Those last articles are quite interesting especially the last one. I don’t know how they manage to seem that well informed, but if its true (which would explain the delay the first article reported as well), then all bets are still open…

360,000€ is the total unit cost including R&D for a planed production of 2346 units for France only.
200,000€ is the total unit cost including R&D for a planed production of 4148 units for France only.

Those are simply 2 different global unit cost forecasts depending on the total production but have nothing to do with the “fly away” unit price of an AASM as stated by H_K

Does it also include training, spares etc? If so, the link posted by Jacko says that SPIKE was a bit more expansive for Greece…

The Typhoon was designed with little multirole capability in mind from day one , so no navy version . This is important because nowadays , a Navy fighter MUST be a multirole fighter.

Come on a plane doesn’t have to be carrier capable to be multi-role. I do agree about the Typhoon been more air to air oriented.

I meant available for action, not for training, should have been more precise.

Interesting development there, could mean several things…including the executioners sword is still hanging over the program.

I don’t think the program can be axed, but we’ll see.

I’ll check out the LDPs latter, don’t have the time yet. Which Israeli technologies are being sold to SA? The UAE has selected the Damcles for their M2ks, not for the F-16. That’s a non-issue.

Please do. The UAE would have had no problem asking for a different pod for their Mirage-2000-9 if they felt it was not up to the latest standards.

In bad visibility employment of LGBs is restricted or even prohibited. A GPS guided weapon isn’t prone to weather, but is less accurate and most weapons are currently limited to engage fixed targets. A dual-mode bomb offers both. Unless you are a brain dead monkey some logical thinking and common sense could answer many questions you are asking.

I learned long ago to differentiate subjectivity with objectivity, opinions and facts.

After the initial boost phase the AASM is very much a gravity bomb as well, so according your logic it can “guess a bit better” only too. :rolleyes: Appears you never heard about trajectories, adjusting flight profiles…

The AASM can also use its booster in the terminal phase. Still, in the end the accuracy of the AASM will vary. There is a video on youtube where you can see the AASM laser guidance test. The goal is to make sure the weapon strike as close as possible from where it’s supposed to strike. But no amount of guidance can guarantee 100% accuracy and it’s always a bit of a guess work each time to know for sure what amount of accuracy you’re going to get. Maybe you haven’t heard about “acceptable margin” or “acceptable risks”…

Sure, here goes:

Right off the bat he demonstrates that he does not understand what is generally accepted in the aviation community as a “Fighter Generation”. He also included the F-117 as a fighter, even though (as you said) it is widely known the “F” designation was disinformation and it is only a light bomber.

When talking about generation of aircraft in the USAF and specially about the F-22 and F-35 ancestry everybody including the USAF talk about the F-117 despite it been a strike aircraft only.

Today’s F-35 has demonstrated MUCH more than the ability to “barely” fly. Here is a simplified list:
1. Mach 1.6+ (with fuel and internal warload)
2. Pulled 9.9gs (with fuel and internal warload)
3. Integrated Avionics
4. STOVL ops at sea
5. Cats & Traps (but will need a new hook, coming soon)
6. Night ops without NVGs (has problems but fixes on the way)
7. Limited External Stores
8. Out accelerates chase planes

For a plane that was supposed to be inducted this year and that will be inducted after 2020 instead, it can be said that it barely fly although that exaggeration can be seen as journalistic licence.

He has no concept of AESA or LPI tactics. Ask all the OPFOR guys that have gone up against the F-22 (including the highly ESM capable Growlers) if the F-22 ever showed up like a “flashlight in a dark room”.

Until we know what the exercises were truly about and what were the parameters, we don’t know for sure what transpired. The fact is with AESA becoming standard equipment, it’ll be harder and harder to use LPI effectively against AESA capable ESM, and remain completely stealthy.

Again, no understanding of tactics. If the If you are in a nose-to-nose engagement with the F-35 (or the F-22 for that matter), you will likely show up on his radar or ESM long before you see him in your IRST.

Maybe, but IRST are evolving quite rapidly, and are not to be under-estimated. Detecting a plane doesn’t mean you’re tracking it with a credible Pk.

