Table thousands of numbers , which confuses you ?

For example the Min and Max RCS just seem like a bunch of random number ,i dont know where do you get the source for them and i dont think there is one.
Or the engine thrust row : the thrust is at what altitude ? , what speed ?
or the Aerodynamic efficiency row : what exactly are they and how do you come up with these value there ? ( since they are neither Cd or Cl obviously)

In the view of the U.S. Navy leadership, A2/AD—as it is now called—has existed since the dawn of warfare when primitive man was fighting with rocks and spears. Overtime, A2/AD techniques have evolved as technology has improved with ever-greater range and lethality. Rocks and spears eventually gave way to bows and arrows, muskets and cannons. Thus, the advent of long-range anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles is simply another technological evolution of A2/AD.

“This is the next play in that,” Adm. John Richardson, chief of naval operations, told The National Interest on Aug. 25 during an interview in his office in the Pentagon. “This A2/AD, well, it’s certainly a goal for some of our competitors, but achieving that goal is much different and much more complicated.”

Indeed, as many U.S. Navy commanders including Richardson and Rear Adm. (Upper Half) DeWolfe Miller, the service’s director of air warfare, have pointed out, anti-access bubbles defended by Chinese DF-21D or DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missile systems or Russian Bastion-P supersonic anti-ship missile systems are not impenetrable ‘Iron Domes.’ Nor do formidable Russian and Chinese air defense systems such as the S-400 or HQ-9 necessarily render the airspace they protect into no-go zones for the carrier air wing.

Asked directly if he was confident in the ability of the aircraft carrier and its air wing to fight inside an A2/AD zone protected by anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles as well as advanced air defenses, Richardson was unequivocal in his answer. “Yes,” Richardson said—but he would not say how exactly how due to the need for operational security.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chief-naval-operations-richardson-us-aircraft-carriers-can-17516

damm , that was some Hollywood **** right there

Thats only partly the case. The other reason is that they are simply going to require a different capability than what has earlier been traditionally associated with a fighter aircraft. You wouldn’t need thousands of PCA’s (Like the F-16 or F-35) but enough to make your overall penetrating force capable of performing the missions for decades to come when the technological balance b/w you and your near peers is likely to fluctuate.

Even the CSBA study pointed to an all aspect LO, possibly subsonic, very large platform that could penetrate and has a large kinetic magazine, in addition to plenty of room for directed energy solutions, and of course very large sensors to develop SA in a battle space where the opponent puts a price on the SA (See adversary R&D and investment in LO and networks). Directed Energy, and higher survivability features (Network attack, Cognitive EW, All aspect/broadband stealth etc) will probably be those few design criteria that differentiate such an aircraft from its 5th generation predecessors but again with some trade-offs to accommodate that. What you aren’t going to get is a Mach 3 super cruiser that takes long range Directed Energy pot shots at opponents..Whats interesting is that the USAF’s own 2 year study of future needs seems to be in line with a lot of the stuff the CSBA study also deemed as necessary.
.

It is so sad that soon we will not see sleak fighter anymore but only a bunch of ugly flying wing

Why didn’t you mention the TIN SHIELD at RAF Spadeadam? Yes there is a crude FLAP LID mock up but there is also a real TIN SHIELD. Think about it? If the UK can obtain a TIN SHIELD then why is it so hard to grasp that the US obtained S-300 associated radars?

TIN SHIELD at RAF Spadeadam.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafspadeadam/

AFAIK UK doesn’t have S-300 but atleast 3 NATO members ( Greece , Solvakia , German ) purchased S-300 missiles and radar officially. ( Solvakia used their S-300PMU alot in recent MACE exercrise ). USA also purchased S-300P from Belarus in 1994 and S300V from Russia in the 90th anniversary

Just like Manhattan Project or F-35 blueprints? :rolleyes: But you’re right – what ex-Soviet military sceintists may know about US planes, rrrright???

Year 1991, operational manual for S-200D…

Now everyone may start to scream something like “I don’t believe!”

I dont understand what are you trying to prove here with that blurry picture with some Russian words ? By your logic then obviously USA know about Russian weapons system too , and since their generals said that F-35 is designed to penetrate S-400 family , why shouldnt i trust them ?

Really?! Are you 100% sure??? I don’t think so. :rolleyes:

They said they dont know in the book. And let think about the scenario for a moment : even if they did know about B-2 RAM, what if the new RAM on F-22 and F-35 has far wider bandwidth and absorb radiowave far better than the one on B-2 ?

Tell this cool story to NNIIRT and LM.
.

IMHO , that was correct ,when they were first created , low-frequency radars were favorable over high-frequency one in early warning role because the attenuation through air is much lower

What does it prove again? Do you understand difference between research and practical use? It’s like thinking that translating ‘nanocomposites’ and ‘low-observable’ into Mandarin and googling it using + operator will give you hidden knowledge of J-20 LO tech, or like taking all fancy AFRL PowerPoints like real-life achievements ready for serial production.
It’s just like a bluff of F-35 ‘using ‘nanocomposites’

This is kinda true , it is a long way from research pattern to production , there are many problems associated with costs and risk will come with it. Didnt we see many programs that saw testing but never gone to production because they are too expensive or require too much maintenance ?
Talking about pattern , Lockheed Martin also published pattern for quantum radar and very wide frequency RAM that iam quite sure not used on F-35
http://www.google.co.in/patents/US7375802 ( quantum radar )
https://www.google.com/patents/US20100271253#v=onepage&q&f=false ( wide frequency RAM )