FAP airframes would have to cost less than the overhaul of US airframes. Are they really that cheap? If so, I don’t see why there’s any fear of them getting cheaper.

On theory no, but (i am speculating here) on practice dont discount the (horrendous) deals that a (very) cash starved MOD can be induced to do… The 40 MLU kits and the airframes are already payed, so if someone want funds, even losing money…

Cheers

…But then Germany won’t feed them..

Last time i´ve checked Germany isnt “feeding” anyone around here. If you are interested in discussing the European and IMF Financial and economic support package for Portugal we can go to that part of the forúm that is not called “Modern Military Aviation” and discuss it.

Portugal is broke and has been for decades.. it would benefit them if they joined Brasil and become one of their states.

Dont be ridiculous…

Hmmm, so are you saying that the surrogate mothership idea is the way these aircraft will enter service with Rafale for the French?

There was some talk about Dassault looking into a optionaly manned piece of hardware. If so, the kit should look a lot diferent from the NEURON demonstrator.

The thing to remember is that the USAF contols the F-22 and whom is plays with and how. The same cannot be said of the F-35 as the UK or Italy could (and will) take their own F-35s against their own Typhoons in many engagements of various types.

Spud, i am totaly aware of all that, and i am totaly aware that it was just basic BFM between the Raptor and the Phoon, and on a “go for all furball” there would be a bloody high probability of pieces and bits of delta canards falling all over the place but… Mr Dickson has an unfortunate habit off trolling around and he just got the answer that he was asking for…
For the record, Loke recently made a text on wich i quite agree, the F-35 almost certainly will bring a level of capability that will surpass the latest 4,5 generation of NATO fast jets on a great big chunk of their main missions. My main concern with the project is cost, something that you are probably aware (we´ve discussed severall times over this topic for a few years by now).
If you ask me what i think will be the results of DACT around 2020 between the F-35A/B and the AESA/Meteor equiped Typhoon, my answer will be “dont have a clue”.

No Carrier group is going to survive 300-400 supersonic AShMs – no matter what their level of technology.

No carrier group will ever have to face 300 to 400 “supersonic AShMs” launched from FAC´s unless its comander has gone nuts.
On a South China scenario, no carrier group will be sitting 250 km´s from the coast and if sudendly dozens and dozens of FAC´s emerged from the ports and went straight to a carrier fleet, they would be detected immediately.
There´s absolutely nothing to stop a carrier strike group to retreat at a sustained 30+ knots while at the same time launching its air assets, good luck for the FAC´s trying to survive such a scenario, much less mauling the fleet.
And if you need evolved FJets to cover the FAC´s, well, forget the FAC´s and stick the Ashm´s on the Fjets, they are much, much, much, much faster, and they move in three dimensions, not two, making them a much, much, much harder target.
Wanna go after a heavily defended fleet that includes its own aircover? Do it underwater and on the air, preferably at the same time, dont do it with ships, unless your ship has a huge (hundreds/thousand of km´s) range stand off weapon.

What is up with this idiot invasion as of late?

?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can assure you this was an apples to apples, physical optics calculation method simulation using the same width cross section of both aircraft in the area just behind their intakes. Also because PO method was used rather than MOM or FDM, double reflection of waves are not taken into account which would act even more in the F-22’s favor. T-50 has a couple corner reflectors, but in areas that would only matter while its banking.

Thanks for the answer.
If i was a “bit” curious, now i must admit that i am “very” curious!
I am going to make a few questions, feel free to tell me to “mind my own business”, but i can assure that i am not from the “Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti”! 🙂

(1) So, if i understand correctly, you have designed an F-22 and T-50 (and J-20) CAD models and run them through a radar cross section calculation tool, am i correct?
(2) I also assume that whatever RAM efect there is, it was taken out of the equation?
And i would imagine that those graphics were made using a radar incidence of 0º (lateral to the aircraft), or did you go for an entire 0º – 180º semi circle?
(3) Did you try to have a go at an identical analysis for the frontal section? If yes, can you show the graphics?
(4) And if yes in (3) how did cope with the problem created by the engine fan blades on the Russian aircraft (if we assume a zero atenuation method, see point (2), the Russian design would have an horrendous frontal RCS, something entirely counterintuitive)?

The result is hardly surprising. The PAK FA has a lot going on underneath the fuselage compared to the F-22 and J-20 due to the underslung nacelles.

Thats a reasonable assumption.

Cheers