I do agree with sentiment though – at least 100+ (supposedly) Australians are fighting in Syria for various Islamist groups and ASIO/ASIS are worried what these people are going to be doing when they come back to Australia.

Folks who’re volunteering off their own bat (as opposed to being ordered to go) to fight and die with minimal resources for a hell of a lot less material renumeration than is offered by the ADF — gotta respect that.

When systems/technologies and capabilities advance, you do have to periodically look at what best tradeoffs to make for your desired mission system. EODAS is indeed an awesome capability to have, and something unheard of for the fighers the JSF is replacing. Why would you not take such capability into account? Manuverability has not been totally neglected, but traded off for other mission requirements. Pilot after Pilot are saying that the performance is better than the aircraft it is replacing in some areas, while matching in others. This combined with advances in technology (AESA, EODAS, MADL, EW abilities, Stealth) makes the JSF considerbly more capable than the fighers it is replacing, and the F-35 does offer more capability when compared to the 4.5 gen jets. At the end of the day, you are tasked with designing a fighter that is going to see 2000+ production run, you cannot make it as capable as a F-22 in aerial combat, and as potent as a bomb truck as the F-15E (Range, Payload)….You would simply make it unaffordable. Already may are claiming that the F-35 has too much technology to be affordable.

I don’t deny that F-35 is a highly capable aircraft incorporating many advanced technologies beyond those featured in other aircraft. Beyond pushing back on its claimed superiority in A2A regimes, my issues with F-35 relate more to its design and conception, program execution, and the international political aspects of the program.

Already may are claiming that the F-35 has too much technology to be affordable

Looking past the development phase, it is not the technology in F-35 that is the problem, but rather the sheer size of the aircraft. For USAF that merely means adjusting to the reality of fewer aircraft, for smaller nations the implications are more serious.

That’s one of the reasons why the F-35’s starting to receive a fair bit of interest in India as an alternative to the Rafale.

Keep dreaming. :rolleyes:

Transonic acceleration has always been a weak spot for the Super Hornet, and many pilots say the aircraft is seriously underpowered compared to other fourth-generation fighters.

Rubbish; Super Hornet isn’t underpowered, it’s just an inferior airframe.

I’m surprised there are so many takers for the MiG-29K and Rafale-M for the IAC-2/IAC-3.

What, you mean aircraft that will actually see Indian service over prospects that only exist in Scooter‘s fevered imagination?

The USN (and often enough RN and MN) has flown high profile strike missions so regularly over the last couple of decades that folks have apparently starting overlooking other equally important aspects. Force projection is all well and good but the carrier’s primary responsibility is FLEET DEFENCE.

VLO is not a transformative feature in this role, and certainly not when it comes at the cost of performance as with F-35.

I think Scooter’s approach of considering all possible contingencies should be embraced. Of course, no such analysis could ignore the danger posed by the United States, a nation that not only poses a greater material threat to Canada than any other, but regularly engages in wars of aggression, including against Canada. Needless to say, it would be foolish to try to hold off the Yankee hordes with an aircraft they could shut down at the press of a button.

Just Chillin’

[ATTACH=CONFIG]220147[/ATTACH]

Joint LMFS program with Russia > all of the above. Fulfils the following Indian requirements —

(1) Carrier-based VLO aircraft for Indian Navy
(2) MiG-29 and Mirage 2K replacement for Indian Air Force
(3) Indigenous engine development and sovereignty

There is no contest. The next best alternative is to pursue a similar arrangement with France involving either deep development of Rafale or next-generation aircraft. This option is less favourable simply because France does not appear to have corresponding domestic requirements over corresponding timescales, whereas Russia does.