RCS is what an object looks like to a radar, based upon the amount of RF energy that is returned. A missile can have a much higher RCS, than an aircraft that is shaped properly, and coated in radar absorbant material. There’s no apparent reduction about it. It’s not the size, as a properly shaped object the size of an aircraft carrier, could still have very low returns.

I cited their max detection range, not engagement range of fighters. Yes, the Barrier is a radar system and not a radar itself, I got confused (It happens to the best of us!)

But you seem to ignore the function of these L-bands. Different aircraft give different radar cross sections on radars, and it is proportionate to their size. What “stealth” aircraft do is achieve an “apparent” reduction in RCS through shaping and RAM covers, that is, under normal radars they appear much smaller and it reduces the detection range, hence you need either to get closer or to use more power. But the RCS of stealth aircraft is only apparent. Against metric wavebands the situation is different. These metric waves overhelm the fighter´s shaping and it provides return practically the same as a normal fighter does, so if the stealth fighter has an “apparent” RCS of 0.1 or 0.001, under an L-band it will appear with it´s “true” RCS, 1, 1.5 or 2m. My earlier post proves this point, the Vostok 2D VHF has a max range of 360km, and detects stealth the same as normal targets, from 350kms. Whatever the stealth the aircraft has, it does not produce a significant advantage against these systems. Aircraft can´t breake phisic rules.

There’s nothing apparent about RCS reduction. There’s no breaking the laws of physics going on. In fact it’s physics, that’s responsible for the RCS reduction. The shaping is responsible for minimizing the amount of RF energy that returns to its source, and the RAM assists the shaping, by absorbing RF energy, further reducing the amount that is returned to to source. The shaping/RAM on the B-2, F-22, and F-35 isn’t only effective against one radar band, but is particularly effective vs the centimetric bands(the B-2 especially). Once ECM/EA is added to the equation, and the noise floor is raised, then this provides a synergistic effect to the already low RCS.

You’re doing precisely what I’d mentioned earlier- using the word stealth in a monolithic manner, without context(it makes a big difference on what order of magnitude one’s RCS has been reduced, and even VHF/L band don’t render VLO planes visible at conventional ranges). Without knowing the detection/tracking ranges, resolution/accuracy, etc…vs. targets like the B-2, F-22, and F-35, it’s a bit specious to make assertions about effectiveness. You’re also getting off the topic, of my original response to Plawolf. As for the sensor capabilities, ECCM, missile Pk’s, etc…, I think you’re awfully optimistic about how effective they will be. The fact that the Russians and Chinese are building their own stealthy aircraft should be a clue as to just how obsolete the notion of passive stealth is.
You also have to factor in that any air campaign will be synergistic, in it’s target list(I.e. all aspects of an air defense/C2 network will be targeted in parallel, not serially. This means you can expect attacks on the sensors, weapons, communications network, airbases, command posts, etc…. to be hit in one seamless operation, creating mass confusion.)

What extra cost ?

Program costs, base stand up costs, etc… the assertion was that it cost $44k/hr for the F-22, when the actual costs were $19.7k/hr, when the non-flight related costs were removed. The legacy aircraft didn’t have to deal with those costs being added, which is why they had such lower figures. If we look solely at the flight related costs, the F-35 won’t be near $30k+/hr.

I wonder how long it will be before someone does away with the radar homer and puts a good IR sensor onto of a long range SAM.

Use long wave radar to get an approximate location for the stealth to get the missile close enough for the seeker to take over.

Best way to counter stealth is to not try to beat it at its own game.

Just a few issues here:

-you’re giving far too much credit to the accuracy of long wave radar, and the range that an IR seeker in an AAM can detect a fighter.
-you’re ignoring IR reduction on the stealthy target
-you’re ignoring defensive aids(I.e. DIRCM)
-you’re ignoring the fact that at long range, the SAM can be defeated by change of direction/altitude

I believe upfront cost of F-35 will eventually be roughly around Rafale/EF levels.
As for the total cost, what count most is operational cost,
and i believe Rafale & EF is roughly comparable to F-18 in operational cost. (slightly less)
I also believe in the saying “a pic says more then a thousand words”
For a two engine fighter, operational cost is ~> 2/3 of total cost,
F-16 can be expected to weigh in at ~1/2 & Gripen <1/3 of total cost,
so F-35 break of this thumb of rule must be attributed to
1] an extra-ordinary big engine and 2] RAM treatment

The first question to ask, is which method is being used to assess the cost/hour, for the F-35. If it’s not the variable cost per flying hour, then the figures are going to be skewed. A similar criticism was hurled at the F-22 vs the F-15, but it included extra costs, not related to actual operating costs. It would appear that the same mistake is being made here(especially considering that the F-35’s RAM is less maintenance intensive).

Just for purposes of comparison, the F-22’s variable cost/flying hour, was ~$19.7k/hr in 2008 vs the F-15’s $17.4k/hr.

You have to look at the causes of the earlier delays, and ask if those conditions are still representative. Then you need to look at the pace of the program since those conditions changed, and how quickly fixes are implemented if and when necessary. Then you also have to look at other programs, and take note that they too suffer delays, and increased costs. When taken holistically, the F-35 program is doing pretty well, considering the unprecedented level of technological innovations, and complexity. Add in the fact that once in serial production, it will cost less than, less capable competitors(to those who scoff at this, just consider that the LRIP price has already come down by half, without the economies of scale, that serial aircraft will enjoy).