MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • JSF F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 24 11.8%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 160 78.8%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 6 3.0%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • SH F-18

    Votes: 9 4.4%
  • F-15EX

    Votes: 2 1.0%

  • Total voters
    203

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
2,075
905
France
a) The Finnish competition should settle that as long as both jets get shortlisted.

b) Nah. The air force don't need it.

c) The Russians follow the evolutionary approach while the Americans have designed the F-35 using the big bang approach. A lot of stuff that's taking time on the F-35 was slowly developed by the Russians and introduced over many years on the Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35 before starting work on the Su-57. The Su-57 is also WIP and has taken 15 years to date, with an expected completion date of 20 years. So the Russians will have taken roughly the same amount of time even with their evolutionary approach. Plus the Americans screwed up quite a bit. The Russians haven't screwed up as much. At the very least they are waiting for the completion of the jet's development before placing large orders.
Swiss tender is already an answer so. but no : This kind of tender are biaised, because politic top brass always had the last word. We, french, were very surprised to have plenty rumors from switzerland until 15 days before the official answer that Rafale was choosen and after the Joe Biden visit it changed 180° ....

I have no hope for Finland deal. The game is over : Finland will purchase a piece of the american umbrella, even if it was a Grumman F6 Hellcat.
 

Dawg-69

Member
Feb 23, 2021
116
54
Finland
I have no hope for Finland deal. The game is over : Finland will purchase a piece of the american umbrella, even if it was a Grumman F6 Hellcat.
No no no, don't say so.

Finnish procurement processes often produce huge surprises. Let us consider the process when they were choosing a new naval missile.

The contenders were these: Harpoon from USA, RBS-15 from Sweden, MBDA/France Exocet, and NSM from Norway... plus the Israeli Gabriel.

Then have a look at this older Corporal Frisk article:


HE DOES NOT MENTION THE GABRIEL.

OK then, how do the contestants stack up?

Harpoon - American.
RBS-15 - this was the previous Finnish Navy missile, and the older version is still in use on some ships and as a shore-launched weapon, until Gabriel replaces everything; now this was the OBVIOUS choice to most people. RBS-15 is a good quality Swedish missile.
Exocet - the world's most famous anti-ship missile
NSM - a high-tech missile from Norway, and the missile chosen by US Marines, US Navy etc. etc. Another NORDIC option.
Gabriel - a new, completely obscure version of the Israeli anti-ship missiles. LAST AND LEAST in everybody's mind.

Just like with Rafale, Corporal Frisk ignored the Gabriel missile. And which missile won - it was Gabriel from Israel.

I tell you, it can still be ANY ONE of the five planes in HX. Of course it could still also be Typhoon or Gripen. Or F-35 or F-18. But soon we shall now.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
No no no, don't say so.

Finnish procurement processes often produce huge surprises. Let us consider the process when they were choosing a new naval missile.

The contenders were these: Harpoon from USA, RBS-15 from Sweden, MBDA/France Exocet, and NSM from Norway... plus the Israeli Gabriel.

Then have a look at this older Corporal Frisk article:


HE DOES NOT MENTION THE GABRIEL.

OK then, how do the contestants stack up?

Harpoon - American.
RBS-15 - this was the previous Finnish Navy missile, and the older version is still in use on some ships and as a shore-launched weapon, until Gabriel replaces everything; now this was the OBVIOUS choice to most people. RBS-15 is a good quality Swedish missile.
Exocet - the world's most famous anti-ship missile
NSM - a high-tech missile from Norway, and the missile chosen by US Marines, US Navy etc. etc. Another NORDIC option.
Gabriel - a new, completely obscure version of the Israeli anti-ship missiles. LAST AND LEAST in everybody's mind.

Just like with Rafale, Corporal Frisk ignored the Gabriel missile. And which missile won - it was Gabriel from Israel.

I tell you, it can still be ANY ONE of the five planes in HX. Of course it could still also be Typhoon or Gripen. Or F-35 or F-18. But soon we shall now.

