>Under the new deal—which still has to be approved by the Indian defense minister Manohar Parrikar and an Indian defense ministry cost negotiation committee—the Indians will pay $4 billion for a joint research and development effort, the Business Standard reports. The Russians would also pay $4 billion for their share of the project.
>A prototype would be flown in India within three years. The development program would upgrade fifty specific aspects of the PAK-FA design including more powerful engines and 360-degree sensor coverage to meet Indian requirements.
>Assuming the deal holds, India could eventually buy up to 250 FGFA fighters for its tactical fighter fleet.
I wonder how the Pakistan will react - it could decide to buy Chinese J-31`s to try to counter it.
That`s odd, considering India wants bo buy French Rafales.
>"We have completed an inter-governmental agreement for the purchase of 36 Rafales, with the exception of the financial aspects," Mr Modi said after meeting Mr Hollande.
It`s a good deal for the Indians - they get full hands on access to all the PAK-FA core technologies for almost half the price.
>>having to slash the costs in half just to keep designated in the project
It's not exactly like that.
Russia is funding PAK-FA development by itself. The entire cost of the current version airframe is funded from the Russian defense budget.
This airframe is a single-seater with Izd. 117 engine.
Russian don't want a double-seater PAK-FA (for the same reason why there isn't a dual-seat F-15 or dual-seat F-22), but the Indians absolutely have to have a dual-seater.
So the Russians are proposing a deal: fine, we'll develop a dual-seat version of PAK-FA, but you Indians get to pay for it.
So everything up until now has been negotiations and haggling about how much each side will pay into this project. Also the money will go to fund the development of the follow-on uprated engine called Type 30.
It's a good deal for Russians. They get India to partly fund their new generation fighter engine and they get India to fund a dual-seater version of PAK-FA which Russia will then sell to Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria and other usual suspects.
All of this for half the price of the project ($4 billion out of $8 billion total).
Sounds like a steal for Russia.
>And the Type 30 is already under development with Russian funds
Correct. But it's still a ways off, so it still requires funding.
This is not the first time the Russians took an indigenous R&D project, packaged and sold it to Indians as some kind of "joint venture" and then went on to use the results of the R&D for their internal use.
Indians benefit too, of course, from the transfer of technology, but Russia also gets to accelerate a lot of their tech programs from concept stage to actual operational units.
>for the same reason why there isn't a dual-seat F-15
>Why do third-worlders always want twin seaters?
They all say they need a dedicated WSO cause all these jets are multi-role (e.g. Su-30MKI), but in reality it's just sub-par pilot training.
>so it still requires funding.
Its currently in component testing, since late last year, and it due to be ground run this year (originally last year).
The FGFA has nothing to do with its development.
>Its currently in component testing, since late last year, and it due to be ground run this year (originally last year).
It's not nearly ready, so it will spend at least several fiscal years in development. All of those years need to have a budget line. This is a funding opportunity to fill that budget line with Indian cash.
>The FGFA has nothing to do with its development.
This is strictly true. Russians had it on the drawing board for a while. But that's not how Russia is selling it to Indians.
They are selling it as a "wow, we've got this super next gen engine coming up, give us some money and you get a piece of that tech".
I have a recurring fantasy wherein a future twin-seat F-35 is developed, with a "DSO" "drone Systems Operator" controlling a flight of UCAVS 20 miles ahead via a line-of-sight datalink
>most of your people are illiterate and/or stupid
>your pilot pool is literate, but selected via connections instead of competence
>said connected people are arrogant and full of psychological blind spots, never humble enough to really learn
>fighter jets often require lots of info management and systems management
>need halfway smart people without the "I'm nobility I don't have to learn this" attitude of the pilots, to take care of all those systems
Warning: this scenario is hypothetical, and best represents the Indian subcontinent and the non-Israeli ME, more so than other 3rd-worlders
It's almost as if something happened to cut the dollar cost in half during that time.
One of those was a joke but it still was not the right answer.
In the "PAK-FA is dead" threads we get spammed here everyone uses this reasoning (half price, no confirmation, and why are they buying rafale) to claim the PAK-FA is dead.
