on stealth: correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that a flying wing is the most stealthy design possible. combined with a smaller frame and no cockpit (two other important factors), I can hardly see how an F-35 could possibly compete with the average UCAV on stealth. except maybe in terms of stealth coating, but NG with its B-2 experience must be at least an equal to LMT here

but I realised this is not a given fact: for example both manned planes have their own radar, but this is also a huge location give-away. and a UCAV might very well be capable of carrying 4 AMRAAMs just like an F-35, which, combined with passive sensors and modern AWACS support, could make a UCAV just as capable as any manned aircraft in intercepting targets at range, but at half the cost or less

It depends on what types of sensors you’re talking about, and what wavelengths. The F-22 is generally considered to have a lower RCS than the B-2, except against longer wavelength radars.

Radars like the APG-77/81 aren’t huge location give-aways. Obviously flying EMCON is the stealthiest profile, but these are LPI systems. The F-35 also has a wide array of passive sensors, not to mention third party targeting data. This means that it can prosecute entirely passive shots, using a variety of other means, in addition to emitting.

Only the early block F-35s will carry 4 AIM-120s. All A/C models have the space for more than that. Once the JDRADM becomes available, then that number will likely climb.

The UCAVs will have far less kinematic energy for missiles, or ability to chase fast targets, which means their A2A ability would be far more limited, and much more defensive in nature.

If you are on a SEAD or CAS mission.
What good does it do the F-35 if it has depleted all its weapons?

Doesn’t the amount of weapons capability count too?

What other aircraft are you comparing? The profile for a CAS mission, would be completely different than for a SEAD mission, and the F-35 has a greater payload than any of it competitors, in either role.

But a B-version can be cheaper…the same things that goes into the F-15 can go into the F-22 frame…
I just cant see why f-15 frame can be better then a F-22 “light”.

Because the F-22 frame wasn’t optimised for carry large numbers of external stores, over large distances. It would be a significantly different aircraft, were you to redesign it that way.

You may want to check the notes on the side, with regards to the type of launchers, which are being depicted(I.e. dual launchers). Then you can corroborate this new information, with pictures of Super Hornets, using dual launchers.

Wow, it’s amazing how you guys can tell the cause of the crash, from those pictures.:rolleyes:

also, I don;t think that fan and intake aren’t particularly optimized for much beyond M1.6 anyways.
again, pure speculation on my part.
Hey.. DSI was used as an argument against J-20 for high speed :dev2:

The DSI inlet was tested at M2+, so that’s not evidence of a hard limit. As for the fan- it wasn’t designed to cruise above M1.5, but again, that’s not evidence that M1.8 is out of the question. This will be something we’ll just have to wait and see about.

Now back to topic, what will be interesting to see is what sort of supersonic performance the PAK FA has, in dry thrust. Hopefully it won’t be much longer before the envelope opens up enough for high speed tests to commence.
This will give some indication as to the ultimate potential, once the definitive engines become available(i.e. if the PAK FA can cruise a Mach X.X in dry thrust now, it should be able to get to Mach X.X with the even more powerful motors.)

Yes. All of those costs are rolled into the total package. You’ll never see a figure, that’s just the fly away cost without infrastructure/training/spares/etc… over the projected life.

With regards to the F-35’s top speed, I think it’s safe to say that if it can fly M1.6 with a full internal load, that the actual top speed likely somewhat north of that. Additionally, seeing as how all 3 variants are supposed to be able to fly M1.6, it’s unlikely that the A model(which is less draggy and lighter) wouldn’t have a higher top speed than the B/C models. Lastly, the figure of 1,200mph has been given as well as Mach numbers(and this works out to M1.82), for the top speed.