Sure, my logic escapes me.. And yet, whatever claim or prediction the naysayers have made about the F-35 in the last 4 or so years, it all came true..
Conclusion: I will gladly stick to my escaping logic further.. Don’t know how, but it works !!

In this case, I think the F-35 could pod the wings.. Upon ditching them, the pilot would not recognize much of a difference in the agility, anyway..
Have a nice day 🙂

MSphere, I don’t have much time to post these day but total respect for the way you have been handling the gang of F-35 bots (you know who you are; – ) pushing the official Lockheed Martin (nothing wrong with making profits guys and keeping jobs and a roof over your heads) line on multiple threads.

…wish I had more time but all a politician who decides a budget needs to know is one and a half trillion dollars (say it again one and a half trillion dollar program) for a program is too much money for a single plane the F-35 and for what it will deliver (eventually…..in a few years time).

…..knowing what we know now no one today would build three different versions of a plane based on a single airframe because the compromises made, for example to get a vertical take off version F-35B working to replace the Harrier, with the other versions being a Naval F-35C and the vanilla Air Force F-35A, far outweigh any cost savings because they do different jobs…..throw enough money at it, yes it can be made to work but as a jack of all trades and master of none.

Your one about the ditching the wings won’t make any difference on the flying brick of plane that is the F-35 had me spilling my coffee 😀

the IR sensors has to have a top-down view as to be useful for locating launch sites,
this already exist in the form of SBIRS, from the location suitable: Space
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/sbirs/Pages/default.aspx

I entirely agree…. satellites and radar already provide adequate input into BMD systems….making any spotting by manned planes redundant or at the very least not a good use of resources…which is why some people’s dogged and stubborn insistence that the F-35 could perform useful tasks at 800 miles away somewhat puzzling.

Yes, of course a requirement and funding has to be in place first (funding priorities for any nation, not just the USA) and then a decision can be made as to which platform to put these sensors, unmanned or otherwise.

For me, what is interesting is what advantages (and the usual cost / benefit disadvantages) would there be in placing EODAS-like sensors in long loiter UAVs in the context of a BMD system?

If we were to look at say Israel or India, two countries who have to contend with the threat of ballistic missiles, where would swarms of unmanned platforms fit into the different threat parameters covered by Iron Dome (short range up to 70 km), Green Pine up to 300km and Arrow (hundreds of km)? (For India, I suppose it would be PAD and ADD).

What advantages, if any, would potentially having a large number of UAVs add to such systems, and more importantly how much would they cost to operate? Would such an arrangement be truly feasible within tight budgets, if to obtain meaningful enhancement of the BMD system and area coverage, this could only be attained by deploying say a very large number of UAVs to enhance existing BMD systems?

In the more traditional air-to-air role (fighter vs. fighter), being a passive system is of course the big advantage of IRST and It will be interesting to see the development of a staring sensor for air-to-air, bearing in mind the inherent limitations (short-range and subject to atmospheric conditions) of all IRST systems…..

….of course someone said does that mean they can see our F-35s using the latest IRST?

The answer is yes, of course they can! 😀 , low observability does not mean the F-35 is invisible! ; -)

It aint however a long range IRST for the sort of missions that are expected from it.

[/B] Keep in mind that the achilles heal is Identification..If you can’t ID a signal at X nm, you need to get an ID from somewhere else. T

hats the point where the hardware becomes an early warning system as opposed to a targeting and weapons system.

Thanks for this BIO…..all these pages just to confirm the F-35, just like any other plane, can do nothing useful at a range of 800 nautical miles!

The whole point is politicians should know that this it is yet another PR puff, an example of Lockheed Martin trying to talk up the F-35 as if it is some kind of death star ;- ) and to try to justify to lawmakers who control budgets that all the money spent on their baby has been worth it!

They threw in that the F-35 can detect the flare of a rocket at a very long distance of hundreds of miles…forgetting the naked eye can see stars million of miles away and for those who can remember, the Apollo launches from Cape Canaveral could also be seen from hundreds of miles away.

My point was what useful thing can be done if a rocket flare is spotted 800 miles away? Nothing. It cannot use its weapons at that distance, nor provide useful tracking information to units 1000 km away either 😀

Instead, ballistic rockets would be tracked by and dealt with by BMD systems and by not planes flying hundreds of miles way picking up the flare of rocket engines.