Hey, if I was Russian I would want the best deal as well.
But the Indians are arguing their rupees are worth as much as a ruble now (purchasing power wise) so they should only have to pay a cheaper dollar amount.
The ruble's depreciation meant the 8 billion dollar development cost funding wasn't gonna happen.
>thinking the new amount is because of currency differences and not how the streetshitters flat out said because it was behind schedule, tech transfers weren't enough and because their last dealings with Russia were a joke where they got equipment that didn't work
>But the Indians are arguing their rupees are worth as much as a ruble now (purchasing power wise) so they should only have to pay a cheaper dollar amount.
You also got to remember what Indians are notorious for promising gold mountains and then bailing out.
Remember when MMRCA tender was supposed to be for 120 billion dollars? Yeah, that was a laugh. I think French would be lucky to get 10% of that amount in direct cash transfers.
So, all these pre-contract numbers floating around Indian defense procurement are worth jack shit. They will always give some stratospheric figure first and then bog down in negotiations.
Indian defense procurement is fucked up beyond belief and it's not worth the effort to make sense of it. Just look at the bottom line when the contract is signed and that's all you need to know.
Anyone telling you PakFA/FGFA is dead is a retard.
India simply doesn't consider it high priority. They already have +250 Su-30MKI for heavy weight fighter. They need a medium-class fighter to replace their Jaguars and Mirage 2000. That is high priority right now.
>Remember when MMRCA tender was supposed to be for 120 billion dollars?
You mean 12 Billion? It was oddly low actually, the real deal would be worth 30 billions, but they didn't have the money at the time so everyone just played along and knew that it would be a limited initial production, followed by larger orders a few years later. Similar to how they ended up with 250 Su-30MKI, they only originally bought 40 of them.
You pretend as if the inflation rate on the CPI isn't also happening. 16% per year inflation does NOT mean "hurr, we get twice as much now". Pic related, and doesn't even include the inflation shitstorm of 2015.
That's what happens when your currency depreciates.
It is. That's part of the reason the ruble is depreciating. But it has no effect on the fact a dollar buys 75% more in Rusdia than it did 2 years ago.
Russia's getting a slightly worse deal than in 2012. But it's not half the value it used to be.
>75 cents on the dollar
From an already ridiculously low price point, I might add.
Russia is DESPERATE to keep this program afloat and moving. They know that by 2020, when the US will have over 500 operational tactical VLO aircraft, they will be so far behind they might not ever catch up.
>That's what happens when your currency depreciates.
Yet there are still vatniks on this very board that insist the crash of the Ruble has completely no relationship to domestic buying power, which is objectively and completely false.
On top of sanctions, the flight of foreign investment capital and the huge growth in shale oil production in the US and Canada. Nothing as complex as the world economy and regional drivers are ever as simple as ONE reason, otherwise every other oil producing country would be getting hammered as hard as Russia, which, while countries like Ecuador are down, are nowhere near as badly off as Russia presently.
Not quite. The US started dumping massive amounts, and OPEC (i.e. Saudi Arabia) refused to cut output until US (and ideally Russian) drillers were driven to insolvency.
kek, Asians and their primitive resource commodities.
Not Ecuador, which is why I mentioned them as an example.
Neither of which states may be completely blamed on the oil price nosedive or on events within the last two-three years. Both of those countries have long standing and obvious issues which materially and substantially undercut their economic robustness in the face of oil price pressure.
>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
>"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
>During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.
>Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
It is when you consider that the contract had a ~30% offset where that money would have to go back into helping them setup a manufacturing line. Plus ToT. Indians were asking for the kitchen sink, and they knew no one was going to offer it. The $12 billion was just a teaser joke to get everyone to show off what they had.
Everything considered the overall contract value was going to be $30-50 Billion. And it still is, 36 Rafale will follow another +90. Then they might add another +50 for Rafale-M on their new aircraft carriers. Their budget keeps growing in accordance with their economy, so I don't doubt they will have the money for it.
In my opinion F/A-18E 'Super Hornets' were still the best offer, but France probably cheated by offering engine ToT, something Boeing couldn't offer because they were using GE engines.
