I’m not exactly keen on the ‘Diplomat’

F-35A = F-28 Lightning II
F-35B = F-26 Diplomat
F-35C = F-25 Wildcat II
(F/A-18E = F-24 Super Hornet)

The reason I chose Diplomat was because of the USMC’s role in world affairs and the now deactivated squadron by that name. Fitting name, IMHO.

This is akin to the terrorists using our own laws against us. Karma I tell you.

When the Iron Curtain fell it was the U.S. using their own laws against them.

Europe doesn’t need an F-16 replacement, they need a small jet that’s affordable to all participant countries. After reviewing some numbers the EJ200 is about a $5 million unit cost I believe hits 60kN dry while 90kN wet in its current version. And the M88 is somewhere along the lines of 50kN dry while 75kN wet thrust. I’m not so sure its worthwhile to engineer those large of power plants into an air policing and trainer sized aircraft.

And perhaps 50-60kN is aiming too high for keeping costs down. They can probably squeeze Mach 1.4 out of a 40kN dry/60kN wet-class of engine if the aircraft is totally streamlined. If you could do it out of a 30kN dry/45kN combination then that’s even better. We don’t want something overweight for the job like Tejas. No, we want something slim and trim like the F-5A yet big enough to store twice the fuel internally and carry its weapons either streamlined or internally, too. Try to keep the engine unit price down below $3 million apiece and keep fuel costs scaled down as well. I don’t think this is anywhere out of the realm of possibility.

Consider these rough numbers using a 2:3 ratio:

30kN dry = 6800 lbs. thrust, 45kN wet = 10100 lbs. thrust (Adour?)
40kN dry = 9000 lbs. thrust, 60kN wet = 13000 lbs. thrust (F125IN)
50kN dry = 11250 lbs. thrust, 75kN wet = 16900 lbs. thrust (M88-2, F404)
60kN dry = 13000 lbs. thrust, 90kN wet = 20250 lbs. thrust (EJ200)
80kN dry = 18000 lbs. thrust, 120kN wet = 27000 lbs. thrust (F414)
100kN dry = 22500 lbs. thrust, 150kN wet = 33750 lbs. thrust (F100/F110)

Europe needs to take a hard look at it’s internal use of fighters. There is very little need for Typhoon over most of the continent. Typhoon is probably the best perimeter player, but it is overkill for general policy keeping. What the continent needs is a light fighter that doubles as the standard trainer. Normally one would try to find some commonality between the franchise player, the Typhoon, and the trainer. I don’t think it’s practical to aim for a half Typhoon – like the F-16 is a counterpart to the F-15 – and should aim lower. Something simple, perhaps a delta wing. Non-stealth. Today’s Mirage III or Freedom Fighter equivalent.

Something inexpensive, meaning you don’t want to saddle it with an expensive motor or super duper radar. Electronic eye(s). Depend on a datalink for vectoring to a bogey. Aim for a single-seat version that flies at or near Mach 1.4 on a dry 60kN of thrust, wet thrust for a sprint speed of Mach 2.0 or less. Design it so a non-afterburner and a two-seater, not necessarily the same versions, can be produced from the same airframe. Internal or semi-recessed armament; a single gun (or internal rocket pod) and a pair of AAMs. Maintenance friendly. Common parts among multiple manufacturer sources, allowing nationalistic manufacturers to keep jobs home whenever possible. It doesn’t have to be dirt cheap, just affordable in large numbers.

Too much emphasis today on big and every-purpose. They need a new common featherlight fighter for air policing. Keep the big boys for war.

You cannot use bench ratings for their thrust. Only the manufacturers know the true values within their flight envelopes. The MiG-25 looks like a big underpowered jet until you compare it’s performance and how the engines maintain phenomenal power when flying in it’s design parameters. Maybe someone with a background in turbine design could enlighten us better how these different designs would compare at several altitude and conditions.

Lots of first generation Typhoons that need a home or they get scrapped/stored. Has the range and is compatible with US-made missiles. Lease them for now and up to the transitional period over to F-35. And maybe lean towards a hybrid A/C model using the C wing and probe features, but with otherwise A equipment. You then carry more fuel for the long patrols yet retain the internal gun to keep your external surfaces clean.

Why didn’t the Australians have high altitude interceptors during the Cold War. Has the threat from nuclear attack always been particularly low? I could see something along the lines of the F-106A being warranted if such a threat had existed. I was always surprised that they had nothing even remotely close to that capability. Even towards the end of the Cold War was there no interest in say the Tornado F-series?

Here is the bigger underneath picture with false color… too bad it was tampered with to hide stuff. You won’t see all the same lines in this picture as you do in the first because somebody appears to have applied a smoothing tool.