http://www.alert5.com/2008/10/israel-f-35-...ke-fighter.html

Congress has been notified that Israel is interested in getting 25 F-35A with options for 50.

Total cost is $15.2 billion with all options exercised.

With all that bad press on the F-35 by military aviation 'experts' recently, it'd dismay them that the IAF have decided to purchase the jet. The IAF doesn't buy lemons. Obviously the IAF know something the 'experts' don't.

200 million per jet is insanely expensive. almost the amount for a raptor.

they must have ordered something thats in the FMS notice thats driving the figure up.
if all options are exercised. whats are the options ?

15.2B for 50 jets should be 300M per jet.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Israel_08-83.pdf

here's the PDF file of the FMS notification

here are snippets of interesting information

a) an option to purchase at a later date an additional 50 F-35 CTOL or Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft

b)Command, Control, Communication, Computers and Intelligence/ Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI

c) F-35 unique infrared flares; unique systems or sovereign requirements <= anyone has any idea whats a unique infrared flare ? or the soverign requirements ?

d) reprogramming center, Hardware/Software In-the-Loop Laboratory Capability;

e) software development/ integration,

d and e are especially interesting. does that mean US backed down on the demands and gave israel the source code ?

Never do a simple division of total contract value by number of aircraft. It'll always be misleading. Especially with Israel wanting early delivery of F-35s and special configurations for its aircraft (which requires software integration services as shown above), I believe they'd have to pay a premium for their aircraft.

With stealthy aircraft, they probably have different emissions characteristics that require unique decoys for them. The F-22 also has unique decoys designed specially for it, as I recall.

Software access has different levels. Really no info here on what level is given.

ok here $200 Mil an aircraft .guess the rumour of rsaf possibly acquiring a 100 F35s is practically insane. Even if its over a decade :huh:

$200mil is damn expensive. I suspect the deal may include access to the blackboxes.

why not ? 2 billion out of a 10 billion budget for 10 years squirreled away in some investment account/savings accoun would go a long way in paying for the F35s

There are alway additional equipment to consider in each procurement and it will definitely not just squirreled away 2 billions out of 10 billions each year. GUess we got to wait for the first acquisition to make conclusion on the toll it will take on Singapore's defence Budget. :huh:

I just gave some thoughts. F35 is actually an integrated piece of machine with sensors that are integrated into the body.

Sovereign requirements = Installation of Israeli electronics, etc?

and integration of their weapons. The Israeli variant will also have conformal fuel tanks, I think.

The amount may also includes cost of maintainance throughout the aircraft's lifespan.

I do not think US Gov will not authorise the release of source code for one of their premier fighter. As YF already said, software access has different levels. d) and e) maybe carried out by the respective hardware vendors with Israelis providing the requirements; akin to customisation of specification in commercial world. This maybe one of the reasons why the cost of purchase is so high.

I read somewhere that this is actually the case. Highly integrated and automated with redundancy architecture to provide fail-safe performance.

They did this for their -teens and now they want it for their F-35? Will the Israelis also designed stealth missile container for the external stores too?

This must be the biggest/fattest MOU sign this year in any military sale to a foregin country out USA.

I wonder if a delicated JSF CAS version will spawn from JSF F-35B STOVL version to replace the OA-10 / A-10A/B/C by fitting a smaller GAU version cannon under the "missing" lift fans/engine or the bomb bay as a quick switch role. I strongerly support big cannonc/guns to missiles in CAS role!

Stealth CFTs? Will the Israelis have the expertise to design and manufacture those? Or are they just another non-VLO loadout option for the F-35? Intriguing either way. It would be very cool if there ever are stealth CFTs/Weapons bay for the F-35.

Looks like the F-35 may go the way of the F-16-- from a slim, svelte teenager to a bulky, lumpy fat mama! :lol:

homing: I think there was once some speculative talk about fitting a solid state laser to the F-35B in the place of the lift fan, but that seems to have petered out along with the US Laser research.

