In other news: Ukraine returns to the idea of Swedish JAS-39 licence production

http://info-news.eu/ukraine-returns-to-the-idea-of-swedish-jas-39-licence-production/

Thoughts on this?..

Cheaper and better than whatever they have now. Unfortunately thr Russians have already taken most of the Ukrainian industry, killed all gas contracts and will continue to destabilize Ukraine until there is a pro Russian regime and thus there will be no deal.

In the end it would only mean that Putin will get Gripens for cheap.

I think we need to clarify what WVR is here. I wouldn’t class a rocket launch at 800nm as within Mk1 Eyeball range.

That’s entirely true. The F35 in this case was flying over Quebec while testing out the “not a baseline JSF mode”. Or, if they flipped the video horizontally they where just south of Nasau or North of Cuba depending on how you put it. That is impressive performance!

Potato Head

Please explain, with documentation, why the F-35 simulators are “the best ever built”.

Please produce quotes and evidence that show how the F-35 simulation will provide more effective training than other training systems.

Please explain exactly why and how the F-35’s sensors will be better than contemporary versions of APG-79/Raven, IRST/Litening 4, Spectra &c, without resorting to unverifiable claims about fusion magic.

Please also outline how the operators (particularly outside the US) will be able to access, control and understand the “fusion engine” in the F-35, so that they will not have to tell the Hague that the software black box told them to shoot the school bus.

Describe the means that the F-35 has to record and download sensor data for post-action review (as is built into Litening 4).

Everything is better with the F35 because O’Bryan and hopsalot said so. It’s sort of the same as for the iPhones, all fanboys say they are the best but nobody can say why.

My emphasis in bold. They are mixing units up, one byte is 8 bits, 1 MB/s = 8 mbps.

Obviously 72 MB in 3.5 seconds can’t be >72MB/s, this simply does not compute. In megabytes, the Raytheon numbers would be ~20 MB/s based on the transfer example (and an implied maximum of 34.25MB/s based on the mpbs figure, but that’s secondary as we have no direct quote of this).

So, if the quoted Russian numbers are correct (ie 34 MB/s), they are faster than Raytheon based on the example given by the latter (72MB in 3.5 seconds). But if one considers the Raytheon 274mbps number (again, it doesn’t directly reflect the actual transfer example given, but let’s assume that it’s the important number to look at anyway) then they are just a tad faster (the Russians would clock in at an ever so slightly slower 272mbps based on their example). Then again, if the same difference between optimal speed (burst speed?) and actual volume transferred over a given time were to be observed, then the Russians would potentially be faster again, I guess. It’s a tad confusing, so this is why people should stick to coherent practices.

But – and this is the one major caveat – if the Russians were also talking about megabits from the get go and ALSO messed up the units, then it’s the other way around and they are indeed much slower.

–

There is a simple rule… Higher frequencies give shorter range but more data transfered, lower frequencies give less data but much greater range.

I have a datalink at home that can transfer data at up to 1000Mbps or up to 125MB per second. Unfortunately the range isnt quite suitable for BVR communication.

Yes, its a router with 802.11ac support.

using fuel as a heat sink may cause the unwanted effect of transforming part of the fuel into dead weight
that can not be used for propulsion,
like mig-21 was stuck with part for balance purpose
-less time airborne, -less usable fuel fraction

Using fuel to dump heat is pretty old stuff. It is described pretty well here:

http://books.google.se/books?id=ZTTlAwAAQBAJ&lpg=SA2-PA77&ots=_csIZVpjyY&dq=using%20fuel%20as%20cooling%20radar&hl=sv&pg=SA2-PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false

Oh, did I just prove another of the “only in F35™”-features as being decades old and not unique at all? 😉

Actually I remembered the F-35 will have blue force tracking and it also beams it’s sensor data to the guys on the ground. The next logical step (and I find people always invent these ideas before me) is for the guys on the ground to designate targets directly from the f-35’s own sensor footage. SDB here, 2000lber here, press the fire button. Got more vehicle targets than the f-35 overhead has bombs? just assign them to the other f-35 50miles out carrying 24SDB’s, 24 targets destroyed simultaneously. No need for laser designation with its trimode seeker.

So many things could have been done but in the real world things get more complicated than on the drawing boards. Despite having missiles that can hit a target from 100 miles away in the gulf war a vast majority of the air kills where WVR.

When I was in the army we trained to use lasers, coordinates and IR-light sticks. Unfortunately IR sticks arent that visible, coordinates dont always translate correctly to the artillery/air support and only works on stationary targets, and lasers… well, they only work if there arent many clouds and if the enemy doesnt have laser warning systems/optics that can see the laser. So in the end we actually never used laser designation because the enemy was expected to be able to spot us, we never used IR lights except for marking landing spots for helicopters in the dark and in engagements we used tracers, smoke and flares to mark current enemy positions.

We see a similar thing in the videos. The A-10 can drop laser guided bombs using targeting information from ground troops, it can drop bombs on coordinates and so on… but they used smoke and directions instead. Because it works. The soldier doesnt have to stay exposed while directing the laser at the target, not locking the bombs to specific coordinates gives them freedom to easily renew the targeting information.

That is the difference between reality and theory. In reality the simple stuff survives and the complex stuff gets complicated when one little element in the support chain doesnt work.

Now lets assume that the enemy has semi decent EW-capabilities and the ground troops are emitting their location etc. A simple intercept (without needing to break the crypto, triangulation marks the spot) would give away all ground units positions. And your idea of blue force tracking fails completely.

All those new features will be used at some point, but most of the time we will see simple solutions leading the way. Even when fighting a poorly equipped enemy like the talibans.

Do you mean USMC instead of USN perhaps? The US Navy would probably appreciate having much longer legs, especially for potential deployments against countries with advanced long range anti-ship missiles.

Yes, you can add usmc as well. Royal Navy is the UK, and the F35 would fit the Queen Elisabeth carrier well

Really? You might want to tell all the government and military leaders that it will be useless because they seem to disagree with you.

Once again, “if it could be done cheaper, they would”.

And they are, but just as it did with 4th gen fighters it takes time. Remind me what the Pak FA is expected to cost.