let's set some limits: we are discussing gripen NG and F-35A specifically, Finland doesn't need STOVL of the B nor the CATOBAR -shit of the C except maybe the arrestor hook just in case, but A has that as well, Finland has a system of using strenghtened strips of highway as back-up bases, I know for a fact that one such strip of highway was strenghtened to be used as a highway base and has a maximum of 2400m of runway & it can't be extended for F-35, is F-35A so much better than Gripen NG that it warrants reducing the number of highway bases from which it can operate 'safely'?
>>30009668
screw your limits.
>>30009668
Go with the Gripen. Localised production of arms > ANY tech advantage. Being next to Sweden and not having to suck Lockheeds cock by rebuilding your entire airfleet housing just to use a jet is a massive advantage.
>>30009668
>We don't need the STOVL of the B!
>But we have short runway limits
b r a v o.
>>30009668
>M-muh runways!
You didn't even wait for the thread to start you fucking Saab shill.
The F35 is perfectly suited for the role, use it and be done with it. This "F35 is going to be dogfighting" maymay needed to die five years ago.
>>30009715
the way F-35B achieved STOVL uses a lot of fuel which doesn't exactly grow on trees (if Locheed-Martin developes an engine for the plane that works with ethanol without a huge cut on the operational range, then B might be a more tempting option)
>>30009726
I got fed up with the never-ending arguing about how much runway F-35 requires for safe operations that took place in the last thread some time ago
>>30009773
>the way F-35B achieved STOVL uses a lot of fuel
Not with a long runway length. Only takes a lot of fuel if you're pushing the throttle to takeoff before you fall off the end of an LHD.
>without a huge cut on the operational range
The F-35B's combat radius of ~470nmi is higher than the Gripen NG.
>>30009668
You wanna use that system which can deploy the best anti-air missile in service.
Pro Tip: It's the Gripen
>>30009833
The F-35 is having the Meteor integrated too.
>>30009846
Neither short nor mid term.
>>30009796
>The F-35B's combat radius of ~470nmi is higher than the Gripen NG.
I meant with an engine that can use fuel that more or less "grows on trees" (you can produce ethanol out of just about anything, including sawdust) in comparison to the original engine. Also the comment about fuel growing on trees & developing an engine that can use ethanol was a joke, though if such an engine *was* developed & it offered a decent operational range it would make the developer a very rich person.
If you buy the f35 you'll regret it. The f35 is far too expensive and it has trouble with just taking off some times.
>>30009862
>F35B-$75-105M
>Gripen NG-$125M
Google is hard to use
>>30009884
get enough buyers for Gripen NG and the price will come down
>>30009884
>system vs airframe cost
Your out of your bloody mind if you think the flyaway cost of of a gripen will be 125M
>>30009856
Within 4 years.
Which is when the F-35s would be delivered in numbers anyway.
>>30009923
>Within 4 years.
he said
>>30009902
Gripen NG flyaway cost is $113 million a unit.
F-35 ranges from $75-105m but will require overhaul and updating of all of Finlands military infrastructure.
Gripen NG also uses all current weapons platforms that Finland uses.
Plus people talking about the F-35 range vs the Gripen NG range have to remember. The Gripen NG weighs LESS with fuel and 85% load than the F-35 does completely dry with no fuel or armaments.
That means if they DO take the F-35, regardless of model, they will have to A.) work out a way to keep that fuel at the key temperature to not be stuck with a 105 million dollar paper weight on a highway, B.) reinforce all the highways they currently use as airfields in their doctrine and C.) have to rely on a US based producer and supplier for their parts, which they currently do ofc but it's still a factor.
The F-35 will probably be the better overall choice in the long run but it's not cut and dry for Finland. They may as well go with the Gripen NG purely because the F-35 would require too much reworking of current planning and such.
Plus with the Swiss thinking about Gripen NGs, the price will drop , doubly so if they both buy in bulk.
>>30010013
You're talking like you know what the fuck you're talking about.
Its cute.
Did you read the F-35 bingo card and assume they were all true facts or something?
>>30009923
>F-35s
>in 4 years
>Britain is having to wait till 2023 for theirs after being the second largest member
Lel.
>>30010055
We're already having them delivered, and the rest are due to be in service way before 2023, but sure. Whatever.
>>30009923
There aren't even any fundings to get the Meteor on the F-35 running.
>>30010049
Nothing I said was wrong though. Empty F-35s weigh 13.1 tonnes in the LIGHTEST configuration and 14 tonnes in the model that Finland is interested in.
Gripens weigh 6.8 tonnes empty and have a max take off weight of 14 tonnes.
Finlands doctrine requires their fighter fleet to be able to use the highways of Finland as airfields and their airforce is designed around it. That's why they are considering the B and not the A.
No need to be buttcrushed over the fact the F-35 isn't an all out winner when it's unsuitable for most nations and their doctrines.
>>30010108
Its already planned.
>>30010143
>F35 is bad because it can't utilize our 3rd world-tier highway runway system
Finland isn't that relevant desu
>>30010143
Outside the F-35 and Gripen discussion Super Hornets and Naval Rafales could be a choice from arresting hook perspective. Probably wouldn't be major feat of engineering to fit Gripen with hook neither.
Yep, the official paper on requirements that HX should have more or less shits on F-35 from mainly supply and maintenance direction
>>30010143
>That's why they are considering the B and not the A.
I'd like some sources for that, I did some googling and wasn't able to find sources discussing FiAF considering the B -model, instead I found a lot of articles talking about both A and C
Finland-Sweden cooperation on Gripen would be so perfect it would be criminal to choose the F-35.
>>30010208
Most countries need to plan for the event of the enemy actually attacking our countries and knocking out our airfields. It's invasion defense, not expeditions.
>>30010178
>Its already planned.
he said
>>30009668
When Russia knocks at the door, you need a combat proven weapon. Not an expensive sci-fi jet. Gripen, F-18 or Rafale.
But this whole board is "muh f-35 best jet ever, murica fuck yeah" it's laughable.
>>30009668
The Gripen is sexy. The F35 is not.
>>30010319
>everyone on /k/ says the F35 is bad and there's lots of gripen threads, so 35=bad and gripen=good, ja?
>>30010319
It's mostly just american fanboys who are convinced that the US is the only country on the planet who can build fighter jets and all other countries are 40 years behind. And also forget the fact that other nations don't have the doctrine, logistics and budget of the US armed forces.
>>30010351
>everyone on /k/ says the F35 is bad
Wut?
>>30010362
>t. Turkish cobra pilot
>>30009668
2400m is plenty for a F-35A to take off.
>>30010351
That's not how it works.
F-35 is maybe a good plane but not for everybody.
I think it's simple to understand.
I hate the F-35 but Finland needs serious standoff capability. Gripen and Rafale don't have anything like JASSM or JSOW. Finland already operates both. They need to have standoff weapons to hit targets inside Ruskie airspace & to spray submunitions all over Russian armor columns without getting too close to their organic SEAD engagement envelope.
Therefore F-35 is the best choice, as much as it pains me to admit it.
>>30010450
the key word seems to be "safely", Australia has apparently decided on 2800m runway requirement, FiAF seems to have the same requirement for F/A-18 as RAAF does so FiAF might well arrive to similar runway requirements for F-35 as RAAF has.
>>30009785
You mean being told doctrinal requirements don't reflect what aircraft actually need, including comparisons of different Hornet operators?
>>30010465
>Gripen and Rafale don't have anything like JASSM or JSOW
JSOW's wikipedia page mentions Gripen as a platform for deploying it.
>>30010465
Germany and Spain has the KEPD 350 though. Gripen can use that one too. Has even longer range than JASSM.
>>30010465
>Gripen and Rafale don't have anything like JASSM or JSOW
SCALP EG (just an example). But if you want to carry US weapons, F/A-18 would be a better choice than F-35.
>>30009668
Honestly, why the fuck would anybody even consider the F-35 at this point?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3566388/Five-six-F-35-fighter-jets-unable-immature-systems-software-Air-Force-plans-declare-aircraft-combat-ready-year.html
>>30010498
KEPD doesn't have the same advanced submunition capability as the American platforms, IIRC, and the Finns already have a stockpile of JASSM & JSOW, so they'd have to order an all new set of more expensive missiles.
