyaway price.
BTW if the US is willing to fund me personally - I'll buy a couple of hundred JSF and give them to the RAAF free of charge.
Who wouldn't, but it is interesting that the military aid program to Israel can in fact be used on any weapon system that is currently ITARS cleared for sale to Israel, including F-15's, F-16I or hell, even Super Hornet's if they really wanted I suppose. They chose F-35 however. Apparently they don't share the same opinion on it's "flaws" as you do.
Are you now going to follow the usual APA line and argue that the IDF is "corrupt and incompetent" too?
If you insist - lets try comparing apples with apples (total acquisition costs) if you compare the Typhoon deal (which
even includes production setup in Saudi) to the Israeli JSF you still come out behind and the Saudis are paying from their own pockets
I wont even bother changing to the correct Typhoon figure of £4.43b (US$7.1b )as I'm sure it was just a currency mistake on your part, so going with your inflated Typhoon figures:-
Israel 2.75b/20 jsf airframes = $137m each and the Typhoons $9.5b =$132m each, Using flyaway the difference is even more apparent.
Why not use Austria's $2b cost then at $140m per Eurofighter in 2002 dollars...
But sure, why not? Let's use Israel's FY10 year dollars compared to Saudi Arabia's FY07 year dollars to make a point shall we? And let us not bother adjusting the inflation increases or anything like that. Let's just assume that JSF is somehow immune from real world cost increases that have NOTHING to do with how well or otherwise the JSF program is run and blithely compare project costs for contracts signed many years apart...
To others reading, this harks back to what I was saying earlier about the critics and their "disingenuity". If you want to compare apples and apples JWC, then you have to go through each purchase, line by line, item by item AND adjust for year to year price increases that have nothing to do with JSF project management.
On top of this, using such a simplistic method of comparison doesn't take into account the package (with either acquisition) nor does it take into account the production status of the aircraft (ie: try comparing LRIP Typhoon sales to LRIP JSF sales and see what the cost comparison looks like...) nor does it take into account any specific modifications to the aircraft which Israel may well have funded (admittedly through US aid) which adds a premium to the aircraft.
If you were to include the costs of Australia's interim F18e/f solution to the present Air 6000 solution then the 2002 decision to go JSF would be hard to justify on cost grounds... I wonder how that happened if it was common knowledge that the projected plans were BS.
Why not add the KC-30B, Hornet Upgrade Project, Wedgetail AEW@C, AGM-158 JASSM's, Project Vigilaire, HF Mod and WGS Satcom capability on top whilst your at it? ALL of these projects were required to provide for Australia's air defence capability, after the retirement of the F-111, but prior to the introduction of JSF as well.
Where does it stop? A Government's decision to acquire a boost to our air combat capability, somehow has to be added to the cost of our long term fighter replacement? Why? I don't quite get that.
If you want to measure overall air combat capability, fine, but the Super Hornet doesn't directly relate to JSF at all. JSF wasn't replacing the F-111 originally until 2020+ so the alleged "lateness" of the JSF has nothing whatsoever to do with the F-111 replacement. It impacts on the Hornet replacement obviously but you are drawing a long bow between it and the Super Hornet. Too long for my taste.
RAAF will of course be using their corporate knowledge of some of the 5th Gen like features on the Super Hornet (I say so not to start an argument, but to recognise that things like the APG-79 radar WERE meant for Boeing's JSF entrant originally) to help them transition to the JSF, but that wasn't a reason for buying the Super Hornets. A very large budget surplus and a "flood" of Flankers into our region was.
My problem - I fail to understand the blind support for such a flawed procurement decision and its not over yet.
I think I'll leave this thread to the usual players expressing the rosier view, sorry to have intruded, I really should have resisted the urge.
Cheers
Can't stand the heat, get out of the fire old boy. That's the nature of discussion. At least on places where such discussion is welcome and pandering to the cult of the Uber-Pig isn't the order of the day...
Regards,
AD