That is of course if you think STOVL and the compromises it brings are worth it. 😀

I think it’s clear at this point that the Original Sin was the incorporation of USMC’s STOVL requirement into the program, which was a decision taken by the politicians.

What this suggests to me is the dangers involved in attempting to reduce military spending — an entirely sensible and laudable goal — without actually confronting the institutions, cultures, assumptions and policies underlying that spending, i.e. what should’ve happened is that USMC should’ve been told to go **** up a tree.

But of course standing up the military-industrial-congressional complex in the United States is something much easier said than done. Alas, until that happens — whilst the ‘hollowing out’ of existing force structures is the only means of achieving savings available as opposed to, say, reducing the mission set or doing away with some of the more obvious cross-service redundancies — one can look forward to more fundamentally flawed programs like JSF that ultimately compromise the national security they were meant to ensure.

Not really. Remember when India selected the engine for the Tejas? So many thought the Super Hornet was going to be the winner for the MMRCA. No way it was going to lose now (then)…

Yeah, I wouldn’t read too much into the MICA thing. It’s clear from trends up and down the board that efficiency in acquisitions and logistics is not something that rates very highly on India’s priority list.

Comparing the sixth generation fighter concept to the F-35 is like arguing that the North American Mustang should have had the same capability as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom. The type of mission against the type of threat they will face is so extremely different to make any reasonable comparison nonsensical. So is the timeframe. The 6G fighter won’t be in service until 2050 or 2060.

LM’s 6th Generation fighter concept, like Boeing’s before it, merely demonstrates that the United States’ apparent disregard for kinematics in its two most recent fighter designs — the F-35 and F/A-18E/F –is indeed only apparent, that it is a function of specific constraints imposed upon those aircraft rather than reflecting a shift in basic design philosophy.

This point serves to refute the objection from certain quarters that to the unfavourable comparisons being drawn between F-35 and everything from F-22 to J-20 to PAK FA to KF-X to, well, the list goes on for about as long as fighters-that-aren’t-the-F-35 are known or suspected to be under development. It turns out that, just like the rest of the world, the US still does care about such prosaic fare as speed, acceleration, turn rate, etc.

Needless to say, every single one of these kinematically superior platforms will reach maturity and be fielded in numbers decades before Australia considers replacing its F-35s (or going on current trends, even finishes receiving them), leaving us with one hell of a fighter gap.

And the insane amount of anti-Americanism

[citation needed]

it is 51’s tailfin that need 52 fuselage 😀

Reminds me of that joke: what’s that useless flap of skin on the end of a penis called? A man.

Gotta love the sour grapes in this thread. Excellent choice by Switzerland and a well-earned victory for Gripen.

And another correct prediction from me. 😎

I think tha tthe same load with 1 LDP instead of the centerline fuel tank + 2 CFTs would start to look okay.

Nic

I’d like to know what kind of situation would call for a half-dozen AMRAAMs and LGBs. It’s like Eurofighter have been reading Dale Brown novels. :p

Well … final bets?

I give Rafale the edge, but it’s a very close thing and I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if Typhoon is selected instead. Both candidates would serve India’s operational and strategic requirements well.