The F-35 would be pretty damn good…

If it weren’t for the STOVL requirement f**king the design team over.

Better length, better area distribution, better wing sweep, better finesse ratio, better T/W, bigger nose. It would kinematically be somewhere between F-16/F-15 and F-22 while having better sensors than F-22 and real cost savings of 1 engine.

LM have done alright-ish (despite lying through their teeth on “game changer” sh*te) given the sh*t sandwich they were handed by the DoD who lay down at the feet of the USMC while ignoring the USAF and USN.

I dont get it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIPxLzfw6wU

thanks for the answer
but if the inwards curve LERX is better then why J-17 and F-18 use their massive outward curve LERX? , i mean their flight is obviously after Su-27 and F-16, why they didn’t use the better solution?

The “outward” LERX moves the wing-body centre of pressure forward at high AoA, this reduces the amount of pitch needed from the elevators – don’t forget, this pitch will be a downforce.

Thus, by relieving the downforce from the tail, overall lift can be equal or better to an “inward” LERX.

Also, when the aircraft does eventually stall (vortex burst), the removal of this additional lift forward of the aircraft aero centre helps induce a natural tendency to recover with a downward pitch. Hence the Hornet’s high AoA controllability without TVC.

So you don’t know the requirements.

You don’t know what trade-offs were examined.

You don’t the proposals.

…but of course you are already sure you know better. You realize this actually says a lot more about you than any bomber, right?

Blah blah blah.

I do know there was much hot air about cost control, minimal risk, mission creep control and statement of subsonic only.

Of course, minimal risk and no creep doesn’t tie in with trading off for supersonics… unless you are going to just build a new fleet of B-1b’s.

here
http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm

So basically its a table on a Slovenian website with no explanation of where the numbers came from?

but that is only a simple body, like the cylinder , a complicated body like an aircraft would be alot harder to predict the way that radar wave will interact with the body, the only way to know is if we have actual equipment to measure

Exactly. Hence how answering OooShiny’s (valid enough) question is impossible.

Just because the frequency isn’t X band doesn’t mean the RCS of stealth aircraft will suddenly go up to thousands square meters, For example : here is F-117 prototype RCS measure in test again different frequency

Where did that come from? I have to confess, I find it very hard to believe the 2.3 GHz figures unless the measurement was taken dead square and centre ahead.

http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-…-in-air-combat

Interestingly, the game database merges fighter ‘generations’ and ‘agility’ to give one overall number – rather than as seperate values. So the F-35 in CMANO has a fighter generation/agility in the ‘5’ class – on a par with the F-22/Typhoon/Rafale – while the the Su35 is 4.5

OK, so all the modelling with garbage going in.

I can’t even begin to imagine how much it (doesn’t) model variation of RCS with wavelength.

The frequency of the A-50 radar is ~2-4 GHz, which means a wavelength of ~7.5-15cm.

X-band fighter control radars are ~8-12 GHz, or 2.5-3.75 cm.
Ku-band is 12-18 GHz, 1.5-2.5 cm.

Quite the difference.

Disappointing really, given the potential.

[But I will probably buy it to play with. Loved the AWACs mode on F-22 and TAW. Even though my pilots were idiots with F-22s getting shot down by MiG-21s a regular occurrence! :highly_amused:]

If the the F-35 is a dog then the entire navy Tac air force is a dog

Correct. The entire Navy tac air force is a dog.

But its got nice systems and is fairly reliable so they are happy with it* despite its range issues.

*Note it hasn’t had to defend a fleet against long ranged supersonic missile armed bombers yet. Their opinion may be subject to change at this point.

If High AOA is a failed strategy, ( No you never said it but its implied) then why is the Super Hornet a succes? Even scoring a F-22 kill?

The Super Hornet is not a success in ACM. Its OK at best, has good missile pointability, but when it’d come to a gun fight, an F-16 with an anyway half decent driver would keep energy up and end the fight on its terms.

When you see USN pilots talking about -16 vs. -18, how many discuss EM? Virtually none, because it doesn’t favour their steed.