And i take it for what it is : assessment without any argumentation.

Erick Hartmann the most famous combat ace in history downed 352 enemies airplanes, He said that most of the time the enemy never knew of his presence until it was too late. He survived to the war. This axiom today takes even more strength with 5th generation fighters. You can not shoot down an airplane that your sensors do not see or it is later when you can see it. So, a very low observable airplane take a very big advantage above all legacy fighters. It is simple.

To stay serious here. There is also the High and low look down angle.
Something tells me the Su-57 will enjoy a slightly higher mission altitude vs F-35. So how exposed are the top IRIST Bump on the Su-57 from Land based radars, and likewise lower flying planes.
And on the flip coin the underside of F-35 will very much be radiated by ground based radars.

But who cares about small trivial details like these, when some bumps are not bumps, they are only special effects(soft angles).

If it aint a straight flat surface, then its far more like a round bump surface.

I am agree, on this case IRST will be not a problem. The problem will be nacelles of the engines.

I dont understan really if this fighter will operate on so hight altitude, why did not use other engine design for its botton surface, some similar to F-22 or J-20.

By parts, the oldest Hornets at Gando will almost certainly be replaced in 2025 by a follow up batch of Typhoons. The AV-8B’s of the Armada are slated for a replacement in 2034, that’s the F-35B or nothing at all, mind you, very recently the “nothing at all” was a very distinct possibility, that decision will be taken a decade from now. The rest of the Hornets will be replaced in the thirties by whatever comes out of this new program. That’s more or less what can be gleamed from the Spanish journos. If any of our Spanish friends here have more up to date news, much obliged.

Cheers

2035? its many years….

2025-2027 it is dates more reasonable for to replace harriers.

https://www.abc.es/espana/abci-vida-operativa-harrier-armada-llegara-2027-201709150313_noticia.html

In 2020 USA tells good bye to its Harrier fleet, and Spain depend of Usa for get spares for its fleet. So, it will be a problem from 2020 and forward. I dont think Spain will can to operate harriers more beyond from 2025.

Spain needs get decition on F-35B maybe next year, and do not wait more, because need 3-4 years for get first units.

Most likely outcome: no fighters for the spanish navy after AV8B. Not a bad outcome from my point of view. I expect more Eurofighters which makes sense considering logistics and industrial considerations. After that, we will probably try to get into the FCAS, unless the conditions for joining them are far too bad in which case me might consider a mature F35 or even a possible British alternative. As usual budget constraints will have a say in the whole business.

F-35B will be, sure. Armada will have fighters as always and F-35B is the only option.

EF´s tranche 3 is 4+ generation. It is not comparable to any platform 5º generation as F-35. And really, is more expesive item than F-35. So, only from political decition can explain this. Generals want F-35 A because they told it, and it is the best solution get a fleet with EF´s+F-35 waiting 20 years for replace old EF´s for new 5º european stealñth fighter. Ef and F-35 are complementary items and F-35 can help to EF to be more lethal (Uk and Italy aproach this way). And for to replace an attack fighter as F/A-18 the best solution is other attack fighter as F-35. EF was not designed as an attack fighter, but superiory defence fighter. It can not make so good functions than especialized attack fighter.

So, the best option from a funtional point, operative point, money point is the F-35. If finally decide buy more EF´s (i think so) is only because political decitions. And maybe on this moment France and germany are pushing for it.

Move was expected, Spain is involved with Airbus consortium and so have a convenience to side with them.
Same with Sweden with UK Tempest,
My own country would probably side with them also, actually we are already in it through Leonardo UK from the beginning.
Our government is just too recent and busy to seriously think about it. Also because we are waiting the Thing-not-to be-mentioned-in-this-forum to happen in order to have a clearer idea of the legal framework we would need to operate in.

Surely Spain will buy F-35B for its Aircraft carrier fleet to replace AV-8 Harrier, but after this decition (joining program with France and Germany) F-35 A will be not bought for to replace the old F/A 18. I think will be bought more EF´s (tranche 3) until new european 5º fighter generation will arrive. This will be anounced on this year too.

Really I think it is bette solution to buy F-35 A and not more EF´s, and militar oficials think too, but will be a political decition….as in Germany happened.

Look UNDER F-35, see how many huge bumps there are, then compare to IRST. No comment.

Bumps on F-35 does not have any problem. It has soft angles and surfaces waves run about it. All these bumps are calculated with program which generate RCS model. Do not compare IRST on eurocanards or Sukhoi family with some bumps on F-35 because is really funny.

Thanks stealthflanker. I understand it..

[USER=”71228″]garryA[/USER]

The only downside of the path propagation factor model that i used is that it’s assume flat smooth earth. Which could be representative for sea than land. However The model works just as fine and yes it will show non-linear result and yes it might be surprising given how non-linear it is. It is because the F4 (path propagation factor) is a function of range-altitude. If we plot path propagation factor for your altitude value, we will have the following graph.

As you see The path propagation factor is not linear, which reflect the environment where reflection from radar may travel different path and interact in various manner. As indication you may see the “Target Effective RCS” Which the target RCS is corrected with the calculated path propagation factor. That is what your radar actually see instead of academic “free space” RCS which you inputted. Thus an object with RCS of 12 Sqm at some point can look alike it’s 0.01 sqm thanks to the local path propagation factor. If you follow my previous post addressing your concern regarding RCS value in VHF. You will find i also address path propagation factor there, which explain why different detection range just based on antenna height.

As for calculation method, given that the F4 factor is not linear. I am using the suggested method by “Handbook of Simulation in Radio engineering, Communications and Radar” by S.A Leonov and A.I Leonov.
In the book the way to calculate the radar range in presence of environment factor is to first calculate the “free space range” or “radar range in Vacuum” Then use the range value from there to compute the Path propagation factor and then re-use it for the refined calculation of the radar range.

But propagation path is changing in very moment, because geography change. How is possible to take a propagation path factor for all enviroments? each enviroment is diferent, so each enviroment have a unique propagaqtion path factor…is it not?