So let me see if I can get this straight.

Korea is thinking about building a stealthed up 4th generation fighter with conformal weapons carriage.

They are considering going with a Eurocanard layout.

They may also use Eurojet engines to power the new fighter…

Remind me again why they shouldn’t just buy some Eurofighters since that is what they seem intent on re-inventing.

I get wanting to master new technology, but setting out to re-create a Eurofighter twenty+ years later is hardly a recipe for success.

That’s not the point. The point is no manned aircraft will be able to fly within contested airspace on a modern battlefield, the F-35 doesn’t allow to win using numbers either, so in the end, should cruise missile/SF fail to create a corridor then no aircraft 4th or 5th Gen will be able to get in.

Moreover, jamming and other type of EA will become ever more important given the networked environnement of tomorrow’s wars, and that can be achieved without the F-35.

Cruise missiles, jamming, drones, etc aren’t going away. Those participating in the F-35 program will continue to pursue all of the above, but there is no substitute for a manned aircraft and the F-35 will be able to operate places legacy jets can not.

Really the point of my reversing LO’s scenario was to draw attention to yet another example of the double standard used by the anti-F-35 contingent.

When we are talking about the F-35 the enemy is very nearly omniscient, capable of detecting, tracking and identifying every blip or non-blip anywhere near their airspace. Their forces will move and think as one, their systems will be diverse, redundant and reliable…

If we were talking about a strike package of 4th generation aircraft however suddenly things are completely different. There are gaps in coverage, jammers that work, smart mission planning, and so forth.

DJ – The full report is not talking about a detachment. They are talking about the full deployed force.

Spud – There is an obvious issue with blowing L-16 signals out from an F-35 anywhere in contested airspace (the airspace immediately outside the “red bubble” zone, where LO is supposedly mandatory, is not likely to be permissive).

The issue is this: If I can hear you squawk, but you don’t show up readily on radar, you have just positively ID’d yourself.

:rolleyes:

Lets suppose the opponent really did have the level of sensor fusion you describe.

Lets suppose that they really did have that level of long-range precision tracking capability to reliably track a fighter transmitting link-16 outside of their airspace.

Lets suppose they have such confidence in their radars that despite the jamming, decoys, and the presence of other link-16 emitting aircraft at the edge of their airspace (the aircraft the F-35 is talking to) they can be confident that the non-blip on their radar screen is one or more F-35s…

If all of that played out perfectly they have gained what? Knowledge that there is an F-35 operating outside of their reach? Good for them, no doubt that will win them the war.

Meanwhile the F-35s operating -inside- their airspace are carrying on happily, talking to each other and the wider network.

This is a thread about the F35, why bring other products into it, unless the facts on the F35 do not favour your argument.

The Rafale and Gripen are both produced by countries that theoretically have significantly less resource than the USA, yet here are two operational and useful products…at a cost that countries can afford, with well mapped and resourced upgrade programs that meet the customers requirements into the meaningful future.

Nobodies hoping the USA is going to slash defence budgets, you are resorting to strawman argument here.
It again illustrates the lack of solid fact behind your argument.
The fact is the defence budget is going to take a hit. This is called reality, a state the F35 and it’s supporters seem to be sadly detached from.

Care to comment on sustainment costs, or is that simply dealt with by what appears to be another SOP of ignoring it?

Edit: Amongst your blah blah bit there is an element wrth commenting on. You claim development is largely finished, (interesting claim that with how much testing of software still to go? Lets ignore that elephant for now.) yet fail to acknowledge the time this development has taken and the cost. Has the opposition been waiting politely for you to be ready before developing counter measures? The F35 may well eventually deliver the performance due originally for operational service around 2008. Do you not possibly think that delivering 2008 in 2020 may be risking advancements in opposing kit negating your “new” kit, which incidently you have spent all your budget on?? (Please note this is exaggeration for effect.)

Cute little rant, do you have a point?

Wow… 64 airframes…

(Are the engines included? ;))

This response doesn’t actually address the point. (SOP for the F35 pro’s. ;)) However in your attempt to debate the point re costs and shrinking budgets (care to comment on sustainment costs btw?) you illustrate neatly what a major obstacle the F35 has to overcome.

I’ll lay it out simply:

Reduced and low defence budget(s) equals fewer airframes bought equals slower reduction in cost equals even fewer airframes purchased equals… well you get the idea.
This is reality. Now, today. Trying to shrug this off as a passing phase doesn’t wash.

(I note the emotive “haters” is used again as well. It does nothing for the credibility of any argument you try to advance, in fact it rather illustrates he lack of solid fact backing the “pro” camps incessent cheerleading, if the facts were so solid in support of the program there would be no need to call people names.)

64 airframes in two years… that equates to roughly triple the Rafale’s current production rate, or nearly 80% of the entire Gripen NG order book if you prefer.

Things are just getting rolling for the F-35. It is over the hump developmentally but the haters and chicken littles of the world don’t seem to have realized it yet. By the time those next 64 jets are delivered the F-35 will have moved safely beyond any possible discussion of cancellation and joined the C-17 and a long list of other troubled programs that went on to become invaluable assets.

You can keep hoping that somehow the US is going to slash its defense budget, give up on air power and what cancel the F-35… but it isn’t going to happen.

Except that Link-16 is an omnidirectional L-band signal which anybody with direction-finding capability can detect and exploit. Use it enough within range of a SAM and you become a target.

Of course, naturally that applies to the Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15, F-16, F-18, and so forth.

The F-35 has the far more advanced MADL, but retains the legacy Link-16. It can use either or both as appropriate.

In time as other assets adopt MADL, link-16 will be abandoned.

There are several ways that an F-35 can get data to the rest of the non F-35 network.

1. MADL to an F-35 outside the danger zone and that F-35 relays it via Link-16 (can do now)
2. RCDL (Radar Common Data Link) for the APG-81 (later upgrade)
2. SATCOM (Block 4 upgrade)
3. Gateways (either airborne, ground based, or ship based – can do now if resource available)

Point Spudman :p

Lets also not forget that legacy aircraft are restricted to Link-16, which the F-35 fully supports.

Anywhere a 4th generation jet can go an F-35 can go. Anywhere a 4th generation jet can datalink, an F-35 can datalink. (With link-16)

The F-35 can of course also go places the 4th generation jets can’t. It can also use its improved, jam resistant, LPI, datalink from places they can’t go…

There really isn’t any way to play this as a negative for the F-35. :diablo:

Without an working engine there is that little chance of export potential now that they are reliant on a foreign supplier. It looks like they won’t be making any money out of it its too bad the LCA could have been an excellent aircraft to sell off to dirt cheap African or ME states.

There just isn’t that much of a market for that type of jet. Typically buyers on very limited budgets just buy used aircraft or do without.

Look at how much luck the Gripen has had. After years and years of trying with a fully mature aircraft they have only managed to sell a few dozen and lease a couple dozen more.

That isn’t to say the Gripen isn’t a good plane, just that it is a very challenging segment of the market.