Scenario:
Isreal transfers a strike package of unmarked F-16s and F-15s all the way through the Med, down the Atlantic, round Africa, up the Indian Ocean (all with USAF air-to-air refuelling), heading for Diego Garcia about three days before the strike. From there it will strike Iran, again with air-to-air refuelling from USAF. Some minutes before the IAF airstrike hits the Natanz, Arak and Bushir facilities, SLCM from subs will be launched against the Iranian C3 infrastructure. At the same time CNN will air a press conference with Sharon tellinbg about self-defense and declaring the state of national emergency and general mobilisation to defend against possible counter-attacks. Maybe when the first attack wasn’t sufficient, IAF will attack directly through Jordan and Saudi-Arabia.

Problem I see is, nobody can be sure that Natanz, Arak and Bushir are the only facilities, perhaps there is some hollow mountain somewhere, where the real stuff goes on.

See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/facility.htm

A fighter engine starts with the diameter. Everything else follows. And the goal is, to get as much thrust out with the lowest SFC possible.

The RB199 is an interesting engine, being three-spooled. In some respect the best engine today, only a little small and too high-bypassed. It’s a pitty the EJ200 wasn’t developed along that path and is a kind of re-visited J101. See – there is Euro-stuff I fancy! Then again, it’s British, not Eurish.

Since the development of the F100 more than 30 years have passed. All the math done on the F100 is very simple, it just uses high-quality (and high-cost) materials. Even the EJ200 and M88 are not designed using todays computer capabilities, since they are already 15 years old. M88-3 is a somewhat different story, it’s an almost completeley new engine, using the same maths as the F119 and F135, only less expensive materials.

Thrust and weight are not connected. Again thrust is a function of compression-ratio (useful limits are already reached, as long as you don’t use a recuperator), turbine temperature limits (all kind of single-chrystal blades and ceramic blades, but there is till considerable room for improvement), mass-flow (which is determined by diameter, but can be greatly enhanced by modern computerized dynamic-flow analyses) and internal losses due to tolerances etc.
Fewer parts are good.
But a high-speed-/low-mass-flow turbojet will never achieve the SFC of a low-speed-/high-mass-flow turbofan. Thermodynamics don’t allow that.

Originally posted by m.ileduets
I think what you intend to say is that these years are -generally speaking- not really good for selecting American fighters, as the ageing Boeing and LM models obviously have a hard time competing against the new “eurocanards”.
Therefore governments should please wait for the JSF to help create and secure American jobs, isn’t it? 😉

As I already said earlier. Politics is a bad advisor when it comes to acquiring military equipment. But in a couple of years the options to choose from would have been broader.

diameter 200mm

Somewhat larger than ASRAAM.

What will our esteemed Bohemians & Moravians do with those Hripens after those 10 years or so that lease deal runs? Buy it? Return it? Scrap it and buy F-35?

NAVSUPPFACDG