Here are the railgun advantages, once the development is done.

1. Higher rate of fire. A less massive shell can be manipulated faster into a firing position. With all things being equal, this allows for a higher ROF.

2. Lower ammo storage requirements, no powder needed.

3. Better transfer of energy to projectile. In a chemical round, all of the impulse is applied to the round at the start and then drops off till the round leavs the barrel. In a railgun, the acceleration is constant fo the entire barrel.

4. Less duds. With a gentler acceleration, the electronics come under less G stress upon firing.

5. No muzzle flash (of powder anyways).

6. Safer operations… remember the USS Iowa

Here is the US Navy’s FAQ on railguns

http://www.onr.navy.mil/emrg/faqs-electromagnetic-railgun.asp

Well, we were talking BVR AAMs…..

So the only Nuke AAM ever put into service = Hughes GAR-11/AIM-26 Falcon

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-26.html

Aim-9x Block 2 has LOAL, a GPS INS, 3rd party targeting, lofting profiles, and a Data Link.

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
You misunderstood.

For the money you spend on one F-22 for it’s entire lifetime, you could get 3-4 F-35s.

This is how.

1. At over $150 mil for each F-22, you get two F-35s.

2. With the cost savings for the lifetime costs of the F-22, you might get another one. The pilot training and salary costs are in this category also.

3. If you took funds from the F-35 program to pay for a F-22, the cost of the remaining F-35s increases to the point of almost reaching another airframe.

So in total, if you took funds from the F-35 program to pay for, and maintain for a lifetime, a F-22, your total lost F-35s would be 3-4 airframes.

Your numbers are incorrect & your logic is flawed.

By all means, elaborate.

Where do you get the F-35s WLCC will be 3-4 times greater than an F-22?

With that argument surely buying an even cheaper F-16/Gripen NG would suffice?

You misunderstood.

For the money you spend on one F-22 for it’s entire lifetime, you could get 3-4 F-35s.

This is how.

1. At over $150 mil for each F-22, you get two F-35s.

2. With the cost savings for the lifetime costs of the F-22, you might get another one. The pilot training and salary costs are in this category also.

3. If you took funds from the F-35 program to pay for a F-22, the cost of the remaining F-35s increases to the point of almost reaching another airframe.

So in total, if you took funds from the F-35 program to pay for, and maintain for a lifetime, a F-22, your total lost F-35s would be 3-4 airframes.

See, there you go again. You have to stop dismissing what people say without reading it thoroughly.

“#1 above, an Aim-9X, Aim-132, or Aim-120C5 could take him out long before the F-35 was detected.”

Interesting theory. That somehow the F-35 is invisible to 2nd and 3rd gen IRST. Hmmm.

I quoted CLEARLY that the manufacturer of the OLS system himself claimed that in a head to head engagement, the OLS would not detect the oncoming fighter until 15km. Do you think that the F-35 would not have dealt with the Su till after the 15km mark?

I also only stated that the F-35 in Kopp’s scenario will take out the Su before it was detected. Again, this was Kopp’s scenario, not mine.

What people don’t “trust” are people making claims of a jets prowess that only has 2 percent of its flight testing done.

Any criticism of the F-35 is somehow not good because it involves going against the Lockmart spin game.

Now your pulling a Kopp trick. Yes, the complete airframe has only done 2% of the AC’s flight tests. But, how much of those flight tests have to do with the EOTS? The EOTS system not only is an evolution of an existing system, but it has a large number of hours in the lab and in the air. As of April 09, the EOTS has accrued 10680 hours in the lab and 152 hours in the air. And those are not just general flights where it is just tagging along, but dedicated EOTS test missions.

They know what it can do. Besides, this was not a “look what the F-35 can do” post, but a “this is why people do not trust Kopp” post.

I have no problem with negative comments about the F-35, as long as they are backed up with facts, not supposition or outright deception.

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
There are several factors that will allow a F-35 to control 2-4 VLO UCAVs.

1. The F-35’s ICP (Computer) has empty space for more processing cards. Each card is designed so that when a higher speed one is avail, they can be swapped out without a need to update the software. I believe there are only 3 or 4 empty slots in all the ICPs combined. 3-4 in each ICP. Each ICP is a duplicate of the others. It’s called TRIPLE REDUNDANCY. That’s not much excess capacity. Those spare slots would just as likely be used to circumvent backplane connector or cooling faults without having to replace the entire ICP.

Also, F-22 originally planned on a technology refresh of its processing and memory modules every 5-7 years. That hasn’t happened yet and might not ever happen. I have a difficult time believing USAF will suddenly “get religion” and start performing tech refresh on F-35 modules. Do you think that in the 20+ years of production that they will no have higher speed CPUs? When those newer CPUs come along, they will also be used to upgrade & replace older CPUs as needed.

There will only be approx ~187 F-22s. Development will cost too much per airframe. The F-22’s computer is not even maxed out yet, no need to upgrade. With 2500+ F-35, the dev cost is acceptable.

2. The DAS allows the F-35 to track all airborne items and will allow the F-35 to keep the UCAVs in formation. Unlikely, thats probably too much bandwidth for MADL to handle. They will need a technology such as the laser comms used in ORCLE.

Them may get laser comms in the future. Sounds like something to add to the DAS modules since they cover the entire 360 sphere. Besides, MADL only needs to broadcast the GPS, speed, and heading queues to the UCAVs. Since MADL has the bandwidth of Link 16, this is not a problem.

3. If they put an IRST and DAS into the UCAVs, the F-35 can use them extend it’s Situational Awareness.

4. The UCAVs will first be used just as bomb/missile trucks (ala B-1R). A UCAV with the sensor suite of an F-35 (EOTS/DAS/radar) will cost as much as an F-35 . If the UCAVs are truly that capable, then there is no need for a human-infested F-35 to tag along with the swarm.

I did not mention radar. The EOTS and DAS units are relitively cheap compared to LPI AESA radar.

The most important attribute that an UCAV can possess that an F-35 doesn’t is greatly increased range. If the UCAV is 500 miles deeper into enemy territory, why have an F-35 in control? The authentication of targets and permission to employ weapons can be done from a Mission Control Element located thousands of miles away (as done by Predator and Reaper today).

My original response was not to say that this will be the first use of UCAVs, just a likely first use of UCAVs in the A2A role, before they get AI.