>Because of underlying dysfunction, both states are completely reliant on oil revenues.
Hence the pattern I was pointing out with regards to Russia. If everything were hunky dory in Vatnik land, oil price pressure would not have been enough alone to bring their economy to its knees. There are a handful of other major drivers and hundreds of smaller scale drivers which make the oil issue only the straw that breaks their back, not the wrecking ball that caused the whole thing.
Iraq isn't bankrupt. Their oil is still profitable at $30 a barrel.
Venezuelan oil apparently was only profitable at +$45 because it is super heavy crude. They are losing money off of every barrel sold, but they can't cut production due to the nature of the wells, so their only choice is to hemorrhage cash and beg OPEC to cut production.
Between the fracking revolution and the Saudi oil war with Iran, their pleas will fall on deaf ears. When -- not if -- they collapse, what does that bode for *our* economy? They're our second largest foreign oil supplier, after all.
Oh fair enough. I agree with you anyway; I'm not actually the poster you were initially responding to.
Yes, production is still profitable, but not at a level that finances the country. At least they're sitting on a relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio.
You can always cut back on government expenses.
It entirely different to make the largest and most important state-run industry, entirely dependent on global commodity prices, profitable again. In fact, it is impossible.
>They're our second largest foreign oil supplier, after all.
Leaves them ripe for further foreign oil infrastructure investment and development without them having the economic power to keep all the resources semi-nationalized.
That oil's not going to just sit in the ground because it is currently unprofitable.
>In fact, it is impossible.
The price will rise again, and the supply will drop. Even if current condition continue long term (improbable), the simple expediency of unprofitable producers temporarily halting well head production will drive down supply.
The problem is that a lot of Shale-oil is also profitable at around the $50 mark as well, since costs have come down so much.
The Saudis would rather permanently have oil at $40. Because their light crude (along with most Gulf and Persian oil) is very cheap at no more than $5, they would prefer to just increase production several fold in order to makeup for the revenue drop. They want to return to controlling the majority of the market. That is what they care about more than anything.
>It entirely different to make the largest and most important state-run industry, entirely dependent on global commodity prices, profitable again. In fact, it is impossible.
Of course. That doesn't change the fact that functionally speaking, in non-spreadsheet-land, Iraq is in deep shit.
inflation annualized over the 2015 year is only 12.9%- much of which is due to spiking prices in imports. This year however its rapidly dropping (imports have dropped, so they don't skew inflation that much)- with forecasts that inflation will lower to single digit levels by midyear.
>If everything were hunky dory in Vatnik land, oil price pressure would not have been enough alone to bring their economy to its knees. There are a handful of other major drivers and hundreds of smaller scale drivers which make the oil issue only the straw that breaks their back, not the wrecking ball that caused the whole thing.
from which parallel universe are you posting? The Russian economy may not be in great shape but it certainly isn't on its knees- teethering on recession like most countries today yes but nothing like mad max dystopia that was their 90s.
No, that was December year on year.
You will find that every other month in 2015 realized 15-16.9%. Either way, 12.9% is still apocalyptic. Considering that average US inflation hovers right around 3% on the year, and even 12.9% puts it at 15th WORST in the world, after the likes of North Korea, Venezuala, Ukraine, Syria and Zambia, I wouldn't crow too much about it. None of the 2016 numbers have a consensus yet, though they do appear to have eased a little. Maybe even out of double digit territory. We'll see.
>teethering on recession
GDP fell 3.7%, and is projected to fall another 1% minimum this year (and that's with optimistic oil price projections)
Retail sails are down over 15%
Capital investment is down 8.7%
They're not teetering on anything. It's a recession, and it's still ongoing, despite what Russian ministers and Putin claimed in November.
That's December year on year for 2015, and sits on top of the 11.36% year on year from December 2014. The reason it seems lower is because inflation spiked from November to December year on year in 2014, not necessarily because the annual average rate of inflation is slowing in 2015.
>considering India wants bo buy French Rafales
India wants do buy French technologies, not Rafale. They bought twice more Su-30 as an add-up than Rafales overall. Same for Russian technologies. Therefore they whine about the price all the time.
