The higher RCS aircraft will always be disadvantaged though, with regards to detection range.

That is only relevant if the detection range is close enough to matter.

For example, if the EF-T can detect the F-22 at 150nm, what does it matter if the F-22 can detect the EF-T at 200nm?

go ahead. but in fighter and transport world we do not pretend that we can seperate “body-lift” from “wing-lift”.

so this whole point is a moot point.

now if you are willing to go in technical details and speculate on the specific aspects, I am all ears.

On your first sentence you are indeed correct, readings are normally taken on the wing-body basis.

But it is not a moot point. Having a fuselage that is effective at creating lift is very useful at increasing L/D in severe turns. Of course, you are well aware that lift created along and close to the aircraft centreline is the most efficient in terms of induced drag.

As for which approach is most effective (F-22, PAK-FA or J-20)… you’d probably need a windtunnel to find out.

Another issue that will continue to surround all stealth designs is how long will current stealth designs offer invulnerability as air defenses adopt even larger and more powerful AESA radars. From the early days of AESA development, a key goal was to build a radar that can detect a very small object like a cruise missile at a distance great enough to target and shoot it down or a larger object like a fighter with a very low observable treatment.

Airborne detection of stealth aircraft may have already been accomplished in a series of tests done at Edwards AFB, Calif. in the second half of 2009. Those with insight into the research say Lockheed Martin’s CATbird avionics testbed –a 737 that carries the F-35 joint strike fighter’s entire avionics system — engaged a mixed force of F-22s and F-15s and was able to target the F-22s.

“The F-35 mission systems suite is the most sophisticated and powerful avionics package of any fighter in the world,” said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager at the time of the tests.

The F-22 fanbois were told some time ago that the “LPI” radar is a load of bull.

Better start hoping the DoD produce the greenbacks to fund IRST integration on the F-22.

With regards the bit in italics – quite presumptuous to presume the performance of competitors that Lockheed will know very little about. *Probably* not wrong, but nevertheless indicative of Lockheeds arrogant nature – talk the talk, but continually fail to walk the walk.

Feel free to provide examples of both, unless you honestly believe the USAF doesn’t know how much it has spent thus far.

LM: We can build the F-22 so it is cheaper to maintain than the F-15.

USAF: We’ll go with that.

DoD: Whoops.

LM and the USAF have disputed the GAO/JET findings though, as not being representative of reality.

Yeah…. in reality things are probably much worse! :dev2:

As a weapons system, this was true. The Flanker and Fulcrum were competitive aerodynamically, but their avionics/weapons lagged behind(I know you’ll bring up the Archer, but that didn’t offset the BVR advantages the Eagle had).

Given how **** poor even the AMRAAMs performed over Kosovo…. I think that BVR advantage is something of a myth.

If it ever kicked off over the Fulda gap, the Soviet doctrine of mainly WVR IR missiles appears a lot sounder than the US approach of BVR dominated loadouts.

My point is that there are currently production representative F-35s flying, and double digit airframes available for testing, and we’re still looking at 5-8yrs till IOC.

Yeah… ‘cos the US way of going about it is the only way. :rolleyes: