So that solves it. Because the article came from a very tiny Washington based News organization:stupid: and a Washington based journalist, it isn’t ‘balanced’ despite of it offering as evidence the same level of ‘credibility’ that the CDC article mentions. Even the CDC story basically claims that the F-35 selection is quite likely and that the report/decision would be out very soon (even as early as Tuesday).

Thats why i said it is more “balanced”. they present pro and cons…

Point is that configuration is finally impraticable… due to pitch moment when loading is released that cannot be countered without TVC, sry i stand my point on that.

i just mean it is veeeery long process. Same example, first Rafale flew in 1991 and Rafale M was tested on carrier in 1993… First F-35 in? remind me?

“You progressively expand the envelope within which the aircraft can launch and recover,”

Yes, VERY VERY progressively. Sry i couldn’t resist

the problem is also how you compare availabilities. For ex. Some countries will count unavailable for some missions a fighter because a there is no tanker (or pilot) available. Real availability can only be considered during long term war operations, when plane isnt dependant (or shouldn’t) on logistic issues…

Do the different aircrafts above use the same fuel..? What about cost /litre of those? Does anyone here know about cost/liter?

No Gripen C/D use “commercial” fuel. But i think Gripen E should use standard JPsmthing with F-414.

F-35A flew 3i software at Edwards AFB on May 27th
And two F-35s conducted simultaneous live AIM-120 launches in a cooperative targeting mode against two weaving target drones.

Aaaah, a link? Because the story is way different on LM site

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/may/150529ae_f-35-achieves-three-milestones-on-same-day.html

In the Point Mugu Sea Test Range airspace off the Central California coast, an F-35B demonstrated the jet’s air-to-air combat capability when it sequentially engaged two aerial targets with two AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) during a Weapon Delivery Accuracy mission.

Yes, compared with more Sukhois. A future 50%+ of original cost MLU will screw costings up but somewhat but hey, once you’ve fielded that cost, they’ll be cheaper than Sukhois again , won’t they? Good way to feel good about paying much more than you should IMO. Runs can be short, medium or long, I think. To me the most pertinent deal is the long one – it enables your system to work more efficiently: more bangs per buck over x years is generally better than less bangs over x years (unless you are fortunate to have the nowce of the people doing arms procurement who see half as much as could have been achieved without their input as a great triumph).

Sorry, just have a penchant to being realistic in a completely rarified, unrealistic world. No experience in defence me. Never set anything up that cost millions or billions.

Correction: have been involved in defence now and then. That’s why my opinion that it’s run as a comedy is not entirely baseless.

If you are really involved time to time in defence that explains a lot of things…