But nobody has read the”EVALUATION REPORT SWITZERLAND” where the Gripen are behind the F/A18C/D in all areas…?
lol
The point is no JSF Partner has left the program nor cancelled any orders.
lol
Also, while some want to “bash” the F-35’s high price. They seem to forget the F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, PAK-FA, and Strike Eagle are hardly “cheap”. With only the Raptor coming anywhere near the capabilities of the F-35.
lol
F-15 doesn’t have real FBW except for new SA version… but yeah it’s a rather absurd claim.
I think we can safely assume J-20 has longer legs than F-22.
For the last few decades the PLA played an area denial game, but now they’re starting to reach out. However the threat of powerful enemies close to home remains.
Yes; even in the post-2030 timeframe I don’t think China will develop the same kind of robust globe-spanning capability of the United States for the simple reason that they have so much to concern themselves with close to home. On the other hand, the fact that those concerns are to a greater-or-lesser-extent located within reach of land-based airpower has its advantages also.
I am wondering if ISR using unmanned systems is one of the first areas we could see the emergence of a uniquely Chinese way of war; in that it is a field that is currently undergoing rapid transformation, one that China to date is relatively uninitiated in (meaning few habits to unlearn and no institutional pushback akin to USAF resistance to unmanned systems) and in which we can expect robust investment over the next two decades. A uber-BAMS program based on Soar Dragon perhaps?
China is essentially trapped within the first island chain, and one of following things must happen in order for China to gain a safe passage to the Pacific Ocean.
1. Conquest of Taiwan.
2. Taking of Diaoyu Islands.
Or China can buy foreign basing rights around the globe. In the longer-term (post-2030, once attentions are broadened beyond the first and second island chains) I think we can expect them to do precisely that. We are already seeing such expansion into Bangladesh to gain access to the Indian ocean.
Rough field capability? Shorter take-off roll? Logistics commonality? Have to remember that Russia designs for real war, not NATO-style white collar 9-5 ‘war’. :p
Guys you just need to replace ‘SPECTRA’ in your discussion with ‘ALR-94’ and then hopsalot will espouse of his own accord how ESM can generate firing solutions on dozens of Sukhois simultaneously. :p
Just imagine how good it’ll look if they do go forth with the minor alterations seen in the models of future iterations.
What minor alterations do you speak of?
reducing total orders (which don’t exist yet) doesn’t not imply reducing production rate.
In contrast to F-35 where production rates are being reduced whilst planned orders remain static, implying an elongation of production timeline to the extent that we can expect the first airframes to be retiring before the last roll off the line. :p
This reduction in total Rafale numbers for AdA is precisely the sort of ‘engagement with reality’ that is nowhere to be found in the F-35 program — where Australia is still ordering ‘up to 100’ JSFs, US still 2500, etc. — and is yet another example of the contrast between the responsibly managed program that is Rafale and the complete debacle that is JSF.
International assistance would complicate the task of installing a friendly regime. 😉
(Which is why you can expect the United States to rush to the scene in any case.)
Folks who think China is going to ‘stay in the cradle’ are fooling themselves. Power has a logic all of its own. When China does begin to act on the world stage it won’t be as a ‘responsible global partner’ in a system geared to advance American interests, but rather in service of its own interests whether those accord with the existing order or not.
The fact that one can use such optimistic cost projections and still arrive at the conclusion that F-35 = ruinous says something of itself I think.
After WW2 Europe entered the “cold war”, and both Norway and Denmark opted for NATO, as a direct concequence of what happened to us during WW2.
This is an odd lesson to learn when a NATO-esque alliance would not have protected Norway in WW2 and did not protect it during the Cold War.
And have you noticed that the Cold War has been over for decades now? And that it is only since the demise of the Soviet Union that the demand for ‘coalition operations’ has arisen? Odd sort of arrangement where price increases as demand drops!
For small countries like Norway it is unrealistic to have an independent, credible defence — thus one needs to be part of an alliance like NATO.
Wrong and wrong again — see Switzerland, or even Sweden. But then I guess the vassal mentality comes as easily to Norway as it does Australia.
IIRC one of the observations made during the Libya intervention was that once air defences had been depleted missions could have been undertaken at much lower cost had such aircraft been available. Once enemy air defences have been dealt with you are spending much more than needed using F-35, Typhoon, Rafale to strike, aren’t you?
“It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should become too fond of it.” — Robert E. Lee
War should be expensive.
The real question is why anyone in their right mind would want to participate in ‘coalition operations’.
sustainable war economy
This is obscene.
40% of original requirement filled. I suspect that’s fairly representative of what we’ll see going forward, incl. for the United States.