The numbers in the article from The Aviationist are just not adding up. They say the total budget for procurement is only $930mil. However, for 64 planes that is only $14.5 mil per plane. You likely could not buy modernized & refurbed F-16s for that cheap, let alone the “5th gen” fighters they are talking about now.

On the flip side, the original announcement mentioned a price of $115mil in 2021 which is much more than the projected Gross Weapon System (GWS) price at that time (low $90’s). Add the training, tech support, transport, and weapons to the 2021 GWS and $115 per F-35A is doable.

Using that logic then that claim can be used for ANYTHING that Poland (or anyone else that get’s money) spends it’s money on.

What is the net contribution level anyways?

Poland to buy 64 fifth-generation fighters

I can’t login to read the whole article, but $108 mil per plane in the 2021/22 timeframe is doable for the F-35 depending on what they want included in that price.

I noticed that they want 64. It would be funny it they ended up with more than the UK.

First, ATDL is a backbone/fusion of all the different data on the battlefield. It is not a single datalink and you are not beaming everything to everyone.

It is also not a replacement for MADL/IFDL/Links16.

Think of it as BACN on steroids.

For F-35/22 relevancy, different assets (IFR/AWACS/ISR/Drone/etc) in the air would act as the “25th” MADL (or F-22 IFDL) terminal that would act as the gateway handling data to and from the F-35/22 flights. These assets would then sent the data back to a central fusion server. Data going to the F-35/22 flights would be in reverse, but only the relevant data need be sent.

Bandwidth needs for the individual Gateway-to-ATDL Server is not much more than what MADL handles now but due to the size of the asset can be scaled up and added to most supporting air assets.

Items that are not time sensitive like BDA video, target location images, etc can be handled over the SatComm to free up the MADL network.

ATDL = Everything brought together

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225832[/ATTACH]

You mean just like LM does in other areas like the 650 different ways of detecting a target? You yourself used that bs.

you seem to be confusing 650 ways of saying the same thing with 650 different ways of achieving a goal.

It means the IRST can track your target even when you pull a high G turn towards him because it is placed above the upper side of the fuselage instead of the belly or under the nose. Similarily the IRST on Gripen is not optimal for ground targets since the fuselage is in the way when looking down. Luckily that is solved with a pod.

If the target is within WVR range then EODAS handles all the targeting in a full 360.

Something the F35 will never have. Thanks to the split avionics core the users will be able to integrate their own weapons, their own private datasharing modes etc. Possibly even use their own EWS-algorithms or being able to add their legacy datalink to their platform without even touching the flight critical software. User apps is flexibility, cheap software patches and freedom to tailor an existing product to your own needs.

F-35 users can integrate their own weapons/pods through UAI. All partner nations have a say in what the F-35 offers as part of its software suite and by keeping it “universal” they keep it more stable, keep the maintenance down, and keep the FOD cost & timeframe down. Btw, the JPO as part of the Israeli negotiations reviled that the F-35’s avionics will offer APIs for clients that “must” have their own stuff.

The APG 81 has, afaik, some 1200 GaAs based T/R modules while the Gripen most likely will be at around 1000 GaN T/R modules. Considering the higher power output in GaN antennas it is quite plausible that the ES-05 will outrange the APG81 against the same target.

As you can see from my post above, the APG-81 has 1626 modules. Show me a HiRes shot of an uncovered Gripen AESA and I’ll count those for you .

Both have directional datalinks, both have SATCOM, both have AESA-based EW-suites with DIRCM and 360 degree coverage. AFAIK Gripen will have GaN based EW but the F35?

The MADL can connect SIX times as many fighters together than TIDLS. Nobody has DIRCM although it is part of the F-35’s funded FOD program.

It is the first to integrate Meteor, it’s the only fighter to have both MICA and AMRAAM integrated (how is Rafale doing here? Amraam integrated? etc. So I’d say it has proven to have short integration times already, and the split avionics core will improve this further.

UAI integration time is measured in MONTHS and not the YEARS that it takes to integrate weapons now. Being the first does not mean that it did not take you long to do it, just that you were willing to spend the time & money to offer a wide variety of weapons due to the clientele that you are perusing.

What advantages do you see with F-35’s satcom vs Gripen E’s satcom?

Directional, LPI, LPD, conformal

What advantaged do you see with MADL versus Gripen E’s directional LPI datalink ?

MADL supports 25 terminals vs the 4 of TIDLS and has a likely longer range and greater bandwith. It’s also seamless. Using the radar itself for a very long-range and large bandwidth datalink is also in the development path.

What advantages do you see with the voice control on F-35 vs the voice control on Gripen E?
.. and so forth..

I did not know it had it, thanks for the heads up.

An IRST that can see over the plane and not only below?

The F-35 can see in front, above (to a degree), to the sides, and behind the F-35. Not to mention all the unique abilities that EODAS bring to the table (tracking, ID, etc in a 360 passive environment).

[QUOTE]5. Notice the lack of mentioning the F-35’s voice control (plus satcom, AESA radar datalinks, cooperative EW, MADL supports 25 terminals, etc, etc) that is lacking on Gripen?

Among these what is lacking on Gripen NG?

It has no plans for an radar based AESA datalink or Cooperative EW, MADL connects more planes, etc.

Define UAI please.

Universal Armament Interface. Think Computer Drivers for weapons. Traditionally the plane’s whole software package has to be updated and tested in order for new weapons to be added. With UAI only the “Driver” needs to be loaded for a new weapon to be added.

And they forgot the hilarious lacking rover. Can’t stop laughing since i learned that ;)))

The USMC was the prime driver for early CAS in the F-35 and they knew and would rather have the F-35B at IOC than to wait years for Rover. Besides, ROVER was not even around when the F-35 started development. The only thing funny is how the blogosphere is all up in a tither that is does not have ROVER at IOC yet the services have no problem with it.