I think you all guys are right. But you all see your own arguments in a nut shell. I think, that one needs new tactics for F-35 and I am sure they will be developed. There are many technologies out there beating STEALTH. They only has to be bought and put together. For example bistatic and multistatic radars. Long wave radars for detecting and EO devices for tracking? If your aircraft radar does not see the STEALTH aircraft, why not being led by a guy on the surface, watching on a radar screen of an long wave radar or bistatic radar? This is the comeback of the old fashioned GCI way.

But whenever F-35 has its stores under the wings it’s never stealth. Whenever F-35 uses radar it’s never stealth… For EO devices it is not stealth. F-35 is not a miracle, it’s simply an aircraft with a stealth shape. In a stealth condition it has only a small amount of weapons. So in absolute stealth mode it can only be used for high priority targets. I think the most duties it makes in conditions without stealth, simply because it needs more than the internal stores or it needs his radar and so on.

I think your discussions are fruitless, because there are ways to shoot down an F-35 and there are ways for F-35 to avoid being shoot down. Who cares what is better or not?

This is a very high risk planing. What if F-35 development is delayed?

The reasons why R-4 was not adopted to MiG-25 and MiG-31 is that it is older and it needed a special interface to communicate with the aircraft. The R-4 got more informations from the aircraft than the R-40 needed. The R-4 is in every aspect an older missile. It got an upgrade in the 70ies like R-40 but it was a different missile with different records.

After the defection of a MiG-25 to Japan, the MiG-25 got a new Radar and new version of R-40. In the end 70ies the radar and missile combination of the MiG-25 was up to date. Thus, the MiG-25 and the Russian Air Force benefited from the defection and got the newest systems in a short period. In the same time the Tu-128 got a new radar too (I assume the Tu-128 benefited from the new developments for the MiG-25) with a new version of R-4. But R-4 remained the older missile compared to R-40.

I would like to see this list continued. Very interesting. 😎

Safety standards are a matter of acceptance in the society.

Good communist sympathizers do that.

Aren’t we all communists in Europe, in American eyes, with our welfare states, social democratic governments, strong unions etc… 😀

OK, it’s off topic…

In the Austrian society there is a strong tendency to get rid of the armed forces. Many politicians supports these tendencies and argues for it.

Consider that not all missile will hit and that there are a lot of toys to disturb missiles. Thus not every missile is a hit. After missile shoot you are forced to track the situation. That means you can not flay away because your radar is in the front of the aircraft. If the opponent has STEALTH aircrafts too than the combat distances are smaller. Thus means the closing times are smaller and after a shoot of a missile you are very fast at close ranges if the missile does not hit. Even for longer ranges, if the opponent uses ground control with bistatic (and/or multistatic) radars and your misses didn’t hit the opponent, he can catch up with you. F-35 holds two AMRAAM inside only. Two guarantee a hit against an opponent with latest ECM and missile defences, a F-35 pilot has to use both AMRAAMS against this opponent. So a F-35 has only one chance to shot down an technical advanced aircraft.

There are plenty of possibilities. No rules are static.

Maybe at least one possible conclusion could be that the MiG-25BM as well as R 40RD/TD were already good enough for Soviet Union even with more advanced systems available in large quantities as the MiG 31 and the R 27R/T/ER/ET/EP.

May be because the intended targets for MiG-31 were bombers and cruise missiles? For bombers R-40 are adequate.