P.S. Lukos, I like you, but even you must be embarrassed your mate mig-31bm had to post a copy of your college degree (with the marks for each year!) 😀 Great you’ve got a degree but doesn’t mean you don’t talk ******** at times (I still like you!).

There are times you seem to be arguing for the sake of it…..take it for what’s it worth, but you don’t have to have the last word and nor do you have to be right all the time (not possible for anyone! ;- )….sometimes it is possible to see what respected posters like Trident or Scorpion are saying and just let go of a futile argument instead of always trying to prove how clever you are and never wrong! I have no doubt you would be great company in a pub ;- ) 🙂

Just leave it … I definitively think these guys are paid. it happens more and more on web forums.
You can find any arguments you like , they will find another hypothetical scenario against it. Dragging you into pointless imaginary air warfare . Their point here is to prove that Rafale is “less good” at anything than Typhoon and F-35.

Sergeleboss, congratulations on the recent victories and those yet to come ;- )

Here’s to you! My drink of choice: Verve Cliquot, goes well as aperitif, before meal, with meal and after meal! 😎

I know what you mean….must be a full time job for those paid shills!….some of the usual suspects are not here today (you know who you are :dev2:) …maybe they’re on a rota? Or they take breaks or swap forums so as not to make it too obvious ;- )

The ultimate decisions are made by politicians who may not always not au fait with technical issues or long-term cost/benefit merits of the planes they have to authorise…..unfortunately they only worry if they do not get votes at the next election and will make a poor decision to save money day money today but that will cost more later….30 or 40 years time is too far away for them to think about! ;- ) (it is election night here….another coalition…Zzzz).

The Rafale is a superb aircraft for its role (s) and it has replacing seven older aircraft in France (Rafale M would have been perfect fit for the RN carriers instead of that the limited range and limited payload F-35B;- )).

The full potential of the new UK Queen Elizabeth class carriers can only be exploited by aircraft Like Rafale M or F-35C (Navy version that cannot take off vertically but has more range and carries more payload) that would have been catapulted (using new electromagnetic catapults instead of the old steam ones) and not by the F-35B vertical take off version eventually bought….another SNAFU bad decision to flip-flop to save money but ended up costing more and delivering less capability.

All politicians need to know is that the F-35 is too big to fail ($trillion + lifetime…yes that’s trillion!). if you throw enough money at any project you can make it work….but at what price? And is the price worth paying if you are not engaged in day one operations to break down the door against air defence systems as strong as Russia’s or China’s with their S-400s (and S-500s to come) before you send in “regular” and cheaper to operate planes who can do the same or bigger missions but with less emphasis on low observability to modern defence systems?

I believe the F-35 is too much money for what you get: a flawed project. With so much money involved is the reason why so many defenders seem to appear from nowhere to defend LM (Lockheed Martin (makers of the F-35) to tell us all is ok and it is excellent use of taxpayers money and all be fine….why so desperate in Keypubs forums chaps unless you have a dog in the fight! (PS why do you always quote a price fro the F-35 without the engine!?)

Why are congressman and senators for it? Jobs for their voters. Example of a recent poor political decision is to take out many squadrons of more capable F-16 squadrons to operate instead the more limited and vulnerable to MANPADS A-10s for just a short time. There are also many example of pork barrel spending by Congress to get people to vote for them in the next election and screw what is cheaper and better for the country.

Why is the F-35 flawed? Because someone said to save money why not have the same basic aircraft for the Air Force (F-35A -Alpha version), Marines (F-35B – Bravo version – can take off vertically like the Harrier but has limited range and can’t carry as much as the other versions) and Navy (F-35C- Charlie version). The trouble is to make the vertical take off version (F-35B) for the marines using the same basic airframe a lot of compromises were made that resulted in less of an aircraft (but ended up very expensive because a lot of money had to be thrown at it to make it work). Better would have been two separate versions: one for the Air Force and Navy; and a different one that that can take off vertically like the Harrier for the Marines. Too late now to change but what a costly mistake!

