More info on the SH story:

Extended range would be an important factor for operations in the Pacific theatre, but some analysts suspect that there might be more to it. The Navy might be hedging its bets against further delays on the Lockheed Martin F-35 program or it might even be preparing for the eventuality that it will have to abandon the stealthy single-engine fighter entirely.

The Navy is already working on a series of other upgrades to the Hornet including adding an infrared search and track sensor and fusing the aircraft’s sensor data.

While Boeing is working to reduce the Super Hornet’s signature for future international variants, the F/A-18E/F already has a fair number of features built-in to reduce its radar cross section. This is an excerpt from the jet’s Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) manual which describes some of those features.

More at the link: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/03/usn-looking-at-adding-conforma.html

The description of RCS reduction measurements seems quite impressive.

I wonder how the Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen NG compares to the SH in terms of RCS reductions.

One should perhaps not discount the idea of “silent SH”, “silent Rafale” and “silent Typhoon” by further reduction in “clean” RCS, and with low-RCS CFT and low-RCS weapons pods. Upgrade the avionics at the same time, and for many missions you may have a real competitor to the F-35.

I can imagine that some of these systems may get a major MLU around 2025-2030…

The future Typhoon is also likely to incorporate a new glass cockpit as part of a mid-life update, leveraging consumer technology such as iPad-style large displays. That said, its colour coded MIDS already sets a very high standard in MMI (man machine interface). Says Smith: “As time goes on we will probably have to look at updating the cockpit and computing, adding in more and more automation.”
[…]
Essentially this could mean that BAE’s work on autonomy (which, though Taranis is the most recent example, actually dates back to the Corax/Raven in the early 2000s) may at some point turn a single-seat Typhoon into a ‘virtual twin-seater’ with the second ‘AI’ crewmember providing enhanced situational awareness, suggesting courses of action, or perhaps even flying the aircraft back to base should the pilot become incapacitated.
[…]
Furthermore, it is not too far-fetched to also speculate that the Super Typhoon of 2045 might include LO tweaks such as stealth pods (such as proposed for the International F/A-18E/F Super Hornet) or other measures to reduce its RCS.

http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2013/03/08/typhoon-the-best-is-yet-to-come/7851/

The question remains though — why buy an expensive 4.5 jet like the Typhoon or Rafale today, just to do a major MLU in 15 years, if you can get an F-35 for just marginally higher price, and with no need for a major MLU?

Therefore I think that although the above-mentioned 4.5 gen fighters can have a long life, this will mainly happen in those countries that have already bought, or is about to buy those fighters, and not in those countries that are considering the F-35.

Perhaps the SH could be a contender in some “F-35” countries due to it’s lower price, but I cannot think of which countries would buy it at this stage, apart from those that already bought it (USN and Australia)?

Gripen will face another problem in the countries considering F-35; it surely is much cheaper to operate, however is it realistic to do an MLU around 2030 and put stealth pods on it? I suspect it could be too small. Thus I think Gripen cannot compete with F-35 either, it will remain in countries that are not considering the F-35 in the first place…

For any sort of SIGNIFICANT range from a carrier borne tactical fighter, you’d need tanker support..No fighter the navy will ever use will give you a tactical radius of 1000 nm without significant tanker support or compromising LO RCS (Or both)… If you want to reach out and touch , better to use the air force, or provide significant tanker support..Carrier aviation has its advantages and disadvantages….HOW do chinese naval assets based off of its carriers TOUCH the f-35’s???

I guess nobody on this forum knows how much longer range would be needed in order to make a significant difference. However I think that it should not be impossible to make a VLO fighter with much longer range than the F-35C; at this stage it may be too expensive though?

The Gripen NG will have some 45% more internal fuel compared to the Gripen C/D — one of the things they did was stretching the fuselage by a few cm, and re-arranging a few other things.

Anyway, the point was not that chinese naval assets will be able to TOUCH the F-35s, the point was rather that Chinese assets might be able to sink the carriers.

Just like the airbases could be the weak point of the F-35A, the carriers could become the weak point of the F-35C, when faced with a very capable enemy with a huge number of assets.

