I read it in one of the Rafale threads in this very forum either Rafale News thread or Rafale for Brazil thread.

I also remember reading that FWIW.

Indeed. If you had a SEAD/DEAD package of 4 F-35s(4 pods per), with these pods loaded with JDRADMs(and assuming they weren’t packed denser than -120Ds), that’d be 80-88 missiles. That would definitely pose a challenge for SAM sites, defending a target. The big question though, is what RCS penalty would be paid? It’s supposed to be a stealthy pod, but whether it’s VLO is still unknown.

260 F-35Cs will give USN twenty strike squadrons (2 strike squadrons for each of the 10 CVNs) with 12 airplanes per squadron, plus an additional 20 airplanes for pilot training at Eglin AFB.

UCLASS is not intended to be an F-35C replacement. It gives the USN something it lost when the RF-8s were retired — the ability perform its own reconnaissance/targeting. For the past 20 years, the USN had to rely upon the NRO and USAF for reconnaissance/targeting data. With UCLASS, the CSG can provide persistent recce within 1500 miles of any ocean while USAF is struggling to find a friendly country with suitable basing for its RQ-4s. Score USN 1, USAF 0.

My guess is that the Navy will be acquiring more than 260 airframes, unless the USMC is getting 420 F-35Bs.

The most frequerntly used argument is “Sweetman hates F-35 so he must be wrong”. 😎 Really impressive reasoning.. 😉

Of course on the flipside, you seem to take the position that any positive news, must have been paid for by LM.

They have presented merely their opinion. Badly written and well paid by LM, on top of that.. Which makes it twice as much waste of time as reading Kopp.

So their experience, and knowledge of the program is irrelevant, or is it a requirement to sell one’s soul to work for/with LM? You still didn’t rebut their statements, with substantive counterpoints, other than your own opinion.

sounds like some kind of chemical/plasma stealth device for me :confused: if it’s true that they can do this, they can make old aircraft really stealthy as wel 😀

If it were that easy, it’d be a lot cheaper to just build Su-35s.

Problem with the position you are now attempting to take ww is that for years the propoganda concerning the program / product has claimed incessently that it will be faster, cheaper and better than anything and everything else; to claim that this should now be ignored when judging the program / product is dis-ingenous at best and dis-honest in other cases.

Many have been pointing out through the course of the program that the claims being made were unrealistic; you and others have constantly argued against this and attempted to ridicule those who were not believers such as yourself.

Now that many of the critisisms have been shown to be accurate you are attempting to claim that it is only what is happening now that is important. :rolleyes:

My position has been consistent. The F-35 will reach IOC later than planned, and cost more too. Those are the only straws that naysayers can grab on to. All positive news, commentary, etc… are dismissed(or called spin), and this is why I referred to those continuous critiques of old news, as irrational. As new data becomes available, one must refine their notions, and that’s just not happening in some circles. So….like I said, when we see an issue that’s going to shift IOC, affect price, affect numbers, or cause KPPs not to be met, I’ll be happy to discuss it honestly.

Ah the old ww, “move along now, nothing to be seen here, nothing happening” ploy. :rolleyes:

You’re still completely missing the point. Issues from 2006 aren’t news, nor are they particularly germaine. I’m interested in how things are going in the present. Unless a new issue arises, that is of such magnitude that it is likely to shift the IOC again, then I see no reason to beat dead horses. If it comes out that the raw performance/systems perform below KPPs, that would also be newsworthy. Another newsworthy topic would be if significant cuts in orders were made.