Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "CBC News" channel.

  1. Trump is just following through US Congress passed voted bill and what's on the ground i.e. there's nothing original about it.
    4
  2. Etheoma On 21 August 2013 C-Span reported that Congressional Quarterly and the Government Accountability Office were indicating the "total estimated program cost now is $400b—nearly twice the initial cost". The current investment was documented as approximately $50 billion. The projected $316 billion cost in development and procurement spending was estimated through 2037 at an average of $12.6 billion per year. As of August 2013, USA has invested $50 billion into the F-35 program, which is still far from $400 billion estimate. Rafale's program cost to date is around €45.9 billion (Y2013) with 130 units (as of June 2014).
    3
  3. SU-35/SU-37's wing loadings are not low... USA has F-15C/D,  F-15E, F-22A, F-35A, F-35C, F-35B, F-18E/F. Wing loadings via empty weight. These wing loading numbers doesn't factor in body lift, LEX and angled twin tails. F-35A Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build). Wing area: 460 ft² Wing loading: 63.11 lbs/ sq feet. F-16C Block 52 Wing area: 300 ft² Empty weight: 18,900 lb Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet. F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's 43,000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28600 lbf. There's a near straight scaling between F16C to F-35. From http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/ General Mike Hostage On The F-35 vs F-16 The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. F-35A Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build). Wing Area: 460 ft² Weapons: 2000 lb Fuel: 7070 lb  Combat load: 38100 lb Wing loading 82.83 lbs/ sq feet. Thrust: 43000 lbf Power-to-Weight: 1.13 : 1 F-16C Block 52 Empty weight: 18900 lb Wing Area: 300 ft² Weapons: 2000 lb Fuel: 3950 lb at 51% internal fuel tank Wing loading: 82.83 lbs/ sq feet. Combat Load: 24850 lb Thrust: 28600 lbf Power-to-Weight: 1.15 : 1 In terms of SFC(specific fuel consumption) at after burner, F-35A is about 64 percent of SU-35. F-35's adaptive engine upgrade will reduce "64 percent" number further i.e. lower is better for F-35 e.g. 25 percent increase fuel efficiency. F-35A's main target goal is to replace current service F-16C. References for F35's engine improvements during and after year 2013. (Note Ref 1) From Feb 2013, read http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-amp-whitney-to-test-upgraded-f135-this-year-382781/ The option to add 5 percent of thrust on top of 43,000 lbf i.e. 45150 lbf. This improvement also has 5 percent fuel efficiency increase from USN's Fuel Burn Reduction (FBR) programme. This engine improvement was tested late year 2013. This upgrades the hot core. (Note Ref 2) From Sep 2013, read http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-amp-whitney-and-afrl-start-testing-on-adaptive-fan-test-390994/ Pratt has another engine update for F-35 i.e. another 10% increase in thrust and 25 percent fuel efficiency increase. This is adaptive engine upgrade. (Note Ref 2) From http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20130619-0600/2013/All%20Categories Year 2016 for adaptive engine test with higher 10% increase in thrust power AND  25 percent increase in fuel efficiency. From Norwegians' F-35 briefings http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf F-35 Block 6 has + Range improvements + Propulsion Improvements. Going beyond F-16C F-35A Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build). Wing Area: 460 ft² Weapons: 2000 lb Fuel: 7070 lb  Combat load: 38100 lb Wing loading 82.83 lbs/ sq feet. Thrust: 47300 lbf  (just the adaptive engine upgrade with 25 percent increase in fuel efficiency) Power-to-Weight: 1.24 : 1 *Thrust: 45150 lbf  (just the hot-core upgrade for power, neutral fuel consumption increase) Power-to-Weight: 1.185 : 1 --------------------------- F-22A (USAF) Wing area: 840 ft² Empty weight: 43340 lb Fuel:  12700 lb ** Weapons: 2000 lb six AIM-120 type A2A missiles Combat Weight: 58040 lbs Thrust: 70,000 lbf  Power-to-weight: 1.21 : 1 <--- Thrust: 74,000 lbf  (via F-16.net forums) Power-to-weight: 1.27 : 1 <--- Wing loading: 69.09 lbs/ sq feet. <--- F-15C Wing area: 608 ft² Empty weight: 28000 lb Fuel:  12700 lb ** Weapons: 2000 lb six AIM-120 type A2A missiles Combat Weight: 42700 lbs Thrust: 47540 lbf Power-to-weight: 1.11  : 1 <--- Wing loading: 70.23 lbs/ sq feet. <--- F-15E (USAF) Wing area: 608 ft² Empty weight: 31,700 lb Fuel:  12700 lb ** Weapons: 2000 lb six AIM-120 type A2A missiles Combat Weight: 46400 lbs Thrust: 58000 lbf   (F-15K has 58800 lbf) Power-to-weight: 1.25 : 1 <--- Wing loading: 76.32  lbs/ sq feet. <--- SU-35S Wing area: 667 ft² Empty weight: 40,570 lb Fuel:  12700 lb at 50% internal fuel Weapons: 2000 lb six AIM-120 type A2A missiles Max take-off weight: 76,060 lb Combat Weight: 55270 lbs Estimated on the available lift force: 20970 lbs (max takeoff weight - combat weight) Thrust: 63800 lbf Power-to-weight: 1.15 : 1 <--- Wing loading:  82.86 lbs/ sq feet. <--- SU-37 Wing area: 667 ft² Empty weight: 40,790 lb Fuel:  12700 lb at ~50% internal fuel Weapons: 2000 lb six AIM-120 type A2A missiles Max take-off weight: 76,060 lb Combat Weight: 55490 lbs Estimated on the available lift force: 20570 lbs (max takeoff weight - combat weight) Thrust: 64000 lbf Power-to-weight: 1.15 : 1 <--- Wing loading:  83.19 lbs/ sq feet. <--- SU-30MKI Wing area: 667 ft² Empty weight: 40,565 lb Fuel:  12700 lb at ~50% internal fuel Weapons: 2000 lb six AIM-120 type A2A missiles Combat Weight: 55,265 lbs Thrust: 55000 lbf Power-to-weight: 0.99  : 1 <--- LOL Wing loading:  82.85  lbs/ sq feet. <--- As single engine fighter advantages, F-35C still excellent role rates for displacement roll tactics. The Flanker has a pretty decent roll-rate per se (270°/s), but due to its engines being spaced widely apart it has a high moment of inertia so the rotation takes quite long to build up. Single engine aircraft (F-16, Mirage 2000) are most impressive in this regard. F-35C = 300 °/s.
