I note that KF-X Block 1 features Radar Absorbing Material while Block 2 features Radar Absorbing Structure. Does that mean the same structure as Block 1 but using materials incorporating radar absorbtion qualities?

And Kaveri will be used for other purposes as well, most likely the UCAV and a variant perhaps for the AMCA, so its not dead either.

It would be great if AMCA used an engine of Indian origin. What’s the timeline, though?

If SNECMA is no longer in contention to help turn the Kaveri into an engine providing sufficient thrust and reliability to power AMCA and other partners are now being sought to help achieve this, how far can AMCA design be taken? I don’t see how you can design an aircraft with the engine located in the fuselage if you don’t know the weight, dimensions and thrust of the engine to be used.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/joint-strike-fighter-already-making-an-impact-in-north-carolina-1.205299

Interesting news from the “Stars and Stripes”:

“The plan is to build 2,443 JSF’s for the U.S., about 750 for the eight partner nations, and probably somewhere around the same for other program members, Burbage said. That would be between 3,500 and 4,500.

He said the cost of the first planes off the line would calculate to about $67 million each but design, uniformity, life of the F-35 trims the price per plane cost significantly and further in time they are very competitive with the historical lifetime cost of other planes like the F-18 Super Hornet.”

Right, if I order some of the first planes off the line, I would pay about $67 million each and the F-35 lifetime cost will be very competitive with the historical lifetime cost of other planes like the F-18 Super Hornet.

Was this a quote from Burbage in January 2013 or has the (not very objective from the sound of its name) Stars and Stripes reported what Burbage said many years ago?

I agree that BAE involvement in F-35 will generate revenue for BAE and should result in some revenue for the UK government via income tax, VAT and tax on BAE profits. However if the F-35 turns out to be expensive to buy and very expensive to operate, that will adversely affect UK military capabilty. I see a high risk of F-35 being expensive to buy and very expensive to operate, so I am against the UK forces acquiring it.

I think it would be better to install catapults on the new carriers and buy something with more reasonable costs than F-35 – Super Hornet, Rafale, even Sea Gripen if available… whatever is not going to limit overall capability of the armed forces.

Spitfire9 the structural cracks are a problem with some of the composite components of the B model, not the C model.

My big mistake! Sorry to all for posting rubbish. Somehow I read F-35C when it was F-35B.

That’s correct. But that has always been the case – the Swedish Gripen E/F purchase has never been conditional on a Swiss purchase. Only that there is a clause in the contract that it might be cancelled or delayed in case Switzerland (or another potential partner nation) does not go ahead with their intended purchase.

Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding Swedish Gripen E’s being newly built, from what I’ve gathered the structural changes are more exstensive than on the Gripen DEMO, which excludes C/D aiframes for reuse. It will be interesting to see when pictures of the final configuration arrives.

If they cannot rebuild C/D aircraft to E/F standard, will they be retained in service or will Sweden try to sell them? Just thinking there should be some countries looking to buy cheap used light fighters that are cheap to operate in the same way as Bulgaria, Romania were looking for useable F-16’s.

There is an old saying that says that if a plane looks right it will fly right.

Does that predate R.J.Mitchell (Spitfire designer) saying: “If it looks right it probably is right”, I wonder. Or is it a corruption of Mitchell’s comment?

Few highlights:

Structural cracks in B- lower fuselage

I bet the USN is pleased the SH line is still open.