Haha, true story. My interpretation is pretty similar. But this is very relevant for the F35.

This should mean that a F35 has to engage threats like the currently fielded Su35S at distances over 70km to be sure about having the first shoot capability. (I assume that the F35 only is slightly less stealthy than the F22)

Is the Aim120 good enough (considering NEZ and kinematic disadvantage)? And more importantly, is this good enough of a range to counter the coming AESA-upgrades on the Flanker series?

I just try to count on the lower side so the stealth advantage isnt neglected.

/troll mode on

Send a pair of MICA (one EW, one IR) from 30 miles…

/troll mode off

Will it provide more value added to overall US Industries ? That’s why I don’t say just employment, but also overall involvement and value added to US Industries. Put this way, if Allenia let GD full license to M-346, in such that GD can tweek the content and design that what come out is no longger M-346, but GD versions of LIFT, then perhaps the US congress will see it bring enough value added to US industries that in the end it’s US Trainers and no longger Italian ones.

I do believe the Hawks, the M-436 that will try to enter T-X will try to potrait that idea. However so does T-50 (well it’s practically already close to LM Trainers as it can be to begin with), and Boeing design (if one did enter) will potrait themselves as true US trainers. In the end they all will be calculated as which ones that really provide the most value added to US industries and economies, as the main factor.

Cost of course will be a factor, however if one design proved provided the most value added for US industries, that design can be the winner even one other design show relative more economical cost (however), less value added to US industries.

TBH i dont think so, it was kinda a euroraging 🙂
KCX finally helped Boeing funds to finish their 767 design. So it had better industrial value for US then Airbus. Personal communication from inside Thales told me Obama had personnallyinterfered with the process to cancel first deal.
And US cannot on one hand proclaim as to be free market champions and on the other hand act like that.
End or eurorager, i still think to US as allies and friends (oops where are you in Mali? Corn eating surrender monkeys!) :dev2:;)

Not particularly. My assumption is that the Canadian DoD and their auditors can do calculus and project costs fairly accurate.

The F35 has some strong points but price isnt one of them. And It isnt built to be cheap. If you want to make something at a low cost the general ways to do it is to use less expensive materials, try to go for a low weight and use as much “off the shelf” parts as possible as well as lowering the technical riscs of the program.

How much of that fits the F35 vs… say the FA18E? I know its been marketed differently but if someone says one thing and does something else it sort of gives away the fact that they are lying or simply not understanding what they say.

I think there’s a little misunderstanding, i was kidding you, opposing “reason” and “forum”

Clearly you don’t recall what happened the last time the US tried to build a jet under a constrained budget.

More likely is that T-X will be merged with the Next-Generation Bomber program. As a concession to risk management, the aircraft will be required to take off vertically.

You naughty boy!

Do it french way : permanently up probe always ahead of you 🙂

Brahmos on Rafale for india 🙂

How to refuel beer tanks for infantrymen…

I can only imagine what goes on the head of Gen. Mark Welsh by now…

http://defense.aol.com/2013/02/21/air-force-chief-says-70-percent-of-all-combat-aircraft-non-comb/

I can… I’m working for french administration….