Watching that video was like browsing the APA website. It compared untested & unbuilt (PAK-FA & XJJ) to proven US technology and got it wrong.

Lets go through a few slides.

At first glance it looks like everything is the same, as the video intends. However, a closer look reveals glaring irregularities.

1. Radar, unarguably the most important sensor on a fighter, the graph makes them all seem the same. However, history shows us that the US has always held the advantage in radar tech. The graph also uses the phrase “Electronically Scanned Radar”. Sounds like AESA but it’s not.

2. The F-15Cs are getting the APG-63(v)3 in addition to ones that have the (v)2 (both AESA).

3. Where are the F-15Es (that are also getting the APG-82(v)1 AESA radars.

4. Where are the F/A-18E/F/Gs (with their AESA radars)?

5. Nobody has bought a Mig-35 (or has announced plans to, IIRC).

Compared to what??? A F-16 30/40/50/52, F-15C/E, F-18C/D/E/F/G, F-22, F-35??

1. What version of the AMRAAM is that supposed to be?? Public info on the PL-12 puts it at C1 so I will assume that is the version of the AMRAAM listed. This just shows how biased this slide is. Where is the info on the C5/7 or D? Since they are showing a future “Mod PL-12”, how about the JDRADM or even the D+ (which is actually being actively developed for a 2018 timeframe)?

2. The KS-172, if it ever gets deployed, is an anti-awacs AAM that would not have the endgame maneuverability to go after an aware & defending fighter, let alone a F-22/35 (which it would never see).

Now to the last and most confusing slide of all.

The audio that was at this point in the video made it sound like the US was in trouble, but the slide does not bare this out.

If you can make sense of this slide, more power to you.

Considering that we know very little of what a production PAK-FA will be or what anything coming out of China will be, it is a little premature to insinuate that the US is under any threat of loosing Air Supremacy.

Now your really being ridiculous with the “assuming it will” comment. Come Feb 2011 the next budget will come out and all will see the breakdown of costs just like we always have.

I am sure, however given the importance of the first fixed-price JSF LRIP, that they will release details long before that. Most likely this will occur after the contract is signed in a few weeks.

I found another source on a notional post “AIM-120D” upgrade. This from a March 2010 PDF.

A few things of note:

1. Confirms target date of JSF Blk4 IOC of Late 2014 (Aim-9x Blk2 JSF integration)

2. Sets 2018/2019 timeframe of notional AIM-120D+

3. AIM-120D+ might have some HARM functionality

4. Sets 2018/2019 timeframe for AIM-9x Blk3 IOC

For a missile with ~10 sec worth of fuel to be fired at such distance and still have enough speed to remain in controlled flight would require space, or an un-inhabited world with no atmosphere, to avoid the inevitable deceleration caused by friction.
But even then, there would be no atmosphere for the necessary friction to give the control surfaces any authority to change direction. (or remain in controlled flight)

You might want to let DARPA, Raytheon, ATK, Boeing, etc know that what they are planning won’t work 😉

The FACT is that multi-pulse motors are on the way and can work very well due to having gravity on their side (high apogee arching flight).

The change to the doors could be an internal change instead of a bulge which would cause a change in the mold line (which Skunk Works said was not needed).

Another explanation could be that more than one study has been done and the Lockheed one involved new doors and the Skunk Works one did not.

On the clipped wings issue, how much of the AMRAAMs fins were clipped in the adaptation to the 6x internal F-22?

Isreal Govt gives final approval for F-35 purchase.

A ministerial committee headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak authorized the purchase of 20 F-35 stealth fighter jets on Thursday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3955431,00.html

Also, the Senate Appropriations Committee defense subcommittee funds a total of 32 F-35 aircraft (6 Navy, 10 Marine Corps and 16 Air Force planes), deleting 10 aircraft from the requested 42 in their markup. It also defers follow-on software development for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, reduces Navy test funds due to under-execution,

That makes no sense. While the B has had some parts issues, it only missed it’s August goals by two flights (26 out of 28). Conversely, the A nearly TRIPLED it’s goals and even the C exceeded it’s flight test goals.

Given the complaints about Blk3 not being “fully functional”, I do not understand the “defers follow-on software development” issues either.