The F-22 used expanded software from the F-18E/F program. You cannot honestly say the F-22 isn’t a great air to surface platform, too.

What air to ground weapons are integrated into the F22 aside of the SDB? What designation pod does it use to guide them? I agree F22+SDB is a very nice combination. But then again it’s not very versatile either.

Nic

1. Neuron and Taranis are demonstrators that have yet to fly. (Think X-45A and X-47A albeit a decade later.)

2. They’d be fubared when the data link was taken down anyway.

1. They’re going to be the 6th gen of combat aircraft though. They’re going to be operational fighters derived from them.

2. For 1st day of war they will probably be configured to fly a preplanned mission onto preprogrammed targets, as a cruise missile ++. No need for a datalink.

Nic

That makes no sense? Why would a F35 fly into afganistan with no external ordinance? Thats right it would roll in loaded with external bombs as well… no need for stealth in that kinda war.

I didn’t say it couldn’t. Just it’ll cost more to operate because increased drag.

Nic

You’re missing the point. It’d be the F-16/F-18 having performance loss due to EFTs, targeting pods, and external stores. The F-35 doesn’t have to carry all of that externally, so it flies clean.

The F-35 can also carry 8 SDBs internally, and if stealth isn’t needed, a considerable amount of external stores too. The others have to carry everything externally.

The thing is that:

– When stealth is needed Neuron/Taranis will do the job.
– For when it isn’t necessary, Rafale / EF / Gripen will be more cost efficient and performant that a JSF with external weapons. And will burn much less fuel for 99% of it’s missions when not loaded at all. Ie training with just a centerline tank most likely and FCS set to heavy parameters.

Nic

That’s the latest… :diablo:

Well if you read the article in more details you realise than aside a few teething problems, ALL performance targets have been exceded.

To me it seems that the A380 is really a breakthrough in terms of capabilities, and a few teething problems were bound to happen.

The unfortunate part is that A380 issues took up lots of ressources at AIRBUS that slowed down the development of the A400M.

Nic

Sorry i haven’t seen anyone making such a claim (did you?).

But YOU are quick in claiming that people are claiming it’s better than Typhoon.

😎

Touché 😀

This is very, very silly. Why are a couple of French people engaged in EADS-bashing? It’s probably more French than it is any other nationality. And why are they claiming that the worst failure in the otherwise illustrious history of Dassault was, despite being completely unfit for purpose, a triumph, while the greatest European (& largely French!) success in civil aviation, Airbus, is a disaster? Bizarre?

Are you suggesting that OPIT and Dare should praise EADS’s products only on the ground that it is a mostly french company? I’ve seen you come up with better arguments :p