Derek 2.0

Exactly, Boeing isn't going to increase the St Louis plant capacity for a small order on a dwindling line.

No, he was planning to select the F-35 if reelected.

Not when Boeing is building under 20 a year.

I would be surprised if it were prior to 2020......namely when the new Government has billions of dollars it doesn't have to spend.

Nope.........US Government end-user technology transfer agreements themselves would take years

Indeed.......As I've said, I'd be very surprised if anything is selected prior to the end of this mandate, likewise, if the Government does rush a selection, I'd expect the process to be further bogged down with court challenges.....look no further than the FWSAR saga, and the lawsuits that followed every change of requirements.

My point exactly:

An unarmed Italian Tornado, refueling another unarmed Italian Tornado, does not make a tactical practice........said aircraft of course are apart of the Italian air force trials unit, in partnership with Aermacchi, developing the aerial refueling system for the Italian navies F-35s..........next.

You just provided pictures confirming my point.......thanks.

Other than navies, nobody does it as a tactical practice.......hence my point.

The Gripen NG doesn't have a low price, and would cost more than the F-35 (Per the Norwegian Government) when both were in full-rate production.

Not with one engine it won't........nor costing as much as production F-35A.......nor having ~25-30% US produced content.

In other words, your link doesn't support your point.

You're talking gibberish, as a single Super Hornet with buddy-stores, after landing, then refueling, and taking off again, getting to altitude and then refueling the other two Hornets, won't carry enough fuel in its buddy tanks to refuel both Hornets, to say nothing of the fact, well said Hornet with tanks landed etc, the other two hornets will be apart of the countryside...... Second, your buddy-laden Hornet won't be able to fully refuel a pair of Hornets after take-off, and more fuel will be wasted refueling both aircraft, then gained.......hence why air forces use actual tankers and not other fighters to refuel their aircraft. And no, Arctic operations and naval operations are different, as said arctic bound aircraft take-off from a long runway, versus an aircraft carrier, where there is a requirement, if a full weapons load out is required, to reduce the amount of fuel to save weight on a catapult launch. Likewise, unlike airfields, aircraft landing on carriers, at times, require numerous attempts to land........of course, the USN will now use USAF (or allied) tankers when it can.

Reaching back to reality

So the Hornet isn't carrying buddy-tanks, but it's own external drops, to fly to the FOB.......brilliant, now give this a good think, and ponder why what you propose makes no sense, likewise, why other land based air forces don't operate in such a manner.

No, I expect the three companies to launch their own WTO challenges..........feel free to highlight pass transactions, Boeing or Airbus, made during a WTO dispute process

So your Hornet with the buddy stores flies to the FOB with magic?

Not well they are in court.

Is your Super Hornet loaded with buddy tanks fueled by magic?

Well they will change with this Government.......

Not at all, as Embraer has already taken Bombardier/GoC to court, and all three companies (Embraer/Airbus/Boeing) will take Bombardier/Quebec/Canada to the WTO yet again........Airbus and Boeing have far deeper pockets than Embraer, which its previous battle lasted over 5 years. Do you think Airbus and Boeing will offer attractive off-sets to a Government they are in court with?

The new Government hasn't laid them out yet.

Nearly 1/3 rd more range on internal fuel than the Gripen NG with drop tanks.

Fuel is heavy, and external tanks induce drag......hence your Super Hornet/Rafale with buddy stores will take off, refuel other aircraft, then land and refuel.........