This is exactly the type of argument no one gives sh!t about. If I am an AF marshall and need to perform a strike on a target which is 700 nm away, I don’t give damn about internal fuel, external fuel and other BS.. I only care about which aircraft I can use and which one I can not..

Sorry no. When the AOC plans the strike mission they care immensely about internal fuel versus external, about the loadout so they can weaponeer to destroy the target. All those factors impact associated tanker assets, EW assets, flight levels and airspace de-confliction etc.

The cost argument would likely favor just buying additional latest block Super Hornets, along with program investment in CFTs and upgrading the engines, given that it is a readiness and economic argument in the short term. Boeing tried to compete with what they claim was a stealthy Super Hornet. They found no takers in either the USN or the export market.

The other thing to note is that USN interest in upgrades to the F414 have almost exclusively centered on longer time between overhaul and not a thrust increase. The GE suggested modifications are either more time on the airframe or increased thrust, not both at the same time.

I understand that the Gripen is already hardened for EMP.

More than just EMP hardening. Irrespective of that, it appears that Sweden has already made that decision.

Sweden had already said it wouldn’t allow the Gripen to carry nuclear weapons

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/182326/belgian-rfp-sets-opens-competition-for-f_16-replacement.html

I would be surprised if Gripen owners would not get enough information to qualify weapons on their own.
The new App based S/W architecture should allow this.

I’m not confident the US would allow B61 integration on the Gripen.

Mmmm, those scenarios (and I agree that they are realistic) look more like 2018 than 2035, from all the “red forces” hardware described in the doc, the only one wich is not (maybe) operational today is the J16, the rest its all in active duty.
One thing that caught my eye was that the first one might has well be called “Putin goes rogue in the Baltics next year”.

Look at the orbats of today, littered with 90s and early 2000 acquisitions. The threat for the DCA scenario were Su-34/35 with suppprt from Su-30, all in production today, expected to serve for the next 30 years and likely to remain the backbone of Russian aviation during that period.

Agree no PAK-FA and no J-20 but I think in a NATO scenario Belgium could rightly expect to those systems would be tackled by other partners.

I also think the SAMs were representative of what we will see in 15-20 years. A few high end systems with a mix of currently in service systems that likely have a few upgrades.

When was the F-16/F15 designed/developed, when did it’s production seize and when will the last one be retired from operational US service?

Not to forget B-52, KC-135 and even the B-2 which will likely push 70+ years of service.

Comparing a WW2 airframe to technological development today is a deeply flawed argument for so many obvious reasons…

I disagree that there are surplus legacy hornets available. There aren’t, if there were the Marines would be actively trying to source them for parts.

The intent would be to source probably RAAF aircraft as they are retired. There are enough RAAF Hornets with time remaining, even in 2020 when they would start to become available, that it is a viable proposition. It would introduce a subfleet but better than an entirely new fleet in the form of the SH.

I didn’t write it. I lifted it from an early report on the Pak Fa. The point was not to get some technical fact right or wrong, but to give an insight into Russian design philosophy. (is the engine wrong or something ? My God !) Here’s the guy who wrote it.

Air Power Australia Editor-in-Chief
Head of Capability and Strategy Research
Carlo Kopp, BE(Hons), MSc, PhD, FLSS, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng

Dr Kopp has consulted to private industry and government organisations, in areas ranging from computer and network performance, to strategy and operational analysis of military systems.

He has been most visible publicly as a defence analyst, since 1980. He has written for Amberley based Defence Today, Canberra based Australian Aviation, Sydney based Asia Pacific Defence Reporter and Defence Review Asia, The Age and Australian Financial Review, the US based Journal of Electronic Defence, the Japan based Diplomat, and the UK based Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, and Air International. He has also provided numerous television and radio interviews in recent years.

His current research interests in the military sciences domain encompass air warfare strategy and doctrine, proliferation of Russian weapons technology, aircraft combat survivability, network centric and information warfare.

Now that is funny! Kopp is about as quality a source as Kermit the frog…