>>30010478
What does Australia require for its Hornets, and what does Finland.
>>30010507
Because NATO/LockMart lobbying. And it costs nothing to explore all the possible choices.
>>30010507
>article based on an old software block
>>30010481
>You mean being told doctrinal requirements don't reflect what aircraft actually need
politicos and military officials being afraid of a media backlash following an accident after deciding to operate an aircraft from shorter runways than other nations with the same aircraft (regardless of whether the length of the runway was a contributing factor in the accident-) is something FiAF is likely to take into account
>>30010519
Yeah the fact they already purchased a bunch of them is pretty important. Even though they're relatively cheap compared to fighters.
And if Finland is considering joining NATO then the americans will definitely suggest that getting a NATO aircraft is in their best interest.
>>30010542
>Implying that such shitty reliably is ever acceptable for a plane that has to be ready to fight a war at moment's notice.
>>30010013
Gripen C costs about $60M.
How did they manage to get it twice as expensive?
Is a source for the $113M figure?
>>30010563
I definitely think that European manufactured standoff munitions seem to always have single warheads for taking out hardened targets or, at best, anti-runway submunitions, because muh human rights, muh cluster bombs are a warcrime
Whereas America doesn't really give a fuck and keeps producing the good shit you need to destroy dozens of Russian armored vehicles with one missile
>>30010531
I don't have the source on hand, but I recal that RAAF seems to have arrived to the conclusion that it's best to operate Hornet from 2400m minimum runways, considering that the highway base mentioned in original post also has 2400m seems too convenient to be a mere coincidence (true enough that's about as long strip of highway as could be strenghtened in that area, but it's not like FiAF just picked a random stretch of highway from a map and only then noticed that 2400m is the best they can get)
>>30010569
>dodging that the article is based on an old software block and thus a desperate straw grasp
>>30010519
>already have a stockpile of JASSM & JSOW, so they'd have to order an all new set of more expensive missiles.
it seems Gripen *can* carry JSOW
>>30010611
I don't know. I was at a Saab lecture at my university and a very enthusiastic engineer told us about how they designed the dispersion for cluster bombs. They just include electronics to disable the explosives that don't go off.
>>30010611
Some submunition weapons are banned, but not every. We still have AT-mine missiles for MLRS.
>>30010630
>>30010628
maybe I shouldn't have doubted the Swedes quite so much then
>>30010622
Well when are they gonna fix the problem?
>>30010319
>Combat Proven
>Gripen
>Rafale
Rafale's dropped bombs, sure. But neither of them have been anywhere near A2A.
Not that the Rafale is even capable of BVR, either.
>>30010670
What part of an old software block is difficult for you to understand?
>>30010656
Politicians are the ones opposed to cluster weapons, but saab design whatever they want. They have a Gripen radar for test purposes pointed south in their facility in gothenburg so sometimes they can get a lock on danish F16's, which gives the danish pilot a warning that a hostile radar is locking on to them, and they don't know if it's russian or swedish. So they get a lot of angry phone calls from denmark when they test their radars at the same time that they have planes in the air.
I wish they'd get more free hands but politicians are crippling them.
i talked to a colonel about fighter acquisition and the word on the street is that they are going to choose the f-35
>>30010681
Meteor will be ready soon
>>30010681
Combat proven is the ability to be sent on the frontline to accomplish missions. Neither F-22 have been anywhere near A2A.
>>30010693
Gib proofs or that is just tornari
>>30010697
2 years until they're first delivered, to pilots who have never used BVR because they've never had the weapons to do it.
>>30010702
If we're just making up terms then the F-35 is combat proven because its dropped bombs in training.
>>30010742
There is a gap between doing some exercices in Texas under the monitoring of Lockmart engineers and being deployed in a sandy third world country you childish ignorant
>>30010742
Being used in real conflicts under real conditions is what combat proven means. During training you can decide the parameters and prepare so that maintenance won't be an issue, but in real situations you can't.
>>30010773
So you're saying if the F-22 can drop bombs in Syria its A2A systems are combat proven.