Fuel and two bombs is the standard warload for most F-16 missions. Why is this a bad thing for the F-35? If need be, those two JDAMs can be traded for 8 SDBs, two JSOWs, two JSMs, two JGBs, etc. The F-35 is about flexibility. If he thinks 2 JDAMs is not enough in a non-permissive environment, what does he think a 4th gen fighter would be able to do in a non-permissive environment?

Only time will tell.

Here again he demonstrated his clear lack of understanding when it comes to RCS shaping an RAM/RAS usage.

Please explain

Not all fusion & datalinks are alike. While some 4th gen assets display sensor tracks from multiple sensors on the same screen, the F-35 takes this to the next level due to the sensors themselves interacting with each other rather than just merging results. This fusion is not confined to a single fighter either. Data is automatically shared and compared from multiple F-35s to analyze & build a tactical picture of the area. On the datalink front, no 4th gen asset has a directional LPI datalink. That means that in order to share data, you have to broadcast a unidirectional “ping” of info that may very well give your position away if your enemy has decent ESM.

All these thing can be easily upgraded on most recent fighters like Typhoon and Gripen and are already available in some degree on the Rafale and F-18SH.

And how many AESA radars are flying in 4th gen assets with LPI, ESM, and jamming capabilities? Notice how he tries to compare a SAR pod to the APG-81?

You don’t understand what he wrote because he’s talking about what the situation is going to be like when the F-35 enter service while you’re trying to compare actual 4th aircraft with promised F-35 characteristics.

EODAS has already demonstrated it’s functionality and has been fused into the F-35’s mission systems. Speaking of data fusion, here again he does not understand (or is just trying to obfuscate) that the pilot does NOT need to “assimilate” the EODAS data as it is fused with all the rest of the F-35’s sensor data and appears on the tactical display.

Which tactical display? The one that does work or the one that doesn’t exist?

There is only two issues with the helmet, and fixes are on the way for both. Just this week there was a presser about those fixes.

LM keep saying those kind of thing, but reality keeps proving them wrong.

Nobody has claimed these as “innovations” on the F-35. While they are newer, internal (as opposed to a pod), etc, they are evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.

LM and the US are.

Um, the F-117 could only carry 2 x2000lb LGB bombs. The F-35 can do that AND two AMRAAMS.

Didn’t the F-117 used GPS guidance only? Anyway, the point is the F-35 isn’t the miracle solution to all problem as it has been described by LM, and other aircraft exist or have existed with very similar capabilities.

Last, but not least, his parting shot.

1. RCS – demonstrated
2. Data Fusion – demonstrated
3. Stealthy datalinks – demonstrated
4. EODAS target detection and tracking – demonstrated
5. LPI AESA A2A and SAR – demonstrated
6. Mach 1.6+ while fully fueled and with an internal warload – demonstrated
7. 9.9gs while fully fueled and with an internal warload – demonstrated

That pretty much covers most of the “5th gen” requirements. Just high AoA, ESM, and sustained Gs left to go.

1. RCS is suspected to have been found lacking in a recent report stating a worrying flaw.
2. Data Fusion has been demonstrated in what capability exactly? Everybody claims data fusion nowadays. The UK MOD estimates the F-35C will be available in 2023 at the earliest. That’s 11 years in the future… ELEVEN !!
3. Same as above, 2023 for the F-35C, 2020 for the F-35B, and just a bit earlier (we hope) for the F-35A.
4. Same as above
5. Same as above
6. I wasn’t aware it was anything special. Beside prototype tend to fly faster than production aircraft so:o…
7. Come back to me when then will start testing external load…

I’ll have to reserve my final appreciation for when I’ve read part 2, but for now I don’t what was said that wasn’t said before.

Maybe you can provide a quote of the parts you didn’t like… (Comparing the strike capability of the F-117 with those of the F-35 isn’t too far stretched since both were intended as strike aircraft. The only difference is that the F-117 got its F to confuse the Soviet Union, while the F-35 got its F in order to rip off the international community…;))

🙂