Let’s not hate on the F/A-18 too much – it was not designed as an interceptor… That was the job of the F-4 and F-14 series – they could go a bit faster.

Can an F-18 fly at M1.6+ with AAMs?

Doubtful – maybe clean w/ wingtip AIM-9’s? The USAF uses F-15’s and F-22 as interceptors in the Arctic because they are the fastest in the inventory. But if Canada was worried about speed, they would have purchased F-15’s instead of CF-188’s (the Canadian F-18 designation.)

Canadian F-35’s more expensive than planned

http://www.straight.com/article-329968/vancouver/kimball-cariou-16billion-fighter-jet-price-tag-canadian-scandal

F-35 paint shop

http://gizmodo.com/5580999/this-is-how-lockheed-martin-paints-f+35-fighter-jets

F-15 flies w/ internal weps bay

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/f-15-flies-with-conformal-weap.html

Relates to the F-35 due to SK considering the F-15SE vs. the F-35 and others.

you had better send an email to LM and tell them they are wrong in their plans to have the f-35 as a hub for a hive of UCAV’s

Yup – I know where that would go. Seriously though, there is some consternation within the VAQ community about task saturation / crew coordination when moving from a 4-man EA-6B to a 2-man EF-18G. Think about when the mission morphs to the EF-35.

For UCAV control, think about this: the Navy is operating its Predator UAV’s with 2 or 3 personnel: a pilot, a sensor operator, and a mission commander (who might be overseeing several UAV’s.)

Just pray the link doesn’t go down or get subverted. It would be the mother of all “DOH!”s if we sent waves of X-47Bs (or whatever they’ll be called) to break up a Taiwan invasion only to have them turn towards China and land.

That is indeed the weak link, at least on the satcomm side. We simply do not have enough bandwidth to provide for the comms demand that we have now. The US needs to seriously expand its comms infrastructure – this deficit is particularly critical for the Navy…

One way to alleviate satcomm load is to use UCAV’s as wingmen to a manned platform – like a F/A-18F or F/A-15E – and control them with a local datalink. The WSO’s command the UCAV: set up (or amend) the target list, interpret the UCAV’s sensor data, etc. All kinds of possibilities…. Anyway, this is one of the reasons why I think tactical (particularly strike) aircraft needs two crewmen…

Anything with an antenna is theoretically vulnerable to subversion – which is why it is a vector that EW/EA will attempt to compromise. Can you imagine the helmet fire if somebody gained control of a manned aircraft?…..

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. The original plan was to buy 750 F-22s. They bought 187 so it WAS scaled back but it was mainly due to politics.

The F-22A is a great airplane. However, costs did grow more than anticipated, and the program did go overbudget, significantly so. It could have been managed better by both LM & the USAF. I concede your point that it was killed by politics, but then again all programs have their various constituencies, and cost-cutters have their poster children of favorite targets.

IMO, the F-22A was doomed because the “mission” it was designed to undertake dissolved. And it was hard to justify the expense of the aircraft when no peer threat aircraft exists. And the USAF was cannibalizing other programs to support the F-22, which pissed off other other constituencies. And the more advanced (in terms of avionics) F-35 was coming along, a multirole aircraft that promised to perform more duties at a cheaper price. All these factors (and more unmentioned) played into the political calculation to end production.

Was this a wise decision? I don’t know, but I would have preferred to have procured another 50 or so.