flex 297 before comenting read the tread again and you will see i said the brits gave you and the russians the jet engine and the germans gave you the tech , dab(dragline)

If you see it that way, then all modern Jetaircraft are based up on German aerodynamics und British engines. The war in Korea was fought with German concepts F-86 (evolution of Messerschmitt designs) and MiG-15 (nearly 90% Focke-Wulf design).

Give the LCA a break mate, its just that its paint job really does not help its looks at all.

It is not the paintjob, it is the wingshape, canopydesign and those intakes I don’t like.

as were many of the trainer ‘fighter’ conversions

Yes, definately. Even the F-15 looks ugly as doubleseater. Only conversion that looks ok is the Su-27UB.

The X-32 has to win this one, hands down.

Uhh, those Americans, have to win every contest :p .

If it is all about low running costs and network capabilites, then used Gripens are nearly without competition.
They provide low stalling speeds, and really much aircraft in relation to their size.
The Phantoms would be the absolute opposite. I would call them more undead then alive, without excessive rebuilding of the airframe.
The Gripens would be in my opinion the best longterm solution. Lowest hours on their airframe and cheap weapons thanks to the South African involvement.

1.YF-23
2.EF Typhoon
3.MiG-29
4.Rafale
5.F-100
6.Me-262
7.Mirage 4000
8.MiG-1.44
9.Su-47(?) Berkut
10. F-5/T-38

The question is even more basic.. Why should any Euro country need JSF at all? Except two dozen VTOLs for Asturias and Garibaldi, why should we support US industry without appropriate return? Let the US armed forces buy two hundred EH101s first, then we shall think of starting to talk about the JSF deal at all..

There are many reasons why a european country could buy the JSF. You may think diversity is a problem, I think it is strength of Europe. If for country X or Y the JSF fits better then the Typhoon or Rafale, then it is ok for me. But if country X or Y is attracted by the industrial participation and signs a contract that guarantees them nothing, I would call dem !diots. Because they gambled with tax money.
I tend to see things as ex-soldier and engineer. Therefore I would wish a stealthy regional bomber a bit bigger then Su-34/FB-22 and some UCAV’s for our forces. Since I don’t believe we will get something like that, the JSF maybe able to fill this gap to a certain extend. (Even if stealth makes less sense if it isn’t paired with range)

ask this question 20 years from now..when larger no. of countries are flying m2k’s,rafales,ef’s,superflankers,pakfa’s,f-35’s etc etc etc ….

I think it would be enough to ask this question in ten years. (The time those countries will get the JSF). If necessary, fine then buy it.

everything on the JSF is tuned for low running costs and economy..that is a project goal..lethality and affordability as well as stealth…

I know the phrase of affordable stealth. But what is affordable ? 1,5 times as expansive as a conventional fighter ? Even if it is moderate, stealth will not come for free. If you want it, you have to pay for it.

yeah i guess shrinking SAM envelopes,reducing enemy detection ranges and having the ability to sneak up and attack isnt all that necc.

Yes, nice to have. But necessary ? Stealth is one way, ECM an other. The real advantage is in my opinion, that it is possible to attack targets with cheaper JDAM’s instead of expansive StormShadows or Taurus standoff weapons.

One thing that you always have to keep in mind if you buy foreign aircraft, is that you have to rely on the people that produce them. With a local production line, it is possible to avoid some problems and get some independance.
Additionaly, it is important to get source codes, to adapt the aircraft to the local needs.
Both is definately refused to JSF costumers.
If we go farther down that road, we know that round about 50% of the lifetime costs are spend for the maintenance and upgrades. My believe is that the JSF will be probably cheaper to buy but more expansive to maintain.
Critical is here that there will be no local assembly of the JSF, no share of source codes. That means, all that money will go to LM. And how often will your jets need an overhaul, to keep stealthy ? That is a license to print money for LM and gives much power to the US over those countries.

And here is the difference to aircraft as the Phantom, or the F-16. They where produced in other countries, and the maintenance and upgrades where (are) done locally, sometimes with US involvement, sometimes without.

And is LM able to build the JSF today ? Every aircraft takes it’s time for development.
But I think you meant it takes 10 years to start even this development.
It would at least take some time to select and test materials, production methods and quality control methods, but 10 years ? Many materials are already used for other applications, so I think Europe wouldn’t have to start at the same level as the US did several years ago.
The British maybe deep enough involved to justify their investments. If they manage to get a own production line everything is great for BAe Systems.
For Italy, the Netherlands, Danmark and Norway I don’t see a advantage in contribution to the JSF.
I think if they would hold a tender (knowing the final price and capability of the JSF) they would get a far better deal.

Why only build purely European ? If the US is a reliable partner, then it is better to go for Joint-ventures. Europe and the US together means larger numbers and lower costs. Works for me quite nice, as long as the US plays fair.
Unfortunately, at the moment I think Germany(and maybe other European Nations) would be better off in dumping NATO-Membership, leaving Pakistan/Arabic Sea for the US, forget about guarding US-facilities (because the US needs it’s soldiers elsewhere) etc.
Would save us much money, that could be invested to replace american weapons in our inventory.
Maybe if politics in the US changes, we could reconsider a partnership.