Their F-16 order is cheap as hell for the number of planes, same with the 2nd hand Leo-2 order, nothing special, doesn’t change the fact they have barely been able to trickle their desired Su-30 numbers in, sorry I don’t have confidence they will all of a sudden acquire a bunch of these yet-to-exist planes. Just going by the trends so far.

I can just see TR1 circa 1985: “China? China will never amount to anything!” Or perhaps 1885: “The Americans? They can’t even stop fighting each other! Don’t make me laugh!”

Some folks can read the tea leaves; others … well, it’s usually that they just don’t want to.

In the last decade Indonesia has gone from #28 to #18 in the global GDP rankings. By 2020 you can expect them to be jostling with Turkey for that coveted #10 spot and in the long-run a place in the top ten – likely right alongside Russia – is all but assured.

Whilst they have the NK nutters within artillery range of Seoul, I suspect there will be.

That’s no reason go to the tremendous expense of developing an indigenous platform. Frankly I’m surprised the project has gotten as far as it already has. Testament to the tight integration between Korean government and industry I guess.

Upto 3 months ago the better relationship with France might well have allowed the possibility of Rafales but with the recent French antics after the Euro fallout i somehow doubt that such a proposal would now be acceotable.

Not with today’s politicians, no. 🙁

Not if it were classified information they wouldn’t.

Now why would that be classified information?

Wrt both aircraft’s radars. No matter when both radars enter operational service etc, the Captor-E is always going to be the better one in the end. Bigger antenna, more power, WFoR, more TR Modules…Work it out…

I can’t see it being a decisive factor given the aircraft’s place in India’s order of battle.

Design must conform to the lowest denominator (small enough to fit on an LHD’s elevator).
Ugh. 🙁

Exactly. This is the problem I was referring to above in trying to save money without actually confronting the beast. The story of the 1990s was one of the hollowing-out of existing force structures rather than – as should’ve been done – actually making hard choices about the kinds of capabilities that are and are not needed and ensuring that those that are receive the robust funding necessary and those that don’t are necessarily discarded.

Does anyone doubt at this point that the interests of the United States would’ve been better served by USMC receiving nothing and USN and USAF receiving a better performing aircraft on time and on budget?

Or perhaps you’re suggesting that the Clinton administration should’ve simply pumped more money into the system to fund multiple programs, thereby erasing the few budget surpluses that many Americans can recall seeing in their lifetimes. :rolleyes:

Rule of thumb:
It takes 2 contractor bean counters to provide sufficient information to keep 1 government bean counter gainfully employed.

If the government adds 500 bean counters to “manage” the F-35 program, LM will have to lay off 1000 engineering and production personnel in order to hire 1000 new bean counters. The result is the F-35 technical progress falls further behind (bean counters do not do technical or production). One element of “death spiral”

Right … if only Lockheed Martin had been left in peace by those nasty govt. departments the plane would’ve been delivered on time, under budget, and been 3000lbs lighter to boot!

Actually the problem for America with “too big to fail” defense programs like JSF is that it ends up shouldering most of the burdens traditionally associated with state ownership without deriving any of the benefits.

Pearl Harbour in relation to China’s massive ISR deficiency to the US? Everyone in the world knew Japan had a fleet of strike carriers in 1941. It was no secret. The issue was that many believed they wouldn’t sail them across the Pacific and attack Hawaii. China actually has to build this ISR force before they can match the US. It’s not an issue of will they or will they not use their forces aggressively but they don’t actually have them.

The problem is you’re talking about the here-and-now when the F-35 venture – for Australia at least – is looking to be a 40yr investment. A 40yr investment in a period which will see an unprecedented shift in the dynamics of global power, I might add. How can you be confident that China and other potential adversaries will not develop the ISR and other support capabilities over that period to match those of the west? This seems little more than wishful thinking.