How on earth is it that a bunch of aircraft enthusiasts can be so clueless about the major events in the history of the planes they follow?

Seriously people, educate yourselves…

PARIS — Prosecutors in Germany confirmed Wednesday that police officers had raided several offices of European Aeronautic Defense & Space as part of an investigation into alleged corruption in the sale of Eurofighter jets to Austria.

…

It is not the first time Eurofighter sales have attracted scrutiny.

Perhaps the best-known case involved the 2006 sale of 72 fighters to Saudi Arabia. The deal, brokered by BAE and estimated to be worth at least £6 billion, or $9.6 billion, almost immediately drew the attention of Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, which was already looking into allegations of bribery in the sale of £40 billion in fighter aircraft and other equipment to the Saudis as far back as the 1980s.

The British authorities ultimately abandoned that inquiry in late 2006, citing national security concerns. But evidence raised by that inquiry led BAE, which operates a subsidiary in the United States, to plead guilty in 2010 to two criminal violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices act and to pay more than $400 million in penalties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/business/global/eads-offices-raided-in-corruption-inquiry.html?_r=0

Saudi Arabia has given Britain 10 days to halt a fraud investigation into the country’s arms trade – or lose a £10 billion Eurofighter contract.

The contract supports up to 50,000 British jobs and there are now fears that the deal may go to France.

The Saudi government is on the verge of cancelling the contract – an extension of one brokered by Margaret Thatcher 20 year ago – because of a Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegations of a slush fund for members of the Saudi royal family, according to authoritative sources.

Tony Blair has been told that the deal faces the axe in 10 days unless he intervenes to bring the two-year investigation to a close.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535683/Halt-inquiry-or-we-cancel-Eurofighters.html

A major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and its executives was stopped in its tracks yesterday when the prime minister claimed it would endanger Britain’s security if the inquiry was allowed to continue.

The remarkable intervention was announced by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who took the decision to end the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into alleged bribes paid by the company to Saudi officials, after consulting cabinet colleagues.

In recent weeks, BAE and the Saudi embassy had frantically lobbied the government for the long-running investigation to be discontinued, with the company insisting it was poised to lose another lucrative Saudi contract if it was allowed to go on. This came at a time when the SFO appeared to have made a significant breakthrough, with investigators on the brink of accessing key Swiss bank accounts.

However, Lord Goldsmith consulted the prime minister, the defence secretary, foreign secretary, and the intelligence services, and they decided that “the wider public interest” “outweighed the need to maintain the rule of law”. Mr Blair said it would be bad for Britain’s security if the SFO was allowed to go ahead, according to the statement made in the Lords by Lord Goldsmith. The statement did not elaborate on the nature of the threat.

BAE claimed that it was about to lose out on a third phase of the Al-Yamamah deal, in which the Saudis would buy 72 Typhoon aircraft in a deal worth £6bn. The Saudis had also hinted that they would do a deal with the French instead if the inquiry pushed ahead. A 10-day ultimatum was reportedly issued by the Saudis earlier this month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/15/saudiarabia.armstrade

The acquisition of Super Hornet has nothing to do with its qualities as an aircraft. A stopgap solution was necessary on account of Australia committing to a Power Point aircraft in JSF, and that stopgap was Super Hornet for the following reasons:

— cheapest aircraft available
— relatively smooth transition from existing Hornet platform
— could be delivered quickly, drawn from USN production line (thanks to ‘strength’ of Australia’s relationship with US)
— an American aircraft, where selecting a non-American aircraft might’ve been seen to indicate displeasure with JSF and weakening of US-Australia relationship
— aircraft currently in production for use by US Navy, ensuring Australia able to benefit from vast and ongoing American investment in platform (unlike adv. F-15s and -16s) thereby reducing future costs.

Notice that the actual comparative qualities of the aircraft relative to F-15E, Rafale, etc. figure not at all in this process. Subsequently, the continuing horrors of the F-35 program necessitate further decisions and those decisions weigh in favour of additional Super Hornet commitment (making ‘temporary’ acquisition permanent and acquiring more) for much the same reasons as those listed above: cheapest way out of the evolving mess, path of least resistance, requiring only bureaucratic virtues rather than genuine vision and leadership.

Take-home message is that Australia’s growing investment in Super Hornet can be traced directly back to the original JSF decision, not only in that it is the failings of the JSF and the Australian political and defence bureaucracy in selecting it that led inexorably to the acquisition of a stopgap and now permanent secondary platform, but that the selection of Super Hornet for that role (as opposed to e.g. F-15E) reflects the continued operation of those same failings! It’s all one ongoing tale of fail, which is why it is hilarious that some here attempt to paint Super Hornet as a uniquely Labor government initiative aimed at undermining the glorious vision of the previous Liberal government. The pot and the kettle have got nothing on this. :p

:rolleyes:

More of the same from you huh?

The Super Hornet of today is a completely new aircraft from Australia’s existing Hornets. You need to get past the idea that they look similar.

Australia is more than aware of what is offered by the EF, Rafale, SH, F-15, etc, and while the choice was originally for a interim platform, they most certainly considered capability when buying.

Other than the obsession with spec sheet speeds I really don’t get why some people, invariably internet experts, are so obsessed with trashing the SH. It is an excellent aircraft with an excellent operational record.

Cuase the other F-35 threads are comparisons on aircraft and technical specs, and my question was operational.

