If I was Russia I would want F-35s based near my border with a neutral country that has no intention of attacking them. What a great way to get Su-35 and Pak-fa radars onto them from distance in Russia and see how stealthy the F-35 really is. Build up a computer imaging and data base of the planes. Invite a competition against the F-35s, friendly of coarse.

A) The Finnish Air Force doesnt do DACT with the VVS, B) Luneburg lens and/or external tanks, if the USAF experience with fifth generation fighters is an example, QRA near Russia is either done with external tanks or Luneburg lens, or both.

Cheers

I have a quick statement on “published combat radius”

It really depends on the type of mission and loiter times and flight profiles. A published combat radius is not definite of range of aircraft. Ferry range would be the most mean average measurement of aircraft’s definite range. IHS Jane’s seem to get those numbers from research online but what other details are not mentioned. For example Saab throws 1200 km, 1500 km as high as 1800 km for the newer Gripen, it all depends on mission.

For example the F-22 vs F-15, the F-22 when armed with tanks will usually outrange it(routing factors on this chart(probably a lot of it the HLH)removed to get a similar same mission type and flight profile)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249917[/ATTACH]

Pilot also says F-35 has more range than F-15C in normal combat mission. F-35 probably gives the best range of all of the RCAF candidates.

From all the candidates in the RCAF competition the one with the longest range is the French Rafale, thats widely accepted including by LM in their own ppt’s. The flight profiles discussion has been done in this fórum to death.

Really as far as I can tell the whole idea that Saab somehow works miracles originated with a certain now departed magazine editor who seemingly appointed himself Saab’s unpaid[?] chief of marketing.

Might have something to do with having the original Gripen flight test delayed 18 months, sticking two aircrafts into the ground and even after all that delivering the goods with “only” a delay of around two years from what was originaly planned (first delivery delayed from 1993 to 1995), then the upgrade to “C/D” went almost flawlessly. By comparison with virtually everyone else they seem to be pretty decent in terms of delays and costs, the most striking point of comparison would be the HAL LCA, it pretty much started at the same time, with almost the same specifications (BAE even offered the exact same design to HAL and SAAB, the P106B) and the timeline ended up, in, well… you know…

The LRASM program currently is focused on delivering capability to the F-18E/F and the B-1B.

Yes, you are entirely correct. I´ve come to see so many videos of LRASM´s being shot from (CGI) Surface vessel´s that ended up to think of it has a direct replacement for the surface fleet Harpoon´s, wich is not correct.

The Navy has not yet indicated whether it is willing to accept the SM6 as an Increment-2 weapon and it used the Harpoon along with the SM2 that had a similar capability for years as well. The Tomahawk will also get the new seeker to allow it to go after ships. They are clearly aiming for having multiple systems in their inventory that can act as dual role systems and I’m sure the Increment-2 requirements stay as is and the LRASM along with possibly the Tomahawk could both compete along with other weapons.

The idea that i have (might be wrong) about the Standard and the Harpoon being used has Ashm´s at the same time by the US Navy surface fleet was that the first missile being SARH guided, was in practice (against ships) a (relatively) short range, defensive weapon, its range dictated by the iluminators on the Destroyer, wich were blinded by earth´s curvature at medium/long distances, the Harpoon was the long range offensive weapon. Now the SM6 having a radar on its nose doesnt have the problem of having to rely on an external source to iluminate the target, so looking at its size, weight, speed, range, and the massive numbers that an AEGIS Destroyer can carry, it seems (to me) that the surface Ashm mission can (could?) be almost entirely be taken by this chap. But i dont have absolutely no direct experience on ships and Ashm weapons… so, take my opinion with quite a bit of salt…

Cheers

I thank all of you for your understanding and empathy. In truth, some of you have had to put up with far more than me (to what end?).

I will stay on because I was here before most of the angry monkeys and perhaps still have something to say.

There is a lot of shouting in the world at the moment but I’m sure we can still make room for civilised discussion eh?

I´ve just noticed your other post, i´ve also noticed that you´ve singled me out along with Swerve, i really hope that i didnt get into too much of a heated discussion with you (i really dont mind a bit more muscular type of “intelectual argumentation”), because a) i really dont remember doing that and b) i actually think you are a decent chap. So if i´ve crossed the line, sorry about that (but i really dont remember doing it!)

Cheers

Is this table really from Janes?

I am no Tiffie expert but AFAIK its service ceiling is 65,000 feet…. which makes me wonder what else they got wrong?

The max payload, the max speed and the Radius of operation.

i hope they will ditch helos in favor of osprey, have a chat with the indian navy that are in the same dilemma

It would be a fine adition to the RN force, but money… Between T26, T31, Sucessor and the F-35B…

Those are all things the F-15E already has so… the Typhoon would need at least those upgrades just to keep pace.

…and no. The point is not merely that a twin seater Typhoon is more expensive than an F-15E, but that a single seat Typhoon is essentially the same price as a Silent Eagle variant F-15E but doesn’t offer anywhere near the range, carrying capacity, or sensor performance.

If your point is that an evolved single seater Phoon ends up in the same bracket of cost of a Silent Eagle, i agree, that it doesnt have the range or the cargo ability of the Silent eagle i also agree, on the sensor performance, i dont agree, we dont have enough data on it, and it depends on what radar is on the nose of the Eagle, the AN/APG-82 should be impressive.

There just isn’t a scenario where the Typhoon will come out ahead.

If we forget the ATA mission against another fighter aircrafts, a scenario wich for Canada is a very, very, very small part of the sylabus, yes, you are probably right.
In the end, this discussion is on the Academic side of things, the Canadians are not going to buy neither of those two.