F35 can not super cruise. What else do you need to prove this plane is not fast and will consume a lot of fuel ? I like the example of the neighbour wife. It is public that my neighbor wife can not go through my parking door. But then you Are telling us: that doesn’t prove the wife of my neighbor is fat. Ahahahaha

F-111 cannot supercruise, F-15 cannot supercruise, Su-27 cannot supercruise, mig-29 cannot supercruise, F-16 cannot supercruise, hell even Mig-31 cannot supercruise , are they all slow now?

😀

He has always tried to blind with science but is starting to lose it like the other F-35 bots….Lukos after finishing your degree I hope you have got a proper first job by now ;- )

Shame Lukos has changed his moniker again because now you can’t post his degree qualifications!

(BTW, what the fcuk has his degree got do with anything?….as if it makes his claims more worthy! 😀

:sleeping: another Rafale bot, funny how you guys are all the same, lacks understanding of basic simple physics, start name calling when you cannot win an argument, Always say official statement of LM is just advertising or lie but nagging like a 4 years old child when someone cast doubt about their made up Rafale pilot stories

And no iam not Lukos (check with Moderator if you want) , not everyone have to be Lukos to understand basic physics

Have I spelt out clear enough that it won’t cost $1.5 trillion to counter the F-35? (no degree needed to understand this fundamental flaw 😉

funny how you actually believed that 1.5 trillions USD number

And what will a F-35 do if it sees a rocket flare 800 miles away, pass on info to someone 800 miles? My answer is there is sufficient radar and satellite tracking that already does thist ) which has no practical purpose other than another PR puff to showcase the F-35’s amazing ability to see a rocket flare from 800 miles away, which anyone case see with the naked eye!

according to your dumb logic then what the point of puting radar on fighter anyway? there are AWACs and ground radar with better range
what the point of jammer on fighter when there is escort jammer with more powerful jammer?
what the point of even putting missiles on them when ground launch missiles can have better range?
what the point of reducing RCS on 4.5 gen when there is stealth fighter with much lower RCS?
and what naked eye can track missiles from 800 nm aways ?

Its low visibility does not make it invisible to IRST and its huge F135 engine can be tracked….so when they say all aspect low visibility air frame I would say, what have you found a way to hide 43,000 pounds of thrust? 😀

once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge in simple physics and thermodynamics
higher thrust doesnot direct translate to higher IR signature, what matter is speed of the exhaust
a small mass of air move at high speed will have higher IR signature than a big mass of air move at slow speed
The Mi Mi-26 with thrust of over 123, 450 lbs will have less IR signature than a mig-21 with thrust of only 15,650 lbs at full afterburner

you know, you remind me of someone… in high school, we had a buddy who looooved mathematics.. throwing all sorts of formulas we weren’t supposed to learn about for a couple of years to come… unfortunately for him, while he loved mathematics, mathematics didn’t seem to love him, as whatever he did, he never managed to pass the class… in mathematics

Are you for real now? i didn’t started with the formula pictures, neither did i made you do any calculations. In fact i use the simplest example possible of everyday life objects – events , what else do you want?

The reality is you use wrong number, wrong platform, wrong definition, and you ever don’t understand the equation you are posting.
No need to re read your post to see that your demonstration is just stupid. So if you have question ask them and we will explain. And please stop using torche or tanker example, this is what I use wheto the discuss with my daughter, 6 years old.

you have contributed absolutely nothing useful to the discussion , you provided no evidence to show that iam wrong or that you capable of explaining thing better than iam either. All you did is making a rant like a 6 years old when someone saying something he doesn’t like. I doubt that you even understand what being discussed here let alone the equation

You guys are really funny.. so, a non stealthy fighter aircraft can’t jam radar to protect itself to a usable distance, but a stealthy fighter aircraft can not only protect itself but also the non stealthy ones following it? That’s what I was saying: for you, LM uses some pixie dust to do the job… You even went as far as to say the Rafale can’t protect utself because for active cancellation to work (not to be seen from the radar) it would have to emit from every spike source like a pylone, ordnance and such… having the jammer antenna 3-4m from there was too far away… yet in your idea, the F-35 allows a fighter tens of km away from its position to remain unseen…

If you can fit in a fighter an ECM suite powerful enough to allow a Typhoon (much more difficult as the Typhoon would be highly offset compared to the jammer) to get to accomplish its mission despite the S400 (your example), you can just as well fit it in (or on) the Typhoon itself and save the cost of the other platform. You can’t consider that one fighter can use that many watts to jam but another, more or less contemporary, can not just because it doesn’t suit your liking.