Hopsalot has answered question so it can be closed.

The first actual deployment (of F-35Bs to Japan) is scheduled for 2017. In the meantime they need to get trained up to the point where they really could go to war if something blew up in 2017.

F-35 Fighters to Cost $90m Each (edited excerpt)

(Source: The Australian; published February 28, 2013)

The Joint Strike Fighters to be bought for the RAAF will cost about $90 million each — much more than the $67m claimed by its manufacturer, says the American general appointed by the Pentagon to straighten out the struggling program.

…/…

After briefing Australian defence officials on the JSF at the Avalon air show in Victoria, General Bogdan said some of the problems he encountered with the program were ugly. But he said an effective remedy had been to force the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin corporation, to share the cost of fixing faults and covering delays.

Once the company had “skin in the game”, its performance improved significantly, General Bogdan said, and he was confident the program was getting better “not as fast as I want it to but it is getting better”.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/143070/bogdan-ridicules-lockheed-f_35-price-claims.html

The issue is one of inflation. The $67 million number is in 2004 dollars, while the $90 million number is in 2020 dollars.

As per my previous posts on the subject I am far from dismissing the CUDA concept. I can certainly see it (or something like it) replacing Sidewinder and complementing a long-range, high-performance future BVR AAM as with the French MICA/Meteor combination. I am mocking only the suggestion that one can pursue a smaller BVR missile of this kind without compromise.

It is rather foolish to mock things you don’t understand.

What people don’t seem to get about Meteor is that while it is a long-range weapon, its primary design driver was not extreme range, but speed. Like more or less everyone else (outside APA…) its designers were skeptical of the utility of an ultra-long range weapon against a competent opponent. What they were much more concerned with was a weapon with an expanded no-escape zone.

That really isn’t all that hard to understand if you look at Meteor’s design. The air breathing propulsion does give it a lot more total energy to play with when compared to a traditional rocket, but it also results in a heavy, high-drag airframe.(that retains a traditional proximity fused warhead) While its motor is operating it can maintain a very high average speed, but it doesn’t coast well and thus isn’t well suited to high lofted shots. All in all it is a highly capable missile. By maintaining a higher average speed and by flying a flatter trajectory it will get to its target faster and it still has an excellent range.

On the other hand, a missile like Stunner employs a completely different concept. By eliminating almost all of its warhead, its proximity fuze, etc, it results in an extremely efficient light-weight, low-drag missile. Combined with a multi-pulse rocket motor this means that the first pulse can launch the missile onto a highly lofted trajectory. The second pulse will fire at high altitude propelling the missile still higher on its way to its target. Due to its highly efficient design it can travel a very long way on such a shot. The missile will reserve its final pulse for the endgame to ensure that it has sufficient energy to match any possible last minute maneuvers made by its target.

This allows a small missile to go a very long way while preserving enough capability to intercept an agile target. The trade off is that it is going to take it longer to get there. A lower average velocity combined with a highly lofted trajectory means a longer time of flight. One of the bonuses of such an approach are a simpler/cheaper missile and one that can be highly effective both WVR and BVR.

Anyway, Rafael and Raytheon are not a bunch of idiots when it comes to missiles, and neither is LM for that matter, so your opinion really matters little.

Here is a picture of the Israeli/Raytheon Stunner missile, which is likely to be developed for the F-35 by Israel.

In an air launched configuration it would go without the booster.

Despite its small size the Israelis claim:

The Mach 5.5, long-range missile is equipped with a dual electro-optic/radio-frequency seeker and an advanced multistage rocket motor. Designed as a hit-to-kill anti-missile weapon , Stunner has no warhead and instead can carry a more powerful rocket motor capable of ranges beyond any air-to-air missile available today.

and

Stunner delivers superior kinematics, maneuverability and lethality by combining advanced steering control, multi-pulse propulsion and a next-generation seeker into a lightweight airframe.

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/7/1207.pdf

More info:

The Stunner missile component of the David’s Sling system, codeveloped with Raytheon, has several unique features. It is a hit-to-kill weapon and consequently needs no fuzing system. It has a dual-mode seeker combining a millimeter-wave AESA with an imaging infrared seeker. A multipulse motor (plus first-stage booster) and 12 control surfaces combine Mach 5-plus speed with endgame energy—the last pulse can be saved for the final intercept.

…

However, the missile is being developed with a second role in mind. Rafael’s view is that in the future, AAMs will be derived from SAMs and not the other way around, as in the past, because of the larger volumes in the SAM market. Minus the booster, Stunner is smaller than the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile but is claimed to have greater range and lethality—at least comparable to the MBDA Meteor. Known informally as Future AAM, the Stunner-derived AAM will be designed for both ejector and rail launch, with rail lugs jettisonable to reduce drag.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/DT_06_01_2012_p30-459046.xml

Bottom line… don’t make to many assumptions about what can be achieved with a modern hit to kill missile.

If Cuda never goes anywhere, the Python-6 likely will.

their is not enough information about the range for CUDA , but according to LM they will be BVR ( may be 20-30 km ) , an F-35 may carry 3 meteor for BVR fight , and if they all miss and the enemy try to get close to dogfight it still have 4 CUDA to play , so the range may be not so important , CUDA is for situation when the enemy try to dogfight

The brochure says “expanded BVR engagement zones.”

I think it is safe to say well beyond 20-30km.