Is anyone even talking about such a plan?

The Typhoon’s incredibly high costs have effectively gutted European force structures already.

This coming from you is rich. I have the exact numbers for Typhoon from the UK´s NAO and i have the exact numbers for the JSF program from the USAF and US Navy comptroller, believe me you dont want to go that way.

How is it different with EVERY western ally in the middle east.

Nic

Define West.
Can you name a Portuguese ally in the middle east?
And is there today any other middle east government that has actively turned it’s air force and heavy artillery against it’s own civilian population?

Since the US runs ISIS any retaliation will most likely target US interests or citizens. If it was shot down ISIS was given the means to do so. Then again this could have been the Dutch…

Facepalm moment

Not being an imperialist power, Russia doesn’t have to worry about such things.

Russia was a “Imperialist Power” through out it’s entire history, the only temporary exceptions to this rule, we’re either internal upheaval or an external bloody nose.
Russia got it’s economy shot to pieces in the late eighties, early nineties, then took a decade and a half to recuperate, from that moment on it has been “throwing it’s weight around” with increased assertiveness.

Where Argentina failed was invading in the first place. From the moment the GB government decided that “enough” was enough, the chances of Argentina’s military cling to the isles were dim, Reagan did offer a US flat top and the the idea of droping an ICBM, minus the warheads, in downtown Buenos Aires was seriously considered by the UK cabinet…
If Argentina had sent one hundred migrants a year to the isles, starting in the seventies, then somewhere in the nineties by popular vote the Falklands would be no more. It would have been a lot cheaper and both Argentina and the UK would be perfectly happy with the outcome.

IMHO the smartest thing that NG could do is work with BAE & LM to borrow as much of the avionics from the F-35 as possible.

Overview
–They (NG) already own the CNI (communication package & MADL), APG-81 & EODAS, so that’s a no-brainer
–They could split the cost of the EOTS upgrade with LM
–Since they have already worked with BAE on the ESM to APG-81 integration, that is also a no-brainer
–L-3 Communications for the ICP & Cockpit display.
–No need for the the F-35’s HMDS, a simpler (and lighter) HMD should be fine but the F-35’s HMDS could still be used.
–Depending on the requirements, the F135 might also fit the spec and would lend itself to future ADVENT/AETD upgrades
–UAI, coming in F-35 Block 4, would allow for faster & cheaper weapons integration for LRS-B

How It Works
–The software in the F-35 has been designed from the ground up to be upgradeable (software & hardware)
–Generic backend ICP. There is no need for specialized processors as it’s all software driven.
–Middleware allows you change hardware (new displays, engines, radars, etc) without the need to recode large amounts of the program.
–The F-35’s modular avionics lends itself to adding/removing functionality as needed.
–Thanks to the above, individual items (radar, ESM, etc) lend themselves to scalability without the need to recode large parts of the software.

Case Examples
–If you want a larger display, rotate the 8×10 panels and add another one. New display is 10×24 (vs original 8×20)using the existing hardware.
–You can make the AESA array & ESM receivers larger for more sensitivity while keeping the backend processing engine.

Benefits
–Much shorter development time for LRS-B
–Much cheaper development cost for LRS-B
–Cheaper procurement, maintenance, and future upgrades for BOTH the LRS-B and the F-35.

Just to add to what you´ve (correctly) stated, one of the two engine manufacturers just congratulated Northrop, guess who? Yep, the same chaps who build the F119 and the F135…
I am willing to bet that most of the software and sensors will be taken (almost) straight from two programs, the RQ180 and the JSF.

Disagree. In the A2A arena it all boils down to so many parameters that both can win against the other. The end result cannot be seen on brochures.
In the end, the one that best fits your needs (including the political ones) clinch the deal
Case closed 😎

Case closed indeed

Leave Christ where he is, before Seahawk took that quote as signature, it was an interview of a german pilot published in a paper magazine (combat aircraft, or air forces monthly, as I said, can’t dig it right now). It was an interview after germans made their few months aur policing over baltic states, and, while the “under the snow picture of the Typhoon is nice, nothing tells you it can do it for long time and remain fully operational.

a) That photo of IPA4 was taken precisely during the 2005 cold tests performed in Vidsel, the test points and conditions are public, they make that particular claim look a bit silly.
b) The operational readiness of the Spanish and Italian Phoons, last winter over the Baltics is also public

What would you say if anyone cames here and claims that the Rafale was “underpowered” and so was not fit for Canada because a French pilot said so?
You would (rightly) point that particular quote was taken out of context, wouldn’t you?

In the end it’s a mighty fine day for Boeing.