    2
  4. Matthew Ray F-111C's combat radius is 1,330 mi (1,160 nmi, 2,140 km) or 4280 Km. Ferry range is useless since it doesn't carry any weapons. F-35A's airframe is designed with 70,000 lb load i.e. it's has both A2A and A2G. F-35A has 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb loads.   For northern defence, Australia is upgrading RAAF Base Tindal base.
    2
  5. @Akane Cortich Australia wasn't forced to buy F-35 i.e. it bought F-18 F Block II and EA-18G. There are other fighter options from the US i.e. Advance F-15 or F-16 "Super Viper". Indonesia just brought F-16C/D Block 32+ and plans to upgrade them to near Block 52.     http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/250/Exercise-Pitch-Black  “The Hornets and Sukhois are having interesting fights with various outcomes. The Hornets have done fairly well, even during 1v1.” WGCDR Jones said Australian pilots were getting a “buzz out of working with a new platform,” but he too declined to offer an opinion on the capabilities of the Flankers. Instead he diplomatically said, “I remain very comfortable that we have the Super Hornet in RAAF service.” GPCAPT Kitcher assessed the Super Hornets as enjoying parity with the Flankers, but that “a pilot’s skill is the most important factor”. That's Indonesian SU-27SMK and SU-30MKII   View http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nRSaf017MXw/UZhXhp3WiPI/AAAAAAAACWk/6xBVahdCiQo/s1600/Sustained+G+and+T+to+W.jpg Notice F-18 equalling SU-27 for combat weight sustained turn rate at 15,000 ft at Mach 0.9 with full gun ammo + 2 IR missiles. For combat weight sustained turn rate at 15,000 ft at Mach 0.9 with full gun ammo + 2 IR missiles, notice 1. F-18 on parity with SU-27 2. F-16A is better* than SU-27 and MiG 29. 3 F-15 is better* than SU-27 and MiG 29.
    2
  6. Behrooz Karimian On 21 August 2013 C-Span reported that Congressional Quarterly and the Government Accountability Office were indicating the "total estimated program cost now is $400b—nearly twice the initial cost". The current investment was documented as approximately $50 billion. The projected $316 billion cost in development and procurement spending was estimated through 2037 at an average of $12.6 billion per year. Rafale's program cost to date is around €45.9 billion (Y2013) with 130 units (June 2014). That's about 61.27 billion USD. F-35's program cost to date is around $50 billion USD (Y2013) with 100 units. Euro currency is higher than USD. There are fighters programs that has similar "cost to date" to F-35 program and France is not buying 2400 units i.e. France's airforce is tiny in comparison to US's airforce. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Canadian_Forces_projects Canada's major planned asset purchases are stuck in no signed contracts status  i.e. it's all talk, talk, talk ... Canada doesn't have signed contracts for new stealth air warfare destroyers, new LHD flat top (they are picking the less capable/cheaper  Mistral class) , new aircraft fighters.  
    2
  7. Your not using your own brain.
    1
  8. +LOL LOL http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/01/norwegian-f-35-pilot-counters-controversial-dogfighting-report/81170580/ Norwegian F-35 Pilot Counters David Axe's Controversial Dog-fighting Report.
    1
  9. SeaToby11 From RAAF's F-22A vs F-15D (with DRFM) “…the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane…. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis…. To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God’s-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter – and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pipe, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements. ------------- According to the Norwegian pilot, F-35A can dogfight and shoot down F-16 without the need for stealth.  
    1
  10. Lomnjac007 Indians plans to buy 36 Rafales for about $8 billion USD. Read http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/do-not-have-the-numbers-to-fully-fight-two-front-war-iaf/
    1
  11. SeaToby11 SU-30MK is a hanger queen i.e. low serviceability. 
    1
  12. F-22A still has F-15C's low wing loading.  
    1
  13. BennyCFD You not factoring the fuel cost e.g. there are reasons why countries selects F-18 or F-16 instead of two large engine equipped F-15.  
    1
  14. Matthew Ray You are wrong, F-35A and F-35C's titanium bulkheads are different from F-35B's aluminium bulkheads. F-35A can't land on a carrier since it doesn't have reinforced tail hook related structures. F-35C has larger wings than F-35A and F-35B. F-35A doesn't have F-35C's folding wing. F-35A and F-35C doesn't have F-35B's lift fan and wide top section. F-35A and F-35C can carry heavier internal bomb loads when compared to F-35B. View http://s619.photobucket.com/user/SpudmanWP/media/F-3520Master20Plan.jpg.html The so-call reduction performance in 2012 is line with the above "Block Plan: Capabilities / Transition Plan" table. At Block 2A, the G numbers are 5.5 / 4.5 /4.5. <------ Year 2012 At Block 2B / 3I, G numbers are 7 / 5.5 / 7.5.  <------ Year 2015 At Block 3C(3F) stage, G numbers are 9 / 7 /7.5. At Block 3F's G force loading F-35A = 9 G F-35B = 7 G F-35C = 7.5 G. Like the F-16, F-35A obtains it's 9G rating at Block 3C(3F) stage Single F-35B design for 3 services did not work.
