Jamming- emitting signals to interfere with radar by saturating receiver with noise or false information. When it says jamming, it means exactly that.

You are going way out of the way to read into the brochure what you want to believe rather than what it actually states. If you notice, countermeasures are mentioned above the part that talks about jamming. Unless you have information that states -239 does not have jamming capability despite statements and brochure that claim otherwise (and obviously you didn’t read recent Combat Aircraft where the pilot describes jamming f-16’s on a simulated mission), I think the obvious is the case…..jamming means jamming.

Edit- while it has been clear for some time that as an integrated defensive avionics system, -239 in integrated with APG-81 using the array for jamming/EW functions. However, with arrays spread across the airframe, and the statement in brochure, it functions without interfering with radar.

Procurement of the 48 contracted aircraft averages 141 million,( based on UK £5.8 billion projected for the production of 48 aircraft) sounds right. Didn’t see a base year in the UK cost projections.

Early LRIP aircraft are expensive, no surprise there.

The latest DOT&E does not include information on the empty weight of the different variants. The FY 2016 has the F-35A as 28,999lbs. Spud, you seen anything with updated figures?

United States navy announces plans for it’s first star cruiser, the USS Enterprise (NCC-701) it will be built to replace the yet to be built Ford class carrier USS Enterprise when it is removed from service 45 years hence.

Bandua –

That’s only enough to fill the two carriers, with none in reserve, no attrition replacements, etc., so if you actually wanted to be able to operate both carriers simultaneously, it wouldn’t be enough.

According to current plans, both carriers aren’t going to be operated simultaneously. And so far, docs show 2 FAA squadrons and 2 RAF squadrons post-2025. 72 aircraft might be too few, but 138 would be excessive to fill 4 squadrons. Taking the Typhoon as an example, 130+ (Out of 148 total order) current aircraft inventory with 5 combat squadrons (7 squadrons planned).

Likely (at lest it makes sense) for UK to have at least the 4 planned F-35B squadrons. That would require something close to 90 aircraft to support those squadrons to the planned out of service date.

Reports starting to circulate that the UK MOD is considering a Super Typhoon instead of further F35 purchases beyond the 48 F35Bs….

https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/997013532964253698

I think we will hear a considerable amount of news like this for the next several years. Everything post-2025 is up in the air. What is certain is 48 F-35B between now and then.

To be honest, I’ve never understood the MoD justification of 138 F-35B to equip four frontline squadrons and an OCU. I’d be curious if they based those projections on historical attrition, fatigue, and retirement of previous fleets like the Harrier.

Typically, the US and UK allocate about 1/3 of a fleet for training, weapons testing, attrition, maintenance, and backup inventory. That would require a fleet of ~90 F-35B.

If I were betting man, I’d expect MoD to procure enough F-35B to equip four squadrons. The flexibility provided by basing those on the QE class, and pooling between the RN and RAF will be attractive to the strained defense budget. In other words, final procurement of the F-35B will be north of the 48 currently planned.

There had been some talk about procuring “A” models post-2025. Here is where a further buy of Typhoons is possible. Certainly it is attractive from the perspective of UK industry participation. Not to mention those Tranche 1’s will need replacement post-2030. Considering the tight money in the defense budget, it is impossible to predict what the final decisions will be. But I believe those Carriers will become the lynchpin of UK defense planning. And those Carriers need a viable fast jet contingent,

FAF Litening AT’s are relatively new and roughly same technological level than Sniper XR (in fact Sniper pod was also considered). If Finland orders F-35, it is possible that they feature EOTS upgrades, but performance difference to Litenings is going to be small. Also it is not given that EOTS can replace all dedicated attack pod functions.

FAF LITENING AT block II may be relatively new in terms of integration with those F/A-18’s, but are not on the level of the Sniper XR in terms of resolution. EOTS was stated as roughly comparable to Sniper XR (with added functions). Both pods offer advantages/disadvantage. The LITENING AT is supposed to provide a wider FoV with less capability as a IRST.

Saying that any advanted EOTS would not be a step upgrade from LITENING AT (when SNIPER ATP-SE, LITENING G4 and Se are being fielded) would be wrong. It is a given that EOTS can replace a targeting pod, as it is, with much more capability as an IRST.

The advanced EOTS will have added IR video feed and IR pointer, besides better resolution. Whether it matches the FoV advantage of LITENING will be less of a concern for the F-35, DAS has the ability to detect and track hostile forces on the ground and cue ETOS. That capability will only improve with new DAS sensors and software. It is hard to argue that a “plug and play” targeting pod would ever offer the integration that the F-35’s threat recognition and image processing software at both the sensor and IPC, so that argument isn’t tenable. The trade off of that pods can be rapidly fielded and integrated on any platform. Odds are that even the AETOS will be a step behind the newest pods at time of fielding, but the level of integration at ICP with the extensive threat library, shape recognition, threat detection coupled with DAS will make it much more capable than any next generation targeting pod with slightly better resolution.