There is a reason the F-35 is superior to most of the options on the list, because it is superior. Unless JASDF can come up with an indigenous solution to their F-22 desires then they will have to utilize F-35 for the stealth air superiority role. Augmenting F-35 with a super-maneuverable fighter like Su-30mki or MiG-35 is certainly a worthwhile option considering the regional threats. It sure beats spending all the purse on overpriced programs that offer nothing over the F-35.

Let’s set aside the idea of F-22A for Japan right now and see what other options they could use for a HI-LO mix.

Option #1: F-15E+ (to augment F-35)
Plusability: EXCELLENT
+’s: Long legged reach; large fuel loads and a capability to use most advanced AMRAAM versions (and the probable type 99). Boeing is already committed to a support framework for the USAF to support F-15E until 2035. Uses COTS, builds off an existing logistics route, and a proven design.
-‘s: High risk that design is not up to par with competing designs.

Option #2: F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (to augment F-35)
Plusability: GOOD
+’s: Good technology in the program offers very flexible uses and can immediately fill in roles played by multiple existing fighter families.
-‘s: Expensive. Relative poor performance compared to competing designs. Cost-benefit ratio is perhaps not on par with competing options.

Option #3: ATD-X (F-35 will augment it)
Plusability: LUKEWARM; building ATD-X to an F-22 equivalent requires leap in technology for Japan in too many different industries. If the U.S. won’t sell them the real thing its not plausible to consider the U.S. helping Japan figure out how to make their design solid.
+’s:
-‘s: Cost-benefit ratio is definitely not on par with competing options.

Option #4: Typhoon (to augment F-35)
Plusability: LUKEWARM
+’s: Would give JASDF some needed exposure to its Eropean G-8 freinds. Tyhpoon technology would be very helpful towards their ATD-X program. And its a proven design.
-‘s: Cost-benefit ratio is perhaps not on par with competing options.

Option #5: Rafale M (to augment F-35)
Plusability: LUKEWARM; Dassault has lukewarm track record with JASDF.
+’s: Would give JASDF some needed exposure to its Eropean G-8 freinds. Rafale technology would be very helpful towards their ATD-X program. And its a proven design.
-‘s: Cost-benefit ratio is perhaps not on par with competing options. Potential for French political games makes this option less than ideal for the long haul.

Option #6: MiG-35 (to augment F-35)
Plusability: POOR; MiG has no track record with JASDF.
+’s: Given Russia’s cooperation with India this could be a possibile way for Moscow to steal some contracts from U.S. companies. MiG-35’s technology, while not up to par with some of the other programs out there, would still be some help towards their ATD-X program. Offers ovt-options for potent Super-Manouverability.
-‘s: The legs of this beast are a question mark right now. There are hurdles to getting this supposedly ‘open system’ compatible with existing U.S.-oriented designs. It is an all-around uproven design.

Option #7: Su-30MKI w/ Irbis (to augment F-35)
Plusability: POOR; Sukhoi has no track record with JASDF.
+’s: Long legged reach; large fuel loads and a variety of standoff weapon platforms. Given Russia’s cooperation with India this could be a possibile way for Moscow to steal some contracts from U.S. companies. Su-30MKI technology would be very helpful towards their ATD-X program. And its a proven design. Offers tvc-options for potent Super-Manouverability.
-‘s: Lacks the overall platform durability that was promised to the IAF. There are hurdles to getting this Russia-centric compatible with existing U.S.-oriented designs; JASDF doesn’t have the political ties that the IAF has built across the globe.

Every single option more than exceeds the old F-4E in every way possible. Could you imagine the pie in the face for U.S. interests if they chose the Su-30mki? That would be Japan’s ultimate thumb in the nose at the U.S. for rejecting their requests of the F-22.

BTW none of the vidoe’s ive seen showed a HOBS launch angle, it all looked like 12′ and a few hundred feet high to me. Why on earth would you need to use a HMCS when fireing on a UAV about as maneruverable as my grandma?

First, R-60M is a real threat in today’s day and age.

Second, you want to avoid debris. You do realize how dangerous those little parts flying out of the furball can be?

Resembles this one a little: http://blogs.aviation.ca/media/b1_1.jpg

This is a better pic to show the light at the end of the wing: http://www.tinker-af.org/pics/bombers_b1_0005.jpg

That wing in your pic doesn’t show any taper. I’m guessing its an optical illusion.

The MiG-31 is more cruise missile interceptor than bomber interceptor simply because the threat doesn’t need to overfly his territory these days. If the MiG-31 had to engage multiple cruise missiles he’ll have more luck with more of the R-60/R-77 than a gun.

They are better off with a battery of manpads-sized AAMs packed into rocket pods than a gun simply because they can ripple a pair off and move on to the next target more quickly with confidence they killed the target.

If they partner with France then give up on the partnership and get ready for another redesign of the plane to accommodate the M88.

I don’t care what anyone says, the X-32 was a beautiful bird.

I wouldn’t doubt the U.S. built a prototype quality version of a Soviet design or two.