    1
  15. Matthew Ray Titanium is stronger than aluminium and my point was the 3 services are not flying F-35B but 3 separate F-35 fighters. From http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/ General Mike Hostage On The F-35 vs F-16 The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. This is USAF's expectation when F-35A reaches Block 3F. Articles like http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/   uses DOT&E 2012 report refers to Block 2A. From http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130531/DEFREG02/305310021/Pentagon-First-F-35s-Operational-2015 Pentagon: First F-35s Operational in 2015 These are F-35A and F-35B Block 2B. The DOT&E report is a snapshot in time, not an immutable definition of the capabilities of the system. View http://s619.photobucket.com/user/SpudmanWP/media/F-3520Master20Plan.jpg.html The so-call reduction performance in 2012 is line with the above "Block Plan: Capabilities / Transition Plan" table. At Block 2A, the G numbers are 5.5 / 4.5 /4.5. <------ Year 2012 At Block 2B / 3I, G numbers are 7 / 5.5 / 7.5.  <------ Year 2015 At Block 3C(3F) stage, G numbers are 9 / 7 /7.5. Like the F-16, F-35A obtains it's 9G rating at Block 3C(3F) stage which is superior to any F-18 variants. References for F35's engine improvements during and after year 2013. (Note Ref 1) From Feb 2013, read http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-amp-whitney-to-test-upgraded-f135-this-year-382781/ The option to add 5 percent of thrust on top of 43,000 lbf i.e. 45150 lbf. This improvement also has 5 percent fuel efficiency increase from USN's Fuel Burn Reduction (FBR) programme. This engine improvement was tested late year 2013. (Note Ref 2) From Sep 2013, read http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-amp-whitney-and-afrl-start-testing-on-adaptive-fan-test-390994/ Pratt has another engine update for F-35 i.e. another 10% increase in thrust and 25 percent fuel efficiency increase. This is adaptive engine upgrade. (Note Ref 2) From http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20130619-0600/2013/All%20Categories Year 2016 for adaptive engine test with higher 10% increase in thrust power AND  25 percent increase in fuel efficiency. From Norwegians' F-35 briefings http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf F-35 Block 6 has + Range improvements + Propulsion Improvements. View http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/F-35BlockUpgrades.jpg Again, there's an engine upgrade at Block 6. It's a no brainier that F-35A would have acceleration/speed issues if the year 2013's engine upgrades are missing-in-action during the year 2012. The Block Plan: Capabilities / Transition Plan road map has indicated this. Australia based their plans on the above time table i.e. around year 2019 to 2023. The risk is not reaching USAF's expectation for F-16 like performance at Block 3F.
    1
  16. Matthew Ray Range F-15E Combat radius: 790 mi (1,150 mi (max)) Ferry range: 2,400 mi (2,100 nmi, 3,900 km) with conformal fuel tank and three external fuel tanks. Ferry range has no weapons. Rafale Combat radius: 1,852+ km (1,000+ nmi) on penetration mission. Range: 3,700+ km (2,000+ nmi)  with 3 drop tanks. F-35A's range with 2500 lb tactical load out is 3000km with just internal fuel tank. Adaptive engine increase the range to around 3900 Km Israel is working on conformal fuel tank solution for F-35 for greater range e.g. >3000 km or adaptive engine >3900 km. F-35A Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) (tested to Mach 1.61) Very little difference between internal weapons loaded or clean. Dassault_Rafale Maximum speed(clean):  Mach 1.8 (1,912 km/h, 1,032 knots) Note the MPH or km/h numbers. F-35's Mach number is being down played, while MPH or  km/h are  similar to F-18E/F and Rafale. Speed of sound is not a constant Altitude vs speed of sound sea level = 761 MPH 10000 feet = 734 MPH 20000 feet = 701 MPH 30000 feet = 678 MPH 40000 feet = 660 MPH 50000 feet = 660 MPH With internal weapons bay, F-35A would be faster than Rafale and F-18E/F. F-35's stealth is just an extra layer in addition to it's counter-measures i.e. "break the kill chain" which makes it harder to get a missile lock. There's a difference between missile lock and detection. F-35A is not another B2 or F-117 i.e. F-35A's main goal is F-16 like fighter with stealth and longer transits range. USAF's F-35 has better stealth than F-22. Year 2012 Block 2A is long past and it's nearly year 2015 Block 2B. Australia has delayed their main F-35 purchases to around 2019 to 2023. "Lockheed Martin's development roadmap extends until 2021, including a Block 6 engine improvement in 2019" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Engines The latest  F-35s orders are without engines. LOL.. talk about Osborne effect... Block 3F, Block 4, Block 5 and Block 6 upgrades are running in parallel.   The JSF partners will reject F-35, if it repeats F-16/79.
    1
  17. http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/lth/ Engine and outboard accessory-gearbox life:        - to first overhaul, hours 500      - service life limit, hours 1,500 Aircraft limit:        - SLL, hours 3,000      - to first overhaul, hours 1,500      - service life, years 25 Against F-35's engine problem From http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_03_06_2014_p01-02-669564.xml "The fan crack occurred on Dec. 23 during accelerated mission tests (AMT) on ground engine FX648 at Pratt’s West Palm Beach facility, as the engine reached 77% of its required life, says F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan" "The specific engine involved was the highest-time F135 in the test fleet, with 2,200 hr. of running time, or approximately nine years of service as a test engine. In terms of hours" Read http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-test-jets-undergo-burn-f135-engine-fix   F-35 Test Jets to Undergo ‘Burn In’ for F135 Engine Fix. http://www.abdonline.com/news-analysis/defense/the-fa-18-advanced-super-hornet/#.VHsfevhxniI For F-18 E/F "overhaul from 2,000 to 4,000 hours for the hot section, and from 4,000 to 6,000 hours for the turbine fan" F-35 is being benchmarked against it's F-16 and F-18 NOT against low overhaul hours Russian engines.
