From the article linked above. Doesn’t the USAF know which pilots are flying their aircraft to identify them afterwards?:diablo:

By identified, they mean made public. They don’t do that until the next of kin have been notified.

Another source pegs the LRIP IV price at 105-109M per plane.

http://defense-update.com/wp/20101119_f-35-testing.html

It is unclear if the cost includes the engine and radar – typically these items are GFE.

this amount allocates the necessary funding for flight testing, and other developmental activities that may not be necessary in future procurement.

Presumably, they wouldn’t be able to flight test without engines, and seeing as how LM has said that the flyaway cost is in the ~$60-70m range +$35-45m for the testing/development, I’d be very surprised if those costs weren’t included.

I love how when its mentioned that Typhoon could use its PIRATE to identify an F22 at 100km+ (depending on whose figures you go with), its attacked as impossible because its an IRST system, yet the suggestion of F35 providing 360* threat identification using an IRST near instantaneously it is perfectly realistic. ROFL!

Ahh the internet, where we can divide by zero and elephants are larger than the moon!

You do realize EOTS and EODAS are 2 different system right. It’s the EOTS that is the IRST, and the EODAS provides the 360 deg spherical coverage. As for the 100km detection of the F-22, I’m not sure that claim has been independently corroborated as ever having happened, much less detection range figures disputed. Additionally, there’s no context given for the alleged detection(I.e. was it a head on detection, beam, or from the aft. Were afterburners on or off, etc…?)

The EODAS had changed nothing because he was trapped simply. We can agree that a F-35 is not the same easy target as the F-16C, but under the same circumstances nothing had changed the known outcome, to be brought down by an optical guided SAM-6 when passing over an “unvisible” launcher.

I’m gonna have to disagree here-

A- the EODAS very likely would’ve spotted the SAM site prior to launch, possibly allowing for a preemptive strike. It would also let every other friendly asset know the precise whereabouts of the SAM site.
B- Scott O’Grady had little or no warning of the launch, and had no chance to avoid the missile. EODAS would keep the F-35 pilot from being in the same situation, with regards to awareness.
C-if the SAM were optically tracked only, the operator would likely have difficulty maintaining a track, once the F-35 pilot started maneuvering aggressively, with good situational awareness of where the missile was.
D- the SAM operator might be concerned about incoming SDB/JDAMs from a wingman, causing poor tracking.

Not really, because a serious opponent is well aware about the own shortcomings. Just fools will assume that such opponents will allow the USA serveral month to figure out the own IADS as Saddam did f.e. Serbia gave just a small idea, about the difficulty to overcame a real network IADS in short notice.
Targeting works fine over a limited maneuver ground in the open country side with a limited number of system acting to rules and be right there, when the maneuver starts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BL8Vomu0tM

None is shooting back, the B-1B in a strait line flight, when none of the ground targets moved and no own troops were close by. An optimum case to stay polite, but a typical one in war-time looks much different. 😉

When you consider that the USAF, etc.. had to fly lower due to weather, in order to use LGBs, that made them more vulnerable than at higher altitudes and JDAMs, etc… it’s not quite as cut and dry. Now factor in the same scenario, but with a primarily stealthy force, JDAMs, SDBs, JSOW, JASSM, etc… which weren’t available back then. As for the kinds of radars that can detect stealthy planes at long ranges, these aren’t exactly the most mobile systems, that are going to be hiding in woods. If they’re operating, the numerous ESM systems will geo-locate them, and everyone on the network will know their locations, and they’ll likely have JSOW/JASSM/Stormshadow/SCALP/etc… inbound, while EA-18s, EC-130s, etc… create more confusion.

It is funny to say 2D nozzle is steathly, if it is then why F-35 isn’t retenggular nozzle?
If you learn some stealth tech you would know that 2D area of cenction of nozzle is larger than 3D nozzle.

A-the F-35 doesn’t use thrust vectoring, so it wouldn’t benefit as much from the design.
B-the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35
C-the F-35 design was a simpler/less expensive design rather than max signature reduction without regard to expense.

:rolleyes:

Production next year is slated to be 8-12 aiframes.

Ok, 2 more years then.:D

It could be said that due to the lack of computing power, the F-117 was forced to be a night time only aircraft. Once the computing power improved, you could get VLO and fighter performance simultaneously.