i’m starting to really think it’s best for both parties, India left the Pak-fa/FGFA program.

To what extent was India ever in the PAK-FA programme to begin with?

TR1 is getting mixed up between aircraft that have low availability due to low funding and those which have poor mechanical servicability.

Sputnik article with comment on Donald Trump’s objection to F-35 costs by Pierre Sprey one of the F-16 designers. The comments section at the bottom of the article is a good read.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201612141048569654-trump-criticizes-fighter-jet-program/

From the poster ‘Kevin Kitura’ in the same Sputnik news thread

Dear Sputnik International,

The F-16 was designed by Harry Hillaker with John Boyd and Piere Sprey providing “fundamental concepts and approaches for aircraft and their use”.

Harry Hillaker states that if he would have listened to John Boyd and Pierre Sprey and built a simple day fighter, we would have produced only 300 F-16s, the same number of F-104s that were built.”

Harry Hillaker also states that:

“With the F-16XL, we reduced the drag of the weapon carriage by sixty-three percent. The drag of the XL with the same fuel and twice as many bombs is a little over thirty percent less than today’s F-16 when you load it up. This points up a fallacy that has existed for thirty years, and I’m concerned that it may still exist. Our designs assume clean airplanes. Bombs and all the other crap are added on as an afterthought. These add-ons not only increase drag but they also ruin the handling qualities. They should be considered from the beginning.

We ought to start with the weapon. That’s really the final product. We ought to determine what the weapon is and what it will take to deliver it and then do the airplane. Now, we design the airplane and smash the weapon on it.”

Historically speaking Piere Sprey has always had a problem grasping the concept that moderns fighter jets have to be a jack of all trades doing multiple missions well and as a result need advanced avionics and software to make that happen.

Also quite a few critics and a few fighter jocks previously employed by the Rand Corparation have made the ridiclous statement that the F-35 can’t climb and turn based on the F-35’s wing area. If this was the age of the Fokker Tri-Plane and Sopwith Camel they might be quasi right but we are not; we are in the age of advance computation fluid dynamics and advanced wind tunnel testing. Modern aerodynamic design and analysis has moved on taking the F-35 with it.

President Elect Trump would do well to talk too the engineers and test pilots who help design the F-35 before making ridiculous statements and off the cuff remarks based on what he has read in the Liberal media. The Liberal media hasn’t been right so far why would they be right now?

All quotes taken from the artice, “F-16 Designer Harry Hillaker” available at the link below.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37

F-35 combat radius is low compared to gripen,

Wrong. I’m pretty sure the F-35 has a greater range on internal fuel than the Gripen will ever have.

i think its serviced by 1 technician & 8 conscripts, engine swap 1 hour, rearm-refuel =10 min.

where did you get this information, the SAAB aircraft Corporation website?

Any plane can land and take off from a highway, given it is long enough and wide enough.
What makes the strategy useful, is if the plane can be easily serviced at the highway base,
and if the base can be easily moved to another location.

Can the Gripen be easily serviced at the side of the road compared to an F-35, and why would the Canadians be interested one way or another?

Have you ever seen Gripens operating from a road base? I was there the first time this was done, and the aircraft were being maintained by reservists who had been called up for two weeks of service. It was pretty impressive, I thought.

Lots of aircraft have operated from road bases. Last week someone posted pictures of IAF Mirage 2000 operating from roads – not a type I would associate as a dispersal type. Even F-4s and F-16s have operated from highways.

I thought Indians require extensive demo flights in all conditions before placing orders. How will French meet all their requirements if they haven’t even tested it once in STOBAR.

The MiG-29K was never fully tested either when they ordered it in 2004. The Rafale M is a very well tested carrier aircraft today.