Gripen E wasn’t turned down for being too expensive for a jet fighter. It was rejected for being a jet fighter. The No campaigners in the referendum argued that any money spent on new fighters was too much, because Switzerland didn’t need them. So F-35 would stand no more chance than anything else unless the public mood changes.

I didn’t say the Gripen E was turned down for its unit cost. “Cost grounds” obviously referred to the cost of the entire deal. Which would no doubt be higher if the Rafale were selected second time round.

Also, the cost of the aircraft was a major talking point for the No campaign.

The SwAF Hornets are scheduled for retirement in 2025 but will probably soldier on to 2030. Given that time-frame, only the Gripen E & F-35 are contenders, unless the Swiss public votes to give up fast jet capability altogether.

Rafale most likely will fly in Indian colors — I agree it is an open question whether it will fly in Swiss colors, that was not the point, the point was that the Typhoon will not even enter into the race.

Not really. With the Gripen E having been turned down on cost grounds, its highly unlikely that the (pricier) Rafale will make it through the second time round. And of course, if the F-35 enters the fray, both the EF & Rafale may as well stay home.

It’ll out-do the Gripen E, Rafale, F-16V & J-10C.

The SH will remain a peer.

The F-22 & upgraded F-15E will remain superior. F-35 too is likely to be superior; similar sized aperture but driven by a larger more focused R&D effort (its higher T/R count being a good rough indicator). The J-16, PAK FA & J-20 are dark horses. Larger antennas. Comparable tech level is questionable.

Are you talking about radar performance, or overall?

If you are talking about radar performance I would be surprised if the older SH radar would “remain” a peer to a future Typhoon GaN radar; unless of course the SH is scheduled to get a significant radar upgrade in the near future.

There is no GaN radar in the pipeline. There is a GaAs radar being rolled out with the Kuwaiti models in 2019. And an upgraded variant of the same scheduled for service with the RAF in 2021, which will merely achieve parity with the APG-79 in terms of its functionality.

Nope but it’s pretty obvious that the swash plate is a dead end, as logic dictates that the future will be “smart skin” with 360° multifunction GaN coverage.

Nic

‘Dead end’? Interesting turn of phrase.

If I may borrow the same, I’d like to assert – it’s pretty obvious that 4.5 gen is a dead end, as logic dictates that the future will be “stealth”.

.
.
.

The salient difference of course being that while GaN smart skins are at least a decade away, the F-35 as well as the swashplate E-Scan, are available now.

Should really be… Air Force certifies F-35As delivered in FY-18 will have full operational capability

I will base it on emotions.. Suddenly I get a thing which is flying at least as well as F-18, for someone who just stepped out of a Talon it must still be a hell of a ride.. Then you have all that bling, megacool touch screens and a $400k helmet on your head, how would you think about criticizing? It’s like Star Wars came true..

That in 10 years, Chinese J-20s will eat you for breakfast is your least problem..
Pfffff, Chinks? Do they even make planes?

Can I assume the deflection with sarcasm means you don’t actually have a response to the question?

They do.. but all makes their responses artificial and as such, totally uninteresting for my needs.

Your problem with the PR dept is that its responses are ‘artificial’ & ‘totally uninteresting’…?!! Should their responses have been more gut-based and melodramatic? :confused:

Which part of the FAQs was not factual? (For a moment put aside how it makes you ‘feel’.)

QUESTIONS/CRITICISMS AND RESPONSES:

Q1. Isn’t this aircraft too expensive?

A1. Because of development cost, all aircraft acquisitions are more costly in the beginning. The F-35 costs have dropped steadily since the beginning of the program and will continue to do so. Unit costs have dropped by 57 percent since the procurement of the first production aircraft. A single F-35A with an engine is now $108 million ($4 million lower than previous lot 7 prices) – this trend should continue as we sign lots 9 and 10; we are very close to having an F-35A that costs less than $100M. In 2019, the target is $80M or less per aircraft. That will make the F-35 comparable in cost to any 4th generation fighter. To maintain the steady decline in price per unit, the program of record numbers and advanced procurement contracts need to remain intact.

