The rest of the issues related to supporting programs like ALIS, parts availability, etc.

The jet can’t deploy or operate properly without ALIS, parts, etc. These are integral to the F-35 and are F-35 programme problems.

How many two seaters are the various export customers taking?

It was obviously 16 Rafale DM + 8 Rafale EM when Egypt was taking 24 aircraft, but how about now?
It was obviously 6 Rafale DQ + 18 Rafale EQ when Qatar was taking 24 aircraft, but how about now?
Do we agree that it was 8 Rafale DH + 28 Rafale EH for India?
Do we know the breakdown of Bs and Cs in the most recent French orders? The 28 on order from F4 and the 30 planned.

The article linked to by SpudmanWP says: “The UK declared major milestones for its Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and Eurofighter Typhoon forces on 10 January.”

This is not correct. What happened on 10 January was that there was a formal ceremony marking IOC Land for the F-35B and for the Centurion Typhoon. These capabilities were both formally ‘declared’ late last year, ahead of the planned 31 December deadlines.

The F-35B declaration was made about a fortnight before 31 December, according to CAS, ACM Sir Stephen Hillier.

“The Boeing T-X was the only plane to strictly adhere and fulfill all the winning criteria (a plane built strictly as a trainer able to compete efficiently for the best performances parameters).”

I’m not sure that’s true, Tomcat. I think that the T-50A and the T-100 met the KPPs, too. Though the LIFT Hawk offered early on did not meet KPPs, the newer Advanced Hawk reportedly would have done, and if it did, then the T-50A must have done!

But you raise an interesting point. If the requirement ruled out perfectly effective and efficient modern advanced trainers then one has to question whether the requirement was fit for purpose.

What picture with “weird-shaped verticals like on disappearing Gareth’s twit”?

Rolls Royce have banged on endlessly about how serpentine the intakes could be – which smacks of getting them out of the way to maximise the internal payload bay.

That’s a violation of the Russia Nato Founding Act by the US and Norway. Not that anyone cares

How, exactly?

I’m sure I read somewhere that manufacturing cost of the F-2 was quite reasonable, & it was only exorbitantly expensive per unit because of spreading fixed costs over a very short production run.

Common sense, factual and calmly stated. That will never catch on…..

@Jackonicko

Thank you for clarifying that “Italian” involvement.

Clearly BAE is the driving force…what are your thoughts on any potential international partners?

@Tony,

The UK is looking for the widest possible partnership, with some partners bringing technology, others cheap production capacity, and some bringing investment. Bear in mind that this will not be an aircraft programme in the sense that we have all been used to, but a system of systems programme, covering a suite of vehicles/platforms and weapons.

I’d expect Turkey, Japan and Sweden to be likely partners, along with Saudi Arabia. Beyond that? Perhaps some or all of the Eurofighter partners and customer nations (current and future). I found the warmth of Airbus’ response very interesting…..