Handing out a small sole-source contract to a company (based on previous work in the field) is a far cry from handing a company a trillion dollar contract without a competition because they lost the last two.

Boeing has plenty of commercial work to keep them afloat and do not need this kind of handout (nor do they deserve it).

@Sintra:

I did not say that it did not happen, just that it was not the job of the Govt to do it. Besides, those were loans not contracts to buy products. Those loans were (or are in the process of being) paid back.

I’m still amazed that every time you post, you completely prove that common sense is not common.

Try reading and understanding tactics rather than just comparing individual performance specs.

I do not think they can take that into account. It has to be a vest value / lowest risk type of contract.

They could have excluded the T-50 (if they wanted to) by specifying 2 engines, max weight, fuels use, etc.

I was under the impression that comment was about the Eagle @ Mach 2.

Nope, it was M1.2 (or 1.4).

Point being that this was a driving force behind the F-35’s top design speed of M1.6 in that a combat loaded fighter capable of M1.6 was plenty.

An editorial, by definition, is not “news”. That was my point.

About the only way an F-35 would likely intercept a -31BM is to use networked data so that the F-35 that is going up to intercept (in front of, not chasing) the BM will not have to go active. This would cut down the detection & reaction time of the BM (does it have a MLD/MAWS?) due to the Aim-120D not going active till moments before impact. It would not be easy, but it is doable.

I have always been in favor of the airborne ESSM-LR/PAC-3 for these kinds of things.

As to speed, the F-35’s combat loaded speed is m1.6+ (and can go 50k+). Has the F-15 ever gone that fast in combat? I remember a quote from a USAF general a few years ago that said that the number of times that the F-15 has been above m1.2 in combat could be counted on one hand.

Again with the “export” F-35? Officials in the DoD and sworn testimony have said that there is no substantive difference in F-35s (domestic or Partner). btw, Boeing has stopped making that claim (gee, I wonder why?). Get over it.

On the Zaslon-AM, wiki (I know but I have no other sources and no time to look it up) says that only a very small minority of the PESA transmitters are L-Band while a majority is X-Band. It sounds more like an IFF than a radar. Besides, the shaping of the F-35 and it’s RAM/RAS still affects L-Band, just not as much as X-Band. There is also the issue of the F-35’s ESM picking up any radar signals and geo-locating the source long before the F-35 is within detection range (or even in the detection arc).

F-35’s can use EOTS to triangulate a contact well outside your 49 mile range.

On decoys, the F-35 can provide updated GPS assisted coordinates of the target to the AIM-120Ds which will allow them to likely ignore the decoys. btw, The target has to know the missile is coming in order to spool out the decoy. Neither the current F-18/15 has an MLD so the first clue they will have that a missile is inbound will be when the -120D goes active a few seconds before impact. Not sure if the Mig-31BM has IIR or UV MLD. Not sure about the range of the International F-18 or F-15SE MLD capabilities.

And finally, the F-35 was meant to be a multirole fighter which includes air combat. So no, it was not meant to only be a F-117 replacement. Slowman, you might want to listen/read the Australian testimony (ie under oath and subject to perjury penalties) where the F-35 scored better than 6:1 against “advanced Red Air” when both the Red and Blue forces were being flown (in simulators) by well trained combat fighter pilots and all while being outnumbered >= 4:8. btw, your referenced RepSIM simulations were handily smacked down as utter hogwash due to lack of knowledge, lack of tactics used, etc.

5 of 8 traps worked in recent tests and the three missed were due to pilot not placing the hook in the right place.