To maintain our air superiority advantage, it is a national imperative to recapitalize our aging legacy fighter fleet with 5th generation capability that ensures lethality and survivability against emerging high end threats. There are countries developing aircraft and air defenses that will require a robust 5th generation capability— they have the ability to deny us and our allies the freedom to operate. As incredibly as the F-15, F-16 and A-10 aircraft have performed over the past decades, they and their pilots will be severely tested to survive against emerging threats.

Q2. I heard this aircraft can’t dogfight, and it’s not maneuverable. Is that true?

A2. Both operational and developmental testing continues for the F-35. It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. The F-35 is designed to be comparable to current tactical fighters in terms of maneuverability, but the design is optimized for stealth and sensor superiority. News reports on the F-35’s performance against an F-16 was an early look at the F-35’s flight control authority software logic, and not an assessment of its ability in a dogfight situation. Operational test pilots are just beginning to develop the tactics, techniques, and procedures our operational fleet will employ to exploit the F-35’s advantages.

The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting” situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those 4 v 4 encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology. The F-35 has been optimized for the current trends in air warfare, where the enemy is engaged and defeated from long distances.

The F-35 is designed to provide maneuverability comparable to our legacy fighter fleet. Combining this with its inherent low observable survivability, enhanced situational awareness, unmatched mission systems, and advanced weapons payload will allow the F-35 to freely operate in threat environments legacy fighters could not survive.

Q3. I heard this aircraft is constantly behind schedule. True?

A3. The program had some setbacks in the early years, however the program underwent a re-base lining in 2012. Since then, the F-35 Lightning II program has met the timelines of all major milestones. The fleet has flown more than 38,000 flight hours, completed more than 65 percent of its Test Program, trained more than 200 pilots and 1,800 maintainers, and delivered more than 120 jets – including the first seven international aircraft. Of this number, the Air Force is currently flying more than 74 F-35As. These airplanes are flying daily, verifying the aerodynamic and mission systems performance, completing night flights and refueling operations, dropping munitions (in testing), and testing the unique aspects of the three different variants.

Bottom line is that we are flying, testing and maintaining this aircraft daily. We’re capturing and building upon these lessons to ensure a solid foundation that will serve the Air Force for the next 50 years. We are on track for IOC in late 2016.

Q4. This aircraft can’t replace the A-10. Can it really do the CAS mission? It can’t loiter like the A-10 can.

A4. While designed for the precision attack role, one of its missions is close air support. It does not do CAS in the same way as the A-10, which has a great record of being a reliable CAS platform in a low-threat, less intense environment. The F-35 will be able to perform that mission in a more contested environment than the A-10, and will be able to respond much faster, arrive on station sooner with much more situational awareness of the current battlefield situation, allowing faster weapons employment in support of our ground forces.

Q5. Why are we sharing this technology with so many internationals? Aren’t we sharing too much information?

A5. The U.S. typically fights its wars as a coalition, and rarely conducts major military operations unilaterally. We’ve fought in coalitions with our partners throughout modern history, and that will continue into the future. Based on lessons learned from previous air campaigns, we know a common operating system, not only providing interoperability from the start, but also a more lethal and survivable platform – and that is the true measure of success in any fight. The F-35 enables us to fly and fight with common capabilities, tactics, and resources. It is an automatic force-multiplier.

Q6. I heard the helmet is too big and heavy and cumbersome and doesn’t work well. Is that true?

A6. While the current F-35 helmet weighs a little more than legacy helmets with Helmet Mounted Devices, its design is optimized with a better center of gravity. Our pilots report it is actually more comfortable than legacy helmet systems.

The F-35 HMDS provides pilots with unprecedented situational awareness. All the information that pilots need to complete their missions – through all weather, day or night – is projected on the helmet’s visor. Additionally, the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS), streams real-time imagery from six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft to the helmet, allowing pilots to “look through” the airframe.

Q7. The helmet has a price tag of $400,000 per unit. Why is it so expensive, and what does it do?

A7. The unique abilities introduced by the F-35’s helmet are a significant leap forward for the fighter community. While the interface is certainly valuable, the true merit of the helmet is found in its integrated night vision and High Off-Boresight System. The helmet streamlines functions within the cockpit and enables the pilot to wield the significant sensor suite available on the F-35 with ease. The ability to activate night-vision or IR imagery with the press of a button, or to target a ground marker with a turn of the head, is a major advancement that will return precious seconds during combat sorties.

