An innocent question from an intrigued observer (and wannabe
):
I do understand the merits of the Block II Super vs older generations, and understand it to be a GREAT all-rounder. But is there a logical reason why the government bypassed the usual tender process? What of the F-15E/I/K??? I realise that others (Euro/Grippen/Su etc) were never gonna get a look in for obvious reasons... but why not the F-15? I would have thought that as far as range/payload/performance capability it would exceed the Super II (standing by to be corrected!). Perhaps apart from AESA, what other advantages would the Super II have over the F-15, being a purpose-built long range fighter/bomber? Slightly newer tech? Costs (either acquisition or operating)? As alluded to earlier, I'm personally not convinced with the notion of "commonality" being responsible for reducing costs, as the baby hornet and Rhino IIs are vastly different.
Is it likely that the Super II was chosen due to being the best deal available on very short notice and that the US have being trying to export them to every man and his dog for the last few years?
Interested in your insights...
