garrya

For some weird reason,links posted in eagle.ru wasnt recorded as referrers :huh: do anyone know why ?

yes it is :P ,btw thanks for the kind words guys hey , thanks alot for sharing my blog :P , i was wondering how to make it more popular

161 views but no one click :( :cry:

Products specification will be provided by manufacturers of said products. that a very extraordinary claim, unless you have some evidence to back it up, it really just personal opinion. It pretty unlikely for the bidder not to know/understand the assessment process of their products You meant to say that LM didn't meet any of the initial goal at all? come on that is absolutely nonsense. while i agree that F-35 got more expensive than initially expected but that happened to the Raf and Typhoon too, hardly something uncommon. iam sorry but just because something "commonly agreed" by the public doesn't suddenly make it a fact. No offense but most of the time the public don't even understand the basics of what they talking about. Moreover as i have quoted from the official :

To be fair , fighter cost seem to fluctuate significantly depending on what country buying them http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22069 Can you post the link here ?

Iam not quite sure what your point ? , while i agree that many things can mean by missions effectiveness . Something like survivability has quite clear meaning .Also , given that the report was done by the official gov , you can bet that they dont just use 1 or 2 number like internet fan boy but actually have computer simulation to assess aircraft performance. As explained in the report, Super Hornet and Eurofighter acquisition cost included initial package of spares, support equipment and so on, which is normally prerequisite for starting to operate a new aircraft. By contrast, F-35 acquisition cost included bare airframes and nothing else. In F-35's maintenance model, national air forces only own the airframes and most spares are delivered 'on-need' basis ( there was still a requirement to establish a minimum baseline of spares but by having access to the global pool of spares they are able to reduce the overall cost) . Operators do not need to keep around large stores of spares but just buy what they need, when they need it. This is supposed to bring major savings in lifecycle costs, and the report is calculated under the assumption that it does. .. The Danish report actually notes that Super Hornet has lower unit flyaway cost than F-35, and also lower "external maintenance" cost, whatever that refers to. Moreover because the pentagon keep buying the F-35 so the cost will keep droping over years , according to recent estimation http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/pentagon-chief-sells-lockheed-f-35-as-best-even-affordable-jet About the cost of F-18F , it important to remember that what the US Pays for Super Hornets is not what other countries pay for them because there are FMS fees and R&D fees. Next these are all two seaters, which depending on whats included drive the price up more. The RAAF paid just over US$100 mil per jet for the SH in 2008 at the height of SH production. 15 years later with inflation, a production rate a quarter of that in 2008, only two nations operating the type, a necessity to pay FMS fees and probably a more capable product , i dont think 122 mil USD is very unrealistic number .Compared to that F-35 will be at the height of production with probably 150 jets coming off the line a year, will have at least eight operating nations, the Danes are not liable for any FMS fees and the product will have been FOC with the primary customer for over three years. Anothers point is that for F-18 , the cost is quite fragmented , for example since there's no IRST, thy probably need to add the cost for including one in external form. And to carry enough fuel to match the F-35A in mission range they probably add the cost in pylons needed. Probably the standard 3 tank config, we can throw in used 330 US gal tanks for free but anything bigger has to be bought. [ame]http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FA-18E_F-SAR_31_DEC_2011.pdf[/ame] Sorry when i said producer , i dont mean the country but the company :huh:didnt Norwean buy alot more F-35 though ? they plan to bought something like 52 jet as i remember

They given exactly details of the adversary force, how many aircraft, SAM the enemy have, what kind of weapons they carried. TBH i dont think it cant get any more detail than that. The report says that the Unit Recurring Fly-away (URF) cost is lower for the Super Hornet than for the F-35A. But as you have to buy a full initial package for the Super Hornet the price becomes $122M and it is an APUC, while the F-35A procurement price in the report is an URF. The other initial costs for the F-35A are found in the sustainment part and has not disappeared. It is about accounting and not what equal-for-equal costs. This is quite confusing , so people don't like it when Denmark used EF-2000 cost number from German instead of producers but they also don't like it when F-35 cost not comming from another country ? btw, are you sure Norway estimation is double? iam skeptical of that Do you have source for these? did Saab and Dassault said the Competition is rigged so they dont participate ?

great point

Well , they know the exact scenario that was being simulated , while it true that mission effectiveness rating is hard to analyse , something like survivability (low lost ratio) rating should be quite obvious , if Eurofighter and Boeing feel like their platform would be more survivable than F-35 in whatever scenario presented then they would have said it , very unlikely that they would have let it slip by I didnt pay attention to the price but as far as i understand the F-35 only cheaper because Denmark think they only need to buy a smaller number of F-35 compared to F-18F and EF-2000 ? that seem understandable , About the fly hours ,I think it pretty much depending on how Denmark gonna use their fighters , if they want their fighter to carry heavy load out a lot then obviously the flight hours will be less than what producers estimated , there is nothing to say that F-35 flight hours estimation isnt also lower than number from LM. When they said they used number from producers that could mean anything : either they picked the exact number ( reasonable assumption ) or they used the number to estimate the value that fit with their case ( also reasonable assumption since not all countries use aircraft the same way )

I know fighter dont carry AAM at centerline station but Mig-29 should be able to carry ECM pod at the centerline station ( just like most fighter )

