on its face, so vague as to be meaningless.

Only to those who are so bias as to ignore the obviousness of it.

If they said that the F-35’s radar had 3 times as many modes as the F-22’s would you say that is meaningless because you don’t get the details?

If they said that the F-35’s CNI had 3 times as many channels as the F-22’s would you say that is meaningless because you don’t get the details?

They directly compared a feature of the F-22 and F-35 and clearly stated that the F-35 had 3 times as many ways of doing something. By any definition you use this gives the F-35 an advantage and to call it meaningless just shows your bias.

So its a number they just fool around with?

The physical ways of detecting enemy targets are pretty limited so it must be different ways of using the technology. There are still approximately 2 ways to find an enemy target (or three).

1 Target emissions (Heat, radiowaves, radar emissions, contrails)
2 Reflections (Active radar, Semi active radar, UV-light)
3 “Dark spots” or visually (silhouette against background or visual)

Another possible version is hacking old datalinks and get information that way.

But to get 650 different ways one really has got get creative.

Very creative indeed. Think of all the radio & radar bands involved that it can monitor, looking for certain patterns. Each one is a potential “parameter” All the different datalinks, SATCOMs, A2G radios, leaky components in the airframe, etc. This is why I think a majority of the “parameters” are related to the ESM as it’s the primary sensor for both the F-22 and F-35. There is just so many things that it can look for.

The radar is also a major sensor as it is tied directly to the ESM. They are also planning on advanced A2A modes like airborne SAR, etc. EOTS also contributes with target ID (not just detection). The key to the F-35 in this area is an abundance of CPU power to filter through and combine the data where needed.

If they had just said 650 without any context, I would not have been as impressed. However, they compared it directly with the F-22 and since they build both (LM with the plane and BaE with the ESM), the context is appropriate.

Mack8, this was sworn testimony given by a high ranking Australian Military officer, not a LM hack or blogger. It was nowhere near PR.

Think of the UAV issue this way:

In WW1 air-power was just starting to become relevant, but not at sea. The navies continued to build battleships.

In the interim years, visionaries such as General Billy Mitchell (in 1921) saw the writing on the wall and called for increased air-power spending. However, planes of the day were not suitable for navy use so they kept building battleships.

As WW2 approached, planes that were suitable for naval use were coming online and the shipbuilders started building purpose-built aircraft carriers.

During WW2 the power of air-power became self evident which lead to the cancellation of the Montana Class battleships in favor of Essex class aircraft carriers

The Battle of Midway put the issue to rest.

The history of the UAV is at the “Billy Mitchell – 1921” stage. They have demonstrated that they work and can do a lot of damage , as long as the target is undefended.

It’s not going to be squeezed by F/A-XX because they are not replacing the same aircraft.

Even if F/A-XX starts dev by 2015, that puts IOC sometime after 2030.

UCAVs are a little harder to calculate because the tech needed is so immature.

AI is not nearly enough to replace manned fighters in the A2A or massed A2G role. Current systems are too vulnerable to jamming and they do not have the SA of manned fighters.

F-35C is replacing the F-18 C/D and F/A-XX is replacing the F-18 E/F. Two different roles.

F-22’s replacement has not been named yet.

One thing that can be assured is that F/A-XX or F-22 replacement will cost a lot more than the F-35 (larger and two engines).

Where did you get that from???

If you do not continually invest in newer tech then your power projection & defensive capabilities go away. As long as the system being purchased will stay relevant while it is a front-line fighter then it is not a waste.

Those numbers have gone up to > 6:1 while outnumbered 2:1 against “Advanced” Red Air, not just “legacy fighters”.

Exactly