But if low-observable characteristics are not essential, a developed variant of an existing fighter would be the obvious solution. I wonder, for example, how many orders Eurofighter or Dassault would need in order to develop a vectored-thrust version of their current fighter as a private venture?

Vectored thrust version of Typhoon Eurojet engine has been demonstrated. In Spain IIRC. One advantage claimed is that it could be used to better trim the aircraft resulting in reduced consumption. Without a customer asking for it and further funding being provided I guess it will go no further .

So what you’re saying is that for small air forces the F-16 is a more cost effective option than the F-35. We’ve had this debate before albeit with the Gripen in lieu of the F-16.

What it comes down to is the air force’s responsibility. When you say ‘enough to provide capability’, you’re unfortunately using a vague description.

If the air force is just required to carry out air policing it could go much cheaper than the F-16/Gripen. The KAI FA-50 is more than sufficient. However if fighting a war under the NATO aegis is called for, then you must keep in mind that this will involve the pooled resources of European airforces (including upto 500 F-35s) and with the US with all its supporting assets (again including a huge F-35 fleet) at the core of it.

I have some comments:

1. NATO air forces do not and have never all operated the same fighter types. Has that prevented countries operating types that are not operated by the US from contributing in a useful manner?

2. The primary responsibility of the government of an independent state is to assure the sovereignty of that state. F-35 should be unrivalled as a strike aircraft where enemy air defences are a serious threat but it is debatable as to whether it is as good as other fighters at taking on enemy fighters. I trust you recommend that countries consider buying Rafale or Typhoon if their primary need is defence of their airspace with the best aircraft available in that role.

3. F-35 will be far more expensive to operate than the (mostly) F-16 aircraft that many countries need to replace. Where countries need to replace F-16 with an affordable successor I trust you recommend that they should consider buying F-16 or Gripen.

This is opinion of the press (where there are a lot of “paid” articles…), there is no official statement supporting any contender is out of Brazilian FX-2.

I don’t know how reliable a Folha de Sao Paulo is but I don’t see how Dilma telling Hollande that Brazil was not going to order Rafale is an opinion. Either she said it or she did not. However it is possible that she said Brazil was not going to order Rafale now.

If the Folha report is accurate, I’m not sure that there would be an official statement to say Rafale was not going to be ordered. Nor would the exclusion of Rafale from further consideration mean that either Gripen or F/A-18 was going to be ordered. Like most observers I do not think that an order will be placed before the elections.

I remember reading that the Rafale was out in India as well . . .

If you mean that there were various rumours, alleged leaks etc that Rafale was out of the MMRCA competition, I think this is a bit different. It is reported that this week the head of state of Brazil told the head of state of France that Brazil would not be buying Rafale. Unless Folha has misreported, Rafale is out of contention. Of course if another president were to be elected that decision could change but what is the likelihood of Brazil buying a fighter twice as costly as the alternatives? Not much, to me.

If I were in President Hollande’s shoes my reaction would be to accept the bad news but to try to salvage something – I would be asking Dassault to give a good price to support the supply of a couple of squadrons of ex-Armee de l’Air M2K aircraft in the hope that the current competition would be scrapped. In a few years Brazil might have the funds to buy Rafale in a new competition.

‘France loses out on Brazil jets deal’

Bit of a silly headline when you see what the first sentence says:

“(AFP) – 12 hours ago

Sao Paulo — France will lose out in its bid to win a multibillion-dollar fighter jet contract with Brazil, the Folha de Sao Paulo daily reported Saturday.”

ie It’s not a fact that France has lost out. It’s a prediction. Thats different, just as saying “Brazil orders Rafale” is different to saying “Brazil will order Rafale”.

Yes and Rome, Sparta, Alexander the great, the Saladin, the Crusaders, Napoleon, Wellington, Rommel, Zhukov and Paton himself, were all advocating the dismiss of swords, power guns and riffles for an exclusive use of spears, arrows, Katyusha and artillery shells.

There is a raison, why you need to get close and fight… Otherwise be ready to step backward. Well, I guess you can write this last sentence in small lines on your own copy of a Gripen marketing brochure.

Please, think before typing. People have died stupidly in great numbers the time forgotten rules of thumbs resurfaced!

So the message is…? You should not use arrows, but swords? You should not use long range precision munitions but short range precision munitions?

So, what do you think is the T3A unit price? Do you think it’s a flyaway price?

I don’t know how much of the T3A cost is for the flyaway frames. However on checking a 2011 National Audit Office report, I read the following:

Analysis by our consultants shows that the current unit production costs (excluding the costs of the collaborative development phase) for the aircraft are similar to comparable tyes of aircraft.

Source: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1011755.pdf (item 10, page 7)

I find that encouraging. I still, however, think that Typhoon costs are too high to secure any customers outside of the Arabian peninsular.