    1
  18. From http://www.airforce.gov.au/Technology/Future-Acquisitions/F-35A-Lightning-II/?RAAF-ZRnYQhJUh1u0e44uR32olOT1rt+Ym4K3 "The first F-35 aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018 and the first squadron, Number 3 Squadron, will be operational in 2021.  All 72 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023" "The total capital cost of $12.4 billion for this acquisition includes the cost of associated facilities, weapons and training." "Around $1.6 billion in new facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, including at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory." ---- Australia is upgrading it's air bases together with F-35s. Some JSF countries wouldn't be bothered with airbase upgrades. Minus the airbase upgrades, its $150 million AUD for each F-35A which includes the cost of weapons and training. Australian Dollar is slightly weaker than US Dollar i.e. that's about 131 million dollar per F-35A unit that includes new weapons. Fighters without weapons are useless. Rafale's program cost to date is around €45.9 billion (Y2013) with 130 units (June 2014). That's about 61.27 billion USD. F-35's program cost to date is around $50 billion USD (Y2013) with 100 units. Euro currency is higher than USD. The reason for near $400 billion USD is due to United States' 2,443 aircraft purchase which is magnitude larger than France's Rafale fleet.. ----------- Reference for F-35 program cost. On 21 August 2013 C-Span reported that Congressional Quarterly and the Government Accountability Office were indicating the "total estimated program cost now is $400b—nearly twice the initial cost". The current investment was documented as approximately $50 billion. The projected $316 billion cost in development and procurement spending was estimated through 2037 at an average of $12.6 billion per year. F-35's critics doesn't apply the same max fuel loads to Russian Flankers i.e. being double standards. From  http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23442&sid=bbbc450dad2955377ec5ed7615c49fcc&start=15 Flankers can do quite limited maneuvering capability (max being about 4.5 G's IIRC) with maximum internal fuel load and to do 9 G's they need to be at about 50-60% of maximum internal fuel load. Sukhoi describes the normal takeoff weight as being with only 5270 kg of internal fuel, which is awfully little for a such powerful jet. Su-27/30/33/35 can't have both full maneuverability AND full internal fuel load simultaneously. IIRC this is because the full fuel load adversely affects the center of gravity of the plane, making it nose-heavy. I don't think there is any similar restrictions with F-35. The Vanila Su-27SK had limitation with its internal wing fuel tanks. It had a low wing loading, so if there was fuel in the wing tanks, it was limited to 6G load, until it reached 5600kg of fuel(empty wing tanks). I have not heard of any limitation about it being unballanced(COG) the way you discribe here. ----------- Flankers has it's own G loading issues i.e. effective A2A config for Flankers is around 12700 pound fuel. F-15E can have 14076 lbs of fuel + two CFT (4785 lbs) without significantly changing it's G force performance e.g. 8.0 G.
    1
  19. ***** SU-30 pilots are using manoeuvres that kills speed i.e. it's energy manoeuvrability theory vs non-energy manoeuvrability theory.  
    1
  20. Jason Smith Long wavelength has less accuracy than short wavelength. F-35 Block 5 has laser based anti IR missile solution i.e. F-35 program is aware of IRST since it also sports advanced 360 degree IRST. F-35's stealth is designed for breaking the kill chain for F-16 like fighter.
    1
  21. ***** Russian data links wasn't that important for scenarios that involves gun fight setups i.e. F-15C was able to exploit SU-30MKI's speed killing manoeuvres by implementing energy manoeuvrability bias tactics. F-15C has lower baseline wing loading than SU-30MKI(or any Flankers). Pro-F-15C camp has created tactics to kill F-22's speed killing manoeuvres/high angle of attack and these tactics was recycled for combating SU-30MKI.  Rookie F-22 pilots use their fighters like Flankers with speed killing manoeuvres/high angle of attack tactics instead of using F-22's low wing loading features. USAF didn't like YF-17/F-18L's high angle of attack/speed killing manoeuvres style tactics. F-18L is the air force for F/A-18 version with 9 G rating. F-35A attempts to combine F-16 and F-18L flight characteristics into one aircraft. F-35C attempts to advance USN fighters with low wing loading fighter i.e. it's substantially lower than the classic Hornet, Super Hornet, Flankers and Fulcrums.
    1
  22. *****  I was answering specifically to gun based dogfight in Red Flag 2008. Networking between fighters are another issue.
