Bistatic A2A radars have several problems to overcome.
1. Constant, high-bandwidth datalinks between the users will increase the chance of their detection.
2. The precise location of each aircraft in the formation will have to be determined and maintained.
3. The Active emitter will likely be the primary target of a long-range AAM.
4. The computer horsepower needed to compute this data is not available on current, modern fighters.
5. The receiver of the radar pulse will only benefit if it is inline with one of the shaping “spikes”.
Anything “active” is inherently unstealthy and gives away the element of surprise.
Not saying this is anyone, just thought you would enjoy it.

Sooooo, when did any of you guys get laid last?:D:diablo:
Ah….. one of the many benefits of being married. 😎
Almost fell for it… then I remembered the International Date Line 🙂
Does anyone bother reading the details or doing any research on their own?
All you have to do is look at the historical cost trends of the F-35A and other aircraft to know that the F-35A will NEVER hit a Unit Procurement Cost of $200 million. The last time the UPC of the F-35A was at the $200 mil mark was between FY2009 and FY2010 (FY2009=$208.8 & FY2010=$191.9). Even if you look at the complete Weapons System cost (the largest per unit cost measure), the F-35A today is $182.5 mil (FY2011 budget).
It is embarrassing that I have to explain this, but there are many items that are added to the cost of fighter procurement that are paid no matter what fighter is bought. This includes, but is not limited to manuals, training equip, testing equip, runway upgrades, maint contracts, etc.
Oh, I see the trick he (the CDI author) is using to get the magic “over $200 mil” number, he included the B&C models in the cost. With only 7 F-35C model and 13 F-35B models being built (vs 23 F-35As) in FY2011, of course the cost is high for an early LRIP. This is not a surprise to anyone. What he fails to give is any reason that the Unit Procurement Cost would ever go up while the production numbers ramp up.
I dare anyone, show me a modern fighter program where the cost for the fighters (not ancillary equip, tools, weapons, etc) increased (over inflation) during production while the build numbers ramped up.
hehe… we pulled from the same book 🙂
I assume you are speaking of the cost change in 2011 for the F-35C.
From 2008 to 2010, the USN budget docs did not differentiate between the F-35B and F-35C. Starting in FY2011 the USN, by law, has to report the F-35B and F-35C separately in the budget docs. The F-35C had a higher cost than the F-35B all along, but this was hidden by the fact that they were grouped together in past budget docs.
Since the existence (and technology behind) the F-117 was not released until after the RFI, it makes sense that stealth was not a major factor in the early designs.
Notice that the canards in Lockheed’s RFI concept are retractable. Also notice that the RFI concept from Lockheed looks nothing like the F-22, but an SR-71.
–update
There was a follow-on to the RFP (1985) that emphasized LO for the RFP. Since the RFP was 4 years AFTER the RFI, it is safe to say that LO was not a significant part of the RFI.
Page 56 of this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uCI5KhlGM4kC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Good catch.. I must have missed that when I did the FY2011 updates. Here is an updated one. I also changed the original to show the correction.

The only fantasy here is that F-35 meets ANY cost plans. And the whole mess around it clearly reflects that. For me this is end of story.
Once again, you show absolutely no ability to do any research.
For the first 4 LRIP F-35As, the final price (in REC Flyaway) was cheaper after all the bills came in (2 years after ordering) compared to what the ordering quote was.
While the Development costs have gone up due to delays, the cost to actually produce the F-35 is stable.
Toan, you can actually see the REC flyaway (no Ancillary or non-recurring costs) for the F-35. Here is a graph based on US Budget docs.

What is the disadvantage with canards from an RCS point of view?
He was decrying conventional fighters for having horizontal tail surfaces, yet ignoring the Eurocard’s horizontal nose surfaces (canards). Yes, I know canards are smaller.
Deltawings has by far lower RCS then a conventional a/c by virtue of lower thickness and abcense of horizontal tail surfaces, easily negating any edge alignment, everything else being equal.
LOL… ow wait, are you serious?
Edge alignment means more than just the leading and trailing edges of the wings and tails. Every panel edge is also aligned. Here is a large photo that shows proper edge alignment.

I also like how you conveniently left out the RCS disadvantages of a canard on both of those deltawings.
Tell that your grandma. Originally specified ISD was 2008 for the USMC… 6 month behind the revised schedules. :rolleyes:
This is a slide from 2001. It clearly shows, PRE-SWAT, that the IOC for the USMC was 2010, not 2008.
There may have been some people, pre X-35, who thought that it could be done by 2008, but when they met up with people who actually develop & build planes, they had to face reality.
If you meant that POST-SWAT, the FF for STOVL was supposed to be 2008, then yes it is late by 2 years.

Take a look at all the other panels, they are straight edged.