I'm surprised people thought the other missiles would win. Given the competitors, the only obvious options are the NSM and Gabriel. The other three have not been sufficiently modernised. The Gabriel V is currently the most advanced AShM in the western world. It's at least half a generation ahead compared to the other three.

The Gabriel has significantly superior range, superior electronics, bigger warhead and better price than the other 4 missiles. It wasn't even a competition.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
No no no, don't say so.

Finnish procurement processes often produce huge surprises. Let us consider the process when they were choosing a new naval missile.

The contenders were these: Harpoon from USA, RBS-15 from Sweden, MBDA/France Exocet, and NSM from Norway... plus the Israeli Gabriel.

Then have a look at this older Corporal Frisk article:


HE DOES NOT MENTION THE GABRIEL.

OK then, how do the contestants stack up?

Harpoon - American.
RBS-15 - this was the previous Finnish Navy missile, and the older version is still in use on some ships and as a shore-launched weapon, until Gabriel replaces everything; now this was the OBVIOUS choice to most people. RBS-15 is a good quality Swedish missile.
Exocet - the world's most famous anti-ship missile
NSM - a high-tech missile from Norway, and the missile chosen by US Marines, US Navy etc. etc. Another NORDIC option.
Gabriel - a new, completely obscure version of the Israeli anti-ship missiles. LAST AND LEAST in everybody's mind.

Just like with Rafale, Corporal Frisk ignored the Gabriel missile. And which missile won - it was Gabriel from Israel.

I tell you, it can still be ANY ONE of the five planes in HX. Of course it could still also be Typhoon or Gripen. Or F-35 or F-18. But soon we shall now.

Okay, I read an article he has written on the Gabriel and he's severely underestimated the missile, because he's considered older versions. His estimation of the missile was low enough that he made it inferior to all of the other missiles, when it's the exact opposite. It's actually the subsonic counterpart of the Brahmos. Its only potential direct competitor is the JSM, but it has no ground-launched variant. More like the Gabriel V and JSM have similar capabilities and are complementary. The non-export version of Gabriel could be even more longer ranged.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Swiss tender is already an answer so. but no : This kind of tender are biaised, because politic top brass always had the last word. We, french, were very surprised to have plenty rumors from switzerland until 15 days before the official answer that Rafale was choosen and after the Joe Biden visit it changed 180° ....

I have no hope for Finland deal. The game is over : Finland will purchase a piece of the american umbrella, even if it was a Grumman F6 Hellcat.

I still don't think the Rafale could beat the F-35 in terms of costs, even if the deal was political. The only arguments that you can make here are that the costs could be fake or cannot be achieved.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,676
3,013
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
I still don't think the Rafale could beat the F-35 in terms of costs, even if the deal was political. The only arguments that you can make here are that the costs could be fake or cannot be achieved.
The problem is that Americans are not very committed to their promises.

New fighter jets costing even more

October 25, 2021

Norway’s long-debated new F35 fighter jets from the US are setting off another cost bomb for the new Norwegian government. The latest numbers from the defense ministry suggest they’ll now cost around NOK 90.2 billion, well over even an adjusted and expanded budget that itself was way above initial estimates.


Norway’s new fighter jets started arriving four years ago, but now their costs are soaring once again. PHOTO: Forsvaret/Armée de I’air​
Most of the cost uncertainty and latest feared increase is tied to fluctuations in the value of Norway’s currency. That’s happened before: Norway’s krone has varied from as low as NOK 5.4 to the US dollar, to as much as NOK 11.4 during the period since 2012, when the Norwegian Parliament approved purchase of the jets from US defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

Back then, Norway’s order for 52 jets was expected to cost a total of NOK 42 billion. There was great uncertainty at that time as well, sparking lots of concern and debate over the order before it got the nod. Norway needed to replace its fleet of ageing F16 jets, and the deal went through. It didn’t take long before there was talk, even within the Labour Party-led government at the time that backed the order in 2012, of trimming it from 52 to 46 jets, to save money.

