With all the interest for VLO a/c not just in the US but also in Israel, the UK, Japan, Russia, India, South Korea, Australia, etc. etc. it seems to me that the “ECM” we’ve got today cannot really be called “active stealth”.
And why would France launch a program to develop “active stealth” if they already got it?

ECM means Electronic Counter Measures and is by definition “active stealth”.
So, “active cancellation” f.e. is an ECM measure as well, in spite of differentiation in nomenclature.
Today we have active towed decoys, radars with jamming functions, etc…all of this constitutes ECM and it will indeed make a difference in modern/future warfare.
Passive, so called “5th gen” stealth is nice option, as long as the price payed for it isn’t too high, unlike F117, F35 and to a lesser degree F22, have payed.
However, programs for modernization jamming equipment are permanent and even F22 that was originally envisaged without any jamming equipment whatsoever is scheduled to receive it and US made a tender for ALQ-99 replacement.
This unambiguously shows current level of threat and VLO platforms’ ability to remain unseen against modern SA/AA systems.

@Wrighwing,
get back into your lane.

Based upon figures that I’ve seen on more than one occasion, and from multiple sources.

Great, then you wouldn’t mind presenting those documents here…

If you have figures that differ significantly one way or the other, I’d love to see them.

Yes, I’ll show them all right, but I haven’t made an assertion here.
You did and I’d like to see based on what?

So, perhaps the combination of instability and canards allows for similar or better sustained turn rates with a lower TWR? It does seem to be the case.

It does (other parameters being the same) and that’s the whole point, of the concept (to mitigate delta’s drawbacks).

Well the Mig-31’s top speed clean is ~M2.8, but with missiles it’s limited to ~M2.3. The F-15’s top speed is ~M2.5, but with missiles it’ll only see ~M2, so you can see that the drag penalty isn’t insignificant.

Do you have any data to backup this “knowledge”, on F15?
USAF, for one, doesn’t concur (as have been presented on this forum several times over) and they operate the model.

So in the current peace time setting the F-22s max TWR is 1.70.

Maybe you should recalculate these figures.
LM doesn’t concur with 37k engine and neither does the USAF.

This reminds me of AF-1, which doesn’t weight 29k lbs (2008 figures), but ~24k (pre 2008 figures), although noone actually documented that (and for a good reason).

Let’s not indulge fanboy’s dreaming, here…

It seems that F35 is built around Harrier replacement requirements primarily, hence such a short and stubby design (to fit assault ships and meet range/payload KPPs).
To ditch a “B” model, would be to kill a reason of F35’s entire (problematic) design and F35B is still, the most capable VSTOL plane on the market.
AF and N, which have different size requirements than MC, may have (and probably would have) gone for longer, more slender, designs which behave considerably better in the air, if there was no “B” model.

So, it seems that B model exceeds Harrier performance KPPs and should be the only one, let enter op.service.
A/C models are problematic compared to F15/F16 and F18, respectively.
And let’s not even get into A10 replacement attempt…

Question: Are the canards themselves contributing to lift when/if they’re busy holding the nose down? If they aren’t, then just how relevant is any alledged “positive” effect they might have on the wings?
The stabs on unstable wing-tails LIFT the butt of the plane to keep the nose down. LERXs and slats contribute to airflow management (LERXs also add to overall lift area). It’s a win-win in terms of lift.

Canarded planes work both ways and elevatored don’t.
So, you can put canard into neutral and command wing’s trailing edge down, which essentially puts you in the same class as tailed planes (F16, or F22).
The difference is in drag and what the elevator contributes to the overall lift, most likely gets eaten by drag in the end.
This is why canarded plane’s FCS is set to rather push the nose down, than tail up.

First of all, “drag management” takes a back seat during subsonic ACM, especially if your’re a 4th gen. fighter carrying a draggy combat load. Second, if you accept the fact that unstable canard-deltas are DOWNFORCE-lift platforms, then it’s in the lift efficiency department where canard-deltas fall short compared to unstable wing-tails. The entire F-22 basically acts as a big wing. It doesn’t rely on downforce to keep its nose in check.

Actually no and drag management is crucial in all flight regimes, down to touchdown (and later during aerodynamic braking, in addition to wheelbraking).
F.e., M2000 flies exactly like the elevatored RSS plane (basically a big wing, as you put it), while Rafale has another momentum point added, which enhances its control configurability in different flight regimes.

That is the type of statement I would expect from someone who does not understand the technology involved.
Have you ever wondered why the F-22 has a sliver sheen when viewed under certain lighting conditions? It is a phenomenon of the low emissivity coating that attenuates IR emissions. That is why IR seekers have difficulty achieving lock-on.

Interesting…numerous articles (like this one), seem to relate “silver sheen” to actual Silver in RAM, which has a function of ensuring uninterrupted conductivity, all over the plane’s surface (purely RF usage).
How do you propose to mask IR signature with a material of Silver’s specific heat capacity?