>Le flashlight tag meme
>Don't know what LPIR is
>Don't know that passive detection provides only a 2D solution at best, limiting BVR options
You dumbfucks DO realize that both the F-22 and F-35 have radar, right? And the F-22 was originally planned to receive cheek arrays just like what that image depicts for the T-50.
>thinking L-Band does fuckall for a fighter
And the graphic depicts X-band coverage in all directions.
>thinking LPD radars in the F-22 or F-35 are anything like that flying christmas tree
Yes... they are quite a bit like it, actually.
Try basing your argument on something other than blind jingoism, next time.
It's AESA. That in of itself offers several LPI capabilities from a technical standpoint. It'd be unreasonable to assume that they developed a fancy, expensive AESA for their stealth fighter and payed no heed to LPI capabilities.
what if the F-35 really didn't cost as much as we've been saying, and we are pushing out that fourth gen americanized Yakvolev clone and saying it's the bee's tits so we can bankrupt rossia and chingers by shysting them into thinking that much stealth tech is necessary?
meanwhilings in nevada and arizona we have a few hundred modernized drone YF-23s in mountain-concealed hangars ready to be used while we work on replacing our F-16 variants with 21st century F-16XLs.
>a man can dream
Keep in mind that if they reduce production it won't increase the price, they'd just be giving a break to their competitors by giving them more market share.
Saudis are terrified that oil demand is going to crash on the back of new technologies and leave them sitting on worthless reserves. Better to pump it and sell it now.
That graph also includes items not used for detection.
The PAK-FA will only 3 active radar arrays: 3x X-band AESAs (N036-1-01 in the nose, 2x N036B-1-01 in the cheeks).
The 2x L-band AESAs (2x N036L-1-01) and other arrays that form Himalayas (including the arrays in the stinger) are only used for ESM and jamming purposes (and IFF for the N036L's) - they don't have the necessary resolution or power to provide active tracking.
By that same standard, the F-35 would have a dozen or so extra arrays, as every MADL comms antenna is a mini-AESA, while the Barracuda has a few VHF and UHF antennas that are likely (for angular geolocating and RCS purposes) AESA receiving elements as well, though it's possible (if unlikely) that they're active as well and the F-35 can jam in more than X band (a lot is unknown about the F-35's EW capabilities other than "it's powerful").
Eventually, the price will come back up. Oil production isn't exactly nimble or responsive though. Gulf operations are continuing despite being unprofitable because it's run them at a loss or shut down and lose the huge start up investment, leases and permits and not be ready to ramp production back up when the price moves again.
So you sit and wait for Vensuala to be invaded by aliens or Iran to nuke itself so the price will come up.
>Not already having electronically-steered radar
>The PAK-FA will only 3 active radar arrays
>while the Barracuda has a few VHF and UHF antennas that are likely (for angular geolocating and RCS purposes) AESA receiving elements as well
I would say almost certainly not. MADL moved from L-band (already shorter-wavelength than UHF) to Ku-band (<3 cm wavelength) just to make the AESA spot-beam communication feasible. VHF has a wavelength on the order of several meters; if there was a VHF phased array anywhere on the airplane it would stick out like a sore thumb (and have fairly low gain to boot). UHF is only somewhat better.
No, I suspect the Barracuda's VHF and UHF apertures are omnidirectional, POSSIBLY with some null-seeking RDF capability.
>two in the wings are weird L-band "friend or foe" arrays.
It's really not that weird. The only weird part is that they put it on a fighter jet.
That's one of the cheek arrays - 2 cheeks + 1 front radar.
The L-band arrays are said to *not* be radars (emitting energy and listening for returns). Theoretically it could be used in the future as such, but I'm guess they've found it too difficult to get meaningful performance out of it as such.
In hindsight that does make sense, the reason I feel odd about it is that the pic attached indicates 2 separate Band 2 (VHF) arrays in each leading edge, with the inner one being "direction finding". I was thinking that perhaps the smaller Band 2 arrays are 1/2 or 1/4 wavelength directional antennas while the larger aperture is either a full-size antenna for omnidirectional ELINT (which then helps the Barracuda's computers to pluck out fainter-than-usual signals in the directional antennas for RDF. My thinking before was that perhaps the larger apertures could be an array of those directional antennas, akin to the PAK-FA's L-band arrays (which have something like 6 or 8 horn antennas in each array). But again in hindsight, there's a pretty big difference in wavelength between L-band and VHF.
