Actually, GCC has Ada support, and by extension I imagine many OS’s support it. You can even use the Eclipse IDE with it. I’ve tried Ada myself and I thought it was a pretty decent language. I doubt this exact IDE+compiler setup is used on any major fighter projects though.

The language is very type-safe IIRC, which is good for stability as it prevents you from doing a C style int to pointer cast. As I recall you also have to declare all of your variables up front in a data header or section, which would prevent dynamic memory allocation. These qualities make it very good for systems requiring high reliability (such as a fighter jet), even if it makes it a bit harder to program.

I heard on Slashdot that the FCS for the F-22 uses OpenVMS and is quite a mess IIRC. 😀

The JF-17 uses C++ which allowed the project to tap a more broad pool of coding talent, but the language is not as safe, and I don’t think I would want to be in a jet when the FCS calls a bad pointer.

Gripen NG’s payload has been increased to 7.2 t.

I don’t know- the Gripen looks like a delta to me. 😀

The fact is that shaping affects RCS returns. Radio waves reflect off objects when they strike them. If they did not you would not get any radar return. VLO shaping is all about controlling how the waves are reflected.

Granted, different frequencies are not affected by the same shape in the same manner, but the fact remains that a properly shaped VLO aircraft will have a greatly reduced RCS no matter what the radar frequency. This is not to say that the RCS will be the same, just not as bad as the “340km vs a F-117” suggests.

To support this assertion, I have a pic from a 2002 Cal-Poly VLO Bomber design study.

Things to notice:

1. They have no agenda to falsify data and they will fail the class if their data is not accurate.

2. All RCS measurements were done assuming bare metal.

3. RCS, across all bands, is affected by shaping. This affect is roughly the same (within an average of about 10db).

I should point out that the RCS software they used was based on the Physical Optics method, and therefore neglects edge diffraction, thus likely making their RCS analysis quite inaccurate- wildly inaccurate in fact for relatively electrically large objects (for example anything smaller than an aircraft carrier in the VHF). It seems to be otherwise a very interesting paper on combat aircraft design that I will read through though.

As for “failing their class if their data is inaccurate,” I think you vastly overestimate the stringency of undergraduate level AE design courses (coming from somebody who has been there). 😀 They are primarily intended as learning experiences and much less so actual design/research programs, and the students are undergraduates meaning they have little to no experience or higher education in some of the intricacies of aircraft design (such as nonlinear control theory or RCS shaping, which are graduate level). There is nothing wrong with this- it tests the students’ abilities to work in teams in a multidisciplinary project designing a comprehensive system.

You probably don’t want to use it as actual research source though- especially when talking about VHF band RCS (especially since they only tested down to 1 GHz, which is not VHF, and neglected edge diffraction, which is the dominant return source in the VHF for an aircraft sized target).

PS. Thanks for the link.

Even if the unit price of the aircraft is a bit high, it would still be a better deal as far less money would have be spent on facilities/training/spares/maintenance/etc… This would also allow a near immediate entry into service as well. No build time, little to no time for re-training- you get the point. It seems a very sensible decision to me, but this would hinge upon the UAE offering the aircraft. You really have to look at the price of the system and all supporting facilities and items as a whole, not just airframe price.

Actually you’ve got to add the US State Department onto that, because they administer the ITARS scheme, not only does Congress have to approve the export of the particular thing, the thing has to be released for export through ITARS as well.

However be that as it may, can you provide one concrete example of a foreign power contracting with the USA for a certain item or component that is releasable and has been sold to another Country being knocked back on technology grounds AFTER the contract has been entered into?

I imagine you will struggle…

You should read this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dajccsCegkoC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=australia+AN-ALR-45&source=bl&ots=e0XcSUUN7J&sig=UkXNpXRaJiZQtK7SMy8K2g1Qd1s&hl=en&ei=7uVGTaylIYyt8AbVhtm1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ

This is not directly what you asked for but it is illustrative of what you have to deal with some US equipment.

Import J-10B airframes, install a European 40,000lb next-gen turbofan, kit it out with Selex AESA & customised EW- there you have it!!

Should come in @ half the cost of a Typhoon!

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done and such an aircraft would not have any advantage over the Typhoon (other than cost, which would likely be offset by cost of development and lost workshare).

Every thread here quickly becomes a “the F35 is the best or not and LM are liars” thread. FFS, people, it is getting old.