Translaton: it’s relying on wishful thinking. Regardless of whatever technological ads you have (BVR missiles, stealth, jammers etc.), you still need kinematic performance in order for these systems to be effective, as enemy will do everything possible to deny you the firing solution, and to achieve firing solution himself.

Most of F-35scharacteristics are exact opposite of what was always required for fighter to function well in combat: that is, low cost (large number of fighters), easy maintenance (high sortie rate), low operating costs (low costs of training), high cruise speed (prevents rear-quadrant approach by the enemy), high dash speed and operational ceilling (increases useful missile range in BVR combat), rearward cockpit visibility (to detect attempted bounces), passive sensors (to avoid alerting the enemy through active sensors’ emissions), good maneuverability (to get into firing position and defeat enemy’s attacks) and reliable weapons (to achieve kill quickly once firing parameters have been satisfied). But F-35 is expensive to buy and operate, hard to maintain, has average cruise speed (Mach 0,95), low dash speed (Mach 1,6), no rearward cockpit visibility, bad maneuverability (both sustained and transient performance, with exception of maximum steady-state 1 g roll rate, which is useless in combat) and screwed-up weapons (missiles need weapons bays to open, and gun is a) of rotary design and b) requires trap doors to open). Only good thing about the F-35 are its sensors, which still don’t work as expected, and service ceilling (60.000 ft, though that’s questionable).

I bet they said that before Vietnam too. Missiles have improved, so have aircraft and countermeasures. Plus there are always limitations on weapons systems: BVR missiles have bad maneuverability and large minimum range, and even WVR missiles have large enough minimum range for it to be tactically significant.

Missile’s RCS, but the same principle applies:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-developments-challenge-stealth
Giving what was probably the least provocative answer under the circumstances, a Russian engineer notes that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is a very non-stealthy 0.6 m2 in VHF.

Same goes for X-band radars, with a caveat that X band radars are far easier to jam. So what is exact justification for stealth, then?

read my post in page 3 of this thread , f-35 kinematic not affected it́s performer as much as you think

Im not anti US and f35 looks cool but my tax money is going toward buying it, instead of more raptors or other planes + lately the gov. Has been putting all its eggs in one bucket (locheed martin) clearly locheed is doing something wrong if two of its latest major contracts were both overbudgeted and late … the gov needs to give boeng a better chance, with with locheed and pentagon in bed thats not going to happen. Once again I do care about all stats of the plane and where my taxes go

and all your question about stat have been explained before , in the few page of last thread http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)/page94 , it not like you come up with some new question mate , basically same question all over again
about putting all its eggs in one bucket also Russia doesn’t have any gen5 other than the PAK-FA so limit the option even more than the US ( iam a fan of PAK-FA but fact is fact , we shouldn’t bend it to fit our opinion )

P/s : to be honest , i have read several posts of your , no offence but you make so many random mistakes both in grammar and pronunciation for anyone to believe that you are from USA , or even English speaking countries ( seriously you misspell the company name , it actually lockheed martin not locheed martin , and it boeing not boeng ), my wild guess is that you may be from some Asia countries ?

(btw just checked your ID , it shows that you your posts is from vietnam :p ) , why lying ???????

F-35 wasn’t candidate in Brazil so why not downrate direct competitors like Rafale, F-18 and F18 ? Remeber this is an advertisement shot…

they still rank the su-35 lower than F-35 , and the F-35 same rank as pak-fa , admit it mate , aircraft producer obviously know about these fighters alot more than you , me or anyone here

Yes, but thrust also go down with alt, sweet spot for F-22 is 36-37k

even piston fighter like P-51H or Ta-152 doing alright until 40K -45K ft
,
, i dont think there any problem with jet fighter to fly higher , and we all know the public information about service ceiling for f-35 is 60K ft

IMO, this is based on wishful thinking coupled with poor research, i think F-35 won’t ever go over 45-50k ft

pretty sure it can go to 50k ft , f-16 , f-15 do that alot

Yes, i do take his word for it that only an itzy bitzy bit of a/b was needed to stay supersonic…….. -> at 30-35k ft
but above 40k it takes a lot more

but isn’t thin air also reduce drag alot ?