Now Labour is back in government power, and facing the immediate budget bomb reported by newspaper Klassekampen. The paper has written about how the price-tag for the F35 order (which remained at 52 jets) has now soared to more than twice initial estimates.

The NOK 90.2 billion (nearly USD 11 billion) now appearing in documents attached to the state budget proposal for next year has also soared beyond the already-adjusted price tag of NOK 80 billion, which in turn had been raised from an estimated NOK 73 billion in 2017. The fighter jet program has been referred to all along as Norway’s single largest acquisition ever made.

Prices in general are also rising in the post-pandemic period. It’s all led to renewed calls from the Socialist Left party (SV) for an audit of the F35 program and more transparency in how the much higher costs will affect other areas of defense spending. Ingrid Fiskaa, a Member of Parliament and defense spokesperson for SV, told Klassekampen that there’s great uncertainty over how much of next year’s increase in defense spending will have to go towards the fighter jets at the cost of other areas.

Asked how the new Labour-Center government’s new defense minister should address this, Fiskaa called for “more openness” on the actual costs and what options the ministry has. She’s wondering whether some parts of the investment project can be cancelled, adding, though, that the ministry usually replies that contracts have been signed. She won’t rule out retreat opportunities.

“This will continue to be a cost bomb for the military, that seems clear to me,” Fiskaa told Klassekampen. “We need a realistic debate over what this means.”
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
The problem is that Americans are not very committed to their promises.

New fighter jets costing even more

October 25, 2021

Norway’s long-debated new F35 fighter jets from the US are setting off another cost bomb for the new Norwegian government. The latest numbers from the defense ministry suggest they’ll now cost around NOK 90.2 billion, well over even an adjusted and expanded budget that itself was way above initial estimates.


Norway’s new fighter jets started arriving four years ago, but now their costs are soaring once again. PHOTO: Forsvaret/Armée de I’air​

Most of the cost uncertainty and latest feared increase is tied to fluctuations in the value of Norway’s currency. That’s happened before: Norway’s krone has varied from as low as NOK 5.4 to the US dollar, to as much as NOK 11.4 during the period since 2012, when the Norwegian Parliament approved purchase of the jets from US defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

Back then, Norway’s order for 52 jets was expected to cost a total of NOK 42 billion. There was great uncertainty at that time as well, sparking lots of concern and debate over the order before it got the nod. Norway needed to replace its fleet of ageing F16 jets, and the deal went through. It didn’t take long before there was talk, even within the Labour Party-led government at the time that backed the order in 2012, of trimming it from 52 to 46 jets, to save money.

Now Labour is back in government power, and facing the immediate budget bomb reported by newspaper Klassekampen. The paper has written about how the price-tag for the F35 order (which remained at 52 jets) has now soared to more than twice initial estimates.

The NOK 90.2 billion (nearly USD 11 billion) now appearing in documents attached to the state budget proposal for next year has also soared beyond the already-adjusted price tag of NOK 80 billion, which in turn had been raised from an estimated NOK 73 billion in 2017. The fighter jet program has been referred to all along as Norway’s single largest acquisition ever made.

Prices in general are also rising in the post-pandemic period. It’s all led to renewed calls from the Socialist Left party (SV) for an audit of the F35 program and more transparency in how the much higher costs will affect other areas of defense spending. Ingrid Fiskaa, a Member of Parliament and defense spokesperson for SV, told Klassekampen that there’s great uncertainty over how much of next year’s increase in defense spending will have to go towards the fighter jets at the cost of other areas.

Asked how the new Labour-Center government’s new defense minister should address this, Fiskaa called for “more openness” on the actual costs and what options the ministry has. She’s wondering whether some parts of the investment project can be cancelled, adding, though, that the ministry usually replies that contracts have been signed. She won’t rule out retreat opportunities.

“This will continue to be a cost bomb for the military, that seems clear to me,” Fiskaa told Klassekampen. “We need a realistic debate over what this means.”

