Poland signs F-35 deal

The Polish government has formally announced the signing of a $4.6B deal for 32 F-35As. The deal includes spare parts, and a training package. The first aircraft will be turned over, and delivered to Luke AFB for training in 2024. They will be used to replace their Su-22 and MiG-29s.

Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak has signed a contract worth $4.6 billion under which the country will acquire 32 F-35A Lightning II fighter jets from the United States.

Speaking at the official signing ceremony on Jan. 31 in Deblin, where the Polish Air Force operates its 41st Training Aviation Base, Blaszczak said that the acquisition will enable the Polish military to make a technological leap.

www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting. I wonder if that is the last of their Pact-era combat mission birds.

Cheers

Poland getting into the latest hottness.

a reply to: Arnie123

Poland isn't going to allow themselves to be in the position of horse mounted calvary going against armor again.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I believe so. They have some helicopters, but I believe these will be the last of the fixed wing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Arnie123

Poland isn't going to allow themselves to be in the position of horse mounted cavalry going against armor again.

While I am a proud Pollack (and former cav trooper) and used to speak of the Charge at Krojanty with pride (horse vs tank), it's actually a misunderstanding.

The horse cav charged elements of a German infantry battalion. Nazi armored cars drove them off but they still bought enough time for Polish troops to withdraw.

So, still brave and a little crazy...like all of us Poles; but they didn't technically charge any armor elements.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Not actual elements, no, but horse against even armored cars is insane.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Yeah, German, Italian, and (postwar) Soviet propaganda really pushed that notion. It lives on, truth be damned.

Cheers

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaph, they were surprised by the appearance of the armored cars due to terrain and the confusion of the ongoing battle. As I understand the action, the armored cars fired on them and the cavalry retreated, but took stiff losses because they were mounted and receiving automatic weapons fire.

Cheers

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Not actual elements, no, but horse against even armored cars is insane.

Yup. But they did have some decent AT rifles that would've handled the armored cars at pretty decent ranges. Even the first Panzers were susceptible to penetration from the rounds.

Anyway, like I said, a technicality, but one that is super interesting, at least to me. And an historic misunderstanding that probably still played a part in the thinking of the Poles in purchasing the F-35s, as you suggested.

So, win-win! and a deft way for me to not continue to derail your thread!!

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Having horse troops when everyone else around you is building armor and improving their military technology as much as they were was a piss poor decision.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It (sort of) seems so in hindsight. The eastern front of the war was peculiar in that horse cavalry played a role throughout the war (even the SS had cavalry divisions late war). Heck, the Soviets even had cavalry troops in the far east into the 1950s.

Poland's "problem" in the interwar period was lack of industrial and financial clout. They fitted out a couple of motorized brigades and had some light armor that could face off against German light armor. But 1939 was anything but a balanced contest; the Germans had more guns, tanks, and many more aircraft: the product of vastly superior industrial and manpower resources.

Their cavalry doctrine was mostly to fight dismounted, in which deployment they were a sort of infantry that could move rapidly over open terrain if needed. Where the cavalry fought dismounted against German armor, their performance was not bad, but the bigger battalions decided the ultimate outcome.

I would say more it was an unfortunate decision, the drivers of which were not only doctrine-based.

Sorry for the mini-thesis and thread drift. Lots of factors in this one.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Heh. Show me a thread in this sub forum that stays strictly on topic.

Poland and the US followed a similar path in the inter war period, but we could get away with it. It bit us in the ass, but nowhere near as badly. Hap Arnold tried desperately to prove that an air force was going to change the way wars were fought, going so far as to sink a captured German warship. His opponents went so far as to court martial him for his efforts.

Before Pearl Harbor, the British used aircraft to attack a moored Italian fleet in a harbor with a similar layout. The lesson was lost on us, but not the Japanese. We developed aircraft like the P-40 and F4F by the late 30s, but were caught flat footed by the A6M and other Japanese aircraft. The navy was in decent shape, but the army was in shambles by the mid to late 30s.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Was that Arnold or Billy Mitchell that got court martialed in the 1930s?

Another major handicap for Poland is that it had only emerged as a unified country again in 1919-1920. They had less than 20 years to try to integrate the industrial activity of three vastly different areas that had been tied to Berlin, Vienna, and Moscow for 140 years or so: the road and rail networks weren't logical for the new Polish state, Polish national standards had to be devised and put down to try to standardize the three regions etc. etc. -- it would have been a challenge for any regime.

And in less than 20 years, a terrible storm hit them from two directions. That their military held out for five weeks is remarkable. That campaign is one reason why today they prefer to work with the USA. At the back of their minds, they don't believe they can rely on other European powers to provide decisive intervention to support them in a military conflict.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Arnold was given the choice to resign or be court martialed after testifying for Mitchell, and lobbying for a separate air service. He was an advocate for Mitchell and his ideas, and both hated Maj. Gen. Mason Patrick. He had succeeded Maj. Gen. Charles Menoher, and despite being a junior pilot, agreed with Menoher that aircraft would never be anything but part of the Army. Arnold and Mitchell wanted to see a separate and independent air service.

Arnold was one of three officers who lobbied Congress for more aircraft and a separate service, and Patrick gave him the option. He chose court martial, but Patrick eventually backed down and reprimanded him, gave him a bad fitness report, and assigned him away from any major aviation command.

Sounds like everyone is buying those atm.
I bet US got a secret off switch installed in case someone used them against them.

a reply to: Spacespider

They're down to below $80M a copy for the A model. That's cheaper than a lot of 4th Gen designs that are more mature. And they're far more capable than those older designs.

originally posted by: Spacespider
Sounds like everyone is buying those atm.
I bet US got a secret off switch installed in case someone used them against them.

Its in the code just like Boeing 737 Max. Oops, I was not suppose to say that. Fk.

I wonder if Poland will have a more advanced Air Force than Germany in the future.

a reply to: Masisoar

Possibly. If nothing else, their readiness rates are probably better. Poland shares borders with Russia, Belarus (bases Russian troops), and Ukraine. Their relations with Ukraine aren't bad, but security-wise the Poles have to stay alert because of Ukraine's smoldering conflict with Russia.

By way of comparison, Germany shares borders with states that are mostly in NATO (Switzerland and Austria being the major exceptions), and those two countries are very calm neighbors. The Germans haven't felt the prod of military urgency since the Soviet Army departed the former East Germany almost 30 years ago now.

Cheers