SATCOM was at least planned for Block 30 years ago, whether the current aircraft are equipped with it is yet another question, things have changed since the earlier plans and I can’t find any reference for that. If Link 22 is ready and widely deployed sure, but that’s just not yet the case and might take a couple of years. As of now the F-22 doesn’t contribute to a network, but it can benefit from the network via the receive only JTIDS. So up to date and likely for the foreseeable future (~5 years or so) the F-22 won’t be net enabled.

Edit:
@Jessmo,
the not net enabled was related to the F-22 and I have explained why before. For the rest I don’t care, it’s not me who made that list. I just explained how Eurofighter arrives at the conclusion that the F-22 isn’t net enabled which was your original question. Just one thing who says the F/A-18E/F won’t have a DIRCM by that time or other aircraft for that matter. You have to take into account that much of the often hyped capabilities/technologies of the F-35 won’t be available until the end of this decade. That’s a couple of years in which other types can be further developed as well. Bear this in mind.

Ok I got your point. The boys over at Euro-fighter are clever at marketing.

@jj,
the F-22 can communicate with other F-22s via its IFDL, but it can’t forward its own data via DL to anything else, as no other platform uses a DL compliant with the IFDL message standard. With the integration of the MADL the F-22 will at least be able to communicate with other aircraft equipped with that DL (F-35 & B-2 f.e.). By that F-22s can only contribute to the overall SA of a battle group by conventional radio chat.

So how does that equal Not haveing any network capabilities?
The aircraft is designed to com with other steath platforms it doesnt want to use the non stealthy L16. This is clearly spin. and for these above these are the things the F-35 can do that a hornet cannot.

1. Deep penetration stike missions ( think F-117)
2. Contempt of engagement.
3. Irst and all around better SA with out a clunky pod.
4. its flies farther in a clean configuration than a F-18 with tanks
5. it will have DIRCM and Mald
6. will be able to escort a B-2 far better than a hornet would ( with no Raptors on station)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:f617afe7-d1f9-4ca7-bd42-842e97f30494

(Sweetman)

Replacing all of the U.S. legacy fleet with Super hornets would be a disaster.
Yes if you have 2-3 super hornets they can do the Job of 1 F-35.
How then do you argue that the F-35 is to exspensive if you need 2 or 3 aircraft to do its job? Further more people love to treat the F-35 as if its a dog but the hornet is extremely draggy. Consider the argument to Replace, F-16,A-10,AV8,British sea harrier, and to a lesser extent F-15s with 1 F-18 type.

And then there is the Euro fighter approach LOL
Eurofighter will be taking a different tack: Arguing that if there is such a thing as a fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 is not in that category. Eurofighter rolled out this case at last year’s Defence IQ Fighter Conference in Athens and amplified it in its house magazine in May. Sample chart:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/7/8155a7ec-dd2a-4b7f-9710-a9403495fc5c.Large.jpg

Of course this is selective evidence, but it does underscore an important point that many people overlook: supercruise, supersonic maneuver and high altitude were an integral part of both the Advanced Tactical Fighter requirement that led to the F-22, and the requirements process that yielded the Typhoon. In both cases, the idea was to reduce the effective range of incoming missiles.

How On earth can Euro fighter claim that The F-22 has no net wrk enabled OPs and that the F-35 doesnt have the Typhoons missile load out? this is flat out dishonest!! why wernt things like Jamming, IRST, DIRCm, Super sonic launch of A2G weapons, Fuel Load, and A2g weaposn and load on this chart?

ou don’t think tanker fueled T-50s would ever embark on arctic peace time missions? or even the future Russian stealth bomber?

A new Russian government security report that predicts possible military conflict over energy resources — including Arctic oil — is another “wake-up call” for Canada, says one of the country’s top analysts on polar geopolitics.

“In a competition for resources, problems that involve the use of military force cannot be excluded that would destroy the balance of forces close to the borders of the Russian Federation and her allies,” states the document, which forecasts security threats up to 2020 and named the petroleum-rich Arctic — where seabed boundaries are now being determined under the rules of a UN treaty — as a potential conflict zone.

The national security strategy released Wednesday surveyed a range of possible threats facing Russia along its Asian, European and Arctic frontiers, according to various news reports from Moscow.

Requests to the Russian Embassy in Ottawa for a copy of the security report and comments on its implications for Canada were not immediately returned.

A Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman said Canadian officials would not comment until receiving the report.

University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert — who said the Russian outlook released Wednesday appears to be a “realistic” view of possible conflicts — insisted that it should spur Canada’s efforts to beef up Arctic defences while continuing to pursue peaceful outcomes on boundaries, shipping rules and resources in the disputed polar realm.