This is Norway's problem for a weakening krone. This has nothing to do with the F-35. So it doesn't affect countries with strong currencies.

India suffered the same problem during MMRCA, since the rupee weakened from 50 to a dollar to the 60s and later 70s when the time came for signature, which made the deal impossible to sign even if we wanted to. Pretty much all our import programs were affected. The MKI alone ate up a huge chunk of the budget. This is actually why the focus has shifted towards indigenisation in a grand scale now. Which is not an option for Norway.

The question is if the USD rate has changed.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,676
3,013
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
This is Norway's problem for a weakening krone. This has nothing to do with the F-35. So it doesn't affect countries with strong currencies.

India suffered the same problem during MMRCA, since the rupee weakened from 50 to a dollar to the 60s and later 70s when the time came for signature, which made the deal impossible to sign even if we wanted to. Pretty much all our import programs were affected. The MKI alone ate up a huge chunk of the budget. This is actually why the focus has shifted towards indigenisation in a grand scale now. Which is not an option for Norway.

The question is if the USD rate has changed.
Exchange rate effects exist and can be calculated:

The Norwegian krone was at 11.4 US dollars when the contract was at 42 billion kroner, it is now at 8.35 which should give a contract at 57.34 billion kroner. Everything else is another matter.....

Between the signing and now there is an extra 48 billion crowns (42 -->90 +114% not bad!).

I have shown that the exchange rate effects represent about 15 billion (1/3), so the remaining two thirds must be explained. After that we have no certainty about the cause of the extra cost, but personally I would put a coin on an underestimation of maintenance costs at the time of signing.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Exchange rate effects exist and can be calculated:

The Norwegian krone was at 11.4 US dollars when the contract was at 42 billion kroner, it is now at 8.35 which should give a contract at 57.34 billion kroner. Everything else is another matter.....

If the contract's krone value has changed from 42B to 57 or 90, that's Norway's problem, not the F-35's problem. The Norwegians need to fix their economy. If they see a significant strengthening of the krone by two times, then 42B krone can become 21B.

If INR gains from 74 to 37, then India will become a $6T economy. If the exchange rate reduced by half, then our 60k crore Rafale contract would have been 30k crore instead, we could have bought 72 Rafales for 60k crore. This has nothing to do with the F-35 or Rafale.

So Norway signed a deal for $11.2B for 52 F-35s in 2008 when the krone was 5.xx to a dollar. So the price should have been 55+B krone at the time. Now it's 8.35, that's 93.5B krone. Yeah, that's Norway's headache.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,676
3,013
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
If the contract's krone value has changed from 42B to 57 or 90, that's Norway's problem, not the F-35's problem. The Norwegians need to fix their economy. If they see a significant strengthening of the krone by two times, then 42B krone can become 21B.

If INR gains from 74 to 37, then India will become a $6T economy. If the exchange rate reduced by half, then our 60k crore Rafale contract would have been 30k crore instead, we could have bought 72 Rafales for 60k crore. This has nothing to do with the F-35 or Rafale.

So Norway signed a deal for $11.2B for 52 F-35s in 2008 when the krone was 5.xx to a dollar. So the price should have been 55+B krone at the time. Now it's 8.35, that's 93.5B krone. Yeah, that's Norway's headache.
Yes I was wrong in the exchange rates! So let's start again:

  • Original rate: in 2012 1 NOK = 0.17$ so 42 billion NOK is about 7.3 billion dollars
  • Current rate: 1 NOK = $0.12 so 90 billion NOK is about 10.8 billion dollars.
10.8/7.3 = 1.48 48% drift is not bad.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Yes I was wrong in the exchange rates! So let's start again:

  • Original rate: in 2012 1 NOK = 0.17$ so 42 billion NOK is about 7.3 billion dollars
  • Current rate: 1 NOK = $0.12 so 90 billion NOK is about 10.8 billion dollars.
10.8/7.3 = 1.48 48% drift is not bad.

