Wow, I like your apples to apples comparison.
Are capital cost and/or write-downs included?
In what way? Give an example. Clearly is close enough to the Jane’s figure to be talking about the same thing but also enough higher to be noteworthy.
That’s nice except in spite of the mass manufacture and parts commonality the F-35 is still way more costly than the competitors which are made in low-rate production..
Define ‘way more’ please? See page 16. Also note on page 21 that the unit cost payable by the cost contributing governments is capped at $151m:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
Many nations don’t need a machine like Rafale or Typhoon. Even these cost way too much.
And of course the Gripen, nowhere near being ready, will cost much much less. The terrible Jane’s estimate that seems to suggest that Gripens cost only about $500/hour if you exclude fuel costs.
We were talking about USG.
You might have been but I wasn’t. The F-35 is confirmed for 11 nations. So what’s the deal? All corrupt, all stupid? Dying to hear it.
As you point out, RCS is wavelength dependent. There is, oddly enough. a reason why a B-2 does not look like a scaled-up F-35, and why almost every UCAV looks like a baby B-2. There is also a reason why Russia and China are building new VHF radars and everyone and his aunt will sell you a digital-upgrade P-18.
The reason likely isn’t what most people think it is. The relative small Mie fluctuation wouldn’t account for the difference. The difference is more likely plasma stealth. There was actually something released about charged wing edges (probably by accident) but then some ink poisoning BS about anti-gravitics quickly followed it.
Oh another one, here the ‘airframe electrification’ is used to ‘reduce drag’ apparently. Sometimes the key information in conspiracy theories is the stuff they overlook.
If EO-DAS is that good, why do you need EOTS at all, let alone advertise an IRST function? Why do actual missile-tracking tests use wide-aperture infrared turrets? Could it be that one data point (and, by the way, having detected the rocket at launch the algorithm would have a pretty good idea of its track, and was then looking upwards at a very cold background) does not an operational capability make?
EODAS doesn’t have a laser. Targeting pods are probably better for confirmation of target ID, especially when you’re dealing with insurgents driving around in civilian vehicles and looking just like civilians except for AKs and RPGs. I imagine that EODAS is used as a heads-up, so that you can point something sharper at them for ID. So there you go, not only is the F-35 a master of stealth, it’s also a master of passive detection (and active detection for that matter). What are the biggest factor of air combat?Surprise and SA, and it’s extremely difficult to beat the F-35 at either of those.
Oh really. I’d never have guessed. [sarc]
Well that’s where the stealth comes in again. Even against a highly sophisticated ground radar with stealth detection capabilities at a decent range, range is still massively reduced relative to 4th gen aircraft. E.g. a 256 times reduction in RCS gives a 4 times reduction in detection range, 2400 times reduction in RCS (which is roughly what we’re talking about wrt Su-35 vs F-35) gives a 7 times reduction in detection range. Jamming also requires less power at any range for smaller RCSs and they make lock easier to break.
Operationally, the difference would not be significant and the Horten has nothing to do with the matter. Also, consider that smaller size makes you more susceptible to Rayleigh scattering.
Dude get a clue what you’re talking about and come back with something to offer. Mie is the problem not Rayleigh and Mie only offers a difference factor of ~4 from calculated RCS and it can be good or bad.
http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Rayleigh-%20versus%20Mie-Scattering.en.html
the EO/IRST function is actually separate to AAQ-40 EOTS and is within the AAQ-37 EODAS,
http://i16.servimg.com/u/f16/12/26/75/01/eotsjs10.jpg
EODAS is designed to detect and track targets, but at short range. Its range and resolution are limited by its design, and are similar to an early cell-phone camera. Which will, indeed, detect something burning 3000 pounds of fuel per second.
This is what happens when you base all your understanding on one picture.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=F-35+tracks+ballistic+missile
The video generated by DAS (More at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZ…) during the flight test has been magnified 10 times to allow clearer viewing of the rocket. Unlike other sensors, DAS detects and tracks the rocket at horizon-break without the aid of external cues. DAS algorithms continuously track the rocket through first-stage burnout, second-stage ignition, across DAS sensor boundaries, and through the rocket’s second-stage burnout at a distance of more than 800 miles. The video also shows DAS’ detecting and tracking the rocket’s first-stage re-entry.
Designated the AN/AAQ-37 and comprising six electro-optical sensors, the full EO DAS will enhance the F-35’s survivability and operational effectiveness by warning the pilot of incoming aircraft and missile threats, providing day/night vision and supporting the navigation function of the F-35’s forward-looking infrared sensor.
Counter-LO radar is not confined to PCL systems, although these will be useful as cueing devices for such things as advanced ground-based AESA.
And that ground based AESA will have a range and as RCS reduces, it’s effective range also reduces. Furthermore, hiding a small RCS with jamming techniques is easier than hiding a large one. In layman’s terms, with the F-35 an IADS has coverage gaps, with a Gripen (example) it doesn’t.
Sign In