Paradoxically, some analysts believe China’s capacity to attack carriers could mean the F-35 makes less difference to Asia’s arms buildup than most assume.

“It’s a bit radical, but I don’t think the U.S. Navy really needs the F-35 because I don’t think the USN can get the F-35 within range of Chinese targets. The Chinese capacity to sink the carriers they are floating on is too great,” said Hugh White, a former top Australian defense official who steered Canberra’s decision to buy the F-35.

(from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/20/us-asia-china-f-idUSBRE92J1BK20130320)

I just threw Argentina and Philippines as example of poor countries that can’t afford first line equipment. Sorry, I wasn’t paying to much attention to your Finland Comments. Because as I said Finland didn’t purchase cheap as you want us to believe.

I brought up Finland exactly because they bought the F-18, which is not a cheap a/c.

Another non-aligned country that bought F-18 some years ago was Switzerland. They recently decided to go for Gripen NG….

I am not dismissing the possibility that Finland will buy F-35. What I meant was that unlike some other countries they will look more at cost/benefit and less at political considerations.

Also, they are less interested in being “compatible” with the USAF. That is a major selling point for many air forces in particular in NATO.

It will be interesting to see how many of the countries that operate F-16 and F-18 today, will switch to F-35 and how many will switch to something more affordable.

Singapore is definitely on the high end — they operate the F-15 in addition to the F-16! And they have strong links to the US. If they don’t buy F-35 then there would be a big problem for LM… I do expect them to buy the F-35, just like all the partners, Israel, Japan, and Korea.

No doubt it will sell quite well. But never like the F-16.

I hate to tell you but the F-16 and F/A-18 were hardly considered cheap! Yet, your case of Finland is a good example as it purchased the more expensive Hornet instead of the F-16. In addition once production gets going and you take the cost adjusted for inflation. You will see the F-35 as being extremely competitive. Even more so if you consider “Capability vs Cost”.

What!?

Did you read what I wrote?

Argueing with you is useless (as always)

4.5 would do better than 4 but not as well as 5. 🙂

Any way you slice it you are sending a lot more assets against the same set of targets. This limits the total number of targets you can prosecute in any one day and drives up the cost to prosecute any one target.

It all comes down to cost.

If F-35 becomes the promised low-cost VLO solution that it was promised, then it will be fantastic!

However the concern is that this will not happen.

The cost is already so high that Norway will operate all the F-35 out of one air base.

Attacking Norway then becomes a no-brainer: Take out that one single airbase in one surprise attack, and suddenly you can rule Norwegian skies with old Migs!!!

Presumably we will protect it well however if you are up against an enemy that is so advanced and with so many assets that you require the F-35 to protect yourself then launching a massive suprise attack against one single base should perhaps not be impossible.

Once that has been done, you send some planes to sink the 2 Nansen frigates that are operating.

In two strikes you have killed the Norwegian air force, as well as 90% of the Norwegian (surface) Navy.

IF the F-35 becomes sufficiently expensive then we may have to get rid of our subs, like Denmark did. In such a scenario, the two above-mentioned attacks would basically have left Norway close to defence less. The army? Almost non-existent, no money left after the purchase of F-35….

Of course the above scenario is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons; one being that Norway is member of NATO… :diablo:

From that point of view, 2 F-35 would be sufficient to “protect” Norway, since the real protection is not the F-35 but the NATO membership.

It will be very interesting to see what Finland buys when they replace their F-18…. That will be a real test of how cost-effective the F-35 will be for a small non-aligned nation that needs “real” protection.

To put it into 1000 words

Nice.

One question: how would a 4.5 gen fighter do?

My guess is that a mix of regular block II SH and Growlers in a network, and with modern munitions (some of it stand-off) would probably do pretty well.

The SH/Growlers still have a lot of growth potential.

Another 4.5 gen platform with a lot of growth potential is the Rafale. A package of Rafale with AESA radars, upgraded SPECTRA, and lots of AASM should not be underestimated.