Don’t cling to details.

What is a detail to you, for a pilot flying BARCAP is a difference between life and death, in case nuclear “Kitchen” flashes by him at M3, going for the carrier.

What?? I think we’re talking about different things.

No, we’re not.
SBF and CRPL are approximation models of atmospheric influence on radio signal attenuation in dependency on band.
As such, those are applicable at any measured object, in Earth’s atmosphere.

You didn’t pay attention to what I wrote. Detection ranges are one thing and tracking ranges are different. Besides max detection ranges in vector mode are also different (greater) than the ones when using normal RWS or TWS.
Yes, but you still need to have some time to get at least one lock-on…

Unfortunately…I did.
You may want to get acquainted with radars, before posting on the topic again.

I see…
So all shots, by F18, M2000 and well, everybody else, has been done from BELOW the F22, where the RCS enhancer is installed?

Well, F18’s Youtube gun shot against F22 was from the dorsal position, for one.
So JJ, why don’t you explain how does RCS enhancer work THROUGH the airframe?

I don’t know who claimed that. The Raptor uses some IR suppresion methods but they are not that radical (as RCS reduction)

Fanboys. Who else?

The F-22 probably from some angles has smaller signature than -40 dBsm (and from some angles greater).

Probably and then again, probably not.
Not even LM dares to claim RCS under -40dB.
-40dB is awfully lot for a plane of F22’s size, shape and material structure and is very likely absolute minimum (if true, in the first place).

If the APG-63 has a detection range ~90km for a 3m2 target then its not impossible.

If so and if it doesn’t?
I have found data on APG63, which put 1m^2 target detection range with 85% probability (threshold percentage required to qualify, as useful detecting range), at about same distance of 90km.
However, this isn’t all that important.

It would mean that the F-22 can be detected at ~5km range.

No.
It would mean that F22 can be detected from -40dB angle, at ~5km range.

We don’t know if some kind of jamming was used and in which mode was the APG-63 used (the one giving max detection ranges isn’t rather used in WVR combat), so I don’t think that this pilot was lying.

But even so (let’s assume this is true), F22 flies and it’s RCS is constantly changing, meaning it won’t show as a steady return, but more like a shimmering one.
However, even an old radar like APG63, requires a target update every 5-10 seconds to (more/less) successfully guide an AMRAAM in TWS mode.
In HUD mode, it updates HUD FOV every two seconds.
It’s difficult to assume such a radar can’t interpolate F22’s position in between solid reflections to calculate intercept vector for guns or missiles, particularly since those come much more often at that ranges, then they do at long distances.
So now, you can see that such claim is extremely stretched, even in case of a 40 years old APG63 radar, let alone contemporary equipment.

In an unverified story, French M2000 didn’t seem to have troubles locking on F22, even though its radar is considerably less powerful than APG63.

Yeah righ, what the hell can they know, right? They just actually design and build this thing. Test pilots also claim that the plane is very maneuverable and accelerate fast. Yeah, but what can they know, Cola know that they don’t know anything and just make things up.

I’m only referring to LM’s PR releases, not even getting into speculations, or giving my own opinions and yet you manage to dispute that?!

How many F35’s pilots flew DACT agaisnt F16 and yet they “know” F35 is superior in all those KPPs??
What portion of F35’s flight envelope, has been tested so far??
It was just the last month that F35 went over M1 and yet, all fanboys know how does exactly the plane behave there, right?
Good, why don’t you inform LM about that then and they may even skip that troublesome flight testing, altogether.
I’m sure they’d welcome an “as early as possible”, IOC.

Don’t pretend to be ignorant. He said he couldn’t put his weapon systems on it which meant that he couln’t get a radar lock (needed for example for gun firing solution).

He said “he couldn’t put a weapon on it”.
Isn’t Sidewinder’s head, a weapon??
What are we talking about here??

but as far as the f-16 and fa-18 goes the f-35a is better
g – longer better
acceleration – shorter better

Right…

First of, F16/79 can sustain about 1+g more throughout the envelope in comparison to 240-3, as disclosed by LM.
However, according to this chart, 240-4 found a way to reverse than to about 2g in its favor, meaning increasing lift capability by ~35%, while maintaining roughly 200% larger frontal cross section at alpha 0° and even more as alpha increases, using a wing with significantly lower aspect ratio.
LOL!

Second.
F16C is still one of the best transonic accelerators in the world.
According to this chart, 240-4 accelerates about 40% better meaning leaving F16, Typhoon and F22, behind.
LOL, again!

Now, the acceleration in the chart accidentally corroborates with 240-3 acc. compared to F16, as disclosed by LM, BUT in favor of F16.
Similar thing is with a sustained g-load and again the difference checks, BUT in F16’s favor.

However, it’s possible that F35 can pull more instantaneous g than F16, which makes this chart even more dubious, so best let it go, until something solid comes around.

Do you think that the explosion after penetrating the shelter, and taking the aircraft out, is one that a relatively unarmored structure/vehicle, would fare well against from 5m?

WW, to penetrate 3 ft of reinforced concrete the projectile needs a weighted piercing element to produce enough inertia and prevent warhead deformation.
This link still doesn’t tell us what portion of the warhead contains explosive, splinters and ballast (piercing element).
It’s possible that the warhead consists of 73kg of piercing element and 17kg of actual warhead of which, let’s say, 10kg is explosive.
This is common practice with piercing ammunition.

Google “AGM-88 precision navigation unit” and read when it was added to basic HARM. You’ll find the reason for its addition and when it went into service.

According to this and this, Block VI HARM has added GPS (not INS) in 2002. and I didn’t manage to find a single word about non-INS HARM.
Further, this page in the footnote No.2 clearly states:

The international HARM upgrade program (AGM-88D Block 6 is the US designation) is a cooperative software and hardware upgrade. It will incorporate a current state of the art GPS/IMU in place of the original mechanical gyros to improve missile precision, increase kill probability, and further reduce the probability of fratricide. As a by-product, the missile will have a high-speed, point-to-point capability. Plans call for retrofit kit production in 2003.

…clearly pointing to pre-existent INS gyro platform.

Do you have any documents that prove contrary?

I see you point about that, but general claims are useles to some degree.

I’m commenting the film posted, specifically GBU-39.
The point is the second truck, 10-15m away, wasn’t even scratched and in case the shot misses into the ground (even better blast dampener), it’s very unlikely that the SAM’s missile, or radar (on top of a mast, or some other elevated element) will be sufficiently damaged to cease operation.

“Naked” soldiers are something else and one might easily get killed by pressure alone, even if missed by splinters.

Area bombing is still within medium/heavy JSOW’s domain and it’s much more likely be used in that role.