Unfortunately, Avenger is built for the irregular warfare role where the greatest threat is Igla-S, not combat against a sophisticated IADS.

Ah, so thats why they made it stealthy with internal carriage of 6 sdb and added SAR radar. Makes sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qncyuC0sKZY

I think the exact same scenario as we discussed shows up in the video. Only difference is that some Avengers would have been lost (and the same goes for any aircraft flying over S300 and Pantsir systems). So the question remains, would you rather sacrifice drones for the high risc bombings or something that is 10 times more expensive and has a pilot on board?

They also showed a very good use of the F22 (in a similar role as the F35 could be used). But to do that effectively the cruise speed has to be at least supersonic.

Add stealth to allow you to get close and that would be the ticket.

The one drawback for off-board processing is the lack of beyond line of sight bandwidth because Obama canceled TSAT. This limits the number of UAVs that you can use at one time. And if your task is to stop salvos of scuds which are hidden in a million square kilometers of mountainous terrain [100000 sq km for North Korea], you will need more than a handful of UAVs.

Here you go: http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/04/23/predator_c_avenger_full.jpg

It looks pretty stealthy, at least from the ground. Processing could be done on an AWACS that can share data with higher bitrates or simply by adding a larger cpu array.

Still. The F35 cant enter without riscing the pilots life. If it gets within 70 km of an active radar it will potentially be tracked and engaged at 50. (If the enemy has S300, which NK has). At least with UCAVs you can send them close enogough and dont cry rivers uf you lose one.

For bomb and surveiliance over heavily defended enemy areas I would be happier if they sent unmanned vehicles instead of manned ones. The F35 however could possibly be the “master” in that formation as long as it stays in the safer areas similar to the Gripen concept.

@djcross: So a Predator C controlled via datalink/satellite would not do the same task equally or better than a F35 at roughly 1/10th the cost (assuming F35 costs 120m$)?

As we speak this is what the USAF are doing in Pakistan and to some extent at the Iranian border. Why should they start riscing pilots lives to solve the same task?

Just look at the endurance, 18 hrs at 647km/h! And its a colder target than any jet out there, and its most likely stealthier from the ground as well, it has similar internal AGM-payload as the F35 and if it gets shoot down then who cares? Nobody dies.

Predator C is just an example, it could just as well be the x47b, Taranis of an iteration of nEuron.

:confused: Airliner engines are larger than an F-18? :confused: Since when?

The F-35 isn’t bigger than an F-18, but so what? It has half as many engines.

If you want to say the F135 is impressive, talk about its T/W ratio, or fuel efficiency, or some other category in which its performance is impressive, not absolute thrust. 191 kn for an aircraft engine is not in itself impressive. There were jets with 169 kn powering M2 aircraft forty years ago, & it’s dwarfed by subsonic commercial jet engines.

Haha. No, i meant that the F35 is shorter than a FA 18 whilst commercial airliners are not. So its impressive that such a small jet has such a large/powerful engine. The F135 is a great engine, the only problem is the high drag and heavy stuff around it.

Msphere please enlighten us. Build us a plane that super cruises at mach 2.0
carries 30 AMRAAMS internally. has better stealth than a F-22, can land on a carrier, Gator boat, Has a 2000NM combat radius has 3d thrust vectoring and costs less than 50 million dollars. Whats is your solution to canceling the F-35? If your Not suggesting that the F-35 be canceled then why bother cutting numbers? If your not going to cut numbers then explain your reasoning?

There are two alternatives.

One is a possible “YF 23 Mk II”. Comparing the “Mk I” with F35.
[INDENT]Weapons: 8 missiles vs 4 (possible loadout for YF23 8 AIM120D+3 ASRAAM)
Cruise speed: mach 1,6 vs mach 0,95 (ok Spudman, mach 0,999 unless its in a dive)
Top speed: mach 2,2+ vs almost mach 1,65
Weight: 13’100kg vs 13’300-15’800
Thrust/weight ratio: 1,36 vs 0,75-0,87-0,9
Range: over 4500km vs 1670, 2220, 2520km
Combat radius: 1216nm+ vs 584, 469, 615nm
Stealth: Better than the F22 vs worse than the F22 [/INDENT]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2966/f23weaponconfigurations.jpg

So in conclusion, building a lighter jet usually is cheaper. Building a jet without politics involved (as much as in the F35 case) also makes it cheaper. The YF 23 would also be lighter today compared to 1990. Adding 3D TVC in a Mk II version should be doable.