I suspect they want to simulate the Mig-35 , Also Mig-29 has 7 weapon station

I disagree , the detail of simulated scenario is quite clear About fly hours , it can also be argued that Eurofighter and Boeing exaggerated​ the flight hours of their air crafts​ ( since you compare flight hours from third party evaluation with flight hours from producers , if you took the flight hours from LM then it likely that their flight hours value will increase as well )

It worth noting that Boeing and Eurofighter complaint about price and fly hours comparison, but neither of them complaint about the mission effectiveness and survivability rating

u

while it true that CFTs on F-18 is easier to make than Laser on F-35, at the moment F-35 program have much higher priority compare to F-18, most of the upgrade would be centered around it, i believe that it will even get the Advent engine before F-18 get their engine upgrades

as far as i know, they only getting the IRST21 pod and that it, no plan to buy EPE engine , even if they decided to buy new engine, the EDE would be more likely to get the contract

i dont think they approved of buying CFT for F-18

actually there are several version of air based laser already http://defense-update.com/20080813_atl-c-130.html http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/09/lockheed-martin-successfully-tests-new-air-based-laser-turret-3030678.html

Now it just a matter of subjective opinions , you may think F-18 fuselage look less boxy compare to F-35 , while me and others disagree . Unless anyone here can put the 3D model of them in a wind tunnel , i dont think it is actually a valid speculation to say which body is better optimized for lift I dont think F-35 have higher wing loading than F-18 when they are fueled to fly the same distance to be honest , the main reason for f-35 high wing load come from the huge amount of fuel that it carry. and F-35 also have more powerful engine F-18E is even more draggy than F-18C and carry external fuel tank externally cause significant increase in drag and RCS too

F-16C Block 50, Altittude = 15000 feet, Speed = M0,8: weight = 22000lbs = 218 kg fuel (6% of total internal fuel capacity) => sustained 6,3Gs with Drag index = 0. weight =26000lbs = 2032 kg fuel (63%) => sustained 5,3Gs with DI=0, 5,1Gs with DI=0, 5,2Gs with Drag index = 21. weight = 28500lbs = 3227 kg fuel (100%) ==> sustained 4,8Gs with DI =0, 4,4Gs with DI=50, 4,6Gs with Drag index = 21. there was no information about how much fuel or weapon the F-35 carry It will definately include two AAMs (as B variant has no gun, there is no point in giving it a "key performance figure" unarmed. Quite possibly, it will include 4 AAMs.Logically, KPP of F-35 will at least involve 50% fuel, and judging how other KPP is given to other aircraft, it is quite possibly 60%, to include reserve fuel into equation. I assume F-35's specific range is consistent with its wing area and thrust increase, ballpark around 50%. Then, there are 4 possibilities; Possibility #1: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 60% fuel and 2 AAMs. This translates to same maneuverability, but fuel for longer range than F-16 with full internal fuel. For same range, F-35 needs less fuel, less weight. This translates to better maneuverability. Possibility #2: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 50% fuel and 2 AAMs. With this fuel, F-35 can match range of F-16 with only 88% internal fuel. This means, F-35 is slightly inferior to F-16 (by 0,1Gs). Possibility #3: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 50% fuel and 4 AAMs. Then you would have to subtract some 304 kg from fuel of F-16 , and add 8 to drag index, to compare it with equal grounds to F-35's KPP. Then F-35 will have better maneuverability for same range. Possibility #4: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 60% fuel and 4 AAMs. Then, this translates to better maneuverability with fuel for better range. Translates to A LOT better maneuverability when fueled for same range.

It make no different at all , F-18 has bigger lerx as stated earlier , however their body is equally boxy , in fact F-18E is arguably has more boxy body another advantages of F-35 is it's negative stability design while F-18E isnt If you believe it has more lift then it will also has more drag , there no way around it For example if F-35 on 100% fuel can reach combat distance equal F-18 with 3 bags , let say they meet somewhere 600 km from their base , if the F-18 dropped it's fuel tanks and left with 100% internal fuel , the F-35 will be left with much smaller percentages of internal fuel ( may be around 50-60% ) , and that gonna changes it's T/W and wing loading significantly

Agree that F-18 have bigger LERX , but i dont really see how this body is any less boxy than this one the wing of F-18 create alot of lift , but come alot with it is alot of drag as well F-35 carry significant amount of internal fuel , a F-35 with full internal fuel can reach the range similar to F-18 , F-16 with 2 bags atleast , when fueld to reach similar distance , i dont think there would be much different between F-16 and F-35 http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28906 because a big AWACs wont have that first look , first shot or jamming efficiency advantages , they will be detected and attacked before they even see anythings https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/stealth-techniques-and-benefits/

Here is radar scattering graph of F-35 from Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics China ( computer simulation ) http://wenku.baidu.com/view/db18051f59eef8c75fbfb37b.html# Actual F-35 figure would depend on the absorption vale of Fibermat a few example of RAM absorption value : http://www.hindawi.com/journals/je/2014/468313/ http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5164242.pdf

Stealth is nice, very fancy CGI

Pretty sure F-22, F-15, F-16 cannot land on a carrier without redesign the wing