Kind of surprising that the F-35 is about the same weight as the F-15C and its radar is 0.8m in diameter vs 0.9-1m.
Wonder if the design couldn’t have been different with the intake more to the sides to have a wider front fuselage with a larger radome.
They could have gained 10cm on each side.
Even without moving the intakes they could have had a larger fuselage at the front by using a different angle along the front fuselage, like on the J-20.
It would have had a longer radome, so what?

F-35 need to have internal weapons bay , RAS and loads of internal fuel. The radome also need to be a certain shape for VLO purpose.

And the pics above show that the F-35 is much darker than the F-15, it’s probably quite easy to spot visually.
Not too optimized for a2a…

F-35 is smaller though, paint color are much easier to customise compared to raw size

Those are combat coded , upgraded Strike Eagles. Same are being used out at Langley as Red Air for Atlantic Trident 17.

That is even better, i think

We were commenting a specific article saying very specific things, not trying to exhaust the whole argument in one post.

I know, i only point out that they use F-15 as aggressor too

And surely an F-15E with CFT and a bomb load would be an easier adversary to handle than an F-35…or a Su-30SM in A2A configuration.

Aggressor f-15 , F-16 don’t carry bomb as far as i know, they fly very clean most of the time.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]252347[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]252348[/ATTACH]

What is the purpose of these antennas on this Argentinean aircraft?

Those are not antenna, they are vortex generating device. To delay flow seperation

Courtesy James Drew AvWeek

The first picture is a mock up right ?

Two things, even the most specialized A2A planes and interceptor used to carry a centreline tank when in AD role because they used this fuel to take off at full afterburner, climb to the operative quote as soon as possible and regain velocity, after it they dropped it and kept on with their full internal fuel.
Same with drop tanks on long range attack mission: once the planes would get near to the combat zone they would have dropped the now empty tanks and would have continued in a way more comfortable configuration.

That assuming 2 things :
1/ you don’t get an attack on the way to target.
2/Your EFTs doesn’t make you a massive target that can be detected from hundreds miles ( because intercepter, missiles will be send after you)
Moreover, the different in combat radius further illustrate the fact that it is a flaw comparision to compare something like F-35 with F-16 when they carry similar fuel load such as 50%. In your example, when they reached the target area , aircraft rely on EFTs will have 100% internal fuel while things like F-35 will sit at around 50-60%

No one cares what you think, dear friend 🙂

OK, I have been involved in this discussion.. what have I learned? Nothing.. there is no clear number which can be presentable.. the last Pentagon estimate says 625 nm.. in a presentation for Norway LM say 716 nm.. in another presentation for Israel they say 760 nm.. .. how can they miss each other by almost 140 miles, for God’s sake? one is this config, another is that config.. weapons yes/no?

Different mission profile involved flying at different altitude (For example CAS will often require aircraft to fly at lower altitude than Air to air mission), since air density are different between altitude ,obviously fuel flow will be different. Moreover, different mission will require different loiter time and combat time which then will change fuel consumption. Physics aren’t meant to be simple.
For example

no one has faintest idea how they came to this number as, obviously, no one has ever tested it

If they haven’t tested it , you won’t have the number. Same for any other aircraft manufacturer

and most of all, we talk about the F-35 here.. what is it? F-35A? F-35C?

It depend on country, for example we know for a fact that Israrel, Norway buy F-35A