Congratulations on providing a source that you thought supported your position. Unfortunately you failed to comprehend what it actually said.

1. You seemed to have missed the first part of the sentence

In an unclassified illustration of a stealth analysis, the F-35 had an approximately 95 percent improvement over first to forth generation fighters – meaning a much smaller radar signature.

In other words, whomever did the analysis did not have the true RCS, had no info on the RAM or RAS, and had no info on any “secret squirrel” addons involved.

2. “95% improvement” could mean many things, especially considering it is compared to 1st-4th gen. It could easily mean detection range rather than RCS.

3. In either case, it’s an unclassified analysis and does not represent the true capabilities of the F-35.

And don’t forget stealth downgrade and removal of certain features like AESA jamming.

Ohhh, so close. You almost have learned the lesson of providing sources when making absurd claims.

Swing and a miss.

Usually the amount of the fine matches the severity of the violation, especially in civil matters.

btw, Anyone from LM go to jail over a violation? Boeing eecs have gone to jail or have we forgotten the tanker fiasco?

The F-15SE ref was for Slowwwman’s benefit.

On the “export” issue… it all boils down to Occam’s razor.

On one had you have sworn testimony and many recent direct quotes stating that the JSF Partner F-35s are essentially the same (minor changes due to security concerns like IFF codes, etc and specific equip like drag chutes).

On the other you have quotes that are either very old (from early in the program when details were not known) , very vague, or from source not close to the program.

So either LM, the DoD, the JPO, and many Partner officials are lying (under oath) about the program and there has not been a leak (in this day and age of wikileaks) or the Partner F-35 will be the same as the DoD’s.

Like I said, Occam’s razor.

According to Canada’s Vice Defense Minister Julian Fantino in his signed letter, the CF-35 model for Canada(The Export Model) will have a 95% RCS reduction over a 4th gen jet(5 m^2 standard), making the Canadian F-35’s RCS around 0.25 m^2. If Fantino was comparing CF-35 to CF-18, then it would be 0.15 m^2.

In any case, Boeing can match the export model F-35’s RCS because it is so high in the first place due to the US DoD’s export policy. And this is why countries like Japan and Korea are developing their own stealth jets, because the RCS of export model F-35 isn’t good enough for them in their stand offs against China.

What, no link?

I’ll see your unofficial opinion letter from and raise you sworn testimony (with that pesky penalty of perjury stuff included) with a link.

Main page:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm

Specific Testimony (Canberra: Tuesday 20 March 2012, 5.50pm – 6.30pm):
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commjnt/3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70/toc_pdf/Parliamentary%20Joint%20Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Affairs,%20Defence%20and%20Trade_2012_03_20_919_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commjnt/3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70/0000%22

The F35 configuration that Australia will take delivery of in 2014 is identical to the configuration of the US Air Force.

More recent history shows that Boeing sucks as much as anyone. 787 execution was an epic fail and Wedgetail was even worse

KC-767 also had a lot of cost & schedule issues.

Back door, maybe.

However, that in no way makes the F-15SE comparable to the F-35 in terms of RCS.

You are making assumptions that are not based on no factual evidence and asking the rest of us to take that as gospel.

Lockheed, aka the worst performing defense contractor in the US.

Do you have any of those pesky “facts” to back that statement up?

btw, According to POGO, LM is not the worst (by far).
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm?sort=4

Total Misconduct dollars (in millions USD) since 1995 (I’ll limit it to defense contractors as #1-#9 are non-defense):

#10 Boeing $1054
#11 Halliburton $997
#12 Northrop Grumman $851
#16 Honeywell $704
#20 Lockheed $606
#21 BAE $588
#25 Raytheon $479
#26 United Tech $465

Even as a percentage of projection vs actual cost LM comes in nowhere near the top (worst) of the list. I’ll have to find the report where I read that and I’ll post it when I find it.

Nothing stops Boeing to return at least $5 billion in improper subsidies from the U.S. government to develop the 787 Dreamliner and other aircraf to US taxpayers.

That report sounds like it considers development funds as improper subsidies. Do you have any details about specific payments to Boeing?