I was not interested in concepts produced in two-three examples. The pictures prove my point about canard equipped fighters not being popular in USA. No single canard-equipped type has ever been fielded in any US armed forces.

BTW, XB-70 had no canards, just foreplanes similar to Swedish Viggen.

Did it occur to you that there might be a reason why no US production aircraft went with canards, after testing was conducted? Perhaps the solution that we came to was preferred, based upon the requirements given.
It’s certainly not for lack of familiarity.

makes sense, except for the “allied” part; such a thing is not alliance, it’s extortion.

They’re always free to buy something else, or build their own 5th Gen VLO multi-role aircraft. You have to look at it from the perspective of the investment in intellectual property involved, as well as the potential for security risks.

That’s not the problem… its what’s in the core code that’s the problem, imagine a certain code received by your EW system that’s set to render your aircraft ‘safe’ or to nose dive into the ground, now that impacts operational sovereignty doesn’t it.

Or the core code might have ‘difficulty’ with any non US weapons, that would take ages to fix, thus giving a competitive advantage to the US…

I not saying they would do something so underhand and sly.. < Cough> McMahon Act < Cough>

Cheers

How can you be guaranteed that any other aircraft doesn’t also have this nefarious feature though?

If true , they’re crazy…they’re *******ing crazy. 😡

You’ll notice, the article said “But now a respected Washington think tank has said that low-radioactive yield “tactical” nuclear warheads would be one way for the Israelis to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment plants in remote, dug-in fortifications. “

This is nothing more than alarmism, as there’s nowhere in that article that says Israel is talking about using nukes. Anyone that has nukes “could” use nukes. The important take away is how likely is that to happen. If it’s not likely, then it’s a non-story.

I would not say that, first everything depends in radar and IRST capabilties and the target detectability, and computer power, the rest is engines, give that to a Eurofighter or Su-35 and i bet they will beat one day a so called 5 Gen fighter

You can’t put enough sensor/computer power in a fighter, to offset the disadvantages though. The less stealthy aircraft has far more to overcome, even if it reaches parity in avionics.

RCS=size of marble?
RCS=size of golf ball?
Look, even disregarding all other effcts on an incident EM wave, such as diffraction, refraction, re-transmission, etc. the strength of the reflection is dependant on the frequency (or wavelength, as they are inversely proportional and related by c) of the incident radiation. For example, a black marble will absorb visible radiation while a white marble will reflect a lot more of it. If both are placed against a non radiating background (black), I will spot the white one at a much greater distance. If we now use infra-red to look for the black and white marbles, and assuming they are at equal temperatures, I will spot them at similar distances.
So, an RCS the size of a marble, or a golf ball, or a hot air balloon for that matter, means absolutely nothing unless the conditions such as temperature and frequency (incident, reflected and scanning as there are cases when they can differ) are specified.

A metal ball the size of a marble and golf ball to be more precise.

In fact they are not silent when it comes to stealth. There is little known about real RCS values. The only fact that we can somehow depend on is that F-35’s stealth lags behind the one of the F-22 and is probably superior to Typhoon (the latter being an assumption but a fairly likely one).

I’d be extremely interested in having frontal RCS values of F-22, F-35 and some Eurocanards. I would be keen on to learn how far do these differ from each other and especially whether F-35 is closer to Typhoon or closer to F-22…

If Typhoon or Gripen approach F-35 in terms of frontal RCS (which cannot be ruled out for the moment), then therre is very little to support some ‘next generation’ claim. Of course, you will find many people who claim they do know (pfcem, if noone else) but noone really has an idea.

Considering the claimed frontal RCS range for the Eurocanards is in the .5 to .1m^2 range, and that of the F-35 is claimed to be in the .001m^2 range, I’m not sure how much debate there really is. You can bet that if the Eurocanard’s RCS figures were close to the F-35’s, then they’d be hyping that for marketing purposes.