>POSSIBLY with some null-seeking RDF capability.
Just curious / want to learn - is null-seeking just looking for the opposite angle to the (enemy) transmitter? If so, is this the standard for solid-state RDF, if not, how does it improve upon standard (peak-seeking?) methods?
>the smaller Band 2 arrays are 1/2 or 1/4 wavelength directional antennas
No such thing. Due to near-field diffraction effects a 1/2-wave antenna can't really be directional. Directivity and size (in relation to wavelength) are fundamentally related.
>Just curious / want to learn - is null-seeking just looking for the opposite angle to the (enemy) transmitter?
The radiation pattern of a real antenna is always composed of lobes and nulls - lobes being the regions of greatest gain/reception and nulls being points of zero reception. Lobes tend to be bulbous and broad (though less-so with highly directional antennas), but nulls are ALWAYS sharp and infinitesimal (even for small omnidirectional antennas).
RDF exploits the fundamental narrow-ness of radiation nulls by looking for the direction that produces the WEAKEST signal instead of the strongest. A simple radio direction finder usually employs a small-loop antenna (poor efficiency but VERY wide-band frequency range) attached to a wide-band receiver; this simple setup can cover a very broad range of frequencies.
For solid-state RDF (without mechanical steering), I imagine they could get creative and use some sort of lobe switching or somesuch to manipulate the antenna's radiation pattern. Now, I SUPPOSE you could call this a phased array, but it's rather misleading to do so. And in any regard it's not AESA since there are no active elements.
>how does it improve upon standard (peak-seeking?) methods?
Angular resolution and wide-band reception. The downside is that reception is poor due to low antenna gain.
For the PAK-FA? No part of the N036 Byelka (the X band or L band) radar system is located in the tail. The only source of there being arrays in the stinger is from a Piotr Butowski quote in 2013 (from some magazine I can't find - Wikipedia and some other sites reference it), but even then, it's clearly stated that the tail arrays are part of the L402 Himalayas; a similar system to the F-35's Barracuda.
I meant to include a picture of a radiation pattern... here.
>but nulls are ALWAYS sharp and infinitesimal (even for small omnidirectional antennas).
That makes a lot of sense for me - I've helped design semi-hobby UAVs (fixed wing for SAR) and so I've done some work with antennas, but just basic low-power (max of 30dbi EIRP @ 915MHz), "long" (15km) range telemetry radios - nothing involving phased arrays or RDF.
>Now, I SUPPOSE you could call this a phased array, but it's rather misleading to do so.
>And in any regard it's not AESA since there are no active elements.
Also fair enough - also did some extra research and finally found an authoritative source stating they were explicitly passive - for the record, if there were any active elements, I would have only suggested that they could be used for omni-directional (primarily time-domain) deception jamming.
>tfw there will never be Su-47 in RuAF service
The Gripen NG actually (kinda) goes a bit better - the radar pictured in >>28689721 is a PESA; the Gripen NG has an AESA like the F-22 and F-35, although it does have relatively few T/R modules (an estimated ~1000 ballpark - an F-35 has nearly 1700, an F-22 just short of 2000 - the Gripen just has a small nose).
So /k/ , F-35 and PAK-FA are sent on a mission to secure the contested air space.
Neither know that F-35 and PAK-FA are heading against each other.
BVR combat situation.
Who wins? Of course both in are in full operational capability with F-35 sporting Block 3F software.
Not that it's even a remotely realistic scenario, but it's relatively even - the F-35 will almost certainly detect the PAK-FA first, but if the PAK-FA can avoid eating an AMRAAM, then it'll have the advantage if it can launch an IR-seeker R-73 or R-77T, which the F-35 will have trouble avoiding and countering.
If you increase the numbers then the F-35 has a better advantage by being able to reduce the number of PAK-FAs early into the fight by essentially ganging up on a number of PAK-FAs during their first-look / first-shot period.