Politicians also need to know the F-35 is no magic wand. Just because it is a stealth aircraft does not make it invisible and in the past every advance in equipment has been matched by opponents (often at a cheaper cost) in a series of iterations. There are advances in missile defence systems and detection that will eventually need to be countered in the same way.

Politicians should also be wary of ridiculous claims made for the F-35 like it can detect rocket launches 800 miles away! Remember the Apollo launches could also be seen in the lower atmosphere with the naked eye. I can also detect the sun 93 million miles away with the naked eye and similarly see stars light years away with the naked eye….so what? Question is what can be done about a ballistic missile not already detected by satellite or radar when its rocket flare is seen by an aircraft 800 miles away? Did you say a F-35 can provide co-ordinates for another missile to take it out (like a anti-ballistic missile (ABM)) against a target travelling several times the speed of sound :D.

Supporter of the F-35 say they cannot yet quantify its true operating cost because there are not enough operational squadrons that have done enough hours flying but I guarantee the operating cost of the F-35 is going to cost an arm and a leg! And the operating costs will mean it is not suitable for smaller air forces (say like Czech Republic, or Hungary etc.) attracted by low-ish fly-away costs estimates given for the F-35 (price always quoted without an engine of course!) for late production slots in the 2020s (due to economics of scale in the production ramp up to build 2,400 planes). The development cost has already been paid for (and more continues to be paid to fix bugs) and the marginal cost of making another plane will be less when you make 200 a year but for non-partner nations some of the development costs can be reflected in the price to them (e.g. final price if F-35 ever offered to India to build in India a similar manufacturing plant like the one in Italy will be billions).

To make the F-35 in an India factory (if ever allowed) you would be talking I estimate $300m per plane (double Gripen price) and then there is the huge operating and support cost on top. Even the US buys minor non-critical parts for the F-35 from China (something like fasteners or similar) because it is simply not worth setting up a factory to make a limited number of items in-house if it can’t pay its own way because it can’t sell everything it makes. Something like making two-thirds of the parts in house and buying in a third would seem to be viable. It is not necessary for self-sufficiency or independence (you don’t get that if you buy the F-35 compared to buying Rafale 😀 ) to make every single nut and bolt. the Gripen model is a good one to go on with the caveat that India, like China, needs to master engine technology first and foremost and that is not an easy or quick task. That is why for India buying Rafale as fly-away was an excellent decision. About a further 60 to 90 Rafales will enable India to maintain squadron strength as huge numbers of older planes are withdrawn in the 2020s. Also, Rafales are multi-role (or Omni-role ;- )) and can replace larger numbers of older generation planes that are specialised for only one or two dedicated roles so fewer aircraft are required to carry out the same missions. The number of squadrons don’t have to be written in stone with the increased capability of newer, more advanced aircraft like Rafale which are self-escorting. Then a smaller number of more capable Rafale squadrons can carry out the required missions.

It’s no use comparing the Rafale to the Typhoon because both are similar twin-engine aircraft and equally costly to operate for smaller air forces. Typhoon will perform to its full potential once upgrades are implemented…cost-cutting decisions delayed the implementation of the full spectrum of roles especially air to ground….the air-to-ground Brimstone 2 ‘”fire-and-forget” missile produced for the RAF by the European consortium MBDA carried by the old (and expected to be withdrawn from service in the next UK defence review?) Tornadoes in Libya proved its worth and effectiveness against moving targets without causing as many civilian deaths (hate saying ‘collateral damage’) as similar older missiles (but it is expensive at £100k a pop). Cost of such effective weapons as Brimstone 2 will add to the operating cost (possible purchases by USA, India, France).

Just as the Swedish SAAB Gripen NG, a smaller single-engine and cheap and easy to operate aircraft is suitable for smaller countries who only require local police missions and are not involved in worldwide expeditionary warfare (e.g. Czech Republic, Hungary etc.)

Gripen is especially suitable for those countries with tight budgets and who have to watch their buying and operating costs and who don’t have a $660 billion defence budget like the USA (not paid by taxes but paid for by borrowing more and adding to the multi-trillion USA debt that will never be repaid like a giant Ponzi-scheme…..and they don’t have 500 tanker aircraft spread throughout the world to support F-35 operations….or who don’t have the expensive net-centric support system of the US that the F-35 can easily fit into..

