When many Australian Airforce officials (what would they know) and an Australian MP (name escapes me, but worked for Australian Defence Research) knock the F 35 , I think maybe, just maybe as in the case of the MP who leaked that Rand report which did have classified data that perhaps Dr Kopp etc may be on to something. I also point out that you don’t need classified information to arrive at every conclusion, its not always accurate anyway (Osama intelligence, India, Pakistani nuclear monitoring). Physics don’t lie. Hence Raleigh scattering. VHF detects stealth. Even the U.S casually mentioned it (cant be bothered quoting where) but it was dismissed by them because of poor angular resolution until recently.

Finally look at U.S R&D. Next Gen bomber, X 47B all have wideband stealth in their requirements. Is that for nothing? We forget the F 35 was conceived 11 years ago when no one though phased array VHF was possible. Now it is. The U.S are developing new jamming assets (they canned that project last year… to save money). I think that says it all.

Of course I could be wrong but piecing together U.S dept quotes over time can yield alot of information which when pieced together with acquisitions can confirm a great deal of scuttlebut.

If you’re referring to the RAND(F-35 clubbed like a baby seal) report, that has been debunked. It’s hard to do good analysis if you don’t have access to the classified materials, because your margins for error are huge. If you’re trying to counter something, you’re going to need to know pretty specific info, or you may be very disappointed in the real world performance.

The technology isnt totally obsolete, just one form of its application. X band only stealth is largely obsolete (e.g JSF). Wideband stealth is not (Next Gen Bomber, X 47B and of course Pakfa one suspects).

Just out of curiosity how do you know what bands that the F-35 and F-22 are designed to be stealthy to? It’s obvious that X is one of them, but are you certain that’s the extent of it? The Russians have yet to field even one VLO aircraft, and their first one is supposed to be stealthier across a wide range of freqs? Perhaps, but I’ll believe that when I see it.

I think you will find Carlo Kopp addresses those operational regimes quite comprehensively by stating, (a), that S 400 class systems may employ anti access strategies to a Wedgetail by threatening it if its within 400kms of an S 400, (B) pointing out that such standoff weapons that the JSF may emply will be engaged by point blank optimised missiles (the new hittiles the S400 deploys) and finally that the RCS of said JSF carrying said stand off weapons would completely negate its alleged stealth.

It all comes down to our appreciation of the enemy. Are they stupid because they are not like us necessarily, or has Russia and China in particular gone to great lengths to develop counter-stealth and anti-access capabilities to JSF, ISR assets that Canberra in particular would like to pretend do not exist. The IDF made a similar mistake underestimating CW guidance in the Sa 6 Gainful in Yom Kippur for instance…

Why are the Russians building the PAK FA, if this technology is already obsolete?

That’s exactly what he said. Here the quote. Contains no word about fully loaded. The last sentence was highlighted on purpose.

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in “large measure like the F-22, but it’s smaller, and stiffer” than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.

Why didn’t he say empty F-35, and Raptor then for the comparison?

From SUBSONIC speed weither the others can count of a 0.4 Mach advantage from stock even with 1 X 1.250 l external tank and do the exact SAME thing.

Not even the F-22 can supercruise the entire time. The EF/Rafale will be travelling the same speed as the F-35 the majority of the time, and the F-35 can accelerate very fast too.

Not necessarly even less with lower Operational ceilings in the balance…

The F-35’s optimal altitude for cruise efficiency is lower than it might climb to, to launch for maximum range. Unless the EF/Rafale can climb to 70,000 feet, they’re not going to always have a height advantage.

NOT detection, INTERCEPT.

The word DETECTION is not in the phrase LPI.

Happy vs. Glad

The terms detect/intercept are interchangable in the context of ESM/RWR realizing that a radar is in operation vs. background EM noise.

On its won F-35 canot do passive, since its AAMs are internals it have to lock BEFORE launch and posses NO IR BVR capabilties.

The other aircraft would be feeding the missile the datalinked info.

That’s the theory and applie much more in the case of F-22 because it is realy stealth; NOT F-35.

The F-35 is stealthier than the F-117, and in the same range as the B-2.

That’s a HELL of an assumption considering its IR signature is superior to some of the supposely non-L.O and that it doesn’t supercruise, BOTH of which are part of the USAF stealth conceipt for F-22.

You have little idea what L.O conceipt realy means in USAF terms do you?

-What’s the frontal IR signature of an F-35 that’s not using A/B?

-What’s the search volume/detection range of an IRST vs. the APG-81

If the adversary doesn’t know where to look with his IRST, he’s gonna be looking around for a while, without any guarantee of success.

When the F-35 enters service, it won’t be AIM-120C5s that it’s carrying. It’ll be D/D+s. In any event, they’re a 50g+ missile, not 30g.

Agreed and there is NOTHING new in this point, it also goes BOTH way and is a valid for other aircrafts too, as you mentioned; which altitude was the couple aircraft/emgine optimised…

And in the case of F-35 it is obvious that it is at a much lower ceiling than the European aircrafts…

Supporting flight is onr thing, being effiscient in A2A when your kinetic energy is already lower than your adversaries is something else.

If your adversary isn’t flying a VLO aircraft, it won’t matter in BVR whether it has a kinematic advantage, because it won’t be able to engage the F-35 any earlier than it can detect it. The F-35 will always see the non VLO adversary first, and have the first shot/first kill advantage.

In the case of WHICH aircraft would low drag AAMs and pylons cause it not to reach DASH speed?

It IS also a DASH speed never being mentioned ANYWHERE as SUSTAINED, BTW just because you seems not to know, it was a F-35 design requierement from day one: “Supersonic DASH Speed”.

In this topic, “operational configuration” doesn’t mean anything, all of these aircraft can fly at DASH speed in A2A configuration, this mean without tanks for the Europeans but they CAN jettison their tanks, F-35 stays with its extra internal volume and structural weight.

To reach these respective DASH speed thet all have to use AB which means the european aircraft retains their speed advantages in all aspects and A2A configuration.

Optimum is the ceiling at which the combination aircraft configuration/engine performances/mission’s tactical aspects is at its highest.

This generaly is close or literaly the same as Operational ceiling.

Don’t confuse minimum requirements with maximum capabilies though. The full flight performance envelope has not yet been disclosed in terms of altitude or speed. With regards to dash speeds- the F-35 will be able to reach its dash speed with a combat load- the EF/Rafale/Su-XX, cannot, much like the F-15C dash speed is M 2.5+, but with AAMs, it’d be lucky to break M 2.