Hear, hear! That’s exactly what the conservative aviation enthusiasts have been telling you for more than a decade. Finally you agree.

While you’re at it think about what “close enough” really means. There are a couple of things that can (and do) change the distances of matter here.

I’ve never said otherwise. I was merely pointing out the fallacy many make, when they say X radar can detect stealthy targets. That is a true statement, but it hardly tells the whole story. What it doesn’t tell you is how stealthy the target is, and what range it can detect it. Now if someone developed a fighter size radar, that could detect -70db targets at 400km, that would indeed be something to hoot and holler about.

depends on how much development money you put into it/you can afford it/someone wants to sell it to you

the US hasn’t made anti-stealth radars or super-SAMs because they don’t face strong resistance/stealth in the air, while the USSR/Russia has

a favorite potential for me are optical sensors, already the F-35’s computers can track, identify and aim at any target within visual range without human help, making stealth useless during WVR engagements (asuming you would put said optical sensors on missiles)

I’d say the US/Europe can already make good anti-stealth radars, but they simply didn’t need to (until the T-50 and J-20 flew). but as has been pointed out, stealth is no super solution, it’s rather an edge. the question is if that edge is worth the cost. other edges are speed, or air-to-air combat ability, yet these are almost useless in most modern conflicts, while the much cheaper UAVs with their longer endurance are worth their weight in gold

There is no such thing as “anti-stealth” radar. There are radars that work better at certain tasks than other, but that’s a different matter. It comes down to signature management, and how well a design works against the broadest number of sensors.

Lol don’t take me wrong. Having test beds is important. But despite having the long bow barge in order to thest the PAAMS system, the new destroyer of the royal navy had trouble using them when it came to actual system integration…
So until the system is fully operational on a flying F35, all we can say is that the program is ambitious..

There are production representative F-35s flying, with APG-81/EOTS/EODAS, etc… too.

It’s the F35 which is not currently in par with anything…

It’s various systems/sensors have been tested on CATBIRDS, and production representatative aircraft, etc.., so there’s a fair degree of certainty as to their performance.

So how can they afford the F35 ? Do they really need the F35 ? Will DE be relevant against Irak/Aghanistan type of wars any time soon ?
Better still, will the UK get the plane with the same capabilities the US will, or a degraded one ?
How to keep upgrading two completly different a/c ? I read that even the US is asking the same question with the F22 and F35 and are asking LM to develop more commonalities between the two a/c particularly in the weapon system area.
Will the F35 be relevant as a limited AtG platform, and is a dedicated long range bomber not more usefull in that role ?
Why can’t the USAF keep the F22 for air supremacy, then upgraded B2 or new platforms if needed, along with UCAVs against air defense system and upgraded F16 for low end use for asymetric warfare ?
Then the USN could think about something far more appropriate (with twin engines to start with) + UCAVs, and the Marines could use UCAVs only or go to hell ?
Apart from the US and UK the other parteners are not even sure to get a plane with limited stealth…

Aside from Israel(and perhaps Turkey), all F-35’s users will operate equivalent aircraft(from RCS to avionics). The aircraft will serve their operators for the next 30-50yrs, and during that timeframe, there’s no guaranteed that the military operations will all be Iraq/Afghanistan type missions.

The problem with that argument is that we dont factor in the local demands .. Does the French and UK require such capabilities from there fighters ? Do they need this capability and think it fit to demand those after comparing the capabilities they allready have with the perceived threats and then balancing those out with the cost it takes to get those capabilities??

I’m in agreement with you. My question was to those who felt that the current Typhoon/Rafale are already on par with the F-35 in terms of avionics/capabilities.

F-4s could be loaded with bombs, and air to air missiles, but it took considerably more effort, than just the push of a button, to change modes.