[ossobuco]

> What could explain this sales pipeline, if the F-35 was the boondoggle this article implies it to be?

The overwhelming USA sphere of influence over its "allies". I don't really see a NATO member buying new fighter jets from China or Russia instead without that causing a big ruckus.

[dotancohen]

Sweden sells a really nice NATO-compatible multirole jet.

[euler_angles]

The Gripen is not a dual-capable aircraft, meaning it isn't certified to carry nuclear weapons. This makes it a tough sell to NATO nations who must align themselves to NATO's strategic goals [0], which call for nations to contribute dual-capable aircraft. Nor is the Gripen independent from US supply chains. It uses the General Electric F414-GE-39E engine.

If you're a NATO nation looking for a non-US jet that can satisfy your dual-capable needs, your only option is the Rafale.

[0] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pd...

[dotancohen]

  > The Gripen is not a dual-capable aircraft

I did not realize that, thank you. I simply assumed that with the bomber role came the ability to carry a small (<500 pound) tactical nuke. Is this more of a certification issue or an actual hardware issue?

[euler_angles]

It's mostly a certification issue. There are some hardware changes and integration work that has to be done, but the biggest obstacle is that the certification work is done in and by the US. So there's a diplomatic element.

[dotancohen]

Thank you.

[KoftaBob]

The US isn't the only NATO member that produces fighter jets. EU members of NATO make the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen.

[ossobuco]

There are no F-35 equivalents beside the Russian Su-57 and Chinese J-20, afaik

[euler_angles]

Those are not really F-35 equivalents; they aimed for different points in the design space.

Both Russia and China cannot match the US on very low observable technologies, so they have tried to make the most low observable platform they could and then attempt the air combat problem with different technologies that they ARE good at. The J-20 has doubled down on having very long range, capable air to air missiles, as well as being highly datalinked with other Chinese platforms.

The Russians don't have nearly as good AAMs so they're just trying to be as maneuverable as possible.

I have a much higher opinion of the J-20 than I do the SU-57.

[TiredOfLife]

F-35 actually exists.

[euler_angles]

The J-20 exists in significant numbers, as well. The SU-57 really doesn't.