    1
  23. ***** For A2A, do not load F-16s with drop tanks i.e. it should drop them for A2A. F-16C Block 52 Wing area: 300 ft² Empty weight: 18,900 lb Fuel:  3800 lbs (50 percent)** Weapons: 2000 lb six AIM-120 type A2A missiles Combat Weight: 24,700 lbs Thrust: 28,600 lbf Power-to-weight: 1.158 : 1 .<------- Wing loading: 82.33 lbs/ sq feet.<------- Notice the small fuel load with F-16. F-16C Block 52 also uses F100-PW-229 engine. From http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11567 F-15E's F100-PW-229 (MIL) 17,800lbs @ 0.726 lb/Hr/lb st (MAX) 29,100lbs @ 2.060 lb/Hr/lb st At max, duel engine would result in 4.12 lb/Hr/lb st At max engine power, F-16C Block 52's fuel consumption rate is half of F-15E. F-35A will attempt to fix F-16's small internal fuel tank issue. Weapons: 2000 lb six AIM-120 type A2A missiles F-35A Wing area: 460 ft² Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build) Fuel:  7038 lbs ** Combat Weight: 38,068 lbs Wing loading: 82.7 lbs/ sq feet. <----- Thrust: 40,000 lbf Power-To-Weight:  1.05  : 1 <---- old. Thrust: 43,000 lbf Power-To-Weight:  1.129 : 1 <---- current, before year 2013 upgrades. Thrust: 45,150 lbf** (Feb 2013 info update, 5 percent higher thrust). Power-To-Weight:  1.186  : 1 <---- Hot core improvements. Thrust: 47300 lbf** (just Sep 2013's 10 percent increase against 43000 lbf). Power-To-Weight:  1.24 : 1 <---- Estimate for adaptive engine. Thrust: 49,665 lbf** (Feb 2013's 5 percent increase + Sep 2013's 10 percent increase) Power-To-Weight:  1.30 : 1 <---- Estimate for adaptive engine with hot core improvements. F-35A has F-16C like wing loading with larger fuel tank. From http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11567 F135-PW-100 (MIL) 28,000lbs @ 0.886 lb/HR/lb st (According to J@ne'$, but seems too high? 0.700 is more likely) (MAX) 43,000lbs @ (~1.950?) lb/HR/lb st At max power, F-35A consumes about half the fuel rate of F-15E, hence I loaded F-35A with half of F-15's fuel load i.e. apples to apple comparison. F-35C (recent 240-4 build) Wing area: 668 ft² Empty weight: 32,072 lbs Fuel:  7038 lbs ** Wepaons: 2000 lbs (six AIM-120 types) Combat Load: 41,110 lbs Static Wing Loading: 61.54 lbs/ sq feet Thrust: 43,000 lbf Power-Weight: 1.05 : 1  (more with year 2016 adaptive engine) F-35C has a lower wing loading than F-16A and SU-30MKI. References F35's year 2013 engine improvements.* From Feb 2013, read http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-amp-whitney-to-test-upgraded-f135-this-year-382781/ The option to add 5 percent of thrust on top of 43,000 lbf i.e. 45150 lbf. This improvement also has 5 percent fuel efficiency increase from USN's Fuel Burn Reduction (FBR) programme. From Sep 2013, read http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-amp-whitney-and-afrl-start-testing-on-adaptive-fan-test-390994/ Pratt has another engine update for F35 i.e. another 10% increase in thrust and 25 percent fuel efficiency increase. This is adaptive engine upgrade. http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20130619-0600/2013/All%20Categories Year 2016 for adaptive engine test with higher 10% increase in thrust power AND  25 percent increase in fuel efficiency. From Norwegians' F-35 briefings http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf Notional Block 6 has + Range improvements + Propulsion Improvements. From http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/ General Mike Hostage On The F-35 vs F-16 The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. General Mike Hostage supports my F-35 wing loading and power-to-weight calculations.
    1
  24. ***** F-35B Wing area: 460 ft² Empty weight: 32,300 lb (I haven't looked at the latest empty weight for F-35B) Fuel:  7038 lbs Weapons: 2000 lbs for six AIM-120 missiles. Combat Weight: 41338 lbs Wing loading: 89.86 lbs/ sq feet. <----- Thrust: 43,000 lbf Power-To-Weight:  1.04 : 1 <----- F-35B can be competitive since it's home airfield is mobile and may not need the same fuel loads as F-35A. This is also true for F-35C.
    1
  25. Matthew Ray Your posts has flaws since you are working on blind loaded weight and not with actual loaded weapons and fuel for A2A (when fighter arrives in the battle zone i.e. you forgetting mission planning factors).   F-35A and F-35C Block 5 has 6 internal AIM-120 type missile loads.
    1
  26. ***** Wing loadings via empty weight. F-35A Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build). Wing area: 460 ft² Wing loading: 63.11 lbs/ sq feet. F-16C Block 52 Wing area: 300 ft² Empty weight: 18,900 lb Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet. F-35A's main target goal is to replace F-16. www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013/pdf/dod/2013f35jsf.pdf During 2013, F-35A's empty weight is at 29,030 pounds.
    1
  27. Jason Smith Read http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140915/DEFREG04/309150012/Gaza-War-Leaned-Heavily-F-16-Close-Air-Support\ Israel's F-16 ground support tactics.
    1
  28. FrakU2 Those reports are based on wrong assumptions. SU-35's wing loadings are not low. In terms of gun dogfights, they don't reflect Red Flag 2008.
    1
  29. ***** Note that adaptive engine improves F-35's cruise without afterburners performance. F-35's current 43,000 lbf engine is temporary engine since F-35 Block 6 has the engine upgrade. F-35's F-135 engine was tested to around 50,000 lbf and it's a massive fuel consumer, hence why adaptive engine program's existence.   
    1
  30. ***** Only some Aussies e.g. RepSim Pty Ltd, AirPowerAustralia.   http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/250/Exercise-Pitch-Black  Perhaps the question uppermost on everyone’s minds was how the Flankers compared to equivalent Western aircraft. There is something of a fascination with the legendary status of this aerodynamic fighter, but one official stated categorically that none of the international partners felt outclassed by it. When pressed about the capabilities of the Flankers during an interview, one spokesman remained suitably vague: “The Hornets and Sukhois are having interesting fights with various outcomes. The Hornets have done fairly well, even during 1v1.” WGCDR Jones said Australian pilots were getting a “buzz out of working with a new platform,” but he too declined to offer an opinion on the capabilities of the Flankers. Instead he diplomatically said, “I remain very comfortable that we have the Super Hornet in RAAF service.” GPCAPT Kitcher assessed the Super Hornets as enjoying parity with the Flankers, but that “a pilot’s skill is the most important factor”. ------------- RAAF contradicted RepSim Pty Ltd's and AirPowerAustralia's Sukhois hype with actual Indonesian SU-27SMK and SU-30MKII. RAAF  has observed Thailand's Gripen NG and Singapore's F-16C Block 50 and F-15SG.
