According to DefenceUpdate USAF plans to purchase 4900 JASSM and JASSM ER.
http://defense-update.com/products/j/jassm.htm
AFAIK the JASSM cannot be carried internally in the F-35; it will be carried externally and make the F-35 dirty.
Since USAF is going for a massive switch to the F-35 for the coming years I was wondering about the logic behind this? Why purchase so many JASSMs when they will soon be flying F-35s that can use e.g. the JDAM which is much cheaper and can be stored internally, and thereby maintaining the low RCS of the F-35.
The long range of the JASSM means that one does not need the low RCS of a clean F-35, but then again you don’t need the F-35 at all.
Some speculations: Could it be that the F-35 with it’s “golf-ball” RCS could face problems when entering, say, an area protected by S-400/S-500, and therefore one still needs some heavy standoff weapons?
L
The F 35 will have a long range, high-precision, stealthy weapon: the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) based on Norvegian NSM (Naval Strike Missile). It’s a mini-cruise missile, it will offer a ~ 100 Nmiles range, and will be able to attack double digit SAMs.
OTOH, the JASSM will be used be heavy bombers (B1, B2, B 52) and non-stealthy F 18 E and F 16.
Infrastructure and service for Raptors has been set since the day one, these are fixed cost, 187 or 194 makes next to zero difference.
Aside existing units at Langley, Virginia and Elmendorf, Alaska, Raptors will be based at Holloman, New Mexico and Hickam, Hawaii. At these two bases, the infrastrructure isn’t ready yet.
$1.75bn is the cost of seven extra F-22 fighters.
Make it $250mil for a Raptor, sorry to ruin your bubble.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162106.stm
Hereby, your arguments are dismissed.
Here we go again…the 250 mil. does include spares, service, infrastructure. The fly-away price is ~ 140 mil…
Sorry “to ruin your bubble”…
F-15C in clean configuration can take off in 900 feet, which is about 300 meters. That is better than 400-500m take off distance of the Flanker or F-16, and slightly more than 240m of MiG-29.
I don’y know how much over 100m it is, but clearly less than 300m. The E has 25 % more thrust than C, while being only 12% heavier (without CFT). With only a few tons of fuel for the display and no weapon load it is normal to take off like that.
That’s a real F 15E on display at Korea Aerospace and Defense Exhibition — the Seoul Air Show in 2001. It was when F 15 was competing for the 40 planes contract that eventually have been won by Boeing. See here: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15kairshow.htm (but the video desapeared). It was an operational F 15E, but without CFTs and powered by more powerfull P&W 229. Impresive, indeed.
None of the systems you have listed requires the others to work for DECADES to “match” you. You can call yourself happy if you enjoy a five year long advantage.
I didn’t bother to take every item on that list; Instead, let’s take the VLO aircraft. The F 117 was operational in 1983; should we undestand from what you said that USSR had an operational VLO aircraft in 1988 ??? :p
You forgot about the centreline drop tank for that figure and it is also very much a figure like “mach 1.5+” for the F-22. M 1.5 for the Typhoon is said to be clean under best conditions.
What tank? In this table, for the 250 Nmiles SC scenario, it states clearly internal fuel.
That is why PNVG were introduced (Panoramatic night vision goggles).
Here is a look of them on the JHMCS. BTW the field-of-vue is not at all restricted : 100 deg.
As far as I can tell by many EF brochures given to potential customers (PDF), SC has always been highlighted among the first 3 prominent features. I guess reduced range of M1.5 and just 4 missiles, are the main reasons why EADS prefers ~M1.3 figure with full load of missiles and a tank.
I understand now! You mean accelerate in AB up to 1.8 M, than cut the AB. I guess that for a dozen of Nmiles (the reduced range), the EF can make 1.5 M, until the speed will inherently come down to the EF real capability of 1.2 M…:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p
Now, as for your aerodynamically illiterate comments on my 2 and 3 point, I’d suggest you go on Rafale News thread and check a film from Rafale demo on LeBourget 2009, posted by arthuro (with pilot’s comments on maneuver and g loading) and I’d suggest finding a EF demo from Perth 2009, although this one has no comment in terms of flight program.
Then, take a stop watch and off you go. After that do the same for F22.
This is an empirical approach to the problem, but should suffice. However, if you at some point feel compelled to learn as why is it so, then I’ll be the first to bid you welcome to the wonderful world of aeronautics. 🙂
Could you be so kind and iluminate us:
– EF has a better top speed than F 22 ?
– EF has a better SC speed than F 22 ?
– EF has a longer SC range ?
– EF has a higher ceiling than the F 22 ?
– EF has a better inst. maneuvrability than F 22 ?
– EF has a better sust. maneuvrability than F 22 ?
– EF has a longer combat radius on internal fuel than F 22 ?
If not, how is the EF “aerodynamically super advanced”? Compared with what?
Did the british pilot actually mention the Eurofighter? I have seen the video quite some time ago, but was of the impression that he did not mention the Eurofighter at all.
What the guy said was : “It is the most advanced fighter in the world”. If F 22> anything else, I can safely say F 22 > EF…:diablo:
You obviously missed Satorians post with the link.
A s I said, I prefer to consider the oficial (declassified) documents from the EF offer. The official figure is 1.2M with internal fuel and 6 AAMs.
But clean is an EF with AIM-120 and without drop tank on the same ideal dry day. But the always quoted 1.22 Mach achieved in Signapore was achieved with a Trainer T1 with center tank, and six rockets and intrims FADEC software, on a hot tropical day in tropical latitudinal and not in Alaska or desert climate like a F-22. Mach is not a fixed speed mark.;)
EF own official declarations mention nothing about the supposed 1.5M. So, let’s stick to the 1.2 M
I was referring to specific on-board IRST systems, not weapon seekers. The F-15C has a radar and nothing else. The only optical system is the Mk. 1 Eyeball, and there is no IRST.
If the seeker of an CATM-9M (or even better CATM -9X; the oposing eagles could have them too) can’t lock on a Raptor at 3-5 miles, at what distance do you believe that an IRST can detect/track the Raptor? Not too far, I guess…:p
1) I don’t see how EF didn’t meet the requirement?! EF actually FLIES Mach 1.5 with recessed AAMs, with EJ200… :confused:
Since when the EF can do 1.5M in SC ??????
2) Well it was in 80s and the funny thing it still is still today. This has been explained a few times on this forum, so feel free to dig around.
:p
3) EF is F1, while F22 is NASCAR, or IndyCar or whatever. Again, there isn’t much point arguing about that.
:p
Funny but when a British pilot (Lt. Dan Robinson) has flown the F-22, then crowds of fanboys have quoted every single word of him as undefiable proof of Raptor’s supremacy. You guys just love your double standards, don’t you?:cool:
Gen. Jumper never said the EF > F22; OTOH the British pilot said clearly that F 22> EF. So, I guess we can trust both of them…:diablo: