At $200 Million (+ or -) they’re not that expensive when compared to a large airliner…which no one seems to think twice about buying.

Airliners are typically bought by companies looking to turn a profit…

it seems slightly amazing that they’re so expensive that whole countries can’t afford one by themselves

New Zealand is a small country with an even smaller military budget. The Kiwis don’t even have any fast jets anymore.

Zhuk AE? No please.Can I have the NIIP one?;)

Not enough onboard power I think.

Simply because the Japanese call it “stealth”, or the Russians pretend it is stealth…tells us nothing about how effective it is or how it compares to the F-22 method.

Well I suppose it’s possible that the Japanese are retarded and are planning to field an aircraft with Super Hornet-level RCS reduction characteristics in 2030… :rolleyes:

The F-35 may well prove to be adequate for the job – in no small part because it’s likely that it’ll never actually be tested against a peer adversary – but it’s hardly an inspiring platform for the air combat regime. The US Navy at least has F/A-XX to look forward to.

Meaningful numbers = enough to fulfil operating requirements. Of course the US Air Force (like the rest of the American military-industrial complex) is grossly oversized and could weather a 50% cut in tactical aircraft numbers with minimal national security implications, but when most folks talk about defence cuts they’re usually looking to save money in the process.

They received no export orders for the Tunnan, Draken, or Viggen at all. And yet they are still around today.

The costs associated with modern fighter design/manufacturing make past comparisons irrelevant. Even the American industry has been forced to consolidate over the last few decades, to say nothing of the Russians or Europeans. SAAB have done amazingly well to still be an independent player at this point in the game and Sweden can be justly proud of that. I’d like to see them continue as an independent player, but the home market alone won’t be enough to sustain that in future. Hell, it’s an open question as to whether Dassault has an independent future without export orders, and France can offer a hell of a lot more support to industry than Sweden can.

Operating a mix of aircraft from different foreign suppliers has long been seen as giving a degree of strategic independence. Therefore, having both a Soviet (now Russian) & Western type for the same role was seen as an insurance policy. The USSR couldn’t sell India monkey models, because it knew India had access to Western types. Westerners couldn’t overcharge, because they knew India could buy cheaper Soviet types. And if either cut off supplies or support, India still had the other kit.

That makes sense. Still, it’s a bit ridiculous. At least they’ve dumped the Mig-23s and -25s over the last few years. Of course over the next decade they’re going to add LCA/MMRCA/AMCA/FGFA and only dump Mig-21 and -27….

In addition to that, procurement projects bring considerable benefits to those involved in them. Buying foreign aircraft gets those involved expenses-paid foreign travel, which has traditionally been a huge perk for poorly-paid (by our standards) Indian officers & officials – & remember that India used to have strict foreign exchange policies, so even if you could raise the rupees your hard currency allowance was limited. That’s worth less than it was, but still valuable. A major procurement also allows someone to build an empire, & the longer it goes on the better. The MRCA project has been running 10 years now, with no decision. A career can run to comfortable retirement on such a project. And don’t discount the little extra bonus you might get from a supplier . . .

I hadn’t considered that angle. Ugh, it’s such a dirty business.