Sweet.
>>30010788
If you have the ability to deliver a military load against an enemy target during a military campaign yes. If you can drop a cruise missile i don't see why you could not launch a Sidewinder. The ability to be deployed and maintained on an operation theater is maybe one of the most crucial feature.
>>30010222
Actually it would be a major job to give them a hook, the hook takes an enormous amount of stress on landing that is distributed to the airframe.
>>30009668
>gripen
>ever
Why would you want a plane that's worse than the F-16 and F-18 in every way? Fug, at least the Shit-35 could possibly morph into a good plane, the Gripen cannot get any better than it is due to airframe limitations.
>>30010013
>A.) work out a way to keep that fuel at the key temperature
Stopped reading here.
The F-35 is a next generation aircraft designed to operate in environments with very strong air defense. The Gripen is an F-15 wannabe with no such survival ability beyond being rugged. If Finland gets the F-35, they can have a fighting chance against Russia. If they get the Gripen, Russia can just park their S-300 missile complex and Tor next to Finland and deny any Gripen from flying. It doesn't matter how cheap or flexible your aircraft is if it can't do its mission.
>>30010301
>MBDA has designed one to fit in
>Lockheed has earmarked it for Block 4.3
>RAF has made it very clear they want it on it
>Supplier is going for it
>Manufacturer is going for it
>Customer is going for it
Sure it's totally not happening. The only thing making it wait is other blocks come first for funding, thats why they're ordered.
>>30010865
>If you can drop a cruise missile i don't see why you could not launch a Sidewinder.
amazing stuff.
>>30011131
nice memes
Given that Gripen stumps Rafale at every turn despite Sweden having no military or economic leverage whatsoever tells you that it's a capable plane for it's price.
When the E model rolls about it'll shit on any F-18 or F-16 as far as sensors, radar and avionics go.
>>30011291
>When the E model rolls about it'll shit on any F-18 or F-16 as far as sensors,
I would hope so given it is in the F-35 price range.
>>30011555
F-35 has far more customers, which means that the developement costs are divided between a larger number of aircraft, if Gripen had similar numbers of aircraft ordered by various customers the price would be *much* lower.
>>30011131
The most modern blocks of the F16 and F18 were better than Gripen C, not Gripen E. They are decades apart in technology.
a bit of chair force -porn to lighten the mood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1piR6LPJ6I
>>30011602
I think a Block 60/61 F-16 would give the Gripen E a run for its money.
>>30011594
Well yea, if people bought a shit ton of out of date aircraft it would get cheaper. Except no one in the world is going to order as many planes as the US in the first place and everyone could chose to buy something modern instead.
>>30009884
Gripen E is at 70m USD
F35A is at 140m USD
>>30011895
Gripen C cost =/= Gripen E cost, and an F-35A is $114 mil.
>>30011965
You're forgetting about operating costs. The F-35 is a hungry beast that needs tons of maintenance just to function properly. Meanwhile, everything about the Gripen NG is designed for ease of maintenance. You can swap out an engine in less than an hour with just a team of four. Doing the same procedure for the F-35 would require at least 24 hours for a team of 12 guys.
>>30011965
Gripen E is cheaper than the -C, faggot.
F35 is twice the cost of Gripen E.
>>30012176
>Gripen E is cheaper than the -C, faggot.
wew lad
>>30012028
Do you have any other Saab material to quote?
I will give you credit for not posting that graphic compairing Gripen C operating costs to 4.5/5th gen aircraft.
>>30009884
>>30010013
>>30011895
>>30011965
Total system cost of Sweden's 60 Gripen E's is 36b SEK, at todays exchange rate that's around $72m per plane.
>http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/nya-gripen-ska-fa-exporten-att-lyfta/
>>30009668
>Finland doesn't need the CATOBAR -shit of the C
>Uses a picture of F-35C
>>30012665
>>Uses a picture of F-35C
OP here, I just picked the first two photos I could find that were of about the same size, the Gripen isn't NG either
>>30009890
>Gripen NG
>Ever coming close in volume production to the F-35A
>>30011888
the point is: 'murica & bunch of others are buying a shit-ton of F-35s and it's, at best, about the same price as the much less produced Gripen NG that hasn't even begun deliveries yet & is the upgraded & "stealthier" version of a plane that is quite capable of taking out "real" stealth fighters as simulated battles with Raptors have shown.
