FBW has this one right. The Canadians will kick the can for the next few years once the new govt carries out an analysis of the alternatives. Extending the Hornet’s life to 2025 only strengthened the F-35’s case (might have been designed to do so).

Super Hornet: Only fractionally cheaper than the F-35. Out-of-production: OEM will not mothball the production line to 2022 – overhead would be staggering.

Strike Eagle: Pricier than the F-35 for a new user. Will also be out-of-production.

Rafale: Cost similar to (if not higher than) the F-35. Reduced interoperability with US forces. Offers option of ‘Canadianization’ (refer India wrt costs).

Eurofighter: Same as above. Likely to be out-of-production.

Leaving only the single-engined Gripen E and F-35A.

Same as in Norway, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Denmark and (in the future) Poland, except of course that the RCAF is responsible for a far larger country, and has a closer relationship with the USAF. Lets see what Finland, Belgium & Denmark decide, Trudeau may soon be facing some unappealing choices.

A better place for them might be a VLO conformal pod on the wing stations since they are already wired.

Why wing stations exactly? Would make more sense to customize the ‘multi-mission pod’ for the centre-line hardpoint.

The spine makes more sense to me, because the cable would be less likely to foul up the control surfaces/tailplane, if the pilot was forced to dive/climb. Plus, it would have a smaller impact on the RCS and handling (no change to the frontal signature, no asymmetrical air flow).

The ALE-70 for the F-35 was either canceled or more likely never planned.. ie a typo.

There is simply no place for it on the F-35.

You could arguably locate it on the tail/spine, where the drag chute is planned for Norway.

Sweden has 4 div of Gripen, just up from 3, operating from 4 main bases (note Ärna too outside Uppsala) and additional 6 forward bases.

There’s no permanent fighter basing at Arna since the Uppsala wing was decommissioned in 2003 (link).

Also, the F-35 is not required to operate from its peacetime bases in war.

Not really. It only debunks that ASMP/A missile won’t be exported.

Yes really. Unless the idea is to integrate a nuclear variant of a Nirbhay ALCM missile (primary launch platform: Su-30MKI), onto the Rafale. A far fetched notion of no exceptional utility.

“Instead on basing the decision on holistic combined forces approach we found these really cool brochures, I just say it again its “stealth, DAS and DSI”.

Stealth, APG-81, Barracuda, DAS + VSI HMDS, EOTS, agility/AoA broadly comparable to F-16/SH respectively, with support for EW updates & threat libraries pooled together in a program bringing together a dozen operators spanning the world. At an acquisition cost similar to the Rafale & Eurofighter, and not necessarily a great deal higher than the Gripen E.

What about other parts of the airforce, army and navy? Why only one unprotected airbase?
One airbase will allow us to reasonably well service these new fancy jets between the US service intervals, we can also launch really cool parties when we are all at the same location

The Swedish Air Force operates 90 fighters from three airbases. That’s an average of 30 fighters per airbase.

Why should we base close to 10% of the jets in USA? They do not contribute to our defense nor economy or local know how!
Our staff will have a really nice time over there! Where would you like to go, Florida or your neighbouring country?

F-35 customers have no obligation to send jets over to the USA. (AFAIK no Korean, Israeli or Japanese F-35s are being based abroad.) Of the countries opting for such an arrangement, many already send their personnel for training to such locations. (Dutch fighter pilots for example are trained at Tucson, Arizona). This allows them to train on their own aircraft as well as participate in sophisticated large scale local training exercises without having to cross the Atlantic twice. And if operational conditions require it, those aircraft can very much be relocated to their home states.

The difference between the P-8I & P-8A isn’t significant in this context. P-8 is what matters. The differences in fit-out will not have enough impact on performance in different temperatures & humidities for anyone to bother about. Therefore, the USN’s testing of the P-8 is absolutely relevant.

The context had nothing to do with the difference between the P-8A and P-8I.

This is what I posted:

The Indian Navy evaluated the P-8 in June 2007 on basis of demonstrations carried out by Boeing at in Seattle. A leased -800 for flight trials, a C-40 for handling trials with the mission systems tested on a P-3 platform. After making its observations, the IN declared the aircraft ‘technically compliant’, which was then followed by contract negotiations and thereafter contract signature, thus proving the original point i.e. local flight trials are not mandatory under MoD regulations and the the determination of technical compliancy for any system, is left to the concerned service’s judgement.

This is what you posted:

1. Do you think the USN did all its testing at Seattle?…
2. The difference between the P-8I & P-8A isn’t significant…

See what I mean?