Probably less reaction time than that given the Tor is unlikely to know it is being directly targeted until the weapon is a lot closer.

Yes i know, but i was trying to make a point so i simplified it to ease calculation. It very unlikely that the SAM truck will be able to move at 50 km/h constantly

I would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it’s limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.

Let’s add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple

SDB II , JSM , SPEAR all have 2 way data link. Which mean they can be re route in flight. Even when not emitting the location of SAM can be updated by SAR/GMTI mode of APG-81 and EOTS. This is particularly easy if their initial location has been discovered once they transmit. The sensors on those missiles/bomb such as IIR , MMW radar , SAL are all useful against moving target too
The released speed from F-35 can be expected to be around Mach 0.8 or 980 km/h, the crusing speed of those bombs/missiles can be expected to be higher than that due to gravity, but for the moment let take the 980 km/h value. If those bombs/missiles are released from 80 km. It would take them approximately 80/980*60 = 4.89 minutes to reach destination
AFAIK, it take around 15-30 minutes for those long range double digit SAMto be set up, take off, so bombs will reach target before they have time to go
How about mobile SAM like 9K330 Tor ?.Let say the SAM truck can move at speed of 50 km/h, in 4.89 minutes they still only move about 4km from initial location , simply not enough to out run the bombs

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=52703
Read those two pages^^
I totally agree to disagree with you..

have you never visited the real champion (seen as we are talking about ‘full retard’):
http://www.russiadefence.net/

If F-16.net is the worst offender in the net, well, you obviously dont hang a lot in military Forúns, try WAFF for starters.
Cheers

F-16 is outperforming any other forum with a score of 144:0. It’s a Champion, unbeaten and uncontested.
The keyword American. But when it comes to Russian or Chinese – these “people” go full retard and demonstrating they don’t have even a slightest clue on things they’re talking about.

There are **** , nationalist posters in every forum. If you go to Russian defense you will see most people are biased toward Russian military equipments .If you go to F-16.net , you will see most people are biased toward US equipments. If you go to indiadefense , you will see people biased toward indian equipments. ..etc
It is expected.

Assuming that figure of 0.000028m^2 is real it would be due to materials and not shaping.

Or likely a combination of both, shaping is often more useful for wider frequency range

Sapphire glass is therm which you see many times so it is pointless to say it isn’t glass it is sapphire, and that doesn’t change nothing becuase both materials are very transparent for radar waves.

And again I would point out F-117. It only hidden FLIR when it wasn’t need, it had flat window with special mesh (radar absorb material) so it would reduce FLIR rcs when it is used.

I thought EOTS have gloden tint:
http://www.jsf.mil/images/f35/f35_technology_eots.jpg

But now I see it is clear sapphire glass which is not good for RCS:
http://plarealtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/f-35-eots.jpg

There are transparent RAM actually.There is a very thin reflective indium tin oxydie layer too, otherwise there would be no point to make angular shape for EOTS window

There is still no hard data posted yet. None. And the bit of data we do have (height) shows that the Pak Fa is smaller. I don’t even know where Wikipedia is measuring the height. Just eyeballing it, the Pak Fa looks smaller too.

I answered this question already. If you want to compare size, put the photo of F-22 and PAK-FA in the same photo. As long as you put their wing span scale correctly, you will see their relative size. The only reason PAK-FA appears smaller is because its engine tunnel. Moreover, you are the one who claim PAK-FA is so much smaller than F-22, that it affects RCS. Logically speaking, you should be the one who provides people with hard data.

And it should be noted that the Pak Fa is shorter in height and bigger in wing coverage than the Raptor. But the YF 23 is even shorter than the Pak Fa and even bigger wing coverage too.

Do you understand why I talked about wing span?

The Raptor has to accommodate full size inward pointing S ducts.

You mean the S ducts that less than a page ago you claimed PAK-FA had it and it is exactly the same as F-23?.

But joke aside, the S duct of F-22 curve behind its nose. The tail between engine on F-22 is quite small while PAK-FA has a big tail for internal radar

Yes, if we trust the drawings

I reckon your drawing has wrong scale since it show F-22 wing has longer span than the PAK-FA while it is actually the opposite. Not a big different though but that may explain why PAK-FA seem to have smaller cross section than Su-27

Wait a minute.. That is pure conspiracy. To think that one of the great aircraft manufacturers is going to make a fake stealth aircraft

Who said anything about fake? Now you just try to twist my words to make a strawman argument . Very dirty behavior to say the least.

area of this projection:
Su-27 – 10 m2
T-50 – 9.47 m2
F-22 – 9.25 m2
F-35A – 8.12 m2
F-35B – 8.36 m2

the difference between the T-50 and F-22 is negligible

None of what you said dispute my point. T-50 is larger than F-22 and both are bigger than F-35. But the size difference between F-22, PAK-FA are quite negligible to have any practical effect on radar cross section.
Iam a bit surprised that PAK-FA has smaller cross section than Su-27 though. Are you certain?

Stealth is the science of making things appear SMALLER than they actually are on RADAR. So the PROFILE has every bit as much to do with the stealth of the aircraft design as anything else.

No, physical profile does not have the same order of important as material or shaping. For example : a metal plate at an angle to the radar can have its RCS reduced by a factor of thounsands compared to a perpendicular plate. By contrast, the same amount of RCS reduction can’t be achieved with physical size reduction even if the size reduction is as big as 40% (which is not the case for PAK-FA and F-22 or even F-35 for that matter)
This has nothing to do with the PAK-FA but your rambling about size as RCS reduction is simply wrong.

Now tell me which aircraft out of these 3 pictures has been optimized to be as SMALL as possible to begin with. (stealth.

Not that it matter but I will have to let you know that PAK-FA is actually bigger than F-22, and both of them are alot bigger than the F-35