Erm……the PAK-FA’s frontal RCS will at least have to equal the F-22 as a survivability pre-requisite.

…but the good news is T-50-03 will have 16 ‘S’-ducts per engine!!!!!:eek: (;)).

That doesn’t mean that it is though, and from the looks of it I suspect that it’s not(especially considering the Russians are even conceding that).

That was a special event during a point to point flight in general. In that story no details were given except the names and time. So nothing about the climb-out and landing back profile and the related height of the transit.

It did say in the anti-cruise missile role, when mentioning that duration though. In any event, if it travels M1.5-1.8 for 41 minutes, that puts its range much higher than many here are willing to give credit for.

The trend is towards low frequency OTH radars and proliferation of BAMS-style UAVs in the next 20 years. Remember, the systems you purchase today have to deal with tomorrow’s threats too.

I’m just not so sure what sort of resolution those radars would have against sea clutter, and widely spaced ships though. At $30-55 million per unit, I’m not sure how many nations could afford a large fleet of these though.

I thought the F-35C will have a pretty decent range…?

What combat radius would the Navy really want then?

~768nm radius on internal, and ~927nm w/ 2 EFTs.

Ideally, they’d probably like a striker with a radius ~1000nm or greater on internal fuel.

My question is: what can the evil russkies learn about the RCS of F-22 when F-22 are on a patrol up in alaska ?

Well, with RCS enhancers, and external fuel tanks, probably not a whole lot.

NONE of those parameters have been made public for the F-35A so you have no clue what you are talking about.

What we DO have is public statments from pilots who have flown the F-35A & the USAF/DOD/F-35 Program Office. From that it is known the acceleration & turning performance of a COMBAT LOADED F-35A “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16”.

A F-16 will stall at a lower AoA than a F-35A.

BS. The F-35A was designed to replace the F-16, not the F-105.

I challenge you to find ANYONE who has flown (or flown against) the F/A-18 who would dare desribe it as a “sh*tbox of an airframe”.

***

Nice try. But 240-3 is a PRE WEIGHT REDUCTION standard AND those numbers are for a COMBAT LOADED F-35A – thats ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel. And just were do you get that a F-16 can accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 @ 30,000′ in 30 secs?

Comments from those who have actually flown the F-35 state that it OUT ACCELERATES the F-16.

***

No we do not have to wait that long. PLENT of pilots will have flow the F-35 & commented on how WELL it flys before then, in fact some ALREADY HAVE.

No it is a muti-role FIGHTER. Just like the F-16, the F/A-18, the Mirage 2000, The Rafale, the Eurorighter Typhoon, the Fuclrum, the Flanker… It IS in fact intended (& will be) THE primary air-to-air platform for MANY services around the world.

The F-35A OEW is 26,664 lbs. That is ‘just” ~2400 lbs heavier than the Eurofighter Typhoon. Remarkable consider all that is ‘crammed’ INSIDE an airframe similar size.

The F135 won’t fit in an F-16. In fact the F135 has almost as much DRY thrust as a F100-PW-229 &/or F110-GE-110 in FULL AFTERBURNER!

***

I suggest you join the 21st century. The F-22 was designed to do things differently.

That is a typical PEACETIME mission.

Wrong. THe F-22s out of Alaska carry drops tanks to hide their true radar signature. The combat radius/range of a F-22 with ‘just’ internal fuel is comparable to that of a F-15C with two drop tanks. The combat radius/range of a F-35 with ‘just’ internal fuel is GREATER than that of a F-16 with two drop tanks.

***

F-22’s don’t supercruise at full military power, they do it at 80% military power. Yes that is still a lot of fuel being burned every minute but A LOT less than any prefious fighter flying at the same speed/altitude.

F-22 supercruise VERY OFTEN & for significant periods of time.

***

No it is not.

Here’s a chart showing how F-35s compare with F-16s and F-18s in terms of instantaneous and sustained Gs, as well as acceleration. You’ll notice that the F-35(all 3 variants), exceed the F-16 and F-18 in all 3 categories.

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf

I doubt DAS will have that all around coverage in all conditions. For one thing, it certainly cannot see behind objects, such as in mountainous terrain. Furthermore, LM’s wishful thinking describes situations like F-35 vs legacy 4th gen fighters, not vs other fifth gen fighters such as… another group of F-35s, let alone PAK-FAs. The element of surprise will always be there, F-35 is not going to change that.

How is this plane flying below and around mountains tracking the F-35, to sneak up exactly? It doesn’t matter if it’s a 4th or 5th Gen aircraft, as the DAS is IR, not radar, and forms a 360 degree bubble around, above, and below the F-35. Any heat source getting within 10-20nm(and that figure may be higher) is going to be detected(granted there may be unusual climactic conditions degrading the performance, but you still need to explain satisfactorily how the plane found the F-35).

No, the context was A2A, that’s why he mentioned the 4 AIM-7s on F-15s and 6 AIM-120s on F-22s. Then he realised what a stupid thing he said and changed the subject. You may go back and see for yourself.

Exhibit A- Post #687

Six is more than enough. The F-15s got 4 AIM-7s and the F-22A got 6 AIM-120s for good reasons, when F-35A is back to 4 AIM-120s.