If stealth is only effective at ranges beyond 20 miles or so then it’s still pretty limited as such kills simply don’t occur frequently even against non-RCS-optimized aircraft,

I did not say that. The purpose of any VLO aircraft is to degrade the ability of the enemy tracking systems for long enough in order to attack the target, which may or may not be those same tracking systems. The same holds true for legacy systems only they rely on jamming instead of passive stealth.

Basically, VLO aircraft enable you to attack your targets by reducing the effective protection coverage area of the ADA and exploiting the gaps that open. (see linked image).

Btw, the exact quoted range of the F-117 shot was 18km, less than half the 20 mile range you are talking about. At 10 miles JDAMs, LGBs, and even Brimstone class missiles are an option. Even at 20+ miles there are plenty of standoff munitions like JSOW, JASSM (external), JSM, SDB, etc that can be used well outside the detection range of VLO aircraft.

mostly due to target recognition limitations.

Which is one of the reasons why data fusion & analysis is one of the hallmarks of the F-35.

That is also why I don’t consider all aspect (especially rear aspect) stealth particularly important as the kinetic range of the missile in tail chase is greatly reduced.

All aspect is important because in strike missions there will likely be radar threats from the sides as well as the front, not to mention A2A threats.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/1b77b29e.jpg

Which is why the T-50 has three

Seriously, its sensor suite is probably among the most powerful and diverse of any fighter, and with DIRCM making it more tolerant of being shot at than the competition, it may be a highly effective system even with a somewhat larger RCS.

Sorry, who has DIRCM?

IIRC only the F-35 has it in it’s publish development plans.

On the LPI AESA front, since both Russian systems (AESA and LPI) are still in their infancy, I would not put much stock into them being effective vs western systems.

what type of missile did a pilot dodge 6 of during package Q flight ?

Don’t know and don’t care as it’s irrelevant to the conversation.

The downing of the F-117 was heralded as the “beginning of the end” of stealth aircraft when in fact it just demonstrated that poor planning and lack of SA can doom any mission, especially when you virtually fly over the head of the enemy.

Without range the missile has to fly directly towards the target. This is the most inefficient form of flight profile and severely impacts the “published” ranges of modern AAMs.

For example, the latest ranges for the Aim-9X and especially the AIM-120D rely on an arching profile to achieve their max range.

Besides, (as Trident said) without the range you do not know whether the target is even in range of the missile to begin with, regardless of the flight profile.

ADA networks are already connected. However, those connections can com under attack.

One of the ways that the US crippled the Iraqi ADA was to attack the data interconnects between the nodes.

Sorry, buddy, as a customer, I have to know the cost of the whole program BEFORE I make a decision. Ever heard of a term fixed price offer?

All the charts you are showing me is for LM’s own accountants to help them make a final quote. Me, as a customer, do not have to waste my time reading the charts, I just want to know what the birds (incl. support and all) will cost me to purchase in the given timeline. Am I being clear?

The charts I posted were the Dec2012 Annual SAR report put out by the USGovernment, not LM. The Government of Norway is part of the JPO and has access to details much greater that what the SAR provides.

On the cost issue, the SAR only covers the F-35 itself and not all the other other items (support infrastructure, etc) that only Norway and whomever bids on the project know about. The additional items vary from country to country so it’s impossible for the SAR to track every nation’s variables for the next 25+ years. Since the price of the jet is the only thing that changes substantially from year to year, it is the only thing relevant to this conversation.

You’re making the mistake of deducting 34% from the ENTIRE program cost and not 34% from the cost of only the plane.

Besides, Norway is not buying large numbers of planes today.

Per: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130426/DEFREG01/304260023/Norway-F-35-Deliveries-Begin-2017

A quick Google check showed that Norway will order 6 F-35s a year starting in 2015 and going until 2023 (52 airframes).

Using the non-inflation numbers from above, the cost of the FY2015-2023 planes is $4.1billion vs the cost of FY2022-2030 planes which is 3.7 billion. Add inflation and the price difference is only $80 million, in favor of buying the fighter sooner (inflation is a bitch).

So, you would have to spend 80 million more to wait 7 years between the two purchase programs. Add that $80 million to the increased cost of operating legacy aircraft for an additional 7 years and the loss of offsets for those 7 years.

OK.. That means how much for the whole deal?

It means that planes bought in 2022 will be 34% cheaper than ones bought in 2012, even when you include inflation.