An update to an old pod does not automatically make it better than Spectra or Praetorian. That’s an unsupportable statement. And as any fule kno the F-16C does not have AESA. And as even bigger fules kno, nobody has claimed that A-10 is superior to anything against fighters or RF missiles.

And assuming (you know how to spell ASSUME, don’t you?) that the threats were advanced is faith-based. No logic involved.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I mentioned “evidence” not “fanboy opinions”. Besides, USAF F-16s are not particularly modern or well equipped.

On further checking the A-10 has indeed had the rather ancient AAR-47 installed. And how new/capable is any pod on the USAF F-16 fleet?

I have heard it suggested that after seeing the price tags for MLUs on the F-16 Block 60 and the M2000-9, the UAE has sworn a horrible oath to never bankroll anything UAE-unique again.

Besides, Dassault/DGA seem to be doing a decent enough job of MLU-avoidance via gradual upgrades.

I doubt greatly that anyone drafting the ATF requirement in 1986 would have aimed at sub-117 RCS numbers. It would have been crazy to do that while pushing for supercruise, agility/maneuverability and tactical R&M.

Likewise, why would the JSF JORD have tried to undercut F-22 numbers? The critical requirements were low cost and exportability.

Not only is the F-35 a “generation” beyond the F-117 in terms of stealth

Please provide evidence that its RCS is significantly lower than the F-117’s.

It seems illogical to think that a market so small that it has already contracted to two US players and three Western companies/teams will now support new entrants.

There certainly hasn’t been a hate storm for 15 years.

There was no public challenge to the program in 2000.

GAO started asking questions about schedule in 2006, at Navair’s prompting.

Even Kopp’s first critical report is dated Jan 2007, which is eight years, not 15. Even then, only a paranoid lunatic would have called the criticism at that time a “hate storm”.

If Lukos or Siddar want to present evidence to the contrary – a surge of hostility prior to 2007 – please either do so or shut up. (Although I know you can’t do the first and won’t do the second).

DJC – You specifically mentioned stealth aircraft. Stealth missiles are a threat, of course, but so are very fast sea-skimmers that are hard to detect, stealthy or not. So switching your argument against the CNO to missiles is disingenuous. And as you know very well, the DDG-1000 is completely irrelevant: the decision to stop at three ships was taken three years before Greenert became CNO.

Vnomad – Are you saying that being a submariner makes a person unable to comprehend the advice of air warfare experts?

Maybe but there has been a [sic] anti F35 hate storm raging across the internet for at least 15 years.

That’s delusional. Completely false.

Speaking of the F-111: The program did end up producing some usable airplanes – C, E & Fs and FBs – but almost half the airplanes built were non-deployable junk. The critics were right about the program’s terminal mismanagement.

Likewise, the critics of the F-35 who asserted that the program’s schedule and budget were fantasy, in 08-09, were right. Another core criticism – that the F-35’s stealth technology was vulnerable to countermeasures – is far from disproved and has been obliquely endorsed by the CNO. The related prediction that potential adversaries would deploy VHF AESA and other counterstealth technologies has proven accurate.

Yes, Hops, there were a few “serious programmatic and management issues” that included winning a competition with a design that couldn’t be built, vastly underestimating the impact of the consequent redesign, and misinforming the highest levels of government about that schedule impact when it did occur.