Have you not seen the OLS system on the MiG-35? They were a hair away from an EODAS system in 2007. You think there will be no improvements for the PAK-FA? Really? You really dont think you are being just a tad intellectually dishonest?

The OLS would be analogous in function to the EOTS, not the EODAS. Certainly the PAK FA will have improvements over the Mig 35, but unsubstantiated claims are nothing more than SWAGs, with regards to specific systems.

Then PAK FA is not stealthy either as it is not ‘confirmed’ :rolleyes:.

Nice strawman. It’s pure speculation, when no announcements have been made regarding this type of system. Like I said earlier, plenty has been said about the other systems. If an EODAS capability was included, one would think that would be more than a footnote somewhere.

Neither do you know that it doesn’t have distributed sensors, all of us are speculating his is as good as yours.

This is devolving into a circular argument. The PAK FA may very well have such a system, but until it is confirmed, then the bigger assumption is an unclaimed capability. The Russians have talked about multiple apertures for radar, including L band, IRST, AI, etc…
I doubt that a DAS-like system would be a state secret.

in a single conflict:
sortie rates mate. sortie rates.

global comitments doesn’t mean parcel out your resources to deal with everyone at same time. USAF is still built to do big battles with big adversaries. so sortie rates matter. which goes back to my original point, Europe better-off in long run to man up and build a 5/6-gen fighter. even initially it is substantially less capable than f-35′ geewiz. optimize for air defense role, and sell them in bulk to whoever got cash.
save industry, save experties. save $$$. rather than to buy F-35 to hual bombs for USAF but find your self couldn’t keep up with PAK-FA on airdefence missions.
europe got good things going. replica was a good program. it’s got good AESA system going compare to r.o.w. good engine research. good missiles, and you would need the same type of tech anyways when you dive full into ucavs anyways.

…
rest of your stuff, imho, is fluff. 😀

Most air forces need multi-role aircraft though, so I am not sure how large of an export market would exist for a strictly air defense fighter. I think research on UCAVs, ISR, and stand off weapons would be a better use of resources, and using the other money to keep the avionics/weapons on the Gen 4.5 aircraft competitive(especially for those not in the market for F-35s). The rest of your argument focuses more on politics, than capabilities.

Nor, greater performance……:eek:

BTW The current GE F136 is going to make 5% more thrust than the P&W F135 from the start. (i.e. 43,000 vs 45,000 lbs +):diablo:

Check out the link I posted in post 23, if you’re worried that the F-135 will be less powerful than the F-136.

may be from life experiences your and mine perspectives are different. that’s all.

What did you find unclear in his statement? Unless he was simply lying, how else can you interpret running away from chase planes, with full internal load, in dry thrust, while they had to use burners? I don’t see any room there for nuance, or semantics.

He is certainly part of the program. and as such he is subjected to all the PR distortion as any other program.
now I am by no means saying he is a lier. I am saying these things are often taken out of context by PR peoples. and PRized.

It wasn’t an LM release though, unless Aviation Week has been bought off too. It was a pretty clear, and unspinnable statement, that he made.

If they have opinions that fly in the face of things that have occurred, and accuse everyone that has anything positive to say, of lying, then I’d say I’m not too far off.
The pilots that are making these comments aren’t your run of the mill fighter jocks, trying to brag about their personal( or squadron) prowess. They have to answer to a number of folks, from engineers to bean counters, who then have to answer to others. With all of the news on setbacks that has come out, I think it’s safe to say that there’s far more transparency than LM would hope for. To then assert that were the plane failing to meet raw performance requirements, or that its avionics didn’t work, etc… and expect this could be kept private, just doesn’t sound reasonable. Obviously, there are kinks that need to be worked out, but I’m just not buying, the everybody’s been bought line.