    1
  31. Matthew Ray JORN uses radio frequencies between 5 and 30 MHz which is far lower than most other civilian and military radars that operate in the microwave frequency band. ----- Modern stealth was designed to break the kill chian and enhanced aircraft's counter measures.  
    1
  32. ***** F-35 can intermingle with multiple cheap missile drones.  
    1
  33. Matthew Ray One must not be native with these issues.  Drone spamming against SAM sites are not new e.g. the first gulf war. Flying from Saudi territory, USAF's 4468th Tactical Reconnaissance Group launched groups of Scathe Mean and Northrop BQM-74 drones against H-2 and H-3 airfields (around Baghdad  and Basra) and the drones travelled near their targets and flew in loose formations; pretending to be inbound bombers, which caused the Iraqi SAM operators to activate their SAM systems and instantly attracted HARMs from the waiting Hornets and Weasels. Remember, Iraq has invaded Kuwait which is a trigger point for war.
    1
  34. ***** F-35's current engine is temporary since P&W testing a new adaptive engine some time in 2016.   
    1
  35. Matthew Ray As for "proper procurement procedure"... Did you know early LM JSF is actually forward canard  + rear delta wing model? Note the diamond delta wing shape is very close China's J-20. View http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4986/x321.gif LM has designed at least two multi-role stealth fighters and has it's own internal competition.  LM could have offered two fighters i.e. canard + rear delta model vs mid-wing + rear quad-stabilizer model. LM is already ahead of Dassault and Eurofighter when it comes to 5th-gen forward canard + rear diamond delta designs.
    1
  36. Baseshocks http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=16589&mode=view Lockheed's AIM-160 CUDA missile that doubles F-35's internal A2A missile count. http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-mysterious-lm-cuda-missile.html
    1
  37. Baseshocks Read my second link for the range estimates. Half of AIM-120 is taken by the guidance system and AIM-160 CUDA missile's guidance system is based on LM's SM3 (anti-ballistic missile). AIM-160 CUDA missile is under another US weapon program.
    1
  38. Matthew Ray July 21/14: EIS. The Australian government releases the F-35’s draft Environmental Impact statement Generally, it is predicted that noise levels from the F-35A aircraft will be within a similar range or less than that of the F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft. In the long-term, the introduction of the F-35A aircraft is predicted to provide a reduction in the number of noise events above the N70 rating (above 70 dB LAmax) and N85 rating (above 85 dB LAmax) in key populated areas surrounding the bases. Areas of Medowie (near RAAF Base Williamtown) are the only areas predicted to experience an increase in the number of noise events above the N70 and N85 ratings. Existing noise mitigation measures for the flying operations of the F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft will continue to be implemented for the proposed flying operations of the F-35A aircraft. RAAF will also implement additional mitigation measures for the F-35A aircraft to lower potential exposure to high level noise events by adopting a reduced thrust setting during climb and limiting afterburner use on departure, when operationally safe to do so 
    1
  39. Matthew Ray Please share that link. I'm already aware of http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=f88be299-2a24-40c6-9406-f0cc4516a34d&subId=300492 In summary The conclusion at 9.6.4 of the report that "the Newcastle Airport Limited terminal has been considered as an on-base area and is incorporated into the assessment in section 9.6.5" is flawed. At 9.6.5 it concludes: "Instantaneous noise levels at RAAF Base Williamtown" – "It is predicted that instantaneous noise levels at RAAF Base Williamtown and the adjacent passenger terminal will be comparable between the F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft and the F-35A aircraft and below the Commonwealth and NSW Work Health and Safety Regulation criteria of 140dB for the protection of hearing. There may be unexpected periods of increased afterburner use, which could result in external noise levels approaching, or exceeding Commonwealth and NSW Work Health and Safety Regulation criteria. Management measures already in place at RAAF Base Williamtown will be used to maintain use noise levels within Commonwealth and NSW Work Health and Safety Regulation criteria." .... We are unclear, in the least, to what "Management measures already in place at RAAF Base Williamtown" refers to or their relevance to Newcastle Airport.  They are asking for specific implications for the NAPL site and they didn't want a copy-and-paste job from RAAF Base Williamtown.
    1
  40. Matthew Ray From http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/ General Mike Hostage On The F-35 vs F-16 The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. This is USAF's expectation for F-35A Block 3F, but it's not F-22A. Blame USAF for spec'ing F-35A as current service F-16C. USN is looking at LM's F-35C-Plus proposal for F/A-XX i.e. it should be a double engine F-35C that goes beyond F-35C Block 6 (which includes engine upgrade).  LM has offered both a clean sheet design or upgraded F-35C-Plus variant for F/A-XX. There's very little point building the 4th F-35 variant if  F-35C Block 6 covers USN's F/A-XX requirement.   View http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-22_yf-22_comp.jpg Notice the wing shape difference between YF-22 vs F-22A   F-35A's top view plan. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f35/f16-f35-f22.jpg F-35C's top view plan. http://internetlooks.com/f35ccf01100c.jpg Notice F-35's wing shape almost recycles YF-22's wing shape. A double engine F-35C-Plus is more or less YF-22 for USN. F-22's massive >70000 lbf engines pushes the fighter to mach 2.2+. F-35's aero shaping is similar to YF-22 but with a weaker engine solution i.e. missing an engine. Australia has announced they will be replacing Super Hornets after 72 F-35A units with future F-35 units. We don't know if Australia's purchasing plans follows USN's F/A-XX program.    Buying YF-22 class fighter via F-35C-Plus variant back door would be nicer for Australia. US already has  F-35 based RAM coating with mach 2.2 considerations from F-22 Lot 9. Empty weight wing loading F-35C (240-4 build) Wing area: 668 ft² Empty weight: 32,072 lbs Additional F-135 engine: 3800 lbs New empty weight: 35872 lbs Wing Loading: 53.7 lbs/ sq feet F-22A (USAF) Wing area: 840 ft² Empty weight: 43340 lb Wing loading: 51.59 lbs/ sq feet. <--- Notice how close is the double engine F-35C to F-22A. F-35C-Plus with two 43000 lbf engines would be T/W monster. They may need to expand the wing area for the additional 3800 lb weight engine. Might as well build updated F-22A and rename it as F-35D or F-35E. If Super Hornet gets dumped during 2025 to 2030 time period, F-35C-Plus would be quickest solution for completion. Obama will be out of office sometime in 2016.