>>30013841
>>Gripen NG
>>Ever coming close in volume production to the F-35A
>implying I ever even suggested something like that
shameless bump
>>30013850
>a plane that is quite capable of taking out "real" stealth fighters as simulated battles with Raptors have shown.
kek; maybe in artificial BFM training
>>30010143
>work out a way to keep that fuel at the key temperature to not be stuck with a 105 million dollar paper weight on a highway
That's most definitely wrong.
>>30014952
nope, real planes in an exercise in Alaska, don't remember when, though...
>>30015008
Yeah, real planes performing artificial BFM
>>30015029
Aka the only thing the Gripen and Rafale have done.
>>30015029
had to google BFM, you *could* have simply said "dog-fighting" you know, and no, it wasn't as simple as the Gripen just getting on the Raptor's tail and staying there, I am fairly certain it was a missile lock.
>>30013850
"Stealth" won't mean anything in less than 10 years. Detection is quickly catching up, and in some ways it already has. The F-35 is only resistant to the X-band. The S-400 scans in all bands.
>>30015262
even better; by the time FiAF replaces Hornets in 2020s "Stealth" won't be of that much use for long, so there goes F-35's biggest selling point...
>>30015262
Copypasta with the same image, and you never try to explain why Russia and China think stealth is still important.
>>30009668
Eurofighter.
Stupid Russian cuck.
>>30015457
older than any of the other competitors, also there's the popular belief that it's just as much of a scam as F-35 is in Canada...
>>30015457
stupid and Russian is redundant
>>30015262
I guess NATO will have to give up and admit wodka-drinkers are the superior race, comrade.
Alternately, they could enjoy the benefits of stealth supplemented with HPM weapons, AESA-delivered cyberwar, AI-directed jamming, flare-box launched active-defense blast effectors, and 150-kw scale fiber lasers.
>>30015008
In canned dogfight training scenarios, they barely got any scores on the F-22, and could barely get a lock even with a luneburg lens to shoot at.
>>30015262
>Radar bands worthless for ID, Tracking, and targeting will render stealth worthless
>Russia and China scrambling crash programs to try to catch up on 40 years of US Stealth development while "stealth will be worthless in a decade"
who cares? they're only replacing like 35 planes.
>>30016198
63, and there's nothing stopping FiAF from acquiring more than just 60 or so fighters.
>>30011178
The concept of no fundings for the F-35 integration is sure too complex for some people.
>>30009884
One would just need to compare real deals.
>>30015433
Because shitload of countries still uses the antiquated AD systems? Because stealth still working in AA scenarios?
>>30009668
Get neither, instead buy a fuck ton of SAMs. Give every able bodied male a MANPAD.
>>30017327
But Anon we had this discussion yesterday with some all knowing professor of military here. He said that MANPADs and medium range SAMs are useless as planes can just fly high above all and destroy everything with bombs.
>>30017379
Those will be dealt with by missiles & large caliber AAA
>>30015262
>look guys! I have low frequency radars, they can detect stea.... awww no, it's a cloudy day, now i can't see anything
you
fucked
up
>>30017327
>>30018802
>Russian faildoctrine: the Post
>>30015783
>>30018810
It's true, radar clutter is a big problem. But if a computer system is smart enough, it can sort out what is a plane and what isn't. According to Moore's law, computing power doubles at least once every three years. So computers are going to keep getting smarter and they'll be able to filter out all the clutter, which means that it will be possible to use low-frequency radar for tracking and targeting stealth aircraft in the near future. Broad-band stealth, such as employed by the B-2 Spirit, is far more viable and it will remain useful because it is resistant to multiple radar bands. But "stealth" fighters like the F-35 and F-22 are going to have a rough time because they are only resistant to the X-band.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXF_M_FySMU
To make matters even worse, most modern fighters have IRST which can detect the heat from the F-35's engine emissions. The Rafale's frontal sensor can detect this engine heat from the 100 km away, and the F-35 has no thermal stealth to reduce this range. The Gripen NG has a Skyward-G IRST system which allows for long-range detection as well. Now the F-22 does have thermal stealth, so it will do better here, we have to admit that.
