RAAF C-130H retirement flights

Final flights for C-130H. To be retired 30/11/12 after 34 years of service.

Their replacements have been C-17s.

The new KC-30s also have a useful cargo (45,000kg) and personnel transport capability, in addition to AAR.

What measures did you have in mind? Canted vertical stabilizers? Squared intakes? Pointy nose?

With regard to (the rhomboid) intakes, for example, its the pronounced use of edge alignment (in addition to angling) to minimise the likelihood of reflecting radar waves back to the transmitting aircraft/radar.

Pointy nose???????

Depends on shaping, B-2 is shaped with low rcs in mind, but no agility in mind,
while both F-18 & Gripen are primarily shaped with agility in mind.
With equal shaping, smaller = better in x band

True, but Gripen’s airframe lacks most of the “classic” RCS reduction measures that are apparent on SH.

Non the less, I’m sure the a Super Silent Super bug will be a formidable fighter. I’m just very skeptical to the SH having a smaller signature than one of the smallest fighters with quite a lot of signature-reducing on its record.

Doesn’t the B-2 discount the theory that small size is required for a low RCS?

I wonder how that would be accomplished…
To get to the F35 lever they need totally new air inlets, a totally new radome, new belly section to fit a weapons bay, new wings and tail… heck, they need a new plane.

The Super Hornet doesnt even come close to the Gripen, and yet the same design is supposed to get to F35 levels without major modifications?

Not close to Gripen? In what way? For example; the SH’s inlets were designed to reduce RCS, along with the radar absorbent structure ahead of the compressor blades. As for vertical stabilisers; why would Gripen’s single vertical tail be better than SH’s twin canted tails? Does Gripen have serrated edges on major panels, like landing gear doors? And Gripen still has a good old fashion radar at the front end.

Incorporation of LO was a major design goal for the SH program. Is there any evidence that Sweden had developed and applied comparable, let alone superior, technologies a decade earlier?

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/docs/EF_product.pdf

However, if there is a transparent comparison, it may become difficult to justify a choice if it doesn’t make sense considering the data provided for comparison…

Having the “right” criteria allways helps ;): full multirole capability including maritime strike, proven ability to effectively use modern JDAM type munitions, LO to ensure the ability to operate in future contested air to ground and air to air battlespaces…..

Canadian government seeking alternatives to troubled F-35 fighter jet: sources

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/harper-government-seeking-alternatives-to-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-sources/

Canada’s “National Post” Newspaper reporting the following:

:…OTTAWA – The Conservative government will signal it is serious about buying an alternative to the F-35 fighter jet by asking rival manufacturers about the cost and availability of their planes, according to defence industry sources.

The formal request for information will be issued to rivals like Boeing, which produces the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, asking them what jets are available, and at what cost, if the Canadian government decides to ditch the trouble-plagued F-35 purchase…”

Given the canadian government received a fair bit of criticism for the manner in which it selected the F-35, is this simply a tactical play by them before that procurement is formalised; being simply the means by which they evidence the “correctness” of the original decision to the electorate?

Denmark’s quandary is the same as that facing the NATO. With the USSR gone, its lost its raison d’etre. Now with Russia buying warships from France and co-developing aircraft with Boeing, even that threat has receded. The F-35 makes sense if Denmark wants the option of joining the US in its adventures around the world. In any event, I wonder how vigorously the underlying doctrines are being debated in the Danish local media.

The strategic environment in which Denmark’s current F-16s are operating in vastly different to that envisaged when they were purchased. It will be the same with their replacement. Do you really want to make security decisions based on a best case scenario?