    1
  41. jullienflight Both F-16 and F-18 can't even match F-35's Mach 1.2 super cruise.    PLEASE USE YOUR OWN BRAIN.
    1
  42. Sean Dutton stop being stupid. Wing loadings via empty weight. F-35A Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build). Wing area: 460 ft² Wing loading: 63.11 lbs/ sq feet. F-16C Block 52 Wing area: 300 ft² Empty weight: 18,900 lb Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet. F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's 43000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28600 lbf. There's a near straight scaling between F16C to F-35A. From http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/ General Mike Hostage On The F-35 vs F-16 The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. F-35A's main target goal is to replace current service F-16C. F-35A Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build). Wing Area: 460 ft² Weapons: 2000 lb Fuel: 7070 lb  Combat load: 38100 lb Wing loading 82.83 lbs/ sq feet. Thrust: 43000 lbf Power-to-Weight: 1.13 : 1   F-16C Block 52 Empty weight: 18900 lb Wing Area: 300 ft² Weapons: 2000 lb Fuel: 3950 lb at 56% internal fuel tank Wing loading: 82.83 lbs/ sq feet. Combat Load: 24850 lb Thrust: 28600 lbf Power-to-Weight: 1.15 : 1 References for F35's engine improvements during and after year 2013. (Note Ref 1) From Feb 2013, read http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-amp-whitney-to-test-upgraded-f135-this-year-382781/ The option to add 5 percent of thrust on top of 43,000 lbf i.e. 45150 lbf. This improvement also has 5 percent fuel efficiency increase from USN's Fuel Burn Reduction (FBR) programme. This engine improvement was tested late year 2013. (Note Ref 2) From Sep 2013, read http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-amp-whitney-and-afrl-start-testing-on-adaptive-fan-test-390994/ Pratt has another engine update for F-35 i.e. another 10% increase in thrust and 25 percent fuel efficiency increase. This is adaptive engine upgrade. (Note Ref 2) From http://www.pw.utc.com/Press/Story/20130619-0600/2013/All%20Categories Year 2016 for adaptive engine test with higher 10% increase in thrust power AND  25 percent increase in fuel efficiency. From Norwegians' F-35 briefings http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/JSF_RBI-svar.pdf F-35 Block 6 has + Range improvements + Propulsion Improvements. Going beyond F-16C F-35A Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build). Wing Area: 460 ft² Weapons: 2000 lb Fuel: 7070 lb  Combat load: 38100 lb Wing loading 82.83 lbs/ sq feet. Thrust: 47300 lbf  (just the adaptive engine upgrade with 25 percent increase in fuel efficiency) Power-to-Weight: 1.24 : 1 *Thrust: 45150 lbf  (just the hot-core upgrade for power, neutral fuel consumption increase) Power-to-Weight: 1.185 : 1 Why continue posting these nonsense, even other aircraft producer (Saab) has agreed that F-35A is not too bad? http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l327/encia/F35/F-35AfromSaab_zps6b92ab35.jpg
    1
  43. Sean Dutton That RAND report has already been debunked by no less than RAND itself. Read http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html “Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.” http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/verbatim/133273/f_35-fares-worse-in-rand-wargame.html Mr Price : No, sorry; you will not read a RAND report of that activity. That activity was done separately to the Pacific Vision war game, and the analyst who did that was subsequently released from RAND because it never existed  
    1
  44. Leo Moran The only clusterfuck is your post. Read http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/ Chris Bogdan: I know where every single airplane in the production line is on any given day. You know why that's important? Because Lockheed Martin doesn't get paid their profit unless each and every airplane meets each station on time with the right quality. David Martin: So if this plane doesn't get from that station to this station-- Chris Bogdan: On time with the right quality they're going to lose some of their fee. You've got to perform to make your profit. David Martin: They must love you at Lockheed Martin. Chris Bogdan: I try and be fair, David and if they want what I call "winner's profit," they have to act like and perform like winners, and that's fair. Your "LM makes a profit fixing it, and if things keep going wrong, LM keeps making a profit fixing it" is wrong.