Norway purchased 52 F-35As through an FMS programme for $11.2 billion in 2008, with deliveries to the Royal Norwegian Air Force scheduled between 2015 and 2024.

Not so sure about 7.3B in 2012. Maybe it involves a different set of costs.

The current rate of 10.8B is very close to 11.2B. So there's been no change in the USD contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,676
3,013
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
Norway’s JSF Price Tag is $3.2 Billion and Rising

(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published Dec. 6, 2008)

By Giovanni de Briganti

PARIS --- Norway did not obtain a firm price from Lockheed Martin for the Joint Strike Fighter, and the price it was quoted will change substantially before the contract is signed in 2014, Norwegian government and industry officials say.

Price information provided by these officials paints a quite different picture from that provided by initial media reports, and illustrates many apparent inconsistencies.

For example, the $2.57 billion figure widely quoted as the cost of the 48 aircraft is wrong because it is based on the wrong exchange rate. Maj. Jarle Ramskjaer, head of information for the Norway’s Project Future Combat Aircraft Capability office, told defense-aerospace.com Dec. 2 that Lockheed Martin’s price is based on a January 2008 exchange rate.

Using this rate (5.5 Norwegian kroner to the dollar), the JSF’s 18 billion kroner cost works out to $3.27 billion, or $68.12 million per aircraft, substantially higher than the $54 million (wrongly based on Nov. 2008 exchange rates) unit price that was widely reported.

Asked to clarify how Norway had computed the JSF price, Ramskjaer said in a Dec. 5 e-mail that “Conversion between NOK and USD is somewhat more complex than multiplying with the exchange rate. The net present value is then derivated as follows: First, we periodize expenses according to the payment plan and adjust for the escalation indices. Then we create a “currency future” based on the money marked interest rates in the two currencies, as advised by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance. Those “currency futures” are then used for each period, converting foreign currencies to NOK. Last, we discount with a factor to get real time yearly cost.”

Additionally, Norway has calculated that the life-cycle cost for 48 JSF will total 145 billion Norwegian kroner (or $26.3 billion at January 2008 exchange rates) over 30 years, Ramskjaer said. This is also substantially higher than previously reported.

The $3.27 billion price tag is also incomplete. It covers “48 fly-away aircraft (Unit Recurring Flyaway, or URF, price) including Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) but not weapons or spares,” Ramskjaer said. In addition, the agreement with Lockheed Martin includes “an escalation clause to update the price at the delivery of the aircraft (when payments are due). We have based our estimates on historical development of the indices, and future predictions”, he added.

“Cost information provided to Norway in response to a Request for Binding information in April 2008 was a ‘budgetary estimate’ in 2008 US dollars,” Lockheed Martin JSF spokesman John Kent said in a Dec. 4 e-mail. The cost “includes aircraft Unit Recurring Fly-away cost plus Ancillary Mission Equipment, e.g., fuel tanks, weapon pylons, safety pins, weapons racks, etc.”

When these factors are added to the basic price, Norway will end up paying substantially more for its 48 JSFs. And, as the price is quoted in dollars, currency fluctuations over the next six years will substantially affect the final price in Norwegian kroner.

“We do not understand how the Norwegians came to the figures that they presented,” Lasse Jansson, a spokesman for Gripen International, said in a Dec. 5 e-mail. He added that officials from Gripen parent company Saab AB and the Swedish Defence Matériel Agency, FMV, had been debriefed by Norwegian officials on Dec. 4, and that “we are now trying to sort out if what we got out of that meeting made things [any] clearer to us.”

Norway has made provisions for other cost variations, such as “future growth (material and labor) indices, currency terms, net present value of the future investment etc, all which has been calculated according to Ministry of Finance directions,” Ramskjaer said.

Given these uncertainties regarding prices, and the fact that the contract will not be signed until 2014, today's Norwegian JSF price figures are pretty meaningless. It is thus difficult to understand how Norway’s Parliament can usefully debate the proposed JSF acquisition during the debate it has scheduled for Dec. 19.

