Another one:

Why are there stars under the canopy? Do they represent bombing missions from the Georgian campaign? That is where western fighters mark their “kills”.

if you want ONE ideal customer for the A-10, it would be the USMC. Perfectly suited for CAS, long loiter time, lots of ordnance and sufficiently simple to be used on advanced airfields… but then, of course, it is not the latest and shiniest toy in town, so they’d obviously turn it down

TBH, the Marines would not be interested in the A-10 for very obvious reasons. They are focused on being an expeditionary force. Even though they were forced to operate as such over the past decade, they do not want to be looked at as a second army (a therefore expendable).

With the refocus on expeditionary and amphibious warfare, pivot to the Pacific and all that, there is no room for the A-10 in that structure. Second, exactly how are they going to incorporate the A-10 onto LHA or Carriers? That would be why they have used, traditionally the same aircraft as the Navy (Though all the squadrons of a MAW are not sea based, they are interchangeable with the Marine squadrons based on Carriers).

well, I’d put the lens before the sensor, but, overall, I agree with your quote: for the same technology, larger photosites give you better signal to noise ratio i.e. better sensitivity. The problems start when you need to check the details in a picture. At some point, the smaller pixels will allow you to see things that the larger ones will leave in a blur

This whole thing seems like a silly argument. There are plenty of images you guys can view of images generated by DAS. The only thing I’ve not seen is how clear the picture is when the AN/AAQ-37 sensor is zoomed in on a target.

DAS sensors can be zoomed electronically within their field of view to let the F-35 pilot take a closer look at a selected target

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/Keep-One-Eye-Out_75101.html#.VV3N3jjbK1s

not read minds, just be realistic about what’s being said..

for example: the thing doesn’t have the software version it was supposed to have before release in order to be at least partially operational – logical conclusion is: it is not ready for combat.

What don’t you get about the software blocks. The Marines asked to go to IOC with Block 2b, unlike the USAF which will IOC with block 3i. It has the software it is supposed to have for Marine IOC. It is also capable of combat. Your distortions are tiresome as you have not actually followed the program, or read what has been presented in the above posts. The arguments you present are weak, such as:

that’s why they had to put special coating on ship’s deck, but hey, don’t let reality disturb your dreams

As I pointed out in my response:

Or did you forget the modifications to the CdG to operate the E-2 Hawkeyes?

Happens all the time, Carriers (and aviation amphibs) may stay in service 30-45 years. Sometimes they require modifications to operate newer aircraft

If you will ignore all evidence to the contrary and post overly simplistic, distorted, and fallacious comments then what exactly separates you from any one of the posters accused of trolling in the Rafale thread?

SolarWarden;2226937]

that’s why they had to put special coating on ship’s deck, but hey, don’t let reality disturb your dreams 😉

Seriously TooCool? Do think this is the first time there have been modifications to ships to operate a new type of aircraft? A dose of reality may help you.

Or did you forget the modifications to the CdG to operate the E-2 Hawkeyes?

Happens all the time, Carriers (and aviation amphibs) may stay in service 30-45 years. Sometimes they require modifications to operate newer aircraft, get over it.

Mmmm… flightglobal article is dated 18 May 2015 so I presume that Mr Nillson’s statement was made recently. It’s not an opinion he is stating – he claims Norway has set aside a certain amount to finance F-35 whereas Sweden has set asidea third of that.

Just thinking of $1 trillion lifetime cost for ~2,500 US F-35’s: that comes out @ ~$400 million a piece. Don’t remember if the US figure includes development but it is of minor importance given the number of frames. $13.5 billion for 60 Gripens reported in defensenews in 2012 comes out @ ~ $225 million each.

I won’t be surprised if Gripen cost is lower than the 2012 estimate. And I expect the Norwegian lifecycle cost will be substantially higher than the US one so I think it is not implausible that Gripen will cost Sweden about a third of what F-35 will cost Norway.

The reason I posted was many will recall that Norway assessed Gripen as being more expensive than F-35 to and ordered F-35. Which appears to be utterly inaccurate.

The estimated total value of the contracts signed for the support and pre-work as well as production contracts 2013-2026 is over 7 billion.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsfmv-awards-gripen-e-development-support-contract-to-saab-4513389

That does not include lifetime O&S costs. So even the quoted 13.5 billion lifetime program costs are of questionable accuracy. As contracts start to get signed for the Gripen E production in Sweden we will get a better overall picture of costs associated.

I do not doubt that the lifetime O&S costs of the F-35 will far exceed that of the Gripen E. We’ve had a considerable amount of discussion over the Norway F-35 program, it would be safe to say that some of their ahem, “assumptions” about the F-35 costs were inaccurate. I would also say that Aerospace executives quoting prices as “proof” of anything, or comparing their product to others is about as worthless as forum members playing the “my fighter is better than yours” game.