    1
  45. AirShark95 F-104 has demonstrated mach 2 speeds while the Arrow promised mach 2. Around that time period, you have F-101, F-102, F-104 (mach 2 interceptor), F-105 (mach 2 strike)
    1
  46. ***** Please post the link that shows  your Chris Bogdan's statement. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F0b6ee58c-c085-45b2-b846-270356b353dc%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F0b6ee58c-c085-45b2-b846-270356b353dc%2F0000%22 CHAIR: If you can condense it to the maximum extent possible, that would be great. Air Marshal Browne : He said:[General Michael Hostage]: ""I believe that the comments I made in the interview with the Air Force Times on 2 February and my comments that [if] I do not keep the F22 viable and the F35 frankly will be irrelevant have been taken out of context by folks in Australia [and the internet]. The overall context was an acquisition focus about building the United States military force capable of independently engaging a near-peer competitor on their own turf with the densest and most dangerous integrated air defence system. I was asked why I needed to upgrade the F22 if I had the F35. I said in that context a reduced USAA F fleet of 763 F35s — we had just finished a conversation on how I needed 1 , 763 F35s and not a single aircraft less — would not provide the air combat capability necessary without the additional 180-plus F22 s. The question I answered was about the F22, not the F35. Of note, I used the reference to the F35 to emphasise the importance of the F22, not to denigrate the F35. It was in that context of an independent US major combat operations with a near- peer competitor. "" From http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/ General Mike Hostage On The F-35 vs F-16 The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. Wing loadings via empty weight. F-35A Empty weight: 29,030 lb (Year 2013 build). Wing area: 460 ft² Wing loading: 63.11 lbs/ sq feet. F-16C Block 52 Wing area: 300 ft² Empty weight: 18,900 lb Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet. F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C. F-35A's 43,000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28600 lbf. There's a near straight scaling between F16C to F-35A. The wing loading on F-35A is higher than F-22A. Only F-35C's wing loading can rival F-22A's wing loading. USAF spec'ed F-35A as F-16 like fighter with F-18's high AoA, hence the blame falls down to USAF. F-35C (recent 240-4 build) Wing area: 668 ft² (larger than F-15C) Empty weight: 32,072 lbs (similar to F-15E) For F-35C, it needs an engine higher F-15C's  47,540 lbf of thrust. Atm, F-35C has 43,000 lbf engine i.e. refer to adaptive engine upgrade with 10 percent higher thrust e.g. 47300 lbf. http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.  "Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said. F-22A's super cruise is around mach 1.7. F-35's mach 1.2 super cruise is with current F135 engine. Adaptive engine upgrade may change this level. View http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-22_yf-22_comp.jpg Notice the wing shape difference between YF-22 vs F-22A   F-35A's top view plan. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f35/f16-f35-f22.jpg F-35C's top view plan. http://internetlooks.com/f35ccf01100c.jpg Notice F-35's wing shape almost recycles YF-22's wing shape. It would easy for LM to reboot YF-22 as F-35D with two engines I.e. similar to  Classic Hornet to Super Hornet revision.  The problem is USAF's F16 with F-18's high AoA specs. Each F135 engine weighs around  3,750 pounds. View http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/992/f35f22shockum9.jpg If F-35A has similar nose and wing Mach speed angles as F-22A.  F-35A has  66 percent of F-22A's empty weight, hence it would need similar F-22A level power to weight ratios. F-22A's two 37000 (using the info F-16.net web site) engines pushes the aircraft to around Mach 2.184 to 2.25, so 66 percent empty weight would equate to 48840 lbf class engine (using 2.184 number). Both F-22A and F-35 has similar frontal section.
    1
  47. Dave (the original article writer) oughta do some research instead of listening to the latest whisperer with an axe to grind. The gun has been a planned Block 3F capability for a long time. Block 3F Fleet Release is end of 3d quarter/beginning of 4th quarter 2017 -- not 2019. Here's a link from a PEO SWG brief (see slide 6), but I bet Spaz can find docs going back to 2010 or 2011 refecting same http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18234 Read http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Reports/2014%202015/Report%2014/ANAO-Report_2014-2015_14.pdf Australian 2013–14 Major Projects Report 17 Dec 2014 F-35 Section pp 183-184 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19944&sid=55623eec89edd6f67486444359231aa2&mode=view What's funny (and that they're completely oblivious to) is that the F-35 has more ammo than the Mig-29, Su-27, Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen. Whoops. I guess those all suck too... Rafale Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GIAT 30/M791 autocannon with 125 rounds Typhoon Guns: 1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 150 rounds SU-27 1 × 30 mm GSh-30-1 cannon with 150 rounds MiG-29 1 x 30 mm GSh-30-1 cannon with 150 rounds Hypocrites can only go so far.
    1
  48. Sean Dutton http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666042.pdf  at page 25 shows the breakdown for $916.3 billion (JPO) or 1020 billion (CAPE) estimate $916.3 / 56 years = $16.36 billion per year. $1020.3 / 56 years = $18.21 billion per year. Unit-level maintenance(56 years): $246.8 billion (JPO) or $4.4 billion per year. $282.9 billion (CAPE) or $5.05 billion per year. Depot-level maintenance (56 years): $23.8 billion (JPO) or $425 million per year. $43.4 billion (CAPE) or $775 million per year. Contractor and sustaining support (56 years): $158.8 billion (JPO) or $2.8 billion per year $190.5 billion (CAPE) or $3.4 billion per year On 21 August 2013 C-Span reported that Congressional Quarterly and the Government Accountability Office were indicating the "total estimated program cost now is $400b—nearly twice the initial cost". The current investment was documented as approximately $50 billion. The projected $316 billion cost in development and procurement spending was estimated through 2037 at an average of $12.6 billion per year. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html US spends about $500.3 billion USD/fiscal year on welfare which is significantly larger than F-35's $12.6 billion per year rate.
    1
  49. Sean Dutton It's just an estimation. A viable scramjet fighter could render F-35 obsolete. It depends on the gap between F-35 program and 6th generation F-X program. At this time, F-35 program mostly focused on replacing F-16C, classic F-18 and Harrier II.
    1
  50. Gary Doss Supersonic stealth combat drone has similar R&D requirement and cost as manned supersonic stealth combat aircraft.
    1