Respectfully, you’re mistaken…..

Possibly on certain specifics, I’m no expert on any of the Air Forces in question. But the force of the broader point remains: Flanker derivatives will remain in full production in all three producing nations at least until the decade is out, and probably for a couple years beyond that. The platform has a long and healthy life ahead of it as its range, payload (both quantity and flexibility), large radar aperture, and — in many cases — dual seat characteristics are qualities that remain useful even in the brave new world of VLO*. Operating in concert with AEW&C and VLO platforms such as AMCA, T-50 and UCAVs, Flankers will be on the front lines for decades to come.

* And pertinent to the topic these qualities are also shared by the F-15SA/SEs being contemplated for Korea, even if the base airframe is kinematially rather less impressive.

Russia is only building a small number of Su-35’s and China is quickly progressing to the J-10 and developing 5th Generation Types. (i.e. J-20, J-31, etc.)

I don’t think 100 Su-35s and 150 Su-34s qualifies as a small number, plus new-build Su-33s…

China’s J-15 and J-16 Flanker variants are also yet to enter serial production.

As for Korea, it is also developing a fifth-gen type. Why would Korea would want to induct F-35 in 2020 when they are developing their own VLO fighter in the same thrust class to enter service barely a half-decade later?

They are likely to be strip down version without radar/electronics. and certainly no ram paint. certainly more expensive than Yak-130 but considering there longer range. they can fly to airshows without too many touch downs.

Hmm yes, fair enough. I acknowledge the need for one Flanker team. 😀

Why the fark would one select Damocles when it is about to be replaced? :confused:

No.

Swifts and Russian knights will be getting Su-35 and Su-30SM it looks like.

Yak-130 will be a separate aerobatic team.

Strikes me as a wildly irresponsible allocation of state resources…

I still think China should’ve submitted the L-15 for T-X. :diablo:

Agree that the tail is ugly. Also don’t like the transition on ventral surface from the nose to the fuselage.

No IRST … distributed EO system like JSF?

Rii, that’s a diverter cavity & bleed system which allows the boundary layer to exit due to being forced by the pressure gradient.

I see, thanks. It did seem a rather implausible location for an APU.

This is pretty much what i have said for years. There is no F-16 for 2020+, only the Gripen NG. The US could have had total market dominance with a similar high performance platform as the F-16 for the next 40 years. But there is no such project.

You should examine this in a broader context. The United States doesn’t give a flying **** what its allies need for their own interests, as those allies only exist to the serve the interests of the United States.

Look at what is being done to NATO structure. Smaller nations are being ‘encouraged’ to dispense with independent forces entirely and specialise in support roles such as NBC decontamination. The entire point of this is to strip European nations of the capacity for independent action, to render them entirely dependent on the goodwill of the United States. This is the entire strategic purpose of the NATO project — to ensure that European nations remain weak and subservient, useful only for lending the appearance of legitimacy to what is, in reality, unilateral US action. The F-35 was a poison chalice from the very beginning.

The problem is that democracies reward short-term thinking alone, and short-term thinking involves not rocking the boat — benefiting from American largesse, basking in reflected glory, etc. Of the European nations, only France has consistently identified and pursued her own long-term interests, and it is for that reason that America despises her: she is the one western nation with an unbowed knee.