Says You. As MSphere says, we either take the word of the parties with vested interests, or we don’t. Anyone wanting to take the word of only one side (i.e You), is clearly not interested in the reality and is more interested in manipulating reality, and therefore connot be considered to be posting facts.

Well if the naysayer crowd wasn’t hypocritical with their crtitiques, their credibility would be much higher. All positive news in their eyes is obviously biased, whereas anything negative must absolutely be the case. Even harsh critics like Carlo Kopp don’t consider the avionics capabilities of the Typhoon/Rafale to be on par with the F-35, and there are plenty of anecdotes from respectable pilots that the plane is nowhere near a sluggish performer. That when combined with the requirements of the customers, and the past production history of the F-22, I don’t doubt that LM knows how to build products that meet the performance requirements(or exceed in the F-22’s case).

When will the USN start to replace the super hornet?

Not before 2025-2030ish timeframe.

I would hardly consider that to be conclusive evidence. The only advantages a Typhoon has are the max speed that it can maintain for a portion of its mission profile, and supersonic agility. It’s inferior in range, survivability, avionics, flexibility in weapons options. It’s not just LM making the claims by the way, so unless the DOD/USAF/USMC/USN are all dubious sources, then your point doesn’t really hold water.

But the F35 is not VLO it is LO, only the F22 is VLO according to LM…no? :dev2: Gosh these semantics games are such fun…:diablo:

Both the F-22 and F-35 are VLO, but nice try. Let’s see some links to LM saying otherwise. Here’s simple little way to educate yourself- >Google>Lockheed Martin F-35 VLO.

The U.S. should as a stop-gap, develop an AMRAAM that has an optical seeker like the AIM-9X or ASRAAM.

Not a dual-mode seeker, just a different variant that has an optical-only seeker.

This, along with the AMRAAMs data-linked ability would be doable, not so expensive, and lethal. This would give aircraft like the Super Slow Hornet Block II (especially when carrying the centerline IRST/fuel tank made by Lockheed that the Navy is getting and will be sensor fused into the Block II Super), much more powerful in BVR and not being at the mercy of jamming of the traditional radar versions. You can put the letter C or D after the AMRAAM but it still needs an “E” version that doesn’t depend on terminal radar guidance. Do this and you will see much more BVR killing force from AMRAAM shooters.

The U.S. fed budget is in trouble. Making an AMRAAM “E” for lack of a better name with an optical only seeker, could be done without drawing attention dollar problems. A mixed volley of C/D and E AMRAAMs would keep us from having an Achilles heel where our BVR eggs are all in one basket with radar only AMRAAMs.

The NCADE variant already adds the seeker from the -9X, and I suspect it could easily be used against fixed wing aircraft as well as TBMs.

@Bluewings- I think that article you posted answered your question on the challenges an ECM system has vs an agile radar, and missile. I found it ironic that you simulataneously praised it, and dismissed the issues it addressed. One reason why AESA radars are the wave of the future is their resistance to jamming techniques(which is why every new fighter design has that as part of their features). As for the missile’s ECCM techniques, you can be assured that the types of filtering methodologies discussed, are part of their bag of tricks. Additionally, when a missile doesn’t go active until the terminal phase, it doesn’t give the DRFM system much time to analyze its waveforms, in order to create deception signals. Then you factor in the missile receiving datalink updates from either the launching fighter(or some third party), along with HOJ, INS/GPS. It all adds up to the situation not being quite as hopeless as you’re trying to frame it. This isn’t to say that there aren’t degradations in performance, but it would be imprudent for a pilot to believe that self protection jammers render missiles completely ineffective.

Spudman :

True .
A F-35 might survive such attack but a F-22 will get shot …

Cheers .

You are aware that the F-22 has 360deg spherical defensive IR coverage as well, right?

A requirement is precisely that. It means that X is the standard that the customer expects. It baffling to me to even discuss whether or not LM knows how to build an aircraft that has no issues reaching M1.6, given its background(especially considering how the F-22 surpassed every raw performance requirement, even at a heavier weight than was originally planned).

I don’t think we can agree on why LM hasn’t flown the aircraft to M1.6, or any number of other parts of the envelope not yet verified. There’s too much riding on the success of the program, considering the amounts invested, to needlessly risk losing airplanes/pilots.