But an A2A missile dont have the plume then i take it ?

what i mean is radar based MAW can detect the missiles plume at moment it was launched if it was at really short distance EX : 3-4 km like when the aircraft was attack by SAM like Stinger

The entire statement is misguided, starting from “F-35 service ceiling is 60k ft ” and ending with
“in real life the f-35 will even have the advantage in altitude as well”
ed: it will beat EF in tactical strike in every possible way, why isn’t that enuff @mig-31bm ?

what i mean is that in real life , non stealth fighter will be more likely to fly at low altitude to reduced SAM detection range thus giving advantage to stealth fighter

I seem to have missed the point in this.. It does not matter if the F-35 cruise at 50 or 60k ft.. If there is an incomming missile launched from an S-300 Battery, it would in fact make the F-35 more of a sitting duck, the higher it fly’s in some respect.. thin air makes the F-35 and its engine struggeling up there.. not so With a rocket engine.

I know some of those Rockets can Reach 80k. Nuff said..

yeah but it have stealth doesn’t it , the point is to attack enemy before they can see and attack you rather than wait until they attack and try to out maneuver their missiles
anyways in case again SAM , then F-35 can use NGJ , MALD-J , or have support from EA-18G ..etc , and the improvement in SAM only give more reason to have stealth platform

er, I have a problem with that statement…

making a zoom climb to get above its service ceiling means it would have a parabolic flight path, while leaving a huuuge IR trail against a cold high alt sky… should the opponent shoot back, the “zoom climber” would be a sitting duck against a missile that would blow it out of the sky with ease..

problem with IRST is that while they can have very long detection range , their targeting range are rather limited compared to radar like i have already explained before

Agreed.

Not everything is about kinematic performance. But kinematic performance reduces the NEZ of the kinetically inferior ac weapons and increases the NEZ of the kinematically superior ac weapons. Flying high increases the range of your missile compared to the lower flying ac. Does this mean that this is the most important attribute? No, it is just important.

Another important aspect is first shoot capability. Taking the lead means you control the pace and maintain the initiative. I dont know if this rings any bells but it is the army doctrine that I learned.

If you have the initiative, If you set the pace and if you can control the enemy into a defensive strategy then you are in the lead. Time works for you. Unfortunately stealth only sets this as the starting point. Good kinematics allows you to persue it. And as in pretty much every branch of the military, movement is good. Especially if you are the one attacking.

agree , what i mean is that even though kinematic aspect like speed , altitude is very important , it also can put you in dangerous situation if you are not the attacker or dont have as much situation awareness as the enemy that why F-35 trade a bit of it’s agility for stealth , and also many Airforce decide to buy stealth fighter

Now, about your example. IRST can lock on and track subsonic targets at 50km today. Eurofighters PIRATE is said to have even longer range (at high alt). The burn time of the missile will allow it to have a powered flight of <12km. Lets say the Eurofighter, being the target, simply dives while 30km away from the F35. Ofc it responds by sending away a missile as well but now it dives at an average speed of mach 1,7. Where will the missile go? Well, it cant loiter so it has to follow. But unfortunately air density makes it lose speed fast so it wont be able to keep up at low altidute. Neither in speed terms or in turns.

The result? Both aircraft probably survive. The problem here is that the Eurofighter did send a METEOR while receiving an AIM120. This means it is harder for the F35 to dodge the missile, but OTOH the F35 is less likely to be detected by the seeker since the Eurofighter that is diving cant guide the missile.

Lets say the F35 uses METEOR. Well, now we are talking BVR potential 4 real. Powered range in excess of 40km at altitude? The Eurofighter could dive as it would shorten the engagement envelope somewhat. That is pretty much the only option from a kinematic standpoint. But they could still respond with counter fire meaning that they break the initiative for the F35 and the missile is likely to lose the target.

The result? Both aircraft will probably survive.

there is problem with diving to lower altitude is that there will be more potential energy different between you and the missiles so it will be harder to evade , unless you diving aways , also the targeting range of IRST are limited by the laser range finder ( about 30-40 km depend on type )and even at these distance the IRST will not be able to provide information like velocity , heading angle , or rate of close ..etc unlike a radar so a missiles launching by info from IRST system will be easier to evade ( due to lack of info for it’s INS system ) that also give more advantage to stealth fighter

So in the end I think that all fighters are very survivable. The F35 will continue to be lethal at high altitudes, but at low alt it will get dominated really hard due to the short engagement ranges and the difference in kinematics.

not necessary , because IR are affected by cloud , fog , rain so at low altitude IRST will not work so well , at low altitude the different between speed of fighters are not very big , low wing loading fighter have more trouble at low altitude due to drag ….at WVR it have better SA than most if not all fighter today

There are just too many parameters to give a good reply but at least this is an effort and it goes back to my original point. Missile performance is the limiting factor.

agree

As long as you keep the missile at your 3 or 9 o’clock you are forcing it to use maximum lead. This kills enenergy state and after burnout it will lose energy fast.