>but if the PAK-FA can avoid eating an AMRAAM
It would have to avoid two, and then a further two.
Or, if we're going into "full operational capability" Block 3F, it would have to avoid six AMRAAMs.
Also as a side note, technically the F-35 achieves Full Operational Capability around the time that it receives Block 4.2 (FOC is scheduled for the USAF in 2021 or 2022). What that and 4.1 entails is still being decided.
>Or, if we're going into "full operational capability" Block 3F, it would have to avoid six AMRAAMs.
Block 3F only has 4 AMRAAMs, 6x AMRAAMs doesn't come until either one of the Block 4 increments, or at worst, Block 5. The US and partners are still deciding on what goes into Block 4 (although IIRC the items for 4.1 and 4.2 are being locked in this year).
Why not realistic?
Or you think the F-22 would be tasked with that kind of a job?
It's not realistic because air combat at this kind of intensity is never 1v1. F-35s for example are expected to never work in groups of any less than 2, with a flight of 4 being the standard. And high intensity missions involving multiple flights. They're specifically designed to work with a sort of wolf pack mentality.
So more realistically, you might have something like 4 or 8 F-35s up against 2 to 4 PAK-FAs (also considering that there's about 3500 F-35s intended for production vs about 500 PAK-FAs / FGFAs between Russia and India).
So you mean something like pic related?
>also considering that there's about 3500 F-35s
You really think there will be that many of them built?
More or less - I released a video a couple of months ago that roughly touches on it (in the middle / second half of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY
As for the numbers, I think it's not too unreasonable - the USAF for example has about 1000 F-16C/Ds that will need replacement in the next decade or two (it's a gradual transition process), the USMC has it's Harriers that are on their last legs, the USN and USMC need to get rid of their classic Hornets, etc. As it is, (IIRC) the US will still be downsizing it's air fleet even if it buys all the intended F-35s. There'd need to be a game changing event I think to significantly downsize the order.
Internationally, only 2 nations (the Netherlands and Italy) have reduced orders so far (and only by minor amounts), while SK, Japan and Israel have bought their way in and a few other nations (Singapore, Finland, etc) are interested in potentially buying F-35s in the near future.
hooreeeee shyt, you`re the man behind the F-35 myth videos?
have you read the latest article about F-35 handling perfmoance?
I`ll quote the relevant bit here.
>The visual fight will most likely already be decided before the adversary knows it’s in a dogfight, continues Gladys. “Even so, slow-speed and high angle-of-attack performance is much better than many fourth generation fighters like the F-16.
>High angle of attack testing has been an eye-opener for previous F-16 pilots, who are not used to very good slow speed performance.
>Straight line acceleration is also much better. At higher speeds, the F-16 has the sustained turning advantage (as it does over many aircraft like the F-18), but only when fighting in training configurations without any missiles or bombs. When flying in combat configs, even the high speeds sustained fight becomes much closer.”
What are the odds of reviving the F-22 production line (I know some USAF person said last week that it`s not likely)?
Or F-15SE or Advanced Super Hornet going in to production for their respective services?
Israel wants to buy F-15SE so now it`s up to Congress I guess to actually let the deal go thru.
What people don't realise is that the F-35 is sort of like a 21st century flying Sherman. Weight of numbers, ease of maintenance, enough firepower, agility and stealth to get the job done, versatility. "Getting the job done" doesn't mean it's a lemon, it stil has to be competitive in every aspect.
Can someone explain what makes it cheaper than the F22 though? Simply being a single-engine airfame? Would it have cost that much more to make it a little more capable?
A revival of the F-22 line is pretty unlikely; the USAF wants to just focus on getting their F-X or NGAD ("6th gen" fighter) program running - they're developing concepts and technologies today and working towards having an IOC in the mid-2030s.
In the meantime, F-35s and and F-15s should be sufficient to bridge the Raptor gap.
As for F-15s and F/A-18s:
The USAF last I heard was upgrading their F-15s, but mainly in avionics, similar to the new Saudi F-15SAs rather than F-15SE (Silent Eagles).
