Defenc(s)e analysis frommy corner ofthe Internet.
LM continues to use the $65M figure in 2010 dollars - including the engine, radar, and mission systems. I thought the program office asked them to stop using that figure. Go figure.
$65M. no engine.soon, it will be no wing, no avionic, heck..there is nothing left.
$65M for the Marketing Brochure. Actual Aircraft at IOC to be delivered in "due course"...
“Given what we know, it comes with a guarantee of the radar cross section at the end of 8,000 flight hours. It’s essentially guaranteed to be a VLO for the life of the aircraft.”I am not a pure F35 hater but I think I would keep that quote which seems problematic on a couple of levels. Have they really tested it under operational conditions for 8000 hours? Also, isn't he suggesting that the quality of VLO will be good enough to last 30 years and still "defeat" radars in 30 years? Seems a bit bold!
O’Bryan noted that though it does not account for annual inflation projections, the $65M price tag includes much more than some media often speculate.“It includes the engine and all mission systems such as the APG-81 AESA radar, internally mounted targeting system, electronic attack and warfare systems, self-protection systems, infra-red missile warning system, communication and navigation equipment, and the helmet mounted display that is also used as a night vision system.” Wow, what a deal! Just curious to know what total production run he is still using. Is that the price with the new helmet or still using the old helmet? LOL!
I'm fairly certain that O'bryan needs to recheck his quote as claimed, to include 'the engine'? That would apparently be the first official recent statement to advertise the engine as being part of the REC flyaway price quote.Everything implied as of late, has been that this represented $65m per unit in 2002 USD or 2008 USD whichever it is, does NOT include the engine - as LM does not manufacture the engine, etc.If I were the US Senate, I'd want an immediate confirmation and verification on this detail. (for sake of transparency and in the interests of trust, with respect to partner states). Unfortunately, the US has a recent track record of shooting itself in the foot with regards to 'trust', with respect to allies. Absolutely, this needs to be clarified. (Who knows, maybe we'll find out that sources the editor used was a hired misinformation agent by a foreign service... go figure).But with regard to the actual story itself, this is arguably the most interesting quote: "According to a calculation by a senior EADS radar expert, the Captor-E, which will use 1,426 T/R modules and is scheduled to be integrated onto the Eurofighter Typhoon in 2015, is capable of recognizing the F-35 at around 59 kilometers away. He acknowledged that the chance is high for the F-35 to detect and fire missiles first against fourth-generation jets, such as the Eurofighter or Boeing’s F-15, but claimed that the latter are capable of dodging missiles and successfully counterattacking at such a long range."Given that info, one can ponder at which range an F-15E w/ APG-82 radar can first detect the F-35 at various triangulated offsets, in addition to a next-gen large aperture, his resolution QWIP IRST employed by the F-15 class?What, a high-performance supersonic aircraft can dodge and fool RF missiles at longer ranges, especially when kinematics die off??Give me a next-gen F-15E with just 50% of F-35A's portion of the R&D budget between now and 2015, and the block III F-35A will not want to show up for a 4v4 Red Flag 2017 contest.
I find it interesting to note that EADS believes they can spot a F35 at about 60km. Makes you wonder how well F35 stacks up to a brand new SH with frontal LO or proposed F15SE for starters? Let alone PAKFA? Wonder what range the Russians think they can spot an F35?OK, so F35 will fire first but at such long range AMRAAM potentially could be evaded by a few fighters in a formation of EFs which means survivors will fire Meteors at closer range which will be harder for F35 to evade because kinematics are supposed to be better than AMRAAM,right? Let's try this, so F35 again fires first, now EFs know something is up and fire Meteors at long range anyways, F35s have to evade because well, you aren't just going to sit there thinking, oh, they haven't tracked me?!? I am not a fighter pilot but read enough to know that pilots are human and will take evasive action, now range has closed and you are in a dogfight.If you can spot an F35 in 2015 at 60km, wonder how far away you can spot at F35 with used VLO? What about in 2020 or 2025 by PAKAF or J20 with more powerful radars? I forget, exterior VLO is good for 30 years with a LMT guarantee, no worries there.
You hit in on the head nico, apparently according to those who "know", technology stands still for LM, Bonza and the ADF.NBN, we will spend billions and, no technolgy will be a competitior for the cable?4g today, who knws next year?
Oh, now I know why it is better and cheaper than anthing else:"F-35s make their way along a moving assembly line at the F-35 production facility at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth, Texas. The continuously moving line is designed to improve production quality and speed, and is the first ever for a combat fighter jet. / Courtesy of Lockheed Martin
Post a Comment