Other prospective JSF customers are no better informed regarding JSF prices. Asked whether he was “any clearer about the unit cost of a Joint Strike Fighter” than during a previous hearing in January 2008, General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue, Britain’s Chief of Defence Materiel, told the House of Commons Defence Committee on November 25, 2008 that “No, I do not think I am, am I?”

Another apparent inconsistency is that Norway’s basic $68.12 million unit price tag is substantially lower than the price the US Air Force expects to pay for the F-35s it plans to order in FY 2013, one year before Norway expects to sign its contract.

According to USAF FY2009 budget documents :
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf
(page 43), the US Air Force’s 48 F-35s planned for FY2013 will cost $4.336 billion, or $90.3 million per aircraft.

When advance procurement costs ($468.8 million) and initial spares ($372.7 million) are added, the USAF’s total bill for the 48 aircraft increases to $ 5.177 billion, or $107.8 million per aircraft, about 57% more than the URF price offered to Norway.

http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/articles/features/tab-05122008.gif


Ramskjaer declined to comment on the price differential with the USAF order, but said that “on a general basis we can say that the learning curve could have an effect on the acquisition cost (low rate initial production vs. mass production). It all depends when the aircraft is ordered, and which block/batch they will [originate] from.” Lockheed’s John Kent referred questions on this subject to the US government JSF Program Office.

Thus, contractual price information will not be refined until the contract is signed in 2014, and many factors can change substantially over those six years. Ramskjaer says, for example, that Norway did not receive, nor did it expect, a firm price at this stage, and that contractual prices, escalation clauses and penalty clauses for late delivery “will be addressed in the [2014] contract.”

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.43399338.1228924155.M7jrJH8AAAEAABII1HkAAAAG&cat=5&prod=100347&modele=feature
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Bon Plan

Dawg-69

Member
Feb 23, 2021
116
54
Finland
It could be a strong point for Rafale in HX that the deal is done in Euros. Both Finland and France use the Euro.

All other sellers have a different currency. Like this:

F-18, F-35: US dollar
Gripen: Swedish Krone
Typhoon: British Pounds
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herciv

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
It could be a strong point for Rafale in HX that the deal is done in Euros. Both Finland and France use the Euro.

All other sellers have a different currency. Like this:

F-18, F-35: US dollar
Gripen: Swedish Krone
Typhoon: British Pounds

That's not gonna matter. The deal will be pegged to just one currency and all other currencies will be converted to it. So the exachange rate benefits will transfer over to the new currency in any case.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,676
3,013
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
That's not gonna matter. The deal will be pegged to just one currency and all other currencies will be converted to it. So the exachange rate benefits will transfer over to the new currency in any case.
This is only of minor importance: for the Rafale the Finns will not need to pay a currency hedge if they want to be sure not to have any bad surprises in this area.
 

Herciv

Active member
Nov 30, 2017
148
148
FRANCE
Don't think it's gonna matter. Once the shortlist is done, the competition is based on tech specs anyway.
Not only. It is very much more base on the relation with Nato. Finland just said no to belong to nato. And I think that a good price for F-35 was attached to this belonging.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Not only. It is very much more base on the relation with Nato. Finland just said no to belong to nato. And I think that a good price for F-35 was attached to this belonging.

That shouldn't matter. As far as the US is concerned, "if Russia is your enemy, you should be flying the F-35".

What's special about the F-35 is unlike all other US jets, the F-35 is a one-man army. It doesn't require the assistance of support aircraft for intelligence gathering and EW. So it's pretty much the best option for non-NATO countries for interoperability with NATO.
 

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
1,212
834
Delhi
That shouldn't matter. As far as the US is concerned, "if Russia is your enemy, you should be flying the F-35".

What's special about the F-35 is unlike all other US jets, the F-35 is a one-man army. It doesn't require the assistance of support aircraft for intelligence gathering and EW. So it's pretty much the best option for non-NATO countries for interoperability with NATO.
The problem is f-35 brings more American oversight than being in an actual treaty alliance with America.