Again, cheap diversion. Because, regardless the way LM or EF calculate the costs, the more they built, the cheaper the unit price.

I think his point here was manufacturer promises as demonstrated by cost projections.

I just took note of this sentence from an Typhoon pilot, that indicate relations as where F-22 stands:

Is there any game done or at least simulation on how well Typhoon score vs F-15/16/18 ?

If I recall correctly (and that particular article was to be believed), the Eurofighter was the only Singapore contender to win the 1vs3 against F-16s. RSAF flies Block 52. Don’t know the RoE.

But, my recollection of this and the source are pretty wonky at the moment.

Does anyone know whether single seat version of MiG-35 is still planned?

I sure hope so! I like the MiG-35 as a package, but I just can’t get excited over two-seaters. A single-seater would be much appreciated on purely aesthetic grounds already. 🙂

I second that, i believe we have all been fed with exaggerated numbers, given the tiny seeker of AMRAAM.

Whether we’ve been given exaggerated numbers, I don’t know. I was just commenting on the expanded semiotic dimension of the interview and its circumstances.

I don’t know that I’d push that line too hard if I were Boeing. All LM would have to do is say “shall we see how many Super Hornets the Raptor has killed?” 😉

Nah, even if they had influenced this (which of course is speculation) it’d be enough to play this quietly and not overdo things. Spreading seeds of doubt is enough in this case.

I mean, the Canadian ice hockey team winning against the Togo team 30 times in a row won’t catch anyone’s attention. That is expected. But leaking that during some recent test game Togo surprisingly won, might just send some B team scouts there, setting their eyes on players that could be “nearly as good” or “remotely competitive” for a lot less money, or at least thinking that the AAA team players aren’t what they are cracked up to be. In any case the Togo players may suddenly seem like an alternative at least worth considering, even if just for a moment. And, sometimes, a small window of opportunity is enough.

I find it particularly interesting that the fact of it being an AMRAAM kill has been shared, which basically boils down to a simplified “Yes, the Raptor can be shot down by radar-guided missiles” in a blunt way, which for example stands in stark contrast to the quote of a pilot being able to see the Raptor, without being able to get a lock on it.

Here’s typical Mr. Sweetman……..

Joint Strike Fighter’s Outrageous Claim
By David Axe September 22, 2008 | 1:00:00 PMCategories: Planes, Copters, Blimps
Last week an Australian politician claimed that stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters were “clubbed like baby seals” in a computer air-war simulation run by the U.S. Air Force. Now the JSF program has responded … with a claim that aviation guru Bill Sweetman calls “remarkable.” As in, remarkably hard to believe.

“Advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access — all before the F-35 is ever detected — then return safely to do it again,” said Tom Burbage, a Lockheed Martin vice president.

“Jeebus on a Vespa,” Bill exclaims in his post at Ares:

I have been writing about [stealth] technology for 28 years and I have never heard anyone make a claim like this. Stealth means that you are hard to detect, harder to track and harder still to engage, but it doesn’t make you invisible, particularly after large explosions have alerted the adversary to your presence. ( I doubt writing 28 years about Stealth makes anyone a expert. Unless you have access to that technology? Which, to my knowledge he does not.)

Bill particularly questions the Pentagon’s and LockMart’s increasingly hyperbolic claims about the F-35’s air-to-air capabilities. He points out that the F-35 will typically carry just two air-to-air missiles, versus up to eight for the F-22 and rival fighters. “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons,”

Mr. Sweetman very well knows that the F-35 is capable of carrying at least 4-AAM’s internally. With development work on going to carry six and possibly eight! Also, what part of the statement by Lockheed Martin is remarkably hard to believe…..

Quote:

“Advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access — all before the F-35 is ever detected — then return safely to do it again,” said Tom Burbage, a Lockheed Martin vice president.

Note: Has Mr. Sweetman ever pointed out the “clubbed like baby seals” Article was proven totally false??? If, so I’ve never seen it……..:rolleyes:

Just like the “Media” in General. Its not what Bill Sweetman tells you. But what he doesn’t……….Just like the recent comment about USN Aegis Cruisers being retired after only 18 years! Leaving out the fact. That only a handful of early non-MK 41 VLS were retired. With the rest being upgraded and service for another couple of decades. That of course doesn’t touch on the fact that the pictures. Were of Spruance Destroyers and not Ticonderoga (Aegis) Cruisers.:eek:

Which of these parts are quotes and which are your comments? Plain text, bold, italic? I don’t know exactly what to respond to.

That was the other one with the pics the made the rounds on the net several years ago.

Yup, which we already debated two times. Just thought I’d sit that one out without getting into again and let it rest.

You do make a good point though. A training kill warranted a kill decal. That gives an idea how rare it is.

To give credit, Mr. Trimble made this point in the comments section of this blog entry before I picked up on it.
Additionally though, I wonder how much influence Boeing had on that, especially with the pics going around now.

Now I think that’s going too far in the other direction. It matters. Just likely not very much (since it’s only one kill). It matters because an F-86 may not have been able to duplicate that kill, even presented with that same situation. The question then becomes “what allowed the EF-18G to get that kill?” and “where between and F-86 and an EF-18G is that line?”

Is the line at a MiG-21bis or an F-102? Could they have achieved that kill? Was it the jammer? Could an Eurofighter or an Su-27 have achieved that same kill?

That’s when it matters. That’s why the US flies these exercises. In fact, being “shot down” by a Super Hornet is more valuable to the F-22 program than just tonking another one.

Logan Hartke

I would assume the most probable explanation is a loss of SA in a furball. Even a 80 lbs gimp can knock you out in a bar fight, if he does it with a baseball bat to the back of your head, while you are occupied fighting the two brawlers in front of you. And the F-22 is neither truly invincible or invisible, despite being very, very good. So losses can happen and nothing except for quasi-magical technology will change that.

But as I expect the most likely reason here to be an error in tactical judgment, I assume it’s not going to be very worthwhile trying to discuss the equipment or try to draw conclusions about its capabilities.

If there was a sound technical explanation for how the Growler’s capabilities led to the kill, in circumstances reasonably expected to see the F-22 in danger of repeatedly encountering in real life warfare, then of course that would be very important.