There is a substantial difference between a 57mm cannon on an IFV using airburst shells and a dedicated radar-directed anti-aircraft gun system using the same sort of ammunition. The former may be able to lase and engage a helicopter at moderate ranges with such ammo but it’s going to have no chance of shooting down an incoming PGM like the radar-guided system could potentially do

While I like the idea of some side arrays to complement the main radar array like the “cheek” arrays once envisioned for the F-22 I think they would be more suitable for a larger aircraft than the F-35. If only we had kept a certain twin-engine 5th generation fighter in production…

Yet attempting 360 degree radar coverage seems like more of a challenge than it’s worth especially considering that the capabilities of the smaller arrays are going to be much less than that of the main radar array.

It does bring up the question of how best to replace the AWACS however which is increasingly non-survivable in the face of very long range missiles.

I’m sure the Japanese are placing a very high emphasis on the participation of their own industrial and technological base for this project. However it seems to me that there would have still been a significant opportunity for Japanese participation in the F-22/F-35 “hybrid” proposal due to our shortsighted decision to terminate production of the original F-22. It looks like there was no serious attempt outside of LM to sell the Japanese on the idea.

Of course such a program would have needed a lot of approvals from US Congress and that may be easier said that done.

I’d love to read more details on the NG offering but I doubt we’ll see any unless it were to somehow be selected. Perhaps they decided from the start to work towards a partnership to develop a new airframe.

Germans were not stupidly constrained by infighting between Army and Air Force over which service was allowed to fly CAS/CCA.

In the 1970s, both A-10 and F-16 had an expect lifespan of about 5 sorties due to the long, straight flight profile required to launch and guide the AGM-65 missile. The Maverick profile only worked during Desert Storm because the Iraqis did not have overlapping ADA around their dug-in tanks.

What does inter-service bickering have to do with Luftwaffe aircraft procurement here? The fact is that apparently the Germans didn’t consider an aircraft as specialized as the A-10 as desirable.

Considering the amount of short-range air defenses the Soviets had the Tornado IDS might not have an expected lifespan much greater than 5 sorties either. The Iraqis had air defenses, they were just usually dismantled by SEAD.

Maybe it’s some sort of conversion like the old AGM-87 they tried in Vietnam? Would be a good use of old AIM-9L/M/P variants.

I remain a bit skeptical about CUDA/SACM but I can understand funding further development of it. There is no word on a true AMRAAM successor (or even AMRAAM upgrades) however which concerns me.

I wish Washington would aggressive push for Japan to go with that modernized F-22 that Lockheed offered Japan awhile ago and get the USAF in on a few hundred. I’m pretty sure the Japanese are going to be in for a rude awakening when they discover the real cost of developing a 5th generation fighter.

As I understand it recently some F-15Cs have been fitted with CFTs but they are the F-15E type and not the original variant that was only fielded on a limited basis (Iceland-based F-15Cs had them IIRC and so do some Israeli F-15s). Are there any differences between the two types other than the additional mountings on the F-15E type for air-to-ground ordinance?

I presume Boeing’s latest “F-15X” that they are trying to sell the USAF on is based on the strengthened F-15E airframe. Besides for the impact of the extra weight (which is offset somewhat by extra thrust) is the performance the same?