For the USN, I don't think they're going to be buying any (or at most just a small amount of) Advanced Super Hornets, but they will take some of the tech and concepts and put them into Block III upgrades for their existing fleet - CFTs should be a no-brainer, as will avionics / sensor upgrades. I'm not entirely sure about the stealthy weapons pods, but who knows. The reason I don't think they'll be any or very many ASH's fresh off the line is simply because they've already bought more Super Hornets than originally planned and the Boeing St. Louis plant is already starting to wind down operations now that Super Hornet and Growler orders are starting to fade.
It's cheaper because it's a hell of a lot smaller, it's a single engine, it's RAM is more durable and it's built with a bit more of focus on maintainability. Also economy of scale, although that only goes so far.
F-22 suffered from the typical case of a death spiral.
When the last F-22 rolled off the assembly line, it cost just a little bit more than current Tranche 3 Typhoons did.
If it had gone in to +260 airframes the price would`ve been somewhere in the 100 millions. Which is what the B variant now costs.
And yes, F-35 overall is a just a little bit cheaper to maintain.
they cant keep doing that now the silk road project is underway - slowly changing and weeding them out, its slow but it has to happen. gonna take time weeding out all the terrorists tho
>In other news, a secret F-35 plane crashed in Iran after tangling with an Iranian Stealth Plane. Witnesses say the F-35 stood no chance as it was destroyed by his superior foe. The newspaper cannot find the witnesses at the moment as they are put under the witness protection program by the government. Internet experts concluded that although it is within expectations that the Iranian stealth fighter won, since it is jointly built with China, it was unexpected to see the F-35 boldly go to Iran when it is clearly the inferior plane.
-excerpt from a widely renowned news outlet
Well see, here's the thing. The LPD nature of the datalink, the apparent shortcomings that invoked the development and selection of MADL over IFDL, and the very name itself suggest to me that IFDL is a short-range, low-power, omnidirectional datalink, most likely operating in UHF. Without MADL-like directional arrays to keep radiation confined to the intended directions, IFDL would rely chiefly on frequency agility, limitation of bandwidth, and power restriction to minimize detectable signature; the latter of which would naturally reduce the effective range of the datalink (hence the "Intra-Flight" in the name, in my mind anyways). Now, I suppose it would entirely plausible for IFDL to have variable power and be capable of ramping up transmit power whenever more range is needed, at the cost of detectability of course. But to me, the evidence suggests that the primary intent is to provide a low-signature means for a Raptor pilot to communicate and coordinate with his wingmen (who are probably only a few miles away).
But perhaps the best indicator of IFDL's maximum range at present is the usage of BACN to translate IFDL to other datalinks. Now, if this is only an interim solution used for exercises and low-threat environments, then our minimum estimate for slant range might still be as low as 10 miles. But if this arrangement is expected to be useful in the sort of genuine, high-threat situation the F-22 was designed for, then it would seem necessary to have about an order of magnitude more range than that.
IFDL is a narrow-beam data link: http://defense-update.com/features/2008/may08/F22_datalink_gateway.htm
The difference between IFDL and MADL is primarily the waveform, which is also why the DoD is having the issue at the moment of deciding whether it should stick with MADL, or use even newer waveforms to create newer and even faster data links.
Makes me think of the final Sparrow model that never went into service, dual SARH/IR seeker and a data link.
The lack of a BVR IR missile might bight us in the ass, ASRAAM notwithstanding.
Ah... I see. Found another source backing that up:
>The difference between IFDL and MADL is primarily the waveform
Changing the waveform is mostly just software. The biggest difference I can see is the band (Ka vs Ku), and the fact that IFDL's waveform is apparently 2seekrit4NATO (which kinda defeats much of it's utility, given the resulting incompatibility issues that result).
So it uses SARH for midcourse and IR for terminal homing? That's pretty cool I guess.
No way it'd fit inside an F-35 though, and a technologically-modern target would know the moment you illuminate him anyways.
Truly only something China can do, there is no doubt that there is no analog to this peak of technology anywhere in the world! It speaks purely of the innovative ideas that are borne from the minds of Chinese research and development scientists.