Lets not kid ourselves. All of that is also true for the F-16. We may need to integrate some non-source munitions and swap out the IFF/comms but aside from that there are no modifications intended or indeed necessary for it to operate in IAF colours. It isn't very different from the F-35 in that respect - though much less significant politically.brar_w wrote:The F-35 as a program is not really designed to be competitive in terms of cost under an FMS MII like concept with progressive increase in MII with growing orders. It is really designed for a NATO setup and outside of Israel there is a limited customization ability given the closely linked software-hardware architecture on the platform.
Its quite simple - the F-35 offers far far better better value for the dollar, and can be assembled in a similar setup as what's envisioned for the F-16. The MII for the most part consists of assembling the aircraft from kits. And if selling it to India is a political problem for the US (most public discourse suggests that that's not the case but for the sake of argument) then India certainly should not be responding to that lack of commitment by gifting them a $15 bn contract. The current choice (F-16 v Gripen) is akin to deciding which of your own feet you should shoot.
Except that, unlike Israel, our threats are not distinct from those being addressed at Eglin. Or rather they are a subset of the ones the US is focused on. We have two threats - China & Pakistan (with the latter being equipped with predominantly Chinese equipment). Period. Everyone else is of only marginal concern, at best.brar_w wrote:Downside being that you still need the program labs at Eglin if you want to program your own threats into the library.