If carrier-capable heavy duty landing gear was significant then Canada would chase F-35C not F-35A. Then again if rugged gear was the most important goal then they’d be pondering Rafale M or the mythical Sea Gripen. They don’t seem to be pushing for Super Hornet, the most obvious choice. So more or less old excuses aren’t valid any more.

F-35A will be a nice all around aircraft. It’s just not an interceptor. This is where I think the JSF program got it wrong. The airframe should have been modular for options geared to a particular strong suit. If a customer wanted a two-seater it should have been available with a corresponding body lengthening plug. If a customer wanted two engines then the inlets should have been software upgrades and a rear plug used for twin F414’s or whichever pair the customer put in the spec. If the customer wanted a different gun then give it more than one option. (I.e. F-35B with internal single-barrel revolver). Dedicated interceptors and strike aircraft typically can deal with much lower thrust to weight ratios than multirole aircraft. Add weight with bigger internal fuel tank plugs or expanded internal bays. If a rocketship is wanted then give modules able to make it happen.

The problem is the airframe is the cheap part of the program. The EODAS, EOTS, the datalink, etc. are the cost boondoggle. They could have had a myriad of airframes to work with and back port the wizbang features. Quite frankly there is no reason LockMart couldn’t have been working with European partners for integrating many of the same wizbang features into Typhoon tranche 3+, Rafale, and Gripen NG.

Its easy to argue that Typhoon fit their mission cross section better at this current date. And with Typhoon available for leasing it makes the F-35A harder to justify.

I like F-35A, but its not the interceptor.

Which is why Tu-22M3 would be logical for Russia to turn into a similar platform for their own War on Terror. They could be dropping smart bombs on target using a larger targeting pod eye and use a good supersonic dash to get over targets in short order.

A modern one of these would have been nice, too

Or cross this with the A-6 and add some LO features…

Some lovely ideas there for aesthetics if nothing else!
Can I add re-engined Vulcans and Canberras to the list?

I always thought cutting up Vulcans was a bad idea. Canberra’s and B-57’s were cute, but hardly much of a bomber design. Vulcans on the other hand could have been re-engineered with four new engines or a pair of fuel sippers. I know the treaties required their elimination, but if they were still around they would have been a great platform to modernize.

F-111’s were another platform that I really thought should have been kept.
Even the last variant of F-111 was potent even before GPS became the norm.

one thing i never got is why in teh world would they make the nose cone a different color??? PLEASE MAKE it the same color otherwise its retarded, i know its prob tradition but imo its ugly

It’s for the sake of the pilots. It saves their eyes from the sun.

I doubts it’s under 55,000 feet.

What aam’s beyond Sidewinder range would Argentina possibly import to go with the Gripen NG?