LOL, care to explain why today’s F-16s cost 3,5x as much as LRP?

Because today’s F-16 is FAR more capable than the non-BVR, non-SEAD F-16A as originally designed and built. More expensive and capable electronics will jack up the price. Plus, you’re ignoring the fact that the first F-16s were produced around thirty years ago. Are you familiar at all with the term “inflation”?

But military hardware is public/govt spending and as such should follow different scheme – keep jobs at home even at some (reasonably) higher expense/tradeoff.

OK. What Belgian fighter will be filling that requirement then? What Danish fighter? Why should they feel obligated to line the pockets of a European nation over America?

Easily.. They will not bag this deal, anyway, the lobby is too strong. Sooner or later, Boeing will win even if they add a billion or two on top of the price tag 🙂

I don’t know. At this point there has to be a transparent decision and a solid requirement. If NG/Airbus have the best design for that requirement they’ll have to pick it now. Same goes for the Boeing design.

No. If a nation wants to be free in its major decisions, it can stay neutral like Switzerland, I have nothing against that.

Why can’t a nation be free to chose what it wishes?

EU nations should put strong emphasis in acquiring European designs.

So this is about the EU and not about Europe then. An EU nation should, in your mind, adopt regionally isolationist purchasing practices? What about the F-4 or F-16? Lots of European nations bought those when there were other options available. They compete with themselves as well with Gripen, EF-2000, and Rafale, should only one European fighter be offered to all nations? I don’t buy it, each individual sovereign nation should be free to buy whatever it wants to from whoever it wishes.

That being said, none of them really need what the F-35 offers anyway. But if they want to buy it, they’re well within their right to do so and should feel perfectly fine about it. Britain being against it I could understand, as they have an industry capable of making their own aircraft, but what about Belgium or Denmark or other nations lacking a modern fighter design capability? Why should they be limited to buying from someone based purely on geography?

Finally, when US NAVY orders new aircraft, it’s not about free competition, either. Rafale would never get an order from the US.. even if it was decisively better than Super Hornet, it would never be considered as an option. That would be a correct approach for EU, as well.

Rafale would damn well not be considered an option as a major US fighter aircraft. It has nothing to do with the aircraft, it has to do with the supplier’s penchant for selling weapons to anybody with cash, i.e. potential adversaries. Who wants their enemy to have full access to the technology they’re relying on?

I don’t think EU members in need for VTOL (read UK, Italy and Spain) would ever consider Russian design.

But it is a European solution, or do you not consider Russia part of Europe? They’d disagree with that sentiment to a degree! Although I guess admitting that the Yak-41 is a fine replacement for the Harrier would force someone to admit that the An-70 would have been fine for the requirement being filled at some point by the A.400, and probably a lot cheaper (and earlier) :diablo:

Israeli request for installation of their own systems was rejected.. But you are right, it’s you who would pay for it, most likely indirectly.

But integrating new systems would result in a more expensive aircraft for that nation, that’s the point. This is partly why there cannot be a set fixed price across the board.

I share the opinion about selling Lightning to Israel with you. Israel is hardly better for you than a dog who serves you no purpose, costs you a fortune, annoys your neighbors with uninterrupted barking and howling and drops a few on your new carpet and bites you into the foot or hand every now and then. Why do you keep feeding it is beyond me.. :confused:

Trust me, get me into the White House, and American pandering of Israel, both in our direct relations and in the farsical UN, would cease entirely. It serves no purpose whatsoever and we are harmed by the relationship in multiple ways, getting nothing in return for our troubles.

Err whats the purpose of the “Buy American” legislation

That bit in the stimulus thing only deals with money spent from the stimulus package on infrastructure and public works projects. The bill is basically saying that if you take the money for public works or infrastructure projects, you have to use it to buy American materials and whatnot to carry those projects out. This is not a new policy and does not affect any spending outside of the stimulus package.

And yes, the stimulus package is about the most retarded thing this nation has come up with in the last decade.

My favorite aviation-related films are Firefox (don’t mind Steve, he seems to be against any film made after 1979 😀 ) and The Tuskegee Airmen. The latter is probably, in my opinion, one of the best aviation-related films ever made. Sure, it’s not completely accurate, but it does a great job telling the story of a group of men who were arguably the greatest fighter pilots this planet has ever seen.

Other films? Iron Eagle is a complete farce but it is at least enjoyable, The Sum Of All Fears is a horrible film adaptation of Clancy’s book but the Backfire scenes are great, and The Battle of Midway has questionable filler storylines and not out of the world acting but is a good movie overall. Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun is a pretty enjoyable aviation-related film as well. D.A.R.Y.L was typical ’80’s less than stellar family-oriented sci-fi but it did have an SR-71.

If you don’t know the answer to that question then you have no idea why a lot of US programs do increase in cost over the last 10-15 years or so. The price of a lot of the materials employed in their construction has gone up due to issues within those industries here in the US, and the price of labor is constantly increasing as well due to issues with the idiot unions. If the material cost increases, and the labor cost increases, how is that Lockheed’s fault? Do they control the trade unions and the steel industry? If so, they must be the real illuminati that all of the nutjobs at ATS believe in.

Irrelevant. American fighters should be banned as an option for European air forces, except cases where European don’t have an equivalent (VTOL F-35 comes into my mind)

So Airbus should be banned from the US tanker deal too then? Any nation should be free to order whatever the hell they want. If Belgium or Denmark or whoever decides that they want an F-35 instead of an EF-2000, they should be free to go that route.

Europe does have an F-35B equivalent program, by the way (assuming you are ignoring any LO requirement at all for any of the variants, otherwise there is still no equivalent). It was called the Yak-41 and could be resurrected in one of the more modern forms Yakovlev was researching when it was axed.

And has anyone considered that an Israeli F-35 (still think it’s stupid to sell them to Israel, but whatever) would have Israeli systems? Just who do you think is going to foot the bill for integrating those systems? That’ll jack up the price of any Israeli JSF.

Err Guys!!! The congressional Cap stayed the same ie. the $$$ figure, it was the price increases of the F-22 that made only 183 affordable instead of the 295 when the cap was introduced, if that isn’t LM’s fault then who’s fault is it?

Apples and more expensive Apples

C’mon take those LM blinkers off, and smell the roses.

So you’re saying that any price increase only has to do with Lockheed Martin and nothing to do with any outside factors, then?

What a shock. The Gripen is already developed and in production, no wonder Saab has a firm pricetag available. If the US economy continues to tank, you can bet that’ll affect things as well on LockMart’s end.