Look at the color they’ve started painting F-16’s. Google is your friend. Again your point is stupid, look at the shades used by the F-22, F-35 ( the new shade has zero to do with visibility- it’s the application of the coating), they are not changing shading for visibility reasons. The grey used on all usaf aircraft may shade lighter or darker but irregardless, your point about the F-35 being “too dark” for a fighter was dumb and looking at the F-23 and F-35 flying together should have stopped that train of thought before you wasted a page and started insulting other posters.

Your wrong and acting like a child (which considering your posts, I’m not sure you aren’t). I won’t call you names as I’m pretty sure you are a teen or youth. Perhaps it’s time to stop posting and learn.

Here is a new F-16 color scheme:

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/25/south-dakota-ang-f-16c-jets-including-one-in-new-f-35-like-dark-grey-color-scheme-arrive-at-raf-mildenhall/

Edit- not that I necessarily buy cenciotti’s explanation that the dark grey is a new Have Glass treatment, but clearly these f-16’s are a darker grey.

More BS.. All air forces paint their primary fighters in light colors, sometimes with 2 shades on top or onz color on top that’s a bit darker than below.

Maybe you deserve to be called an arrogant idiot after all…

WTF was that answer? Your links prove exactly what I say, you arrogant idiot! And they’re gonna do exactly that, which is to paint the plane in lighter color. Will it have a dual color paint on top like the F-22 we will see, but the most important is that the plane is close to light grey!

I think you’ve said enough stupidities for the rest of the week now. Go get some rest!

pfwahahah he continues 😀 omg!

Anyways it was almost obvious there was a problem with the color, except for the idiots.. and there are a lot of them LOL! especially with group thinking coming into play.. 🙂

What???
This is a nonsensical argument. The colors have zero, zero importance. Look at the F-22, the Rafale, the paint scheme of the Russian flanker variants. Does their dark color (or wild patterns in the case of flankers) mean that aren’t tasked for AtA engagements?

Btw, at high altitudes, the sky above appears dark. A darker shade paint would be tougher to locate flying above you at 40,000 feet.

(edit- typing on iPhone is a sure way to appear illiterate, time for bifocals)

AHAH! what would you invent when you have no argument! Effing Ridiculous!! 😀

Halloweene, with all the due respect it seems me that you want to found a defect at any cost in the F-35.
Also the F-15E is painted in a darker shade than the C/D version and in this case there wasn’t ever the issue of stealth, it was just that one is a air superiority fighter that have to operate at an high quote while the other is a strike plane that was supposed to operate at a standard height and mainly at night (introduction of JDAMs changhed things on that regard but colour stayied).

Don’t know what Halloweene would think about that, but nowadays in the era of off boresight missile, if you’re seen visually you’re dead. The F-35 is not meant to replace the F-15E. The F-16 and F-18C are light grey and the AV-8B is not used regularly for a2a and is used mainly for CAS.

As a stealth plane the F-35 would fly at high altitude most of the time probably so doesn’t need a dark color.

F-35 already has very big radar, much bigger than the one on F-16, F-18, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon. Changing the outer shape which will affect aerodynamic and VLO characteristics just to get the radar abit bigger doesn’t seem like a wise decision. It is not like stealth aircraft require massively powerful radar anyway

No it doesn’t have a very big radar. The typhoon’s radar is probably even larger. The negative effects in aerodynamics would be minimal, and that would be largely compensated by increase in radar range. VLO is not an issue here.

My guess would be that they gave it that radar size to have the shortest plane possible for the amphibious carrier requirement, and also probably to save cost on the radar, due to the fact that the plane is multi-role.

F-35 has DAS so vision is not really a big problem, it has very similar canopy style as the PAK-FA after all

It is still better to have good visibility even without the DAS. The canopy would have been a bit larger but not by much, it would have had more the shape of an F-22 canopy, that is smaller than F-16 or F-15 canopy.

The T-50’s canopy is a bit higher, the F-35’s canopy would have looked almost the same had the cockpit been like 10cm higher. AFAIK the current T-50 canopy is not the production design. The production design will probably have better rear visibility.

The problem is that, you only guessed that F-15 colors is harder to see than F-35 in normal condition, we don’t know if it actually the case, nor do we know how much the slight different color tone would change visual detection range, would it be 1%? 6%.?… etc.h

You can check numerous videos and pictures of the F-35 and other planes next to each other and you will see that the F-35 is significantly darker. The F-16 is multi-role and has a much lighter paint scheme and the F-35 is meant to replace it.

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.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]252725[/ATTACH]

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?

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…