It seems like a lifetime that the RAF has been training to use Meteor and Typhoon together!

Wonder how much longer it will take before it’s fully integrated. The report does not say that is was fired at a target – just that it was fired: “The missile motor was fired, providing data that will allow the missile launch envelope to be expanded.”

Is all the software there so that once the missile launch envelope is established it’s ready to use once it has been tested against a target?

According to Lexington Institute-sourced report in defense-aerospace.com dated 29th November, things are looking good for F-35:

* “With regard to the fifth production lot… If the unit cost for the most common version of the F-35 exhibits the same learning-curve improvement seen in previous production lots, it will come in well below $100 million per plane.”

Which production lot was just announced a cost well above $100 million per plane?

* “The program plan envisions that by 2017 the “unit recurring flyaway cost” — the production cost — of each plane will be roughly equal to that of the latest F-16 fighters the F-35 was designed to replace.”

Good news – 5 years from now F-35 is planned to cost $66 million (in 2012 dollars)

* “In the case of the tailhook required so that the naval variant of F-35 can land safely on carriers at sea, redesign enabled the tailhook to successfully grab onto arresting cables in 83 out of 83 tests.”

Well done. Tailhook really works (supported by evidence, not just wishful thinking).

* “Senator John McCain offered some unusually positive comments about the F-35 at a ceremony before Thanksgiving, saying it might prove to be “the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world.”

Mmmmm….

* Re: the pilot’s helmet – “steady progress is being made in correcting lags noted in the performance of the helmet that could detract from its performance.”

I have to say that I think lags actually do detract from performance.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/140605/lockheed-lobbyist-sees-brighter-outlook-for-f_35.html

I will give you a more detailed description of the evaluation result.

…edited out….

Offset

1. Typhoon : EADS CASA received 100% score for complying with all the requirments + extra point because of $1 billion local assembly plant offering paid for by the Eurofighter consortium.

2. Silent Eagle : Boeing received 100% score for full compliance.

3. F-35 : Lockheed received less than 50% score because it had no definite offset package, but a suggestion of vendor-financed optional industrial participation supplying wings, tails, and the rear box section. No avionics or anything of high technology. Furthermore, Lockheed offered to transfer only 21 out of 51 technologies requested. Other vendors offered to transfer all 51 requested.

Typhoon offset: just cosmetic management of numbers, I suspect. Would Eurofighter be asking more for the airframes or other items/services to offset the “gift” of an assembly plant? Somehow I think they would.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-defense-fighterbre8at0x9-20121130,0,653095.story

LRIP-4 : 32 jets for $3.4 billion
LRIP-5 : 32 jets for $3.8 billion

Not good, the LRIP unit cost is actually going up, not down. No wonder the Pentagon took so long to reach a deal.

Time to pull the ejection handle on the F-35 and go look for a jet with a saner pricetag instead.

The initial steps to keep US 4th generation aircraft in service a lot longer have been taken. Gives the US the option to reduce F-35 numbers due to F-35 cost, it seems to me.

I suspect that Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands will view these figures with alarm.

High AOA testing is done at idle and relatively low airspeed. If the airspeed was faster, the structural G limit would be exceeded and the wings would break off.

Understood.

The purpose of high AOA testing is to demonstrate care-free handing is a post-stall environment. This gives operational pilots the confidence to take their airplanes to the edges of the flight envelope without fear of losing control.

Understood.

Question: why is a high AOA ability portrayed as being highly desireable for a combat aircraft if it cannot be used at combat speeds (since the resulting G force would incapacitate the aircraft / incapacitate the pilot)?