Dumbest statement of the year candidate?

Hmmmmm, who is more credible: a. a Knesset member who apparently has a subscription to AvWeek, or B. Those in the IAF, a thoroughly respected and professional air force, that is claiming they need two squadrons worth of F-35’s?

Good call there Amiga

Dumbest post of the decade favourite right here.

If you think that Israeli intelligence rely on the likes of Aviation Week for all (indeed, any) of their info – then you are absolutely mad and beyond logic.

Aviation Week are named as they are a public source that would lend support to their argument, so that they don’t have to name other sources they wish to remain private. Its how intelligence works.

But, I guess maybe understanding intelligence requires more (of the other kind of) intelligence than some on here have.

Are people stupid? Has no one here learned from the F-35 disaster?

Design and build engines to a common spec, with common interfaces.
Same with radar T/R modules and modular back end/RWR/IRST/FLIR/MAWs/munitions.
Same software language, with common interfaces and with flight control separated from mission specific software.

Then let the airframe be tailored to the task.
Need 2 engines? Select 2 engines.
Need distributed array RWR/MAWs? Then add multiple instances to the airframe.
Need a big radar? Then add more of T/R modules to your plate (or distribute) and more back end processing modules.

Yes, it will never be quite as optimised as a fully bespoke solution; but it should get you >95% of the way there with probably less than 50% of the cost.

Edit: Oh, and Airbus, Lockheed and Boeing are too big. They spend more time on procedure than on actual value-adding work. In excess of 99% of cost is not on things that end up on the airframe.

Yet another instance of Airbus strategic planning f**king it up.

If they’d planned ahead; the A380F would have had a hinged nose and the cargo bay would have been capable of taking such sized items.

Two birds, one stone – and the A380F might just have sold in numbers.

what are the implications for the use of LO aircraft v non-LO aircraft?

Missiles are still using X-band limited power seekers.

But certainly the posturing and positioning before any fight could be affected if localisation is sufficiently good.

Could it be that a radar on Chinese soil really spotted an F-22 over South Korea?

Well, its certainly possible. From Incheon to Weihai is around 400 km, which would be just above the radar horizon for an aircraft at 33 kft.

As has been said many, many, many times before* – make the wavelength large enough and nothing is “invisible”.

*and disregarded by the sheep many many times before too.

Why single out the F-35 for being a compromise?

Because -A and -C are compromised to fit in -B; which adds several further levels of compromising that the others don’t have to do.

how would you make out the difference between an umbrella and an AK-47 at 70k ft ?

The targets are acquired and the weapons guided entirely from the ground.

Interesting chart. So it costs as much as an IL-76, but carries less than half in cargo? We can see why the IL-76 still sells in such numbers and is so popular.

Yes, but that is purchase cost only.

Using those engines, the KC390’s maintenance costs could be incredibly low – a Gripen of the transport world.

The F-35b aboard the LHA are tasked with supporting the marines ashore, that could mean CAS, interdiction, recon. The CVW from a carrier has to provide an umbrella over a task force, AEW, anti-submarine, strike, refueling, etc. with 70 odd aircraft. Simply put, if it is a Marine operation, the F-35B are in operation with the Osprey’s, AH-1 to support the Marines.

So in this environment, the Marines would not get any support from the CVN? Because… just because.

For your question, your going to need an LHA to provide the Aviation assets for a MEU. CVN not the same as LHA different mission, answered that at least twice now.

Semantics. Which seem to have defined a multi-billion dollar program. Beggars belief really.

If the USMC are in a high threat environment where they need the bells and whistles which cost $$$, then there will be CVN standing to in direct support which would have been able to provide the bells and whistles support for $$.

Let’s answer that with a question, how many lives of Marine pilots are you willing to risk against any opposition armed with even rudimentary air defenses?

Every time a pilot steps into a jet there is risk.

Just to note, the scenario would require an F-35B operating off an LHD?

Can you name any instances of USMC operating off LHD in similar environments in the past?

The aircraft is designed to operate in a high threat environment where “stealth” is needed.

EXACTLY!

Yet, for the F-35B, in reality the high threat environment will not exist!

What the RN is buying is power projection.

The same money would have bought power projection over a longer reach from a CTOL based group.