First Gripen was the clear winner, then it was Rafale, now, back from the dead, its the FA18.

FFS Brazil… Most banana republics are more serious when it comes to business.

AFAIK Gripen was only ever declared to be FAB’s preference.

Washington Post — F-35’s ability to evade budget cuts illustrates challenge of paring defense spending

Good read; not about trivia like rear visibiliy and lightning strikes but rather the real major problems with JSF since its inception such as the co-option of Congress, the incompetence of the Pentagon, and the treason of Lockheed Martin.

Mind you, most of the features shown are common actions one does on his laptop, iPad or a smart phone daily…. so the woow factor is simply not there. I would be very surprised if planes like Rafale or Su-35 had a very different HMI that would play against the common logic used in consumer products.

Isn’t Samsung doing the MMI stuff for KF-X? Maybe that is how they plan to fast-track the program: introducing the Samsung Galaxy Cockpit! :p

I have always been skeptical of the NEED for a 5th generation fighter (atleast in the current timeline) for a lot of the partner nations. All but a few really do not have a credible enough national defense threat that warrants a 5th generation fighter. I have no issues with reports regarding how the F-35 is not the optimum for nation X

Australia is actually one of the better customers for F-35. We can afford it in useful numbers, and we can make full use of its range. The problems lie in how it was selected and how those failures of due process have led directly to the currently unfolding scenario of a fleet comprised of at least 50% Super Hornets, where such an arrangement would not have made even the top five most preferable outcomes as seen from a pre-JSF perspective. A further problem is in how the acquisition fails to account for the evolution of Australia’s strategic environment over the coming decades, an evolution for which F-35 is not adequate. The evolving strategic environment calls for a new high-end combat aircraft in the 2030s, and the F-35 plan is therefore a disaster as it categorically rules out any such acquisition. The silver lining in the failings of the F-35 plan to date is that our increasing investment in Super Hornet may actually re-open the possibility of a 2030s acquisition program to replace them.

@bring_it_on

Problems are to be expected and most aren’t worth making a fuss about. The reason people do make such a fuss is because it contributes to ongoing narrative of program being foolishly/irresponsibly structured, late and over-budget, underperforming, etc. People don’t care about helmet issues because OMG HELMET ISSUES, they care about helmet issues because it evokes and reinforces image of program full of whizbang nonsense that, given ostensible program objectives, should never have been part of it in the first place. It’s all about the broader narrative.

On the subject of news coverage, you may be aware that there was a program aired on Australian TV recently critical of the F-35 program and in particular how Australia came to be part of it. All well and good, yes? Well, you wouldn’t believe the avalanche of pro-F35 media which descended across the nation’s newspapers in the days following, most of which was of an analytical level well below the original 4-Corners program (which was not so flash itself in many parts). Bad news may spread like gossip, but the alternative narrative comes top-down, and it’s pretty obvious which has more direct and reliable access to the journalistic organs that matter. Indeed that’s probably why the 4 Corners piece was perceived as a threat warranting such a response in the first place — 4 Corners is perceived (by the kinds of folk who matter) as a respectable program on a respectable, government-owned channel, rather than e.g. populist/sensationalist Today Tonight on commercial Channel 7. It was vitally important that this outbreak of scepticism be crushed before it could spread and infect the public. :p

subsonic low g platform will be lighter and more longer life. so ability to carry more fuel/weopon load and hence more loiter time. loiter time is the most important criteria as you want significant strike capability patrolling continously for target of oppurtunity with most powerfull sensors/weopons. for example Fighter/tranport/air refueler aircraft on runway or launching barrage of missile on ships/sam installations.

I agree that if loiter time is a priority then a subsonic flying wing design is difficult to beat. But I question how this fits in with Russian plans and requirements. For a long-range bomber I was envisioning strategic targets such as factories, bridges, power stations, etc. Loitering in the vicinity of e.g. a carrier battle group strikes me as a risky proposition, involving a confidence verging on arrogance that is not in keeping with general Russian philosophy which tends to assume operating from position of weakness or vulnerability.

I remember when I was a sophomore…

Only Americans use this term. Not that your loyalties weren’t obvious before. :rolleyes: