I doubt Mr. Sweetman would let such a obvious slip go by without a negative comment.

This was a slide from a presentation made for a show/conference. Do you really think anybody cares what exact ship is shown if the point was just to show a military ship? Does this instance matter?

Remember the Youtube debrief on the MKI after India’s recent Red Flag participation? That was filled with factual errors. Does that mean that presenter (name escapes me) is always wrong? Or that he had an agenda? Or that information by the USAF is worthless in general? Of course not.

How about a little perspective?

Especially, one coming from Lockheed Martin. Yet, he holds others to standard that he himself fails on a regular bases………..:eek:

Regular basis? What are the other manifold instances?

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/22/State/New_warplane_earns_ra.shtml

Then there is the capability that lets the Raptor fly at supersonic speed without using fuel-guzzling afterburners that other fighters require.

“That saves us a lot of gas and opens up a whole host of things when you start talking about dropping bombs,” Krumm said. “You can imagine if you are 60,000 feet doing mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) … the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying, “I’ll take that target, and that target.’ “

The issue I have with this particular quote, as a writer and spinmeister myself, is that it’s not continuous. It’s very well possible that Krumm said something like:

“That saves us a lot of gas and opens up a whole host of things when you start talking about dropping bombs. [Supercruising up to the target, there is more than ample fuel left for a long final stretch to comfortably get up to maximum speed in reheat.] You can imagine if you are 60,000 feet doing mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) … the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying, “I’ll take that target, and that target.’ “

That fact that the AP journo broke the quote in the middle leaves room for the possibility that the statements aren’t actually as connected as they seem.

Perhaps it does M1.9 supercruise, perhaps it doesn’t. I don’t know. But I’d be reluctant to take this piece as conclusive evidence.

From what I read the EJ200 seems to win quite convincingly – more advanced technology + thrust growth potential + easier fit in Tejas. Apart from price (I presume F414 is less expensive), what virtue can F414 offer?

Another thing in favor of the EJ200 could be ToT. EF GmbH are ready for full ToT in the MMRCA, so it’s unlikely this would not be the case in the engine deal here.

Even with the awful low probability that pasive Amraams were used on a exercise, such thing show that the 22 LPI radar is not so LPI…

What? :confused: What’s the basis for that?

Which is exactly why such ‘accuracies’ come across to many as purposeful as part of an agenda to degrade the F-35…After all is someone with the credentials & reputation of Sweetman says/writes something more people (who don’t know any better) are more inclined to believe it. Note that it is not just THIS one peice of work but several others where Mr. Sweetman has put the F-35 in a negative light (through INACCURACIES).

It is NOT that errors are made but WHAT the errors are that casues suspicion…

Same response as above but to add that either Mr. Sweetman himself is being dupped by inaccurate ‘facts’ that he has not taken the effort to veify/understand OR he (like Kopp or Boyd et cetera) has an aggenda that is being put AHEAD of intellectual honesty.

You know the difference between a typographical error and a spelling mistake? Seriously, pasting the wrong picture of a ship in a Powerpoint presentation hardly seems like it’s going to invalidate an opinion about the systemic position of fighter jets in war efforts (or, even funnier, a whole journalistic career). Especially considering that presentations rarely work without the further qualification given in the talk they belong to. If you do want to get hung up on that though, that’s of course your choice.

A swallow does not a summer make. Of course the odd F-22 will get shot down, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the best A2A machine currently out there or that other types will shoot it down on a regular basis. That fact that a training kill merited this decal should tell the story of what a feat it must have been.

Which was taken when the Superhornet pilot ignored some safety regulations for the minimum allowed distance(while the Raptor pilot didn’t) for training, in order to get that “kill.”

One side of the story.

Yeah, sure…I can bet than when EF will have an AESA, the EF consortium will proclaim that AESA is the only decent radar for a fighter and the MSA is primitive…

Notice, I said “currently”. Also, I did not say M-Scan is better in itself, but that it currently still is a better solution for 4th gen with an A-A emphasis. Then think about how a 4th gen goes BVR against another 4th gen, and then about how a 5th gen goes BVR against a 4th gen and which particular freedom it has that does not make gimbal limits as important.

An M-scan radar antenna has the same range wherever it’s pointing, across its full range of movement.

As soon as you phase shift to steer the beam of an electronically scanned antenna, range is reduced.

Which, considering BVR tactics, can explain why M-Scan is currently still the better solution for the Typhoon (or any other sub-5th-gen fighter with an A-A emphasis), while AESA can already be put to good use on the Raptor (and legacy types with an A-G emphasis).