“The Russians have been talking very co-operatively, but they have been backing it up with an increasingly strong military set of actions,” said Huebert, associate director of the university’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

“You mix uncertain boundaries with major powers and massive amounts of oil and gas, and you always get difficult international circumstances,” he added. “I think the Russians have made that calculation.”

Over the past three years, Russia has been sending conflicting signals to Canada and other polar nations about its planned approach to resolving potential Arctic conflicts, said Huebert.

A Russian submersible’s planting of a flag on the North Pole sea floor in August 2007 sparked an international war of words over Arctic sovereignty, with Defence Minister Peter MacKay — then Canada’s foreign minister — decrying the Russian act as a throwback to “15th-century” territorial imperialism.

Tensions appeared to flare again in late February when MacKay — nine days after two Russian aircraft ventured close to Canadian airspace in the Arctic — described in a news conference how Canadian fighter planes had raced northward to “send a strong signal” to the Russian pilots that “they should back off and stay out of our airspace.”

But Russia’s defence minister later objected to what he called MacKay’s “bizarre” criticism of a “routine” test flight, and insisted his country is committed to co-operative, peaceful approach to problem-solving in the Arctic.

A Feb. 20 meeting in Moscow between top Canadian and Russian officials — revealed earlier this week by Canwest News Service — does appear to show significant co-operation between the two countries on Arctic issues.

The two sides appeared to be in agreement about Canada’s claim to jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage, and even discussed a possible joint Russian-Canadian-Danish submission to the UN to determine Arctic sea floor boundaries.

But Wednesday’s security report suggests Russia is also bracing for more pointed conflict in the Arctic and elsewhere as it strives to secure its position as a global energy superpower.

“The attention of international politics in the long-term perspective will be concentrated on the acquisition of energy resources,” the paper said.

It said regions where such a competition for resources could arise included the Middle East, the Barents Sea, the Arctic, the Caspian Sea and Central Asia.

The strategy document was approved by President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday and published on Wednesday by the Russian Security Council, which includes Russia’s top politicians and intelligence chiefs and is chaired by Medvedev.

“I see a Russia that is not necessarily getting aggressive,” said Huebert, “but is getting increasingly assertive about controlling what it sees as the future of its long-term strength.”

How do the Russians intend to defend any future territorial or resource claims if there bombers are fodder?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/27/arctic-russia.html

properly tanked fighters are not out of the realm of possibility.

State of Alaska, USA, August 1, 1989 – High above beautiful Earth, United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 Eagle fighter jets intercept two CCCP (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abbreviated as USSR) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 fighters. The Soviet MiG-29s are, for the first time, traveling to the Abbotsford International Airshow in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, to participate in the August 1989 airshow. The USAF F-15 Eagle interceptors actively guarding North American and United States of America’s airspace are with the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing, headquartered at Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB), Alaska, assigned (going up through the chain of command) to Alaskan Air Command (AAC), Alaskan Command (ALCOM), United States Pacific Air Forces (USPACAF), United States Pacific Command (USPACOM). Both Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 “Fulcrum” fighter jets and the Antonov An-225 Mriya “Cossak”, the large heavy support transport aircraft, refueled at Elmendorf AFB and continued on their journey to Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada.

1. USAF F-15 Eagle Fighters Intercept Two Soviet MiG-29 Fighters Going to Canada For the 1989 Abbotsford International Airshow
August 1, 1989, State of Alaska, USA

http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200701.htm

1. Question: Are we really gimping our national defense because we want more social programs or is it because we know that the Americans will always foot the bill to defend us?

2. Can The Antique F-18 deal with Russian incursions ( the new Russian bomber will be stealthy) or track stealthy or low flying cruise missiles. Russian heavy bombers have reached the periphery of Canada before. it is a stretch to say a air refueled T-50 would reach international airspace out side of Canada?

3. If we have to contribute to a major war, can we bring anything meaningful to the table in the 2020 time line air defense wise? Or will we depend of the Americans to do it since we spent all of our fighter money on universal day care?

Do you believe that 400 TLAMS could penetrate Chinese airspace in the even that Missile bases facing Taiwan, and threatening Guam needed to be neutralized ? Does China have the ASW assets to hunt these SUBs?
And lastly what can a OHIO hit from Diego Garcia?

It amuses me how people cant put 2 and 2 together.
If the F-35 can do mach 1.6 with a full combat load then it can < Mach 1.6
with 1/2 a load or in ferry configuration. The notion that the inlet is a magic air brake defies the laws of physics.

So in the next year IF the F-35 flies more than Mach 1.6 will you be willing to openly apologize in a new thread, and make it as asinine, contrived, and pointless as your counter point. I’m sorry to tell you but your points sound extremely forced. You didn’t have to try so hard to sound intelligent. No ones here is knocking your intelligence but your common sense.
BTW I want kissy lips in my apology thread. I don’t have to spell it out for you you know what they are for.