D: it'd be faster to smuggle the bombs to the target via mule.
None, as it was not part of any exercise. F-35 was being "paraded about" for some non-US buyers and happened to be in the same region as the Gripens.
do you happen to have a link for this?
Someone answer this theory: the f35b VTOL was approved not just for the marines, but also on behalf of America's various allies who run smaller carriers which need vtol planes. Britain is the prime example.
That justifies the VTOL compromise much more. And while it does gimp the other versions somewhat, it probably is acceptable. Like a 5-10 percent penalty. Most of the complexity of the plane from what I've heard is in the electronic subsystems.
It certainly justifies building A VTOL, however, trying to combine a landbased, a carrierbased and a VTOL variant in the same frame was a BAD BAD idea. They broke the parts commonality goal before they even built the first prototype! And it only got worse from there.
And yes a VTOL certainly was justified, because otherwise the only viable option for UK, Spain, Italy etc would be to either try to come up with something else, or go to the only other manufacturer with experience and success with modern VTOL jets, Yakovlev.
Fun fact though, LM actually paid Yakovlev a quite notable consultant fee to get assistance for the VTOL variant, when they found that they had noone with the knowledge to fix the problems they were running into with it.
A 3rd generation Harrier would have been MUCH smarter though. One of the justifications for dumping the Harrier in favour of the JSF was "supersonic performance yay!", performance that never materialised. And it´s one of the reasons the F-35 is never going to be good, because its design mixes subsonic and supersonic features with merry abandon.
Someone answer this theory: the f35b VTOL was approved not just for the marines, but also on behalf of America's various allies who run smaller carriers which need vtol planes. Britain is the prime example.
That justifies the VTOL compromise much more. And while it does gimp the other versions somewhat, it probably is acceptable. Like a 5-10 percent penalty. Most of the complexity of the plane from what I've heard is in the electronic subsystems.
None, as it was not part of any exercise. F-35 was being "paraded about" for some non-US buyers and happened to be in the same region as the Gripens. They weren´t supposed to notice it at all since their flightpaths were widely separated. As the F-35 was stated as flying "silent" it is said to have caused quite a bit of "shouting" among some brass.
What it means is that by now, all the up to date current west European fighters, Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon have shown that they are capable of tracking F-35 even when they, according to promises should never be able to. But like i said before, the stealth promises for F-35 are based on not facing anything beyond 90s sensor tech and absolutely no "antistealth" tech. So, while very nice to have if facing 2nd rate opposition, all the rest of the time, most notably in peacetime, the RAM is just so much VERY expensive not quite junk.
In short, it´s not a fighter, it´s a low visibility bombtruck with delusions of grandeur.
I might also add that the system the Gripen uses for the kind of multisensor integration that saw through the stealth, is conceptually similar to a more developed variation on the system that USSR developed for the MiG-31 in the 80s. Coupled with the raw power and overall improvements the radar on the upgraded MiG-31s have, i think it´s extremely likely that they would have little issue in both tracking and targeting F-35s way beyond its threatrange.
Kind of hard to make a big ass fan in the middle of a plane stealthy. They should not have made a vtol version at all. Without that requirement the plane can be much better.
I find it really interesting though that they did make a VTOL version. IT is a fascinating engineering challenge.
And it has significantly increased the capability of the WASP class carriers and other small ships the Navy has. Also, VTOL could be useful in other situations as well, and it increases the landing strips that the plane can be used on.
Officials estimated, based on the per-plane price of the most recent F-35 order, the new agreement represents a $728 million reduction.
Lockheed will cut $600 million off F-35 thanks to Trump.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/30/trum...on-off-cost-of-f-35-joint-strike-fighter.html
Reuters, which first reported on the deal, noted that the price per jet has been steadily declining for years as production ramps up, and that defense analysts have said the discount was in line with what had been cited by Lockheed and Pentagon officials for months.
The Pentagon, in a press release labeled, “Lowest Priced F-35s in Program History,” trumpeted “a $728 million reduction when compared to Lot 9.” Industry and Pentagon officials explained that this figure was derived by multiplying the unit price reductions of each variant from Lots 9 to 10 by the number of units of each variant purchased in Lot 10. This particular calculus has not been used before in announcing F-35 price changes, but defense officials said it was included to highlight President Donald Trump’s personal intercession in the program.
Lockheed Martin, in a statement for the press, said the increase from 57 to 90 units from Lot 9 to 10 “enables us to reduce costs by taking advantage of economies of scale and production efficiencies.
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/February 2017/F-35-Prices-Drop-Again-in-Lot-10.aspx
Here is the problem with your story
As of Thursday the F-35’s kill ratio with aggressor jets stood at 15-1, even though the F-35’s primary mission isn’t air-to-air combat, which typically is left up to the Raptor.
One of the pilots in the interview session mentioned that the F-35's were used initially in the scenario for SEAD, then 4th gens (typhoons and F-15's) took over after the advanced threats were all removed. 3/4 of the Typhoons were available for 2 sorties a day each.
Couple take-aways from the interview.
- Against the most advanced SAM systems they were training against, 4th generation fighters had no way to attack them outside of using cruise missiles (assume S-400 or advanced S-300), but F-35s did with internal weapons.
- Against SAM systems where 4th generation fighters would have had to use HARMs (~90 miles range), the F-35 was able to drop 2000lb MK-84 bombs on the targets
- In an environment where 3 Advanced SAM systems existed (assumed S-400), and the force of Typhoons, F-22's, F-15's, F-35s were flying against much higher numbers of enemy aircraft (assume 72 (3 x 24) Su-35, Su-30), the F-35 flying with SEAD loadout achieved a 15:1 air to air ratio and lost 2 aircraft total to air and land threats over the course of the scenario.
Lockheed will cut $600 million off F-35 thanks to Trump.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/30/trum...on-off-cost-of-f-35-joint-strike-fighter.html
No they are basically kissing trumps ass and giving him credit. This cost savings had been in the works for years.So basically, they've been overcharging taxpayers the whole time, right?
So basically, they've been overcharging taxpayers the whole time, right?
That all means the final cost of each individual Super Hornet could range from $115 million ($88 million US) to $123 million ($94 million US), bringing a total purchase price of between $1.9 billion ($1.5 billion US) and $2.1 billion ($1.6 billion US) for 18 jets.
Lockheed Martin said last week it was confident it would soon get the price of an F-35 down to $111 million ($85 million US) per plane.
Yeah, anybody with even the slightest knowledge of military procurement knows that more units purchased = lower unit cost. I've been reading about Dem & GOP politicians criticizing the deal & calling for renegotiations for years.
I didn't really understand what they meant by this: "The Raptor uses its advanced air maneuverability to shield the F-35 from airborne threats while the F-35 relays data to the F-22 to paint a clear picture of the battlefield."
Are they saying that the F-35 stays out of range and relays the battlefield data to the F-22s, which close in to fire on the target?
I didn't really understand what they meant by this: "The Raptor uses its advanced air maneuverability to shield the F-35 from airborne threats while the F-35 relays data to the F-22 to paint a clear picture of the battlefield."
Are they saying that the F-35 stays out of range and relays the battlefield data to the F-22s, which close in to fire on the target?