Q8. Is it true the F-35 will be equipped for a nuclear mission? What is the current timeline and/or planfor integrating the F-35A with nuclear weapons?

A8: The F-35A will have the ability to be configured to carry nuclear-capable weapons. For the Air Force, detailed timelines will be built during F-35 Follow-on Development planning. The F-35 program is targeting a configuration for initial release of a dual-capable U.S. Air Force F-35A in late 2021. In addition to integration efforts the program must also accomplish unique weapon certification tasks which will continue into the 2025 timeframe.

Q9: Will the F-35 be able to fly in all weather conditions?

A9: The aircraft will train and operate in both optimal and inclement weather conditions. Only extreme weather conditions will halt operations.

Q10: What is the current mission capable rate of the F-35?

A10: This is the first year the mission capable rate of the F-35 is being tracked and reported. This year’s rate is reported as 67.91% with 59 aircraft at an average age of 1.6 years, which is based on current flight training requirements and may not reflect future mission capable rates. On three separate occasions over the past year, the Air Forces’ F-35A fleet exceeded its mission capable rate of 70 percent, which is extremely impressive for an airframe still in development. Overall, the F-35 mission capable rate is on par or better than the rates experienced by our legacy fleet during their development. This has allowed the Air Force to meet, and in some cases exceed, or operational flying requirements.

Q11: I hear that there is a new weight restriction for the pilots who fly the F-35, and some pilots are now grounded. Is that true?

A11: On 27 August 2015, the U.S. Services restricted F-35 pilots weighing less than 136 pounds from operating the aircraft due to an increased risk of injury that could occur in a low speed ejection. This is an ejection seat issue and is not related to the differences between the Gen II and Gen III helmets. The weight restriction currently affects at least one F-35 pilot. All F-35s use the same Martin Baker US16E ejection seat system. The safety of our pilots is paramount and the F-35 Joint Program Office, Lockheed Martin, and Martin Baker continue to work this issue with the US Services and International Partners to reach a solution as quickly as possible.

Q12. At a press conference a reporter asked the CSAF: “I heard there may be a demonstration or exercise in the future that puts the A-10 directly against the F-35 in demonstrating the ability to perform close air support. Is that true? Is there going to be some head to head demonstration to show what the F-35 can do compared to the A-10?”

A12: The question was not framed in the context of comparison testing in a formal IOT&E program. Testing is the only way to ensure a new weapon system meets the requirements we established. The question was asked in the context of the current budget debate about A-10 divestiture and seemed to refer to a new proposal by an unnamed source to do a “head to head comparison.” Without the proper software configuration and related mission capability, it would make no sense at all to conduct such a test. The reporter was not asking about tests that were part of a broader comparative testing effort included in the comprehensive IOT&E program years from now. We will continue to test the F-35’s capabilities as they come on line. We’re confident the result will validate F-35 mature CAS capabilities before reaching FOC. Any comparison with the F-35 must be part of a more holistic assessment of our CAS enterprise beyond just a fly-off between one aircraft vs another. A comprehensive, formal testing program will ensure we continue to evolve in this critical mission.

Okay. Let me ask a question here –

Let’s assume the manual has not been issued to the PR dept in a fit of pig-headedness. You’re a junior airman recently posted to the dept and tasked with responding to members of the (tax paying) public or media writing/phoning in queries. How do you respond to the questions asked?

That’s a no brainer.. Regardless of the truth I would nothing but praise the aircraft and would be extremely reluctant to share any negative views.. Why risk your career for nothing? It’s not like anything would change, anyway..

:facepalm:

How are you still not getting the point!

I said put yourself in the shoes of a junior airman in the USAF; the obvious implication being get yourself out of the shoes of MSphere who’s spent the last six years discussing military aviation with fellow geeks on an internet forum.

When I ask ‘how do you respond’? I’m putting forth a functional query, not inviting value judgement.

A North Korean official knows much more about their Great Leader than any objective impartial journalist, would you take his “opinion” as a valid one?

Okay. Let me ask a question here –

Let’s assume the manual has not been issued to the PR dept in a fit of pig-headedness. You’re a junior airman recently posted to the dept and tasked with responding to members of the (tax paying) public or media writing/phoning in queries. How do you respond to the questions asked?