The F-16 and F-18E/F are based on designs over 30 years old.  Sooner or later we have to move forward from that.  LM is keeping the F-16 line going because they realize that not everyone can afford the F-35, or may not be able to buy it.  They're not going to cancel the F-35 entirely because they have this thing they worry about called "profit margin" and this other thing called "brains."

 

 

 

 

 

> The USAF/Navy and MC with more than 2500.

The report says 1440 max, 1170 min for US forces as of September 2009. Your numbers are outdated.

So what?  It also arrived at that magic number for the most part (i.e., for at least the F-35A portion), not by reflecting any change in the programmed buy, but by assuming the same number of dollars available overall as for when the only announced procurement numbers were first announced years ago, but then using that same number of dollars to buy aircraft at their currently estimated prices.  That's no more or less valid than to guess that the number might be any otehr arbitrary number, either higher or lower than 1440 "max" and 1170 "min".  Meanwhile, the actual number scheduled to be bought remains the same, at least for the F-35A and thus the report's number is no more than a guess without any actual facts to support it. 

 

Now in reality it may very well turn out that we buy fewer F-35A after all, which wouldn't bother me because between the F-22 and it, we'll have the most sh!t-hot fighter force in the world and there's no particular reason to believe we really need so many, anyway.  Unlike the crap that some people spew around here, the truth is that if we actually committed to winning, we could mop the Taiwan Strait and the Yellow Sea with the PLAAF/PLANAF and throw back any Chinese invasion of Taiwan or any Japanese islands--including striking mainland target sets if considered necessary to the war effort and approved by the Administration--and do all of that with an extremely lop-sided loss rate in the air.  The biggest cause of casualties to us while trying to achieve that would be far more likely to be from Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles and some torpedoes against our bases/ships, rather than from the Chinese IADS.

 

"http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/articles/communiques/JSF_MARKETANALYSIS_JOBO.pdf"

 

Johan Boeder started publishing about aviation in 1977 as a freelance author at the Dutch newspaper Reformatorisch Dagblad. Later he was involved in publications and reports about the fatal crash of a Belgian C130 Hercules at Eindhoven airport (1996). His publications (june 1997) were helpfull to support the Dutch Hercules Ramp Society  in triggering the Dutch parliament to give renewed attention to what caused this crash. Publications about this subject in which he was involved were published in Telegraaf (13 februari 1998) and
Reformatorisch Dagblad (21 juni 1997).  
 
Since November 2007 he published several times about the Joint Strike Fighter project, the first titled ?JSF Hit by serious design problems? (Defense Aerospace, nov.2007 and Defense Industry Daily USA, dec.2007) and he is the author of several Submissions about
the JSF to the Dutch Parliament.   In February 2008 he published ?When Sukhoi meets JSF in 2020? in Norwegian language in the Norwegian military magazine Officesbladet. In May 2008 he was involved in a briefing about the JSF status to the members of the Dutch
Parliament  ?Train to Venice. JSF, dream of drama??.  In April 2009 he was questioned in the parliamentary JSF hearing of the Dutch Parliament?s Defence Committee amongst several national and international JSF experts. In April 2009 he published an early version of this Market Analysis for members of the Dutch parliament. Also, a separate report,  ?Exploitation cost JSF, more than doubled since
2002?, April 2009, 44 pages, for the Dutch Parliament, Standing Committee of Defence is available.

Tank you, FJV.  Honestly, I was wondering if this was another example like Kopp/APA or any of a thousand "think tanks" in America fulfilling their true role of lobbyists, trying to influence rather than only inform.

 

What should be great to repalace F-16 it's a Gripen NG made by US and Swiden. Not that difficult considering that Gripen it's 40% american already.  Gripen NG it's the real succesor of F-16 as F-22 is the real succesor of the F-15.

If so, why America it's interested in Braizilian Supertucanos?

 

Precisely I think there it's place for small  multirol airplanes, considering today you don't need a lot of boms to do the job, just one GPS bomb and small cross section airplane.

Not all of them, look Ecuador, it's a banana republic interested in gripen NG...

If what you want it's an airplane to sunk carriers go for the Super Hornets.

My pont it's that F-35 it's not good enouht in nathing for the price. It's like the problem with the Nasa, they discovered that the Challenger was too ambitious and they are coming back to single rockets to carrie people to the space, after years of problems and accidents. Some times perfection it's the worst enemy of good.