Obviously that price is not just the fly away cost. It is fly away cost + add on sensors + weapons + training systems + maintenance package + spares + other things.
It's simply common sense, F-16 will always be cheaper in fly-away cost compared to SH or Gripen due to the sheer volume and efficiency of F-16 production, ie. economies of scale.
Instead of posting emojis, counter my posts with facts of explanations with regerences to facts.
As I said many times here, if Jaguar and Murage can operate from Ladhak them so can the more powerful F-16.
You are missing the point. It's not about power, it is about the F-16 not having enough lift, due to higher wing loading, when taking off from higher altitude airfields in areas like Ladakh. When the atmosphere thins out at higher altitudes, you need more lift to take off with the same weight. Higher thrust to weight ratio is not enough. That is why F-16 failed the high altitude tests in Ladakh. Now India has a potential war brewing there, and the F-16 with its higher wing loading will not be able to take off with sufficient stores from Ladakh. Even Jaguars would have difficulty operating from higher altitude airfields. Mirages can because their wings area is greater; hence provide greater lift due to lower wing loading. And so can the Tejas and the Rafale; both have low wing loading.
No, it is not about service ceiling. An aircraft needs a certain length of runway to take off in order for it to reach a high enough speed to produce enough lift. As the air gets thinner, as in Daulat Beg Oldi at an altitude of 5.1 km, you would need a longer runway to reach the higher speed to produce the same lift, but the length of the runway cannot be increased in mountainous areas. Once the aircraft has already taken off, it can maintain the higher altitude with higher speed. But since runway length is a limiting factor, aircraft with higher wing loading like F-16 and Jaguar cannot achieve the speed required to generate enough lift to achieve takeoff with the full load in areas with thinner air. This air gets really thin in the Indian summer due to the heat, hence the special hot and high trials in Ladakh for all aircraft, which the F-16 failed due to its higher wing loading. For higher altitude airfields in hot climates, delta wing aircraft with lower wing loading like Mirage, Tejas and Rafale are more suitable, because they generate more lift at the same takeoff speed due to a greater wing area.
Atleast read your own reference you provided.
emoji.
As I already said take off performance is not only a factor of wing loading but also of power. So while Mirage 2000 has lower wing loading than F-16, it has overall less power and thus lower T/W ratio compared to the F-16. Hence, F-16 has shorter take off distance than Mirage 2000, see the table below based on Dassault figures:
|
Atleast read your own reference you provided.
In the same report it state F35 flyaway price is 110M$ and with weapon, spares and technical support it will be more.
In Belgium deal - 34 F-35As cost is US$6.53 billion
192M $ per jet for F35 with spares and weapon etc.
Taiwan F16s deal price with weapon and spares is 122M $
And do you think IAF will buy F16 without weapons, spares and technical support?
thats why
www.pogo.org
There you go again... English please!
Service ceiling does mean that aircraft can take off from 16-18 KM
Read about aerodynamics.
And why delta wings have better load capacity.
Btw Rafale is a delta wing with load capacity of 9 ton, more than its weight.
You need to read more.
Regards
Man looks like you don't want to understand.I don't know if I should be irritated or I should pity you for your inability to comprehend basic English. I will complete the relevant portion of the Pogo report on the fly away cost of the F-35 per latest block buy:
The services’ publicly available budget documents provide a more comprehensive picture of these costs. According to the Air Force’s aircraft procurement justification book for fiscal year 2021, the $77.9 million sticker price for the 2020 model F-35A jumps to $110.3 million per aircraft when all aspects of the program are added together. And this figure will rise in the coming years as aircraft purchased now receive significant upgrades.
When people quote the $77.9 million figure, they are talking about the unit recurring flyaway cost, which is only the cost of the parts of the aircraft and the labor to put them together. The doyens of the military industrial congressional complex always prefer to use this cost metric because it is the calculation that produces the smallest possible figure. In fact, it is merely the “sticker price” to get the F-35 off the proverbial lot. But it does not produce an aircraft that is ready for training, let alone for combat.
Selective Arithmetic to Hide F-35’s True Costs
F-35 boosters work hard to convince the American people and decision-makers in Washington of the program’s affordability year after year when it’s time to negotiate the next year’s contract.
Do I need to further put into context in simpler English these 2 paragraphs?
Ever heard of
Man, man, man...
No, thrust to weight ratio difference is not enough to make up for the lack of lift, because your acceleration on the runway is still limited due to practical reasons. You need greater lift at higher altitude airfields in tropical areas to take off with the same load, and the F-16 does not make the grade due to its higher wing loading.
