hopsalot, it wasn’t really budget driven, it was the weapon load, distance and RN/USN requirements. Those are very early specs that didn’t even make it to the first one built.
The USAF had a 1,000lb bomb and from memory between 4-500 mile radius.
USN had a higher lift above the intakes that created more drag etc.
someone nay ask for a source that I can’t give, it was something I read ages ago

With an unlimited budget who knows what might have been done? The point is that the aircraft was designed within a number of constraints, from cost, to space, weight, etc.

If the design had accepted smaller weapons bays that would have allowed increased performance in other areas, etc, but clearly the larger weapons bays were seen as more valuable.

The bottom line is that as in any aircraft many competing priorities needed to be balanced. The Pentagon decided quite intentionally that the level of kinematic performance it already had with the F-16 and F-18 was sufficient. This was no more a product of “arrogant” or “insular” thinking than was the F-16’s fixed inlet, which limited it to a lower, but still sufficient, top speed. (Or one could point to the Rafale’s lower top speed than its predecessor, the Mirage 2000. The only question that matters is whether the Rafale is fast enough to do its job.)

Oh you are describing Rafale ?

Probably Gripen given that BS, who obviously has nothing at all to do with any poster here, was always a huge Gripen fanboy.

H_K posted this interesting link
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf

no need to read all 159 pages, he basically says:

F-86: whoops the derriere of all century fighters, only F-5 comes close

F-104: great aircraft except for crappy turning. could’ve been best fighter until the 1970s

Mirage III: like F-104 with poorer thrust and less acceleration. French engine sucks. With a J79, could’ve been like a half size F-106 or a F-104 thats more balanced

F-5: most effective a2a aircraft in 60s to early 70s, could generate more sorties than f-16s. problem is poor visibility and acceleration. combat persistence on par with F-15A. F-14 and F-15 can’t convcingly dominate the F-5 still. F-5 still has problems with F-86

Kfir: Mirage III with J79 but got too heavy and sucks

Draken: better acceleration than Mirage III, F-4, and F-100. great maximum turn rate since F-86, better dog fighter than century fighters and even F-14. Swedes regret getting Viggen. F-16s have a hard time with the Draken. its only flaw is the Falcon fcs and missile.

F-16: could’ve been great until they added multi-role features and made it fat. one F-16 may not be able to defeat as many enemies as 6 F-5s (sortie issue mentioned above). Still, can kill as well as the F-15

He had a lot of good points that are still universally accepted. You will have a hard time finding a professional that won’t tell you that training, being the first to detect your opponent, and being the first to positively ID your opponent all play a critical role in determining outcomes.

On the other hand, his bottom line assessments have been more or less universally rejected. Probably the closest thing flying today to his ideal jet is the Gripen, but even that has placed a major emphasis on BVR combat, sensors, and networking, albeit in a small, low-cost airframe.

Most of the world’s air forces with any choice in the matter have gone with medium to heavy weight twin engined fighters for air superiority missions. Russia is going with the PAK FA, Su-35, Su-27 variants, and the Mig-31. The US of course is relying on the F-22 and F-15C. India and China are both going with Su-27 variants with the PAK FA, Su-35, and J-20 coming down the pipe. The best funded European forces have the Eurofighter or Rafale.

There is of course the J-10 and advanced variants of the F-16 and Mig-29, but those aren’t any closer to his ideal than the Gripen, especially in the latest incarnations.

It is also worth noting that while good examples of air to air combat have been rare in recent decades, those we have are essentially devoid of the sort of turning fights that were the focus of his thinking. (that isn’t to say WVR engagements haven’t happened)

I am surprised about how the SoKo generals seem to lack any specific data.

Not only they only have some rough knowledge about exact pricing, they also seem to lack access to specific figures like RCS. All they depend upon are claims from Boeing, LMA or EADS? WTF? How can people like this meet a qualified decision?

They likely have a pretty darn good idea how the aircraft stack up via contacts within the establishment even if they don’t have specific numbers. If they do have exact numbers they also wouldn’t likely reveal them.

Not sure what all the angst is about.

It was always clear if budget was increased or required number of airframes reduced/made more flexible, F-35 would get first prize.

Militaries around the world are going as far as to gut their capabilities to get F-35s so why not South Korea?

Which naturally doesn’t say anything at all about the capabilities the F-35 offers… all those forces have just lost their minds completely.

A true genius has spoken. Too bad that in your endless arrogance you have completely missed my and BIO’s point. Let me write it down slowly so that even you can grasp it.

Harriers = STOVL = replaced by F-35B
Hornets = CATOBAR = replaced by F-35C

If I say SoKo don’t operate Harriers and Hornets, then I mean that the advantage of existence of STOVL and carrier-borne versions applies well for US but don’t cut for SoKo. No bullsh!t about F-4s or F-5s… You getting it yet?

Let me try to make this simple enough for you. The F-4 and F-5 are third generation jets. These jets have largely already been retired, in most cases being replaced by either F-16s or F-18s, not just in the US, worldwide.

The F-35 is the replacement for both the F-16 and F-18, and so it is a perfectly logical replacement for an F-4 or F-5 if an operator skips a generation.

Neither the F-35B, nor the F-35C need to come into this discussion at all. F-35As are replacing land based F-18s in both Australia and Canada.

Bottom line, the F-35 is absolutely the logical replacement for S. Korea’s F-4s and F-5s and that should be obvious… :rolleyes:

Find a single mention about that in their requirements and we can talk.. Until then, get off my screen.

You were the one that made a fool of yourself, it won’t help things one bit to get upset at me about it. Next time take a moment to think things through before slapping your keyboard and you won’t have these sorts of issues.

😎

Looks like it is time for the anti-F-35 kiddies to come up with a new set of excuses and conspiracy theories!

F-35 placed first in the evaluation, F-15SE placed second, and evaluators put the Eurofighter in third place:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/yonhap-news-agency/130924/s-korea-decides-against-picking-boeings-f-15-se-next-fight-0

SEOUL, Sept. 24 (Yonhap) — South Korea decided not to select Boeing’s F-15SE as the country’s next fighter jet Tuesday amid concern the sole-remaining candidate for the 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion) project is not suitable as it lacks stealth features.

The decision, which came in a meeting of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) presided over by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin, prompted the government to restart the procurement program from the beginning, further delaying the replacement of the aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s.

Locked in competition with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and EADS’ Eurofighter, Boeing was close to winning the deal with a cheaper offer than its rivals. But its fourth-generation aircraft finished in second place behind the F-35 stealth jet in comprehensive assessments, leaving questions over its combat capabilities.

“The committee made the decision through in-depth discussions on the security situation and the combat environment based on assessments of the jets’ mission capabilities and prices,” DAPA spokesman Baek Yoon-hyung said in a briefing. “The DAPA will promptly restart the project to minimize the security vacuum by consulting related organizations to revise the total budget and requirements.”

According to military officials, the procurement agency insisted on proceeding with the project in accordance with its policy, while the defense ministry opposed the selection process that gave top priority to cost over combat capabilities.

“A majority of the committee members agreed to reject (F-15 SE) and restart the project, taking into consideration the recent security situation including North Korea’s third nuclear test and latest aerospace technology development,” defense ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok said. “They agreed that South Korean Air Force needs fifth-generation combat jets to keep pace with the latest trend and to deter provocations by North Korea.”

Naturally the South Korean military just doesn’t know as much as our local experts who have conclusively determined that the F-35 can’t compete… :very_drunk: