Aussienscale joins Hopsalot on the lockout list.

Fedaykin – To be entirely fair, if someone believed that the F-111 airframe was good for another run around the block, that F110 engines (which were successfully backfitted into other TF30-powered airframes, you will recall) would make it run like a scalded-ass ape, and that a long-range bomber was a better investment than any fighter in the Pacific context (none of which is entirely illogical)…

Then they had to figure out how to do it domestically, because LMT was not interested at that point. Start a company to promote an idea? Is not that the sort of entrepreneurial spirit that we are supposed to admire?

Also, to reiterate my point to Mr Antipodean Littletrain, if they were simply motivated to kill the RAAF F-35 they’d have backed Boeing, or anyone except the F-22.

Rii – Leave Aussie/Gf/???, the Sybil of Antipodean JSF enthusiasts, alone. He’s obviously correct. Only people who are initiated into the dark necromancy that is Signals Management are qualified to judge these matters, and a foolish insistence on independent government review is detrimental to national, I might even say global security.

Hahahahahaha!

Lucrezia Borgia’s Cooking For Friends

Lizzie Borden’s Guide To Family Conflict Resolution

JSF Fan on Intellectual Honesty…

What on earth is “dishonest” there? What’s your point? None of the non-US aircraft you describe involved investing tens of billions of dollars in (alleged) all aspect LO, so there is no sensible basis for comparison.

“I wait with baited breath”

Then stop eating minnows… Of course you have no grounds for declaring that anyone’s view is “crap” except your own (unproven) access to the classified “truth”. So in the real world, all you are doing is throwing insults.

And what is this about the J-20 proving APA wrong? It actually lacks the large-radius compound curves that the APA study points out on the F-35, and is more F-22-like in its LO shaping, saving the rear aspect.

The argument that no realistic RCS analysis can be conducted on the basis of shape is unfounded. After all, that was the reason for the extraordinary security surrounding LO aircraft in the 1980s. And the dictum that the four most important elements of stealth are “shape, shape, shape and materials” is direct from the notorious amateur Denys Overholser.

Maxwell’s and Ufimtsev’s work is in the open literature and one of the main stumbling blocks up to the 1970s – the complexity of the calculations and interdependencies involved – is no longer a big deal thanks to cheap computing. So if you want to rubbish APA’s work, you have to get beyond the “it’s all classified” approach and the name-calling. But then some people around here would have nothing to say.

is this a rafale “what if?” thread?
What if rafale where a smaller jet?
What if gripen was a bigger jet?

Exactly. And if my aunt had a **** she’d be my uncle, as my dear old Granny used to say.

Has anyone checked to confirm that the “cheap” Rafales are new jets?

B***er. I was brought up on enough bloody Tintin to know better.

But the point stands.

Since some people are suggesting skullduggery by Saab, maybe it is time for them to point us toward the international standard according to which air forces worldwide calculate and report their operating costs.

As noted several times here, there isn’t one.