Gawd. You still don’t get it, do you?

That’s the question I would like to ask you.

it’ll have the one characteristic (apart from the one you really care about, i.e. being made in Korea) which differentiates the T-50 from its competitors?

It is the ability to closely match the F-16D’s performance profile that matters to a jet intended to replace the F-16D.

Look at what’s actually being said. F-16D has to be used to bridge the gap between T-38 & fighters. Oh dear. That’s not good for your argument, is it? T-38 is supersonic!

T-50, Gripen Trainer, and presumably Boeing trainer are supersonic too.

No, the gap which needs to be bridged is in other characteristics: avionics (including the ability to simulate a high-performance radar & other sensors) & handling. Funnily enough,

The Air Force officials were talking about operating instruments in sustained high-G situations, and the need to train at higher altitude further. Sustained high-G cannot be “simulated”.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/airforce-aetc-chief-new-trainer-to-free-up-fighters-afa-021711w/

AETC chief: New trainer to free up fighters
By Scott Fontaine – Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Feb 17, 2011 12:45:29 EST
ORLANDO, Fla. — The Air Force’s newest supersonic trainer jet should free up more fighters to deploy overseas, according to the officer who oversees the service’s training and education command.

The military has pledged $300 million across the Future Years Defense Program starting next year on a replacement for the workhorse T-38 trainer. Gen. Edward Rice of Air Education and Training Command told reporters Thursday the T-X trainer and high-fidelity simulators should put fighters “back in the hands of the operators.”

Rice didn’t share many details about the procurement process because the service hasn’t made a decision on specifics of the new craft, but the service wants the new trainer to closely match the capabilities of fifth-generation fighters.

The Air Force has bridged pilot training between the T-38 and the F-22 by putting trainees in F-16s — a situation Rice called “a temporary measure that is adequate.”

The T-X trainer needs to take over the role of F-16D so that the F-16Ds can be sent overseas.

Which orifice did you pull that out of?

I got it from an orifice called SpudmanWP, actually.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15336-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-45.html

Called it
Quote:
Norway has already invested $1 billion to adapt the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) into the air-launched JSM, and is planning to spend a further $200 million.

Norway wants the US Department of Defense to spend $20 million to integrate the JSM on the F-35 Block 4, with Norway to contribute an equal amount.
Looks like the $200 mil was for development and only $40 mill is needed for integration.

Do keep up.

Lockheed didn’t promise to do it for free. That only adds millions per airframe on top of already a super-expensive airframe.

The cost is such that it would be cheaper to just add a boom to the tanker.

With the Super Hornet and Typhoon, no need to worry about such expenses.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/12/04/rcaf-faces-significant-refuelling-issue-with-future-fighter-purchase/

The cheapest version of the F-35 is built to USAF specifications which means it will be equipped to be refuelled in the air using the boom system which the USAF uses.

Our CF-18s were built to USN specs so they use the drogue and probe system. This means of course that all of our Air to Air Refuelling (AAR) systems (on two Airbuses and five Hercules) are incompatible with the version of the F-35 which is the cheapest and which is (probably?) the version that is the basis for the current cost numbers. In addition, the boom style of AAR requires a specially trained operator in the tanker aircraft, something we don’t have and would have to acquire.

So, if we buy the USAF version of the F-35 we would immediately be without national AAR capability compatible with our newly acquired fighter aircraft. We were without it for a while in the late 90′s and early 00′s when our old 707′s were retired and the Air Force pressed hard and constantly until we spent several hundred million dollars to get two Airbuses modified to provide this capability using, of course the probe and drogue system.

So it is now a Super Hornet vs Typhoon fight in Canada.

I don’t know about the 2030s, but in the coming four weeks if Obama can’t persuade the Republicans that Corporate America and the ‘super-rich’ must share a greater portion of the tax burden (and signals from Joe Boehner suggests he won’t), then the programmes you mention are certainly in unchartered territory.

Even the best case scenario will have a negative impact on the F-35 procurement procedures and timetables (SYP/MYP) outlined above by LowObservable. It’s not inconceivable F-35 procurement could be cut to divert ca$h to more pressing programmes in a decade’s time.

The US President has already stated that US foreign & defence policy will shift it’s focus to be more ‘China centric’ this coming decade and hence such intentions probably bode well for projects like the latest incarnation of NGB and Boeing’s F/A-XX. The latter may prudently be in co-operation with another country struggling to put it’s long-term financing on a sustainable footing- Japan.

It would take about 15 years before the F-35 replacement can enter IOC if the decision is made today.

Should the congress decide to cancel the F-35, then its replacements must be split into two programs, a pure air force jet intended to replace the F-16 without the baggage of STOVL design penalties, and the STOL naval jet intended to replace the Harriers and the Super Hornets. F/A-18 Hornets would be replaced by the Super/Silent Hornets until the new STOL naval jet is ready.

This new STOL naval jet need to land without arresting wires within the runway length of 250 m using the combination of canards and thrust vectoring to replace the F-35B, and the US Navy must build a class of low-cost STOL carriers designed to carry these jets, instead of trying to operate them off the existing LHDs. Such a STOL carrier could be built by lengthening the America class by some 50 m to 300 m.

You are really overestimating how critical sales to European partners are for the F-35.

The US plans to export the majority of F-35 outputs for the first 10 years.

add to that planned purchases by the USN (260 Cs )

The US Navy is ready to buy the Silent Hornet instead if Boeing lands an export customer.

Aus 100

The Aussie number is already down to 75. Every time they buy the Super Hornet, the same number is cut from the F-35 order number.

Canada 65

Canada is preparing to switch to an open bid contest.

Japan initially 42

Finally 42. Japan has no plans to order additional F-35s; they will upgrade F-15Js until the F-3 becomes ready.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/prime/2012/12/PRIME-air-force-f35-cancellation-120412w/

F-35 program at big risk for cuts, analysts say
By Jeff Schogol – Staff Writer
Posted : Tuesday Dec 4, 2012 8:59:43 EST
Defense experts recommend scaling back purchases of the F-35 joint strike fighter or canceling the program altogether, according to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.