In a perfect world the USA would have something like the

>>34909597
They have. Since 1978

What is the F16?

The problem with the F-35 is that it will lead with a further reduction of aircraft in service.

A Gripen with its design goals for cost efficiency and long service life while deploying modern aerodynamics of a delta-canard design and electronics, would be an update to the F-1X fighters without a reduction of avaiable combat aircraft.

>>34909617

>>34909597

I'm not sure the gripen was designed to be marketed to countries like the US at all. I don't see the point of buying any.

>>34909647
I didn't say that the USA with a large aerospace industry should buy foreign aircraft but should have an aircraft like the Gripen.

File: F-16e_block60.jpg (804KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1280x1024px

>>34909640
Inferior

And the recent Block 60 is an expensive mess.

>>34909654
If it's like the gripen we might as well be talking about the gripen. I think our early F series are holding up and handling the job fine. it seems to me like Gripens are made for poorer countries, most likely on the big size, that only have a few interceptors. All we have going for us on that list is that we're big.

>>34909681
It would be the perfect fighter for a low-high mix

File: AA_19710813_ADF_Config_772_inboard_1267828237_5922.jpg (429KB, 2400x877px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 2400x877px

>>34909597

Only uses US could have on Gripen would be aggressor use and test pilot training, dozen or bit more aircraft. Gripen is designed quite heavily around Swedish late cold war doctrine, it has mostly similar performance as F-16 while being lighter at cost of payload and range, better in some aspects due to more advanced basic design with significantly lower operating costs.

Well, many of the crucial subsystems are provided by American companies, so the Gripen is already pretty close at a modern American low fighter with exploits the research in aerodynamics of the late 70s/80.

Though the USA had always the fetish for subsonic optimized twintail designs.

>>34909666
but Satan trips thats what the buyers asked for, the USAF doesn't fly the Block 60. Most countries with F16s fly Block 50/52

>>34909693
I'm not so sure, I think you just want that to be the case.

>>34909718
US also apparently hates canards and delta wings, which is good because they're ugly. They make my FREEDOM boner go soft.

File: A-29-Super-Tucano-do-Programa-LAS-destinado-ao-Afeganistão.jpg (454KB, 1632x1063px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1632x1063px

>>34909779

I imagine the butthurt when this wins the OAX.

>>34909797
Ever since the T-100 is out, this is going to be comedy gold. And I really doubt that they will pick the Scorpion.

File: F-16XL.jpg (799KB, 3039x2430px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 3039x2430px

>>34909779
Not a fan huh?

>>34909853

Scorpion besides being shiny and kewl looking, he barely fits the requirements.

Unless he gets Lobby'd into victory, it won't win.

>>34909853
As long as they don't pick the Super Taco

>>34909883
Super Taco would still be improvement over Super Texan

>>34909853
Aren't we getting OA-X and T-X mixed up here? Or am I just missing a lot of shit?

>>34909926
T-100 was participating in both.

>cheap
>can start and land on everything
>modern electronics
>AESA and IRST
>supercruise with a meaningful combat load
>even quite competive in the air superiorty role with the new Meteor missiles

>>34909926

T-X was for the FMS contract.

OAX is for USAF.

>>34909597
Americans are stubborn and always want to make their own shit guns.

>M14 instead of FAL
>M60 insteand of Mag58
>nigga u gay

>F-22 is a garage queen
>F-35 is expensive which will lead of a shrinking combat fleet
>F-1X at their designs limits which will see the short stick against modern fighters

It's like the USA aren't even trying anymore and want to give up the ball on China.

>>34909974

The problem really is the overtech and overengineering. Why not make shit simple but modern like the Russians do?

>>34909996
Because the USA doesn't want deathtraps.

Western shit is more expensive not just because of the military complex.

>>34909974
>F35 is expensive
this meme needs to die

>>34910021

You can build simpler stuff without being a deathtrap you know.

All this overtech shit it's just to fill Lobbysts and politicians pockets.

>>34909597
F.
20.
TIGERSHARK

File: two_boeing_tx_first_flight_960x600.jpg (91KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x600px

>>34909779
They didn't make F-16 delta-canard in 70's because they didn't fully trust digital fly-by-wire system to handle extremely unstable designs.

>>34909853
>Ever since the T-100 is out, this is going to be comedy gold.
Trainer is now COIN plane.

>>34909939
Only plane proposed for both is Textron Scorpion and for T-X it would have been radically redesigned.

File: NUCboQ2.gif (1MB, 624x278px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 624x278px

>>34910194
There is a reason why Russian shit underperforms everytime there is a conflict.
And everytime China does their own thing it doesn't look like Russian stuff.

>>34909996

You have fallen for a History Channel meme.

File: 31810952626_31176dd00b_z.jpg (22KB, 569x474px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 569x474px

>>34910223
>They didn't make F-16 delta-canard in 70's because they didn't fully trust digital fly-by-wire system to handle extremely unstable designs.

They were even unable to do that 20 years later.

File: F16 v MiG29 engines.png (172KB, 772x359px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 772x359px

>>34910194
Don't Russian planes end up being more expensive lifetime because their engines are designed to be completely ruined then replaced, while Western engines have long lifetimes due to being rebuilt instead of replaced?

>>34910241
>China
>have an own dedicated delta-canard aerospace company

My old aerodyanmics prof, who worked on all European delta-canard designs, would have love that.

>>34910303
If you look at your own infographic you'll see the Russian engines getting as many lifetime rebuilds as the western one, the engines just need them more frequently, and then runs out of lifespan much faster.

File: F-X_2013_01.jpg (240KB, 800x505px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 800x505px

>>34910253
>They were even unable to do that 20 years later.

Different problem 20 with JSF. This time they couldn't figure out how to have canards without completely screwing up very low observable design.