I honestly think that was pretty close to your specs. Almost twice the F35 performance in most areas, less used materials. Will it have STOVL? No. But neither has the F35A or C. USMC can buy their own airplane/helicopter hybrids if they want, the rest of the world shouldnt pay for that.

The second, FA XX, looks like a great alternative to the F16 and FA18 but I think time and costs will tell whats best.

I know you had some exaggerated wishes but the YF23 does looks good, doesnt it?

Excellent posts. I will just provide some numbers for the discussion.

Remember that the Gripen platform was built around the “base 90”-system.

What this means in numbers is the following (based on Libya).

Aircrafts: 5 Gripens
Pilots: ~6
Ground personel (all included): 40
Flight hours per month: ~340
Total flight hours: over 2000.

40 persons included this:
* Stab (HQ):
* Stridsflygenhet (Fighter Unit): 6 ppl
* Flygunderhållskompani (Fighter Support Coy):
* Mission Support Element, Interpreters etc (MSE):
* Flygbasenhet (Air Base Unit): (SIS-grupp).
* National Support element (NSE):

All equipment needed (except for fuel) fit in one C-130 Hercules.

One maintenance task could not be made on site and it was a damage (peeling) to the cockpit canopy RAM-coatings on one Gripen (first time that has ever happened btw). All other maintenance, including engine replacements where made on site.

What does this mean for a regular force in a small country like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania?

[INDENT]If Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia where to adopt a small joint AF that totals around 12 aircrafts they could all have fairly cheap forward operating bases (like the ones in FL01/02 or base 90).

So with these pretty down scaled airbases they should be able to fly 300 hours per year and aircraft and would go years without needing SwAF technicians. SwAF is a logical place to send the jets due to the loyalty agreements and the fact that its the largest operator nearby. If Gotland was opened for the Baltic countries as a “fallback” base it would be even better.[/INDENT]

I know its simplified but I just show what the numbers say. This is just if they use the FL01/02 package as their solution. Cost: ~6m$ per airplane and year. In this case 12m$ per year + personel, fuel and facilities (that can be cheap due to the STOL capabilities and low need for maintenance). There are plenty of existing airfields that can be used as they are if they only get the materials they need there.

There are a lot of old things that the SwAF dont need any more as well. Accomodation facilities, 600 meters of straight road, hangars and a storage unit + command unit is pretty much what is needed, maybe even with “guest hangars” that only have a roof.

Now just add what fits in one C-130 in the form of spares and weapons for one year + one Giraffe radar and a small commandunit (in base 90 its a mini caravan with the real command unit being under ground or at remote location).

Will this be free? No, but it sure wont cost a fortune either.

Premium hangar (can be bought at IKEA or from SwAF)

Smaller one:

I think it looks like a nice plan. Hopefully Gotland can stand as a fallback AF for quick turnarounds.

Italy’s next prime minister is vowing to cut his country’s F-35 orders too.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121208/DEFREG02/312080002/Canada-Reconsiders-JSF-59-Italy-8217-s-Leading-PM-Candidate-Would-Trim-F-35-Buy

Netherlands : The Parliament voted to get out of the JSF program. New open bid contest.
Denmark : Open bid contest.
Canada : Open bid contest.
Korea : F-35 at a technical disqualification and given a 0% chance of a win. Trailing behind the Silent Eagle and the Typhoon.

Italy bailing out has been in the news for quite some time, but I will just add some comments to ur post.

Netherlands: Has already got one jet (or more?) delivered. They have already invested in the project and its very uncertain that there will be a real open bid contest. Once politicians start paying and getting results (no matter how bad) they tend to continue. If they bail it will be because of costs and then I believe Rafale and Gripen are the top candidates.
Korea: F35 disqualified partially because they didnt allow the Koreans to test it properly. Its not necessarily so that it was worse performing in every aspect. But it is out of the competition never the less.