Rather a narrow minded viewpoint being displayed there.

Well, when there’s nothing else to compare them to, you’re limited to a pretty limited discussion in the first place.

The data are from the producer, when you try to distract from that as always.

The APG-73>APG-79 is not akin to the APG-63(v)1>APG-63(v)2,3 though, so unless we know where that weight increase is coming from, it’s hard to draw any definitive conclusions.

Hhmm, if you can only afford to procure a limited number of stealth aircraft due to the cost your limited number of super fighters will eventually and actually pretty rapidly be overwhelmed by the numbers of old rubbish. See Me262 circa 1945 for example. They certainly won’t be able to do all the taskings required of them, even the F22 cannot be in two places at once, then you are back to using the same old rubbish everybody else is using. Hey how about we spread our superfighters about and mix them in with our old rubbish, ah hang on, when the “bad guys” saw all our old rubbish coming their way they sent lots of their old rubbish the same way, damn our couple of superfighters with our old rubbish got overwhelmed…again.

Do some research on who has triumphed in any major conflict of the last 100 years, you will not find many situations when it is the guys with the best and most superduper weapons, it is generally those who have overwhelming force and resources to apply even though their actual kit may not be the best.

Can you give me an example scenario that you’re thinking of for a future aerial engagement? Most any major engagement is going to involve joint forces, if you’re talking about western air forces.

So your argument really only applies for the USAF as a complete package – all other air forces are unable to afford those necessary assets (as I suspect the US is unable to afford them)

Do you or anyone else here think that stealth is free??

Cheers

Any Western Air Force is going to be operating as a package though, and very likely along side the USAF/USN, if a major event is going on. The point is that stealth works without the extra assets that a legacy aircraft needs, but….if those assets are available then it provides synergy/force multiplication.

Is this based on the golf ball statement or sourced from an actual analysis you can cite? And even assuming that number was right, which range of figures qualifies as LO and which as VLO?

I’m not sure how large an RCS one can have and still be called VLO. As far as the USAF and LM are concerned though, .001m^2 does meet that criteria.

Is this based on the golf ball statement or sourced from an actual analysis you can cite? And even assuming that number was right, which range of figures qualifies as LO and which as VLO?

Well it’s the best guesstimate out there so far, given the golf ball/-30dB descriptions. You’re not going to see actual figures on any open source site.

Seriously, you really think that a bunch of politicians saying something is the defining word…lord help us. My apologies if the above is sarcasm, it just don’t appear to be tho.

As is LM and the USAF.

Do you care to provide sources and compareable data rather than making generalised claims?

Well all of the moving parts are gone, so unless you’re adding a lot of extra black boxes, or cooling, then one would expect weight reduction.