Finally, simple minded people who take a price for aircraft purchase and divide by the number of aircraft fail to breakdown the cost between fly away price, and the rest: training, spares, support infrastructure to actually operate the plane, cost of weapons (on just one plane can be many millions).

A good example is the sale of 36 Gripen to Brazil is some how the fly-away price for 36 aircraft; it is not. It is the cost of 36 Gripen aircraft as well as a factory (and ToT) to make more Gripens!

The transfer of technology, the design know-how and engineering culture developed by Gripen over the years, the manufacturing line to make Gripens (this is what India should have done by buying the Mirage 2000 factory when it was offered 10 years ago) and cost of the hundred or so Brazilian engineers who will be living in Sweden for the next few years as they obtain the transfer of technology information to make and further develop the plane are reflected in the overall price.

Around 100-130 Gripens will be built eventually just for Brazil not including the Sea Gripen version (to be developed by Brazil because it is determined to have continue to have aircraft carriers to project its power as the 5th or 6th world economic power in the 2020s and 2030s and to defend its offshore economic zone containing substantial oil and gas reserves.

Sorry for OT in the Rafale thread….I did not mean to write so much…..also did not mean to stay up for the UK election results now coming in….predicted conservatives win most seats but no majority….question is will the Liberals win enough seats after losing so many to continue the existing coalition?

Rafale is a great aircraft and I am delighted at its deserved export success (plural! Bon Chance for the others!:D) and it is a shame because of the dysfunctional procurement process in India that India delayed a decision for 10 years (when it could have bought the Mirage 2000 factory in the first place 10 years ago!)

It took Modi just a few months ,when the political will was there, to override a bureaucracy whose first thought is to kick the can down the road and avoid a decision rather then take decisive and coherent steps within the framework of stated national goals (like authorised squadron levels).

PS @Nic I can’t believe Sarkozy may make a come back after taking cash in envelopes from Liliane Bettencourt (a step up from Qaddafi?). Still I can’t blame him too much as the problem for funding of political parties is the same here in the UK….where are they supposed to get their funding from?

Still not as bad as the USA where the billionaire Sheldon Adelson has bought the Republicans as long as you toe his line (bomb Iran etc.) when the real problem is the Saudi (and Qatar) backed sectarians of the Wahhabi death cult behind ISIS and Al Quaeda and the 9/11 bombers.

Adelson crossed the line when he bought his paid for man Netanyahu to Congress. The Logan Act was added to the constitution in 1799:

“The President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.” (1936, Justice Sutherland).

Marshall, March 7, 1800, House of Representatives, ‘The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.’

Adelson got 42 senators to write to Iran to undermine Obama’s negotiations, contrary to the Logan Act 1799. Those senators are breaking the American constitution and their private correspondence (i.e. not an official letter from the competent US executive authority which is the President) may make them liable to fines or three years in jail under US law:

953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Band on the Run reminds me of another favourite from that time by that old hippie George Harrison….

My Sweet Lord…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kNGnIKUdMI

This is also a great version from 2003 from the Concert for George…..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELOe3f-hihc

Paul and Ringo are there….Eric Clapton on guitar…..vocals by Billy Preston…..they really build up a great atmosphere in the Albert Hall..

As long as you hate, there will be people to hate (George Harrison)

Denny Laine Band 2015 – Band on the run.

Great music and harmonies – not bad for a 71 year old ; ) and original member of ‘wings’

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCVsdBV4Nt3E&ei=fr9HVfS0KYL_Uvf0gIgE&usg=AFQjCNEDdu-sEYkC2bdd0m4U8fPCgJZmXQ&sig2=hCsAc3wQF6qg37knymcq5g

Thanks for posting this Bazv….I’d forgotten how much I liked this….

Denny Laine still making music at 71! Great stuff …..here’s the original….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc-7G2OSsBY

I reckon Paul McCarthney’s best since he left the Beatles….(along with Silly Love Songs 1976 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_9QooYDYtU)

…great chords to start….almost three songs in one 😉 And the county judge who held a grudge….Will search for evermore…..But we never will be found.