However, in the CAS role, wouldn't the F-35C be more adaptable? It has bigger lifting surfaces and, I assume, greater stability for carrier operations-- which would be useful for a CAS aircraft.

i'm surprised at this talk of CFTs for F-35. it's already been designed for have very long range on internal fuel - combat radius of something like 600mi, comparable to F-15E and almost double that of F-16!

having decent size CFTs will push combat radius up to something like 750mi(?) unrefueled which is really quite sick for a fighter. almost like bomber range. if the Israelis really go ahead with the CFTs, it'll obviously be for the Iran scenario, and with tanker support they can go there and back comfortably.

F-35 may be slow, fat and clumsy but at least its got long legs!!

F-35B for Korea?

South Korea is looking at introducing the U.S. Lockheed Martin-built F-35B fighter variant, to fly from its 14,000-ton Dokdo large-deck landing ship, along with the F-35A air force version, as part of mid- and long-term force improvement plans, a source here said...

Experts have said when the landing ship is equipped with a ski jump module, vertical or short takeoff and landing aircraft such as the Harrier or the F-35B will be able to be launched from the deck.

Observers say the latest move appears to reflect Seoul's strong interest in the JSF, also known as Lightening II, as a candidate for the upcoming F-X deal, for which Boeing's F-15K NF III, Saab's Gripen NG, Eurofighter's Typhoon and others are also expected to compete.

The F-X aims to equip the South Korean Air Force with 120 advanced high-end fighters by 2020 to replace its aging fighter fleet. The U.S. Boeing Company won South Korean orders for batches of 40 and 21 F-15s in two previous deals.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/natio.../205_40483.html

Interesting..Dokdo class isn't a very big LHD..

any chance its to show that they are keen, willing and able to project power to secure the disputed islands with japan ?

afterall, dokdo class must defend the dokdo/dekeshima islands.

Think SG would serioulsy consider acquiring the F35s in conjunction with building bigger vessels...it would enable us further force projection capabilities via air power, allow for better air cover for naval assets and also allow us to have a diversified aspect of parking some of our aircrafts (instead of it being based on land). The F35s will also allow us to have extra strategic advantages such as the vertical takeoff capabilities which means instead of airfields, the plane can be kept at some off site locations which aren't known to the enemy. Plus the fact that the Israelis are getting it, we are bound to benefit in some ways in terms of technology transfers, training etc..... moreover RSAF needs to continue its pace to be always ahead of our nearest possible adversaries. Also, during this current crisis, we are assured of recovering faster than our neighbours, therefore we have the added advantage of securing more defence dollars than them; thus we can get these planes first should our govt decide.

US200mio each is peanuts compared to what our investments' value have depreciated... a mere US$3bio can afford us 10 of these planes plus accessories and training for starters.

But then again there is another aspect which require substantial spending and attention to - submarines which need replacements too.

But trust that these issues are carefully considered and prioritised.

Just curious, have not seen any comparsion btw F35 vs MIG 29 / SU27 & SU30.... anyone out there has any write ups on this??

Carlo Kopp has some Flanker vs Western/US fighters write up (but he is not to be trusted) and should be read with a pinch of salt. See: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-04.html

He also has a write up on current Flankers (including the MKM). See http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

Please note that he is so disliked that there is a blog against his analysis: http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.com/2007/11/a...f-and-raaf.html

It is known that the Russies do not allow the most advance (latest)technology hardware be export..they do hold back and will not gives away the advantage easily.

I'm going to go with no on that one.

As discussed in several other threads, we are already relatively short on manpower, to build a platform capable of handling the F35s would probably be within our technical prowess, but the question arises as to whether we can afford (manpower-wise) to have such a platform. You would also have to provide an escort for such ships, warranting an increase in the naval complement once again.

I assume you are talking about such platforms as you mention providing extra force projection via air power and increased air coverage for naval assets.

In addition, there was a huge discussion regarding the advantages/necessity of the F35B over the F35A in another thread. And while the F35B does provide a VTOL advantage, I'm not convinced by the argument that it would be a better buy for us over the F35A.

Where exactly does Singapore need to project "power" to?

the fishes at pedra branca need protection from fishermen :P

:lol: :lol: :lol:

maybe the next time someone talks about skinning the cat we can park the flat top + other ships somewhere along their western coast, near their capital? :P

And put it in torpedo range of certain french submarines?

that's why I put "+ other ships"...i mean, if we want to build a baby carrier, she'll need some sort of escorts rite? :P

altho she'll become a BRAHMOS magnet, which i'm not sure can be intercepted that easily...will the F-35B have anything to counter other stand-off weapons?

That will merely flame unnecessary tensions. We do not need to have tit-for-tat kampong shouting matches.

hey Guys don't get me wrong on the LSTs...am not talking about a dedicated flat-top for the F35s...what I am referring to is newer or future LSTs. What I mean is that we can station F35s onboard for the purpose of power projection with reference to when we land our troops via the LSTs... if having LSTs is what you guys are discussing about thus far, then why do we have the current compliment of LSTs? For humanitarian purposes?? Definitely not...solely for transport? Surely not too... Thus some of the arguments aren't put in correctly with what I actually mean. I am not sure if our current doctrine calls for escort vessels for them when they sail though, so that point is abit out of place.

My tots about the LSTs carrying F35s are towards the possibility of having capable jets in the airspace to protect the vessel and or protect troops while landing them onshore.

I think our expected operating theatres are more or less within our air coverage, especially with the tankers.

Unless you mean to use the LSTs to allow the F35s to be deployed aground once sufficient area was available, the F35s will take up valuable helicopter carrying capacity, especially on a smaller platform. The F35Bs are supposed to require 550 feet for a takeoff or 450 feet with a skijump with the figures I found. 450 feet is 13 feet or so shorter than our Endurance class. For comparison, the Endurance class has about 200 feet or so available for the landing pad currently. You could probably take off with a substantially smaller amount of space, but that would mean a corresponding drop in carrying capacity, making the aircraft less combat effective.

This was the thread where the F35B was compared to the F35A for our purposes.
http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=30

The LSTs would have to be substantially larger or at least offer a substantial increase in area available for takeoffs if you wanted the F35s to be at least somewhat effective in battle, hence the point about a larger complement required.

As for escorting LSTs, would you leave those assets unguarded in times of war, particularly if you were having them support a ground landing or providing air coverage? One would think the LSTs would be considered rather high-value assets and are unlikely to stray afar without escorts. The 76mm and Mistrals wouldn't do very much outside of short range self-defense.

That's why there was mention of escorts.

Thats what I thought too. The Spratly's, which is the furthest away in terms of our concerns is about 800-900nmi out from SG, probably 300 or less from Brunei. Our Vipers with CFT or Bags can even handle that comfortably.

Personally I don't buy the idea of having only surface escorts (am using that inference cos' there isn't mention of other forms of escort) cos' there would be greater flexibility if F35s are based onboard LSTs. To me its an asset for air, ground or surface ops. As mentioned already based on standard weapons onboard, its survivability is dependent on other escorts...with air assets, it could be proactive by giving air cover for the surface fleet / group of vessels it is in....though we have sufficient air assets, it wouldn't hurt to have another segment of air capabilities right? (As long as the plan fits into the greater scheme of things - big picture)

I was also not pointing to the current Endurance class boats only...I did mention if RSN decides to operate bigger LSTs....future LSTs to be exact...its not too absurd to imagine a bigger LST in service with RSN given the current trend of things to come, all our vessels are getting bigger....

Koreans are now considering buying F35B for their Darko class. Unless RSN go flat tops, I can't see why they or RSAF buying the VTOL version.

not in the near future, given the downhill economy as well as manpower limitations...

also, I don't think SAF will attempt to force a beach head away from air superiority and CAS...also creating a force with its organic air superiority/CAS element will make our neighbours quite uneasy; after all, we don't really have anywhere to project our forces to, and such a force would, I feel, be highly expeditionary in nature...

My intuition tells me that F-35B would make a great CAS/air superiority fighter, just that the present climate isn't quite supportive of it...

den again, to warrant such a force, SG will probably have to have lots of coastlines to 'defend'...a heli-carrier would appear to be more humanitarian :)