Just a few of my thought on that “article”. :rolleyes:

the F-35 flight test program has demonstrated none of its over-hyped “fifth-generation” capabilities,

1. RCS – Check
2. Fused sensors – Check
3. Stealthy datalinks – Check
4. LPI AESA radar – Check
5. Mach 1.6+ while fully fueled and carrying a warload (simulated) – Check
6. Spherical SA via EODAS – Check

More laughable moments:

if it works as advertised, however, and if its data is presented in a way the pilot can assimilate and use.

The pilot does not have to “assimilate” anything, that’s why it’s called data fusion.

In any case, detection by radar matters less and less because by switching on its radar a fighter becomes as visible as someone turning on a flashlight in a dark room.

Someone should tell him about LPI radar and how when the F-22 used it, it was not a “flashlight in the dark” moment. In fact, they never saw it coming. Besides a LPI radar, stealthy datalinks, and the ESM (features that the F-35 shares with the F-22), the F-35 can also use the completely passive EOTS and EODAS to prosecute a mission.

the small dimensions of its two bomb bays allow internal carriage of only two Amraam missiles and two JDAM guided bombs.

This is the normal warload of a F-16. Nobody seems to be complaining about that. Besides, those two JDAMs can be swapped for 8 SDBs.

The F-35 is equipped with the APG-81 electronically-scanned radar, but this technology is already being retrofitted to previous-generation US fighters like the F-15E (APG-82(V)1 and the F-18E Super Hornet (APG-79); it is also available in pod form (AN/ASQ-236), has been exported to US allies, and is produced or in development by non-US manufacturers like Selex Galileo, Cassidian and Saab.

He seems to be confused about the difference between LPI and first generations AESA radars. He also seems to think that a small low res SAR pod is comparable to the APG-81.

In fact, there is no need to fly the same aircraft: The only real requirement for joint operations is that participants be able to talk to each other and to exchange data, and this they have been able to do for decades.

On joint missions the F-35 will not be sharing data unless there is a BACN-type capability in the area if there is any chance that it could give away the F-35’s position or endanger the mission.

Here is a site about big-gun subs and aircraft capable subs.
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/05/weekend-warships-3-submarines-is-old.html

The JSF being made today will not be the same as those made in 5 years time they are repeating the mistakes of the F-22.

Not quite sure what you mean. No fighter is the same as the one built 5 years previous or 5 years in the future.

If you are implying that the ones being build today will not be able to be upgraded (to the standard 5 years from now) without serious hardware changes, then I would say you are wrong. At the core of the F-35’s design was over-engineering the avionics so that future upgrades can be easily incorporated. This includes fiber-optic connectors between the avionics, an empty ICP bay at the rear of the F-35 for expansion, UAI for upgrade-less use of newer weapons, etc. They are also setting aside money to bring all Blk1 & 2 jets up to Blk3 standard. To save money, the Blk3 hardware upgrades will be built at the same time as the Blk3 jets are being built.

They did learn their lesson from the F-22 as all the hardware needed is in the first version. It has the EOTS, radar, ESM, HMS, EODAS, etc. Not need to integrate them later (or never get them) like what happened to the F-22.

IIRC, the AMRAAM’s likely burn-through is measured in kilometers, not hundreds of meters. Overshoot is not likely.

Also, with the 120D coming soon, the target’s precise GPS coordinates can be supplied to the 120D which will make evading via jamming/decoy all the more unlikely.

First problem I had with his presentation is when he equated “twice the distance with the same power or the same distance with half the power”. That defies all know power to range transmission equations (inverse square something something…).

Besides that , it sounds very promising if it can be controlled (ala AESA steering).

It is your own interpretation. They are supposed to firm up 14 aircraft. which didnot happened with 12. They simply backed out of the 12 aircraft.
infact they will not be making any decision untill 2015.

Given a “decision” date of 2015, the earliest they could get more F-18s would be 2018/19. By then, Blk3 F-35s will be rolling off the lines in large annual numbers, baring an extremely unlikely program-killing event.

Please, 1:10 (6xAMRAAMs, 2xSidewinders, and 2xGun Kills) 🙂

that’s the US’s chart. China’s chart would be different 😎

No based in the US, but Berlin with 100+ international chapters.

Through more than 100 national chapters worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, we work with partners in government, business and civil society to put effective measures in place to tackle corruption.