I would guess F-16 and F-15 from the west. Su-27 and Mig-29 from the east.
F-14 I allready see as a classic… The Harrier, Tornado, Mirage 2000 and so on might well be classics. I got a feeling that most fighters in longtime service today will be called classics, just like the old once.
Or am I wrong??

Happy birthday, buddy! Nice honour to actually meet Chuck Yeager I must say:)

No matter what, stealth allways gives you an advantage over legacy aircrafts, when facing radar-guided threats (and somewhat IR).
Only new radar technology, can prevent that fact (ex. airturbulence tracking etc). And please dont rate the F-22 and the F-35 in the same stealthclass.
B-2, F-22, and F-117 are all “wideband all aspect stealth fighters”. B-2 and F-22 in a class of it`s own. F-117 somewhere behind, and the future F-35 at the bottom sence it`s only designed to be an narrowbanded stealthfighter, and not an all aspect wideband design.

It is too difficult to design and manufacture an object that will not reflect RF energy. The objective of low observable design is to make sure most of those reflections do not go in a direction that would be useful to your enemy. As you noted, the view perpendicular to any large flat surface, such as from directly above or directly below will present a large RF return. Question: “Is that return useful to an enemy’s doppler fire control radar?” No, because the flight motion of those perpendicular surfaces will not produce a doppler return usable by the fire control radar (this is the “doppler notch” of a beaming maneuver).

The inlet lips, and all the other “edges” (painted that same light gray color) are part of the hugely expensive RCS magic that sets F-22, B-2 and F-35 apart from gen 4 airplanes.

Correct. I would also like to mention that the structure under the skin ( the bearing airframe, and it`s holo spaces) are of equal importance. The same goes for the placement, and material use in the different electronic circuitboards, engine, weapons and steeringsystems etc. Stealthtecnology is`n any hokus pokus, just a lot of mathematics, secret alloys and component usages. Another thing that most people forget is misson planning, and situation awareness. Sence no airplane are all-around stealthy and invisible to radar, you need to know where to fly, at wich altitude and so on
to use the aircrafts stealth effective.

[QUOTE=Dutchy;1081431]Norway
Navy: 6 NFH (ASW),
Coastcard: 8 NFH
10 NFH (SAR) (optie)
QUOTE]

Yes. This are the right numbers for Norway. But the optinal 10 NFH (SAR) order, are unlikely to happend. Only the Norwegian AirForce field the NH-90
as our best choice as our new SAR platform. Our rescueworkers and other
experts whant it removed in the new SAR platform cometition due to its
lack of range and flytime..

Thanks, Scorpion82. Now I can name the nice pictures with the correct
model name:D

So. I`ve been thinking a little bit, and this is my new setup:

If Norway choose JSF to be our future fighter, and goes for an order of 48 fighters, this would be my pick :

28
Type: F-35A
Engines: GE F-136 or P&W F-135 (Depending on what Nederland, and other close partners use, so we can share costs during exercise’s and operations).

Wing: Larger Navalbased (Looks cooler and might give better range and wingload figures).

Landing Gear: Normal landbased (it`s lighter and cheaper).

GUN: Internal Gun (Just in case).
Refueling System: International Drogue Type

20
Type: F-35B
Engines: GE F-136 or P&W F-135 (Depending on what Nederland, and other close partners use, so we can share costs during exercise’s and operations).

Wing: Small (lighter, and makes the fighter more adaptable to hide, land and takeoff in tight areas).

Landing Gear: Navalbased (more suitable for rough roadstrips etc).

GUN: Internal Gun (Just in case).
Refueling System: International Drogue Type

Weapons: IRIS-T, Meteor, Stormshadow, JDAM, Kongsberg NSM,
PavewayII/IV, AGM-65D, AGM Armiger, some new type clusterbombs?, UGB`s,
Fueltank`s, etc.