Look if the F-35 had come out in 2010 (like it was supposed to) it would have been the best fighter in the world, no question. But we're in 2016 now and they're still trying to hammer out all the issues. There could be more issues and more unforeseen delays to overcome. At this point, the increased cost of the F-35 isn't really worth it. The only thing that really makes the F-35 special is stealth, and its stealth just really isn't good enough to matter as much as it used to.
>>30020291
>It's true, radar clutter is a big problem. But if a computer system is smart enough, it can sort out what is a plane and what isn't.
You can't outcalculate basic physics. The returns from a stealth fighter, regardless of band, will always be detectable at far shorter distances than conventional planes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwnI0RS6J5A
>To make matters even worse, most modern fighters have IRST which can detect the heat from the F-35's engine emissions. The Rafale's frontal sensor can detect this engine heat from the 100 km away, and the F-35 has no thermal stealth to reduce this range. The Gripen NG has a Skyward-G IRST system which allows for long-range detection as well. Now the F-22 does have thermal stealth, so it will do better here, we have to admit that.
>Implying the F-35 doesn't have a superior IRST system
>Implying the F-35 doesn't have thermal reduction measures
>Implying the aggressor wouldn't need to be looking at it's ass to spot it on thermal from long range
>Look if the F-35 had come out in 2010 (like it was supposed to) it would have been the best fighter in the world, no question. But we're in 2016 now and they're still trying to hammer out all the issues.
>Pulling shit out of my ass, the quote
There was literally no way the F-35 could have entered service that early, and you're either stupid or trolling if you're still saying that today.
>>30020475
>There was literally no way the F-35 could have entered service that early
The contract to develop the F-35 was awarded to Lockheed-Martin in 2002. Now we're in 2016. 14 years later, and it still isn't finished. You have to admit that something has seriously gone awry.
>>30020475
The IRST system used by the F-35 is actually behind the curve at this point. So even once the F-35 is accepted into service, it will need to be upgraded almost immediately just to give it parity.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html
>>30020512
The F-22 was 15 years from YF-22 first flight to IOC. The F-35 was 15 years from X-35 first flight to IOC. There already as many F-35s built as F-22s. Stop being stupid.
>>30020545
>daily beast
>>30020475
>Implying the F-35 doesn't have a superior IRST system
EODAS has tiny aperture size and thus shorter range compared to typical IRST's, can't out meme basic physics
>>30009668
>Finland doesn't need STOVL of the B nor the CATOBAR -shit of the C except maybe the arrestor hook just in case,
But we do, how would we use our top secret pykrete carriers ..
>>30020512
I think you'll be surprised to learn pretty much any fighter in use today by militaries have multi decade development cycles.
These things tend to stay in use for 20-30 years, so the r&d has to take into account the need for development of technology that will need to exist in that future timeframe.
>>30020590
EODAS works in concert with the EO-TS, troglodyte.
>>30020618
>Decades late schedule
>"W-we intended it to be late from the beginning"
>>30020631
That thing optimized to weed out tanks from ground clutter and is fucking pointing at the ground, completely irrelevant against air targets
>>30009709
Yes, but both the Danes and Norwegians are locked into the F-35, there's just as much compatibility as there is with the Swedish.
>>30010143
>when it's unsuitable for most nations and their doctrines.
What nations and doctrines are these?
>>30020669
>That thing optimized to weed out tanks from ground clutter and is fucking pointing at the ground, completely irrelevant against air targets
WEW LAD.
Might want to fact check that, before you run your mouth more.
>>30020590
>EODAS has tiny aperture size
Literally the same as any other, tracked missiles from 800km.
Kill yourself.
>>30020669
>Late
>Not completely, physically impossible schedule created based on hopes and dreams with no basis in reality
>>30020710
Tracking a massive exhaust bloom from a 230 feet rocket is not that impressive even at that range, even a Mk1 eyeball can do better than that
>>30012028
have you not heard from F-35 maintainers talking about how easy they are to fix?