So if the missile has to pull 20G (still only 9,4 deg/s) @mach 4 you get that it is likely to need a pretty high alpha (because it has no wings to talk about).

Drag forces without turning are pretty substantial, from Cola/Obligatory:

The ability to pull many Gs are directly proportional to the velocity. So for arguments sake, lets assume the target is at 20’000 ft, missile only has to sustain lead and speed and then dives to sea level.

Question 1: What is the actual effective range of the missile?
Question 2: After how long will the missile have lost 75% of its kinetic energy (and is now stalling and is slower than the target) assuming no turning? (Answer in km and seconds work)
Question 3: How much of the turn performance is lost when the missile flies at mach 2? (Remember that it loses about 15-20G when the thrust is gone meaning that turning just eats away speed)

The missiles have to work in a predictable way as illustrated in this fantastic overview.

And the formula for turning…

according to Obligatory and many critic of f-35 then the most important thing for fighter is kinematic ( fly high , fast , agile ) right
so let assume the EF-2000 supercruise at mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft and a f-35 flying head on fire a AIM-120D at the EF-2000 ( advantage of stealth ) ,now since F-35 is very slow let assume it can only accelerate to mach 1 before launching the missiles , so with launching speed of mach 1 (from f-35 ) and when firing from stand still aim-120 reach top speed of mach 4 , so top speed of the aim-120 when it fired from a mach 1 aircraft is about mach 5 . Since it take ~70 seconds at 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft ) for missiles to lose 25 percent of it’s speed ( assume it fly without thrust ) , the aim-120 will have to fly for 70 sec ( about 100 km ) before speed reduced to mach 4 ) , if the EF-2000 was supercruise at mach 1.5 then the closing rate between it and the aim-120 will be mach 5.5 , assume the IRST on EF-2000 detect the missile from 20 km then the pilot will have : [20/( 1234*5.5 )]*60*60 = only about ten second to maneuver or eject or what ever
the situation will be even worst if the missiles was Meteor (higher sustain speed due to ramjet engine ) or a CUDA ( the design make it turn better at high altitude )
if you want the EF-2000 to fly at lower altitude ( dive down when he detect the missile ) then it will be worse because the f-35 will now have the advantage in potential energy for it’s missiles
and low wing loading is doesnot really mean better agility at low altitude ( and example is f-15 vs f-16 )

F-35 has unusual performance parameters with todays standard for a fighter,
it is superior in speed while on a bomb run with those two bombs, while being as agile as any other fighter,
but is inferior in both speed, acceleration, and maneuverability with A2A load.
Only F-22 has a lower RCS, and sensor wise, it would take every gizmo suggested for Gripen NG to match it.
(and i think most AF going Gripen NG will cut some corners)
Lower comparable rcs isn’t new, both MiG-21 & Draken had lower comparable rcs, but that alone didnt make them the best fighter.
I think supersonic maneuverability is more critical in BVR duels than general opinion suggest,
to say nothing as to how pilot skill will in the end decide an A2A engagement

to be fair both mig-21 and Draken dont really have that low RCS compared to normal fighter , carry weapon external increase rcs , they also have really weak radar ..etc
and honestly i think having like 1000 times rcs and a good SA seem to be alot more important than having 10-19 percent improved in acceleration or top speed , otherwise they would have produce lot of YF-12 , XF-108 ,CF-105 which fly higher, faster , longer than any fighter today
also go head on with enemy missiles the faster you go the easier you die as you will have less time to maneuver ( if the missile is ramjet then it be even worse ) , and most aircraft dont really turn better than a brick at > mach 1.2
last but not least i think most pilot will prefer to go in undetected and slow rather than fast and high but have like a 100 AAM and SAM firing at them ,and have to out maneuver them all
of course a hypothetical f-22 with DAS + EOTS or a stealth mig-31 will be better than f-35 but idont really think that aircraft is useless as a fighter