Of course the Netherlands is paying for a navy with significantly larger warships than those of the Swedish Navy. The projected number of Swedish JAS-39Es reflects increased defense spending as a result of Russia’s recent actions. That and the fact that the Netherlands is only operating 61 F-16AM/BM fighters clearly reflects some different spending priorities.

Well don’t forget that the original APG-63 is early 70s tech. The N001 is a decade newer.

Interesting stuff there about the F100-PW-220, thanks. I’d love to see the entire F-15E fleet get 229s or 232s as part of the modernization they’re doing for them.

So anybody taking bets on how many years there would be between program start and the French leaving to go design their own fighter this time?

And djcross from what I’ve seen of the A-X and A/F-X proposals none of them were *that* big. Presuming something supersonic maybe it would be about the same weight and size of the F-14. Big but not exactly something like some of the concepts the USAF has looked at over the years such as the FB-111H, FB-22, or FB-23.

And you do seem to have an intense dislike of aerial refueling.

Not too difficult. As we can easily see from his words at the time, he was systematically misinformed about the actual costs and schedule of the F-35 program, which made it look extremely attractive compared to the F-22. As for capabilities, it was claimed at the time (see the LMT press releases and briefings in response to the infamous Rand “baby seals” study) that the F-35 would overmatch air-to-air threats by 400 per cent and penetrate defenses and escape without being detected.

As Gates put it: The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale. http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1369

And as we all know, in mid-2009 the official position was still that a full-envelope Block 2 (much more capable than today’s 2B/3I) would be operational in 2013.

So if Gates believed what his advisers, subordinates and contractors were telling him, there was no justification for continuing F-22 production.

Ironically, considering the subject under discussion, Gates would have been less likely to terminate the F-22 if he’d been getting advice from the media…

After the scandal over the mishandling of USAF nuclear weaponry Gates fired several high ranking officers who happened to be supporters off the F-22. That factor may have been unrelated but it still effectively killed real USAF opposition to his campaign against the F-22. He created an environment where if the F-22 topic came up he’d only get what he wanted to hear. Regardless of his specific reasoning it looks like he had sights set on the aircraft from an early date and as SecDef he certainly used all of the power he had to kill production. Another critical factor was that by January 2008 the White House was set against the aircraft which would have further empowered Gates. We’ve all seen the steps this administration will use to get their way and it was no different here. As far as I know Lockheed continued to lobby for the F-22 up until the vote which ended further production. If I recall correctly Gates practically demanded Lockheed stop lobbying for the aircraft after that.

It seems quite a stretch to rewrite history into some scenario where innocent old Gates is fooled by Lockheed to kill their fighter then in full rate production. The USAF was well aware they wanted both the F-22 and F-35 and knew the respective capabilities of each.

Less likely to terminate the F-22 if he’d been getting advice from the media? The media with a five decade record of hostility towards major defense procurement programs? The media would have told him to kill the F-22 because of the JSF. A few years later they’d tell him to kill the JSF because the follow-on fighter (which doesn’t even exist yet) would be better and (unlike every other major fighter program in modern history) would not encounter significant issues that would need to be overcome during development. And so the cycle continues.

There may not be much to gleam from one flight of a prototype but a CNN article by a Jane’s correspondent wasn’t full of praise. I wouldn’t be surprised if this early prototype is underpowered. Yet it’s not a great early showing for what some think is the F-35 without the “STOVL compromise” and thus far more agile. Maybe those praising the J-31 and criticizing the F-35 simply underestimate the latter’s performance? A crazy thought I know.

Not a bad looking machine but I’m not certain what role it is meant to play with the J-20. The Chinese take on the “hi-lo” mix? But which is for air-superiority and which is for strike?

And what sort of ships would these be? CVNs?

Sure, the A-10 would give the USMC a robust CAS aircraft for low-threat environments but you run into the exact same problem of cost. Given the environment in Washington DC I rather doubt they’d be willing to hand the Marines extra funding to operate the A-10. They’d have to sacrifice somewhere and I doubt there are many in the USMC who think the A-10 would be worth cuts in their amphibious capabilities.

LO – I am discovered. Truly the fact that my memory failed me is proof that I am unable to read. I’m not going to spend time digging up everything he has written about the value of stealth in manned aircraft, yet I seem to recall him giving stealth most of the blame for the troubled history of the F-22 program. Some of his commentary about the F-35 seems to imply that the United States should have built our own take on the modern Eurocanards. Now shouldn’t you be off informing Lockheed how they got the center of gravity and center of life on the F-35 wrong?

just like the KPP of acceleration etc, which also failed

The acceleration time and sustained turn rate numbers in questions were not a KPP. As far as I know the only KPP that has been changed was when they gave the F-35B an extra 50 feet to work with for a short takeoff with combat load.

What are the client states getting? A single-engined stealthy fighter, yes.. but in the weight class of Super Hornet and price class above advanced F-15E. 1-to-1 capability comparison gets unimportant when the whole force gets on the very edge of operability due to limited number of airframes available for the given budget.

In Europe there has always been a very clear emphasis on lightweight fighters with primary A-A role (preferably single-engined). Only Spain, Italy and Greece have ever operated medium-weight designs in the past and even those always complemented by leight-weight fighters. Now, suddenly, all these forces should switch to super-expensive 25-ton class strikers as the backbone of their fleets? And what for? To get unnecessary stealth interdiction capability at the cost of insufficient air defense which is their primary role..

The JSF was always going to be heavier than the F-16. I would have liked to have seen it a few thousand pounds lighter, but nothing ever works out perfectly. Considering the heavier weight of the JSF, those operating cost figures were hopelessly optimistic from the start, a better goal would have been figures comparable to the F/A-18. Now where are you getting the price tag for a notional advanced F-15E variant and the F-35? Just look at the price of the F-15SA buy the Saudis made.

Unnecessary? Based on what? What necessitates F-16 level performance to them? Why not throw some Sidewinders on a few advanced trainers? Considering the current trend of letting the Russians do whatever the hell they want in Eastern Europe it won’t make a difference anyway. And how exactly will the F-35 provide “insufficient air defense” compared to the F-16s they are currently operating?

So let me get this straight. You have figured out that internal weapons are a “loser for a fighter-size airplane.”
Which might lead a more self aware person to wonder how they reached a conclusion 100% at odds with the design teams that created the J-20, J-31, PAK-FA, F-35, F-22, YF-23, X-32… that is to say essentially every clean-slate design to emerge in the last 20ish years. (yes, I am aware that the F-22 and YF-23 emerged earlier.)

Not to mention the old century series interceptors (F-101, F-102, F-106).