>>30015077
the fact that you don't know what BFM is means you should shut up and listen.
>>30020798
>even a Mk1 eyeball can do better than that
LEL.
Those delusions though
>>30020669
>completely irrelevant against air targets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5VuCsQJy8Y
>>30015783
If EODAS is so powerful that it can track missiles 800 km away then stealth truly is dead.
>>30021018
Tracking a ballistic/space launch missile is nowhere near the same thing as tracking a fighter or air to air missile, and you fucking know it. The best way to track fighters at long range is still radar, and you're not invalidating stealth anytime soon.
>>30017277
So you acknowledge posts like >>30015262 are doublethink.
>>30020882
70m rocket + around 3-4 times as big exhaust bloom of the Falcon 9 would be a 280m-350m object, human eye that has better than 1 MOA angular resolution in high contrast settings could see that from 960-1200km > 800km. Served.
>>30020992
EO-TS != EODAS, I was talking about the downwards facing boomdongle you twat. The DAS that does the aerial spotting has ~1-2 inch aperture size on its sensors, Rayleigh criterion gives it quite appalling maximum theoretical range it can detect targets compared to a more typical IRST setups that have massive apertures compared to it
>>30009773
>Burning the vodka
Kimmo what are you doing
>>30021160
That video is the EODAS, you fucking twat.
>>30021160
And LM already has a drop-in upgrade for the EOTS.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-reveals-advanced-eots-targeting-sensor-for-416631/
>>30009861
>(you can produce ethanol out of just about anything, including sawdust)
You can produce synfuel from just about anything, too. Even seawater. And it burns just like petroleum-based fuel (maybe even better).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/10/game-changer-us-navy-can-now-turn-seawater-jet-fue/
>>30021160
>boomdongle
If you're going to channel sprey, at least learn the words.
>>30020291
>To make matters even worse, most modern fighters have IRST which can detect the heat from the F-35's engine emissions. The Rafale's frontal sensor can detect this engine heat from the 100 km away, and the F-35 has no thermal stealth to reduce this range.
Repeating a lie after being BTFO?
The Rafales IRST can do this presuming 1) idea atmospheric conditions 2) a direct rear view of the engines 3) afterburners are being used.
>>30021160
That video with the ballistic missile being targeted at 1300km is EODAS footage, retard.
Not EOTS.
>>30021160
>70m rocket + around 3-4 times as big exhaust bloom of the Falcon 9 would be a 280m-350m object, human eye that has better than 1 MOA angular resolution in high contrast settings could see that from 960-1200km > 800km. Served.
70m rocket + ~100 meter exhaust bloom of a Falcon 9 means a human can see it at ~565km.
And this is setting aside your example is not an accurate representation of light produces/reflected that a human eye can pick up.
>>30021179
>>30021193
I'm not claming that EODAS isn't a nifty 360 short range optical detection setup, but that "old" style IRST have far better detection range than what EODAS can archive as the physics dictating how far a tiny aperture DAS sensor can see compared to a traditional more massive IRST is heavily in favour of the later
The existence of EOTS doesn't help like >>30020631 tried to argue as it's optimized for ground targets only and is facing the wrong direction
>>30021273
>800km (>>30020710)
>1300km
kek, make up your mind
>ITT burger damage control
>>30021448
800 miles, 1300 kilometers.
Much better than a human eye, even assumeing a 2,100 foot visable thermal exaust. (Wew lad)
>>30021473
>This is my defense in the face of arguments.
>>30021448
>it's optimized for ground targets only and is facing the wrong direction
Its not. It has an IRST mode and fully covers the front of the plane.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/f-35-lightning-ii-electro-optical-targeting-system-etos/mfc-f35-eots-pc.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjKnf-b6evMAhXK64MKHe6ACpMQFggNMAE&sig2=IRpi7_vnzNG1OOj4cPMOJg&usg=AFQjCNEnZUzfVyhUKPNNyT27gwIqv60TLw
>>30021448
>it's optimized for ground targets only and is facing the wrong direction
kek, what the fuck are you talking about
