Wrong, calculating for given range gives us 0,00062 sqm RCS for F-35. Yet Another BS; No stealth aircraft can maintain such average frontal RCS.

IRBIS has 400 km range vs 3sqm target, that gives 96 km range aganist 0,01 sqm target.

I see. So ‘400 km vs 3 sq.m’ target is kosher but ‘0.01 sq.m frontal RCS’ is not. Also, since I didn’t state a ‘given range’, you’re rubbishing an non-existent figure (‘0.00062 sq.m’ is meaningless).

Before labelling something ‘BS’ perhaps you ought read it first. If the F-35 is detected at 96 km (if!) then a Su-35S will be detected at at least 400 km, if not more. 1/4th the range (I hedged by calling it less than 1/3rd).

Yes, exactly.. they’re nothing but a bunch of nonsense tailor made to fit someone’s agenda.

Except that they mirror what Ooshiny’s simulation did. We can perhaps ask Amiga to do run tests with ‘forum approved’ assumptions and see how it turns out.

Integration of RVV-BD is likely, n ot much else as they T-50 will slowly start flowin in.

Precisely. So if we waited until 2022 to run a simulation with a Meteor-equipped F-35B, the result remain unchanged.

In the articles about the F-117 it was written that if even one of the rivets was protruding 1/16th inch up out of the skin the stealth was compromised to great extent. If the F-35 boasts to be on the same RCS level, then the same physics does apply here.. Of course, unless you want to argue that the F-35 is less stealthy than the F-117 was, to the extent that such details don’t really matter..

A visual examination of the two aircraft would suggest that the same physics is not in effect. And as the USN pilot testified its been designed to meet observability requirements at the end of its service life with new (non-degraded) aircraft consequently lot better than required (with also explains Gen Hostage’s ‘stealthier than F-22’ remark). The representative F-35 model was still LO with 40 damage sites.

Do you have any results of these tests, BTW? Given the fact that RCS of the F-35 is not known, I find it very hard to believe…

Just going by Oooshiny’s posts. But the radar equation suggests that a 0.01 sq.m frontal RCS (Eurocanards claim upto 0.1 sq.m clean I believe) would put the detection/track range at least one-third that of a loaded Su-35S (with RCS improvements) at the same aspect. Even more from other angles. One sixth as low against something like the Su-30MKI.

Are you kidding??? AIM 120 D is years (if note a decade) late as compared to Meteor…

Err.. no. Assuming the Meteor takes another two or three years (more?) to become operational, that would be a gap of two or three years between the two types.

US Navy achieves IOC on Raytheon’s AIM-120D AMRAAM missile

10 April 2015

The US Navy has achieved initial operational capability (IOC) on Raytheon’s new advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM), the AIM-120D. The new AIM-120D has significant capability improvements, including increased range, GPS-aided navigation, a two-way data link and improved weapons effectiveness. IOC was attained by the US Navy after extensive flight testing, where the navy integrated and tested AIM-120D missile on the F/A-18 Hornet and the Super Hornet aircraft.

Raytheon Missile Systems AMRAAM programme director Ron Krebs said: “AMRAAM is the most capable air-to-air weapon ever produced. The AIM-120D represents a significant improvement in air-to-air weapons capabilities and the technologies it brings to the battlefield give US warfighters an unmatched advantage in the air-to-air arena.”

Raytheon said the US Navy is planning to deploy the missile later this year. In a separate development, the US Air Force also successfully completed testing and fielding of the AIM-120D. The AIM-120D missile demonstrated its capability against challenging targets, and also performed in all regimes of flight. This airborne testing has verified that AIM-120D is ready for overseas deployment, Raytheon stated.

To date, Raytheon has delivered the combat-proven AMRAAM to 36 countries and it has been integrated on the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, Typhoon, Gripen, Tornado, Harrier, F-4 and the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. The AMRAAM is also the baseline missile for the Nato-approved national advanced surface-to-air missile system.

Although their “analysis” seems to be not much rooted in reality I think they have at least one thing right; the F-35 have too short legs for operating efficiently in the asia-pacific. It does not help to say “well the a/c it’s replacing have even shorter legs” (as F-35 fanboys tend to do).

For the Asia-pacific they should have developed something that was somewhat bigger and with even longer range. If it was bigger it could probably also have fitted more stuff internally, which I think also the asia-pacific scenarios could benefit from.

The F-35 likely has a longer range than the F-22 and not a great deal less than the PAK FA and J-20. Had they made it much bigger it would have been unaffordable to everybody but the US and Japan. And with the economies of scale melting away, unaffordable to those two as well. For extended range strike they have to have to rely on the B-1, B-2 and LRS-B. Plus F-35B/Cs & UCLASS from forward deployed carriers/LHDs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/gripen-revives-war-of-words-over-norwegian-fighter-assessment-327317/

:jaw drops:

So SAAB is claiming a effective kill ratio of 2.56-1 for the Gripen E against F-35A!! [1.6-1 (Gripen E vs SU-35) x 1.6-1 (Su-35 v F-35)].

Lets see if Finland buys that.

about the same result as the Gripen vs Su-35 simulation,
with the difference that the Meteor used in Gripen sim is integrated and exist,
while the Meteor version in this F-35 sim is a paper missile, and as a spin-off, not integrated either

The Su-35 won 4-1 against the Gripen?

KPP doesn’t mean squat.. What matters is practical experience. IMHO, the F-35s will spend a great portion of their life flying with subnominal RCS values because the users will find the RCS treatment a good place to start saving on maintenance cost..

Raptor to use F-35 radar absorbent coatings

The newest F-22 stealth fighters produced at Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, Ga., factory have improved radar absorbent coatings derived from the company’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

“Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor,” said Jeff Babione, vice president and general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin.

Most likely to win are:

1. F-35
2. Gripen E
3. SH

sorted according to the order of likelihood.

Agreed… mostly. I don’t think the SH has much of a chance. The capability differential with the F-35 is large, the cost differential… not so large. Also, the Finns want their fighters delivered starting after 2022 IIRC, by which time the SH line should have closed down (even assuming they secure a Kuwaiti order).