These were cold war numbers. Since the break-up of Soviet Union these high numbers have lost their purpose.

So how many F-16s did the Netherlands have in 2000?

It’s obvious when you look at the MOU numbers that there was not going to be a 1:1 replacement, especially for Partner nations.

If ROVER is not in 3F, that just strengthens my point (can’s find any reference yeah or nay).

Remember, it is not LM that decides what made it to 3F but the customers who are buying it. If they wanted it that badly and were willing to suffer the increase in development cost & IOC delay, they would have put it in.

They did not want it in so they did not put it in.

–update

Two things point to it being a planned part of Block4.

1. Page 24 of this 2009 PDF http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009psa_mar/Martins.pdf
Says “Streaming Video (ROVER format)” as “planned” rather than “funded”

2. The Norwegian Block plan for the F-35 has “Streaming Video” as part of Block 4
http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf

My point was that the only way that they got ROVER was by using a US system (the LDP).

It’s a nice icing on the cake, but it’s not the cake.

Funny how all the people crying about ROVER not being in Blk2B are the people who are not using the F-35.

[QUOTE=LowObservable;2085554The Marines’ primary mission is CAS, which, pace Spudman, now requires Rover in almost all instances because it is a proven means of reducing blue-on-blue. [/QUOTE]

Considering that few current systems have ROVER and no non-US systems employ it, yet they seem to do CAS just fine…. I would say your argument that it is “required” is a gross overstatement.

Just because something is proven to reduce casualties does not mean that it is essential, otherwise we would not use anything but LGBs as they are the most accurate. Also, almost the entire anti F-35 argument would be rendered moot as many say that it is more than is needed.

A couple of points:
I would postulate that the F-35A/B are closer to their “Final” capability (Blk3) at IOC than either the Rafale or Eurofighter were when they went IOC as they lacked A2G and most multirole capabilities.

1 – Is that true? Block 2B/3I is (on paper) single-mission (fixed target attack). Major question is whether the fusion standard in 2B/3I will allow the use of radar against movers and in-weather. Without that, it’s a clear-air LO bomber (due to weapon limitations), which is of no application at all to the Marines. On the other hand, Rafale and EF could perform air-to-air missions at IOC, which did meet operator needs.

Per the below linked PDF slides, Block 2B/3I has
1. All-weather A2A capability
2. All-weather A2G fixed target attack via SAR & JDAM (or datalinked GPS coordinates)
3. Limited clear-weather moving target attack via EOTS & Paveway
4. Full datalinks (MADL & Link-16)
5. Multi-ship data fusion
6. EODAS tracking
7. BDA
8. Much more

Remember that radar cannot be used to attack ground movers (even on today’s fighters) due to JDAM not having a datalink, only LGBs can be used currently. Radar can still be used to detect ground mover, just not attack them. Since an LGB is needed, relatively clear weather is also required due to the need to designate the target with a laser. SDB2 will give the F-35 all-weather moving target attack capability.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/F-35Blk2.jpg

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/blocks1_zpsccc5bbbf.jpg

My point is that the Blk2B and even more so Blk3i are a simple upgrade away from the final Block 3F. They are also multi-role from Day 1 where Rafale & EF were A2A at IOC only and took a long, painful time to get A2G.

2 – Don’t forget that the IOC capabilities of the EF and Typhoon were what the customer asked for and contracted for. Not so the partial IOC of F-35.

Why is this good argument for the Rafale & EF, but not for the USMC and USAF? Remember that they both originally were to go IOC with Block 2, yes even the USAF.

Notice on the linked PDF from 2001 that both the USMC and USAF were to go IOC before Blk3 was even out of SDD, let alone IOT&E.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/1bde3584.jpg

If the F-22 was not a LM product, you might have a point. But since LM makes money from either the F-22 or the F-35, I do not think they played a significant part in the F-22’s production shutdown.

btw, I have always lamented the F-22 not getting to at least the 381 number.

IMHO the “powers that be” were split between:
— Congress (who wanted to cut the budget)
— Pentagon (who had to look at ever-shrinking budgets , the threats that they would likely face, and what it would take to face them)