It says manufacturing starting no earlier than the year of the contract. So signing a contract in 2017 for planes to be delivered from 2020 would be fine.

Of course there are other options such as Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet. The Eurocans seem too expensive for an air force that just a few years ago bought a batch of J-7s(!), while the latter would seem to be a politically laden deviation from existing practice. BAF does operate C-130s, but no American combat aircraft. But if they wanted an American aircraft, why not structure the tender to allow F-16?

Rafale doesn’t fit those specs. Typhoon and Super Hornet do but it seems awfully tailored for MiG-29M or MiG-35. And two-engined requirement rules out the Chinese fighters. I’ll be surprised if anyone else but MiG even answers the RFI.

second largest what time frame. 100 years or 500 years?. and those were primitive industries. You cant deny the role Crimea plays on war on terror. It pressure Turkey from North Side so it cant play any role in Middleast.

Viipuri was Finnic for at least 800 years and possibly much more.

That’s not the point.. swastika has been used by US units in the WWI or RAF units until 1939 as a symbol of luck.. nothing wrong with that.. the question is why would you use such symbol AFTER it has been misused by the Nazi party..

We don’t GAS about silly taboos rest of the Europe has. Getting all scared over a symbol is stupid. Even our presidential flag has swastika in it.

You are, of course, right.. Nothing to do with Nazis, whatsoever..

Correct, it was used since 1918 and predates the Nazis many years. And still in use in Air Force heraldry:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251700[/ATTACH]

Dont mistake RAF factional feuding for any lack of faith in the technology Yama. Sea Harrier was culled as soon as a Light Blue CO got his hands on Joint Force Harrier. The SHAR air combat record out of the Falklands and the fact it was the first UK type to deploy fully integrated AMRAAM capability was an open sore to the RAF. GR9 was offered up, years later, only as a way to preserve their precious GR4 force for a few more years. GR9 had a lot of useful life left in it when it went.

Harrier II just was not a very capable aircraft by 2010s standards. Obviously much of that (lack of radar etc) does not carry over to F-35B but it is still less capable than A or C variants.
I mean, if the common STOVL aircraft is such a successful concept, why they were gunning for CATOBAR and only changed their minds when it turned out switch wasn’t practical at that stage anymire?

A handful yes….but following the recent news out of Brazil not for very long it seems. Thats the problem when you are dependent on someone else for the preservation of your military capability. You are rather vulnerable to them pulling the plug. A question may now be asked whether, at time of severe budgetary pressure, it was worth the money spent keeping those CATOBAR skills in the Armada?

My point is rather that if the Argentines can maintain small cadre of carrier qualified pilots with a shoestring budget and no carrier of their own, then maybe maintaining CATOBAR training isn’t end-to-all cost hindrance to a country like United Kingdom?? And as said, carrier landings with modern aircraft are signifantly easier, it’s not your great uncle’s Phantom anymore.

STOVL means that the RN Fleet Air Arm can be kept as a cadre force that can specialise in maritime ops and be augmented by RAF or foreign STOVL squadrons as necessary/required. That means shared basing costs, shared logistics trains, shared training costs and no necessity to keep a large pool of pilots deck rated. The operational savings, wholelife, more than offset a higher unit purchase price and more costly spares.

But this is precisely the point. What for RAF needs the B anyway? It has worse performance for more money, all you gain is STOVL which offers no advantage for RAF.

not too long ago, there was debate whether the second follow up should use catobar and the 35C version.

In the end the reasons for going with Dave were:
35B is easier to train pilots for
35B has faster turnaround times for faster war time temp
35B is less expensive for both aircraft and ship maintenance
35B simpler logistics with the existing carrier

Uhmm…I would pretty much think everything above is other way around. F-35B is more complicated, spares cost more, has less performance, smaller load etc. As for pilot training and cat/trap qualifications, is it really much different? It’s not like STOVL operations don’t require specialized training.

With hindsight, they should have waited for few years, buy EMALS from USA and build CATOBAR from the start.

In having followed the now scrapped MRCA and MMRCA programmes for more than a decade, I do believe the Gripen E/F has a fighting chance at winning an order now for 200 jets. This will depend, almost entirely, on the industrial partnership being offered by SAAB which, by all accounts, is fairly impressive.

That said, I do not see a Sea Gripen variant being inducted into the Indian Navy – they have a stated requirement for a twin engine fighter … they are seeking 57 of them. Whats more, the government remains committed to an LCA Navy Mk-2 aircraft, a sanctioned project that continues to be developed – this was clarified to me by Commodore Balaji (retd), the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Chief a few days back.

Why did IN specify twin-engined fighter since after all, LCA Navy is (and will be) single-engined? Requirement for two engines (IIRC there was no such requirement in original RFI?) also cuts out F-35.

He probably bids his fictional aircraft all over the place but usually is just dismissed without a mention.
Stavatti reminds me of another fraudster, Paul Moller and his flying cars. With the exception that Moller actually has built some hardware to show for.