Little known, but AAMs have a limited time of flight-hours only.

Like any electronic appliance, they are limited by time. They have a pretty good estimate of how many hours you can charge up the system before a breakdown. The more complex the shorter the life rating. When they are needed they have to be 100% reliable. Previous generations used to get disposed of whereas modern missiles can be troubleshot and repaired with new modules. Not as much of an issue today, but still an important factor.

I bet your infrared seekers are more prone to flight-hour issues than your radar homing versions.

EE Lightning just fits the British culture. Bold, daring, a sense of flair, and a hint of drama. The F-8 was kind of boring in comparison. But the Lightning sure could have borrowed from the F-8’s developmental path.

Imagine, in 1960, the EE Lightning with an XF8U-3 derived front end (AWG-7 fire control, APQ-50 radar, quad guns), optional y-racks (for Sidewinder-derivative heat seekers), over-wing launch rails for Firestreak, underwing space for two pylons on each side, and a nice fuselage stretch with sturdy stub-mounts for more heavy weapons (2000-pound class) or fuel. Launch Sparrows from the stubs or pylons. Later move to a two-seat model, pointed nose and side-mounted forward-tip (F-105 style) Ferri intakes, the Sky Flash SARH missiles, a Red Top heatseeker over each wing, Spey engines, and the integration for their arsenal of air-to-ground missiles. Would have definitely kept up with the bold styling of previous British fighters!

If they used a little foresight by following the Crusader developments they could have been ready years before they even ordered the F-4M. There would have been no reason for F-4M considering its selling point was temporary mud mover role until the Jaguar was built. The British were said to have been presented with a Conway-powered “Super Crusader”, so its not too far of a stretch.

ST-21,

You keep using the word ‘clearly’ in your line of reasoning. Unfortunately that is a judgment reserved for the judicial branch. And in the court of law the judge is omnipotent. The litigants have to decide whether a loss is worthy of the trouble on an appeal each and every stage. Going to the GAO is just c-y-a procedure to prepare for a suit, the outcome of the GAO has little to do with whether the outcome is one way or another.

If the MiG-35 doesn’t recieve orders then they should stop exporting the engines and all of it’s derivatives. MiKoyan-Gurevich really made it’s living by undercutting Sukhoi designs. They always seem to have something a little smaller and affordable, especially when the Soviets were trying to win the numbers game. The two exceptions here when it came to the ‘MiG’ moniker, the Foxbat and it’s younger derivative Foxhound, used to symbolize Soviet Power. Nothing built by MiG today captures that same sense of essense.

The Australian SH is a good example of what the FAA can expect.

Sorry, ST-21, it doesn’t work like that.

Those excuses don’t work in a civil case. Tort law assigns blame on different criteria than what you describe. They may lose the bid legitimately and win damages the way the rules in a court work. Hell, that might be their plan.