I’ll take Sikorsky X3 derivative instead thanks.

If Boeing wants something to do they can scale up Chinook to real heavy lift category. :p

so much for the F-35 🙂

Indeed. F-35 is a mid-90s boondoggle which embarrassingly was never cancelled, whilst these are actually forward-looking machines. Fingers crossed USN knows which budget pantry to raid to keep this program going.

Well. I think they did the right choice in picking Rafale considering all factors.

I agree. Typhoon was a strong contender also, but ultimately riskier in strategic terms.

The point i have been making is the claim that the Rafale design is more biased towards air to ground in comparison to the Typhoon is not one i think is justified, simply put it appears that way as the Typhoon is heavily biased towards air to air.

Like concepts of ‘big’ or ‘small’, there is nothing that is big or small, these ideas only have meaning in relation to other things, i.e. something is bigger or smaller than something else. A relational property always has two polarities, i.e. if A is larger than B, then B is smaller than A.

So to say when comparing Rafale to Typhoon that Rafale leans A2G is the same as saying Typhoon leans A2A. Compare if someone said F-15E leans A2A compared to Tornado. This is true and unproblematic, and yet it seems absurd to say that F-15E leans A2A in and of itself.

I think the difficulty arises because the concepts of A2G and A2A embody both relational and monadic properties. For example we can identity dual-seat as an A2G-leaning property. And we can identify that Su-35 leans more A2A than Su-30MKI. Yet does this allow us to say that Su-30MKI leans A2G in and of itself?

Swiss Hornets are relavitvely new (delivery started about 1996) and they are going through an upgrade that will be completed by 2016.

That means they’ll probably be in service to 2030. Will SAAB be producing Gripen derivatives or fighters by then?

Oh, didn’t realise Hornets were so young. I guess Gripen is out as Hornet replacement then.

I do think there is a credible argument to be made for allowing F-5s to retire without replacement. Ultimately is not one I support on account of (1) difficulty in recovering lost numbers in future and (2) the extreme suitability of Gripen NG for Swiss requirements.

The Gripen order looks pretty solid in comparison and the Grien e will materialise as it already is funded for development.

The Swiss Gripen order could be scuttled by referendum. I think that would be a mistake, but admire the principle.

How about this one?
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A006f7e18-c829-4fec-9bf3-a8147488ed38
Alenia/Aermacchi continue to produce their new M346 light fighter/trainer, albeit at a slow pace

It has even got two engines (compared to Gripen and T-50)

Nice shot! And here I thought Alenia was content to let Yak 130 hog all the attention. :p

But no, M346 or derivative not really in the running. No supersonic capability for a start.

Would be a mistake given inferior technology, lack of offsets, and most significantly higher operating cost.

Excellent footage of Rafale demo filmed by swiss aviation film maker Lionel Charlet :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19tscviy3uI

Always a fan of Charlet’s stuff, cheers.

Dutch already mothballed its F-35.

Not too often you see an aircraft retired before it enters service. :p