LRIP10 fly away F-35B cost assessed by Uk mindef : 123 millions $ each .
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/defence-committee/unclear-for-takeoff-f35-procurement/written/74078.html

MTCR says 500 Kgs payload. coma. Rest is pointless, specially to shout crap such as France betrayed etc. Nothin to do with MTCR. The problem is due to retroactivity of itar regulations (irrrespnsible move).

Why are they evaluating the Eurofighter & F-35A instead of the Super Hornet and F-35C then?

On one hand is the argument that Belgium doesn’t need stealth aircraft because first-day-of-war missions can be carried out by other NATO states. On the other hand, is this idea that a naval fighter contribution from Belgium would be viable, despite the fact that the MN already has 45 Rafales for one 40 kt carrier.

In fact, if Belgium wanted a maritime role for the BAC, the F-35Bs suggested by mrmalaya would make much more sense. At least we know the RN has two 60 kt carriers with only 48 units in immediate planning and could use a Belgium reinforcement. Not that any such thing is really likely.

I agree Vnomad. Remember, i was first to say on this topic it is bull****. But i said it because i did the effort to take my phone.The argument is about Belgium will to participate to coalitions (they are ideed deeply involved in many of them, more than one could expect rom such a small country) and retain their diplomatic influence. The ability to participate early with thanks to a carrier was just noticed to me by some Belgium analysts. I consider it highly improbable, but it is possible that some rench lawmaker etc. pitched the deepness of the proposed partnership that way.

No less no more.

Anything to say Nils?

Foreign countries can most definitely begin asserting greater regulation on their products that end up on US systems. As a reaction, this will likely lead to a very selective use of foreign components in US weapons which will have industrial repercussions for industrial partners involved on these efforts both on loosing out on future contracts for the systems they are already suppliers to but also for securing work on future systems. If this is done systemically, it would essentially push a lot of suppliers out of what is now a > $144 Billion a year market (US DOD Procurement budget ( more if you add FMS)). This could also impact acquisitions when companies based in Europe (Britain and Sweden for example) buy US defense or A&D suppliers to get a foothold in the market.

Thumbs up.

Phone to Dassault communication service. BS.

RE: Hot Bay – No mention in the latest DOT&E report. Remember that they only report problems and not them getting resolved.

Translation : don’t know

RE: AMRAAM ( unable ot use properly AMRAAM) – Where do you get that from?

Last report (reasons are classified)

RE: unable to use IR missile on LBL mode – They are external so why not?

On wingtips ? lol

RE: Competely useless for canada. – Canada, just like all other NATO countries, participates in operations around the world where having a VLO airframe will save lives and ensure mission success.

Canada’s missions will not in any manner require a VLO airframe. Only interesting for “tip of the spear” missions they will not perform.

Chill out Hallo, we might think that you dont like Dave

µI do not like program, lead to absurdity.
(i also do not like the plane because it is simply ugly, but it is not an operational point of view i admit)