Poland signs F-35 deal

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

The reality is almost always somewhere in the middle. They almost certainly have at least a couple aircraft that are non flyable. Cann birds are a fact of life, and you'll find them everywhere. So are pilots leaving the military for airline careers.

Why do I have a feeling that once everyone buys American vehicles will get turned off at the end of the war to give US military more advantage all over the allies?

a reply to: makemap

They can't be. Contrary to popular belief there's no kill switch in equipment that we sell to allies.

I heard a rumour the mission software needed to ‘operate’ them could only be uploaded by USA.

I didn’t believe but is there anything in the rumour?

a reply to: Forensick

Currently the code is US only. It has to be upgraded by US tech reps, but mission specific software can be uploaded by whoever operates the aircraft. They just can't alter the base code. That will change eventually.

The Polish Minister of Defense said today that negotiations are almost complete, and an agreement is expected to be signed next week. The agreement would cover 32 aircraft, with the first expected in 2024.

www.defence24.com...

Do every countries F-35s have the same level of stealth/RAM etc? Or could a country have a less coated plane for cheaper operation/maintentence?

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot

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.

Horse calvary is still insanely effective against armoured vehicles. If those horse Calvary were carrying RPGs or AT4 they would have no issues. The problem with the start of WW2 was there were not much of Anti-armour weapons as good as panzershrecks and that was made in 1944. The only effective anti-armour there were was AT cannons which people had to push. Give those horse Calvary rocket launchers, those armoured units will have there smile wiped off their face.

Anyways, Poland had no choice really. I don't see Poland making their own aircraft and those are all outdated aircrafts. No one will see Russia selling Su-57 to anyone soon because Russians are not making any alternative to F-35 unlike the Chinese. The market is getting smaller. Globalization is impossible to remove. Let see which country is the only to have the best jets left. Seems like the US is ahead.

a reply to: makemap

Anyways, Poland had no choice really.

Yep, the number of countries producing new military aircraft and armored vehicles continues to shrink. Weapons are big business and their development costs huge money. And if a country hasn't been doing it all along, trying to jump in at this point would be difficult for several reasons.

I wonder when the Swedes are going to throw in the towel as far as home-produced gear goes. They have a fair amount of weapons export IIRC.

Cheers

a reply to: makemap

It's the same quantity vs quality debate that has been going on basically forever. The F-35 has revolutionized air combat to the same level that the jet engine did, at least, but a nation like Angola isn't buying them. So they're going to turn to the Su-35 and the like.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Nope, nothing about Quantity vs Quality. It is all about money. You can buy three SU-35 for the price of 1 F-35. Would you want your country to have 10 aircraft or 30 aircraft to protect the border? You would go for the 30 aircraft. The amount of time to make money to have something to defend your airspace will be too late to some nations if they have a tiny air force. It is called deterrence and defence of the country.

The only countries that can afford F-35 are first world countries because the third world currency is being suppressed to even afford to pay up for first world Jets. Russian Ruble is an alternative to third world due to lower currency value meaning it would be cost effective. The alternatives on the NATO side were French Dassault and Saab planes, but they don't seem to be catching up because they are not alternatives to the F-35 5th gen. F-35 is Globalization Agenda. Just keep watch.

a reply to: makemap

Actually, it is. The Su-35 is a damn good aircraft, but like most Russian aircraft they have their reliability and production issues. You can buy three for an early production F-35, but that one F-35 is going to take the place of those three aircraft. The Su-35 has the advantage of not needing all the extra support the F-35 does so you can buy more of them instead of spending that money on infrastructure for them.

That's the quantity vs quality. The F-35 has capabilities and performance on its side, while the Su-35 is easier to maintain, cheaper to operate, and can have a larger fleet for the same money.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: makemap

The F-35 has capabilities and performance on its side, while the Su-35 is easier to maintain, cheaper to operate, and can have a larger fleet for the same money.

Exactly what your saying. But it has nothing to do with Quantity vs Quality. No country is dumb enough to buy 1 plane to train 3 pilots. You need as much pilots as possible for national defense. That is why Su-35 is being bought, you want to train as many pilots as possible to keep airspace safe and have as much deterrence in the air to prevent air superiority. Also Ace pilots mean nothing when they retire or you have no aircraft for them to help train on. Quantity vs Quality is not an argument on this topic.

It never has been about Quantity vs Quality. If you don't have enough pilots those dead/retired pilots are not going to be replaced properly. Sure an Ace pilot can take down 10 guys, but those 10 guys could also have been doing useful things like bombing ground targets to prevent further ground invasion.

a reply to: makemap

It's not about buying one aircraft to train three pilots(even though that's what usually happens), it's about the ability to do more with less. A small country with 15 or 20 F-35s, backed up by 40 or 50 other types is going go have much more capability than a country that has 70 or 80 (or more) less capable aircraft. So, if they have the money, they're going to buy more. Depending on the country they're also looking at high attrition rates.