Yup, very sloppy paperwork and doing a cut&paste job from last year’s numbers.
Very disappointing 🙁
I will have to wait till tomorrow to finish my reading.. but one thing I did notice is that they cut&paste the FY2010&FY2011 detailed info (page 59) from the FY2011 docs. Too bad because I was looking forward to seeing what deal they got in the LRIP4 (FY2010) contract signing.
I’ll chalk it up to being lazy. But I agree with you that they completely jacked up the FUC cost on page 57.
Witcha, IIRC you are supposed to start with an existing warship, not make one up from scratch.
The bigger question is ‘How do you make it hop up and down’? 😉
Remember to take it with a grain of salt.
According to ACIG.org, in 1982 the F-16 accounted for 14 Mig-23s, mostly with Python-3 (5 kills) and AIM-9L (5 kills). The same site puts the Mig-23 vs F-16 total at 6 all with R-23R missiles.
One thing of note, none of the Syrian claims is confirmed while all the Israeli claims are confirmed. Syria also claimed a F-15 which we know has never lost in an A2A engagement.
What is so “Next Gen” if it went from 1200 to 900 gpm?
Start with an Iowa class
1. Make it a nuke boat
2. Remove structure aft of the 2nd stack and replace with VLS
3. Upgrade all 5″ guns with 155mm AGS
4. Upgrade rear aviation area to handle UCAVs
5. Install AEGIS
6. Upgrade with both CWIS and CRAM (it is going to be a big target after all)
7. Give it plenty of MDG-351 35-mm Millennium Gun installs (10 would be fine for anti-swarm)
8. Clean up all the antenna clutter and give it a lower RCS structure.
9. Modify GPS fuzes for 18″ shells
10. Upgrade to EM & laser secondary weapons when available (AGS & CWIS replacement)
11. Install something like EODAS from the F-35 to track all close in (<20 miles) objects.
Yes, but then it isn’t discrete, but rather a lighthouse.
The most basic of “LPI” principles is to have a large antenna with low output.
You need to think about that again. If two AESA dishes of different sizes (but all other features being the same) are generating the same amount of power, then their detectability is virtually the same.
The wing stations of the F-35 are rated for 5000 & 2500 lbs each. Besides, Boeing has already stated that the Super Hornet can handle the pod on the wing stations. If it can do then the F-35 can too.
The weapons pod can carry a combination of AIM-120 air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground bombs, with each Super Hornet capable of carrying three pods.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5653656&c=air;%20naval&s=TOP
A spiral upgrade path for the F-35 would have been worse than what they have now. Just ask the F-22 how it felt. Where are the cheek arrays, HMD, FLIR, and IRST for the F-22?
That would make a scary DEAD escort indeed.
The diameter & number of T&R modules only matters if everything else is the same.
If the T&R module can transmit more power or has a more powerful back end, then it may makeup for the size difference.
The pod would most likely be swapped out whole, for a full one. This might be easier.
Here’s an idea. have a F-35 carry 2-4 of these (depending on weight). Up to 20 AMRRAMS ans still maintaining a very low RCS 🙂 Hows that for fleet defense.
That is correct, as of now there is no verified replacement for the Super Hornet.
F/A-XX is the planned F-35C followon.
Wrong, it’s the F/A-18E/F follow-on.
Boeing Phantom Works has released a new concept image for a “sixth-generation” fighter to replace the F/A-18E/F fleet after 2025.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/09/329472/boeing-displays-manned-fa-xx-concept-jet.html