Or alternatively, a Gripen can drop bombs at the going rate of <$5000 per hour,

When you can accurately figure out the ENTIRE cost for a strike package (and not just one element), let me know.

Don’t forget the IFR, ISR, decoy, jammers, escorts, weapons used, etc.

A Gripen with standoff JASSM/Stormshadow is NOT going to be cheaper than a F-35 with JSOW/JDAM.

(Ex the previous cap just had a skirmish and are now out of ammo, you need to send a new CAP ASAP)

That would make it the exception and not the rule.

@Sens: 150 miles is the total for a single dash by that and nautical miles were not claimed.

Given that NM is almost always used when talking about fighter “miles”, I would go with NM before assuming statute miles.

SAAB claim 250 nm on SC, + 50 min on station,
now we just have to argue if that is with drop tank 🙂
What was the dash claimed for F-22 ?

There are two things wrong with that pic.
1. The F-35 can supercruise at 1.2
2. The F-35 can carry 4 AMRAAMs internal

I don’t blame the producer of the pic that much because at the time LM had not:
A. Clarified what LM/DoD’s definition of supercruise was
B. Clarified whether the F-35 stay above M on Mil power (may or may not fit LM’s SC def per #A)

There are some things missing from the story that are needed to understand the picture completely.

I. Is LM’s F-35 150 mile SC range in statute or nautical mile (likely nm)?
II. Is the 150 one way (out or in) or round trip (out and in)?
III. What range was used up before & after the SC dash?
IV. What weapon load was in the calculation?

Final thought: If you wanted to maximize CAP time (as the pic states), the last thing you would want to do is dash out to the assigned area at MAX MIL which uses a lot more fuel than subsonic.

btw, The only official info about F-22 SC range comes from F-22 test data.

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

Combat Radius (NM) Mission 1 (Sub+Super) = 310+100nm

@Mack08:

You were correct that the -239 is derived (and simpler) than the -94. It’s currently a passive only system unless it’s using the APG-81. I say “currently” because there is space in the sensor bays for active expansion at a later date.

The F-35 does not currently have a towed decoy.

Since the greatest threat of an incoming missile is from where the F-35 is heading, APG-81 jamming in the forward sector only is perfectly fine for now.

The news of the F-35’s supercruise ability was just to finally put an end to the naysayers claiming that the F-35 cannot SC because LM never claimed it could, it’s too fat, the F135 is not made for it, it’s too heavy, etc. Now they can go on about if it was in a dive, what fuel state did it have, was it armed, what altitude, what temp, did it have a tailwind, what was the subsonic range before & after the SC dash, etc, etc.

Funny thing, that info has never been released about the Tiffy, Raf, Gripen NG, Su-35, or even the F-22 yet many claim and readily accept their ability to SC.

As far as DACT, I see VFMA-121 showing up at a Red Flag before the decade is out (likely with 5 years). Whether a Tiffy or Raf is there at the same time, who knows.

The full quote is:

Without this helmet—or possibly a backup model being quickly developed by BAE—the U.S. Marine Corps cannot declare operational capability as planned, as early as 2015.

Recent news about the helmet tests have been nothing but good so I do not see this as a hindrance.

The reason that I estimated a little before the previously quoted “early 2015” date is that for almost two years they have been continually beating test schedules and they are adding more developmental assets.

This may result in it being in late 2014 as opposed to early 2015.

Time will tell.

Spud do you remember that ? Do you have any info on it ? or was it just a fleeting thought

From what I have seen, there are three possibilities.

1. Back before any delays happened with the F-35 program and NGJ was just starting up, there was talk of stealthy NGJ pods.

2. When it became apparent that the F-35 was to be delayed, NGJ went forward without a specific goal of F-35 integration and would not likely have a LO package.

3. Terma, the makers of the F-35’s external gun pod housing (not the gun), are developing the pod itself into a multi-mission unit. Considering Terma’s history in the EW area, I do not think it will be long before it’s offered in a EW version, likely for Israel.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/10/the-terma-f35-multi-mission-pod/

I know that, I was referring to the fact that the longer the thread, the stronger the composite as most people don’t know that nanotubes look like power to the naked eye.

Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe you are the one who needs to read it again.

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.

“Smooth” = better and “slightly reducing” means it is smaller.

If they had said “slightly reducing performance”, then you might have a point, but they said “slightly reducing … radar signature” which means a smaller RCS.

They also follow it up with “Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability” which should put your interpretation to rest.