So you didnt actually understand a single word i said do you ? 🙁
the principal of traditional noise jamming and the so called “active cancellation ” are very very different.
For traditional noise jamming : what they trying to do is increase the noise to signal ratio to the point that radar can longer track , target the target . Look at sky at night, do you see alot of star ? now do the same thing in the morning , do you see any star ? No , even though the star are not disappear , the light from the sun is too powerful , it overwhelm your eye ability to detect weak light from star hundred of light year aways.

For “active cancellation ” : what they trying to do is to send a wave that is at a certain frequency , direction , and that wave must be out of phase at a certain amount with another wave , so that destructive interference will make their total amplitude become zero , imagine it like design a special light , that one you bring it into a room , it can make the room get dark .

the principal is extremely different between the 2 , and traditional noise jamming have been used since WW II , while active cancellation jammer is basically a conceptual jammer .
Now on to the next point :
The jammer vs radar relation ship is noise – signal ratio.
what is noise ? : it is the density of jamming signal at the radar location.
what is signal ? : it is the density of reflection from target at the radar location .
here are the equation :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241754[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]241755[/ATTACH]

Now you can see their relation ship with distance as well . In general as distance increase , it would benefit the jammer more than the radar because the radar signal have to travel 2 way . Any way , i think you already understand self screen jamming , so i will move on to escort jamming .

instead of thinking about radar , let think about visual spectrum .Let think about your eye as radar ( yes i know eye only received and doesnt transmit visual wave , but let ignore the transmitting part for a moment )
Think about RCS as object size in visual spectrum :

Think about a non stealthy aircraft like a oil tanker , very big size , can be detected by the eye from long distance

Think about a stealth aircraft like a person , much smaller in size , can be detected by the eye only from much shorter distance

Think about the jammer as a very bright hand torch . Can the torch on the oil tanker be powerful enough so that you cant see the oil tanker anymore ? very unlikely , but a person next to you can easily shine the torch at your face and stop you from seeing the shape of the oil tanker at long distance .

Now back to the original thing that we were discussing , you have to stop thinking about it in term of platform but in term of signal vs noise , the job of the jammer is to increase the noise , the closer the jammer is to target , the higher the noise density . The job of radar is to increase signal , the closer the target to it , the higher the signal density . Lower RCS mean less signal for the radar , mean aircraft can get closer to target , as it get closer , aircraft can increase the noise density at radar location . It is important to remember that F-35 with jammer doesnt allow the Typhoon to get as close to target as the F-35 can but it will allow the Typhoon to get closer than a standoff jammer would let him

Another thing… you say “S400 can detect a Typhoon @500km”… considering that the earth isn’t flat in this reality, at 500 km distance, the Typhoon would have to fly at 20000m (65000ft) just to rise above the horizon for a ground based radar. Considering that the S400 works in band S, it won’t see anything below the horizon so if you’re in a Typhoon flying no higher than 25000ft (if you’re on a penetration mission, you won’t go higher anyway, you’ll be perfectly safe until you come to a distance under 300km (give or take a few) . Obvously, putting the radar on top of a mountain would increase its overall range, but if you’re in a mountaneous area, you can also use mountains to fly hidden from it in the valleys (and yes, you could be in range for a manpad, but unless you use all the time the same route, a guy manning the manpad will hardly have the time to prepare, aim and shoot at an aircraft just passing by @900km/h and disappearing in the next valley a couple of seconds after he saw / heard it pass)

Edit: typo

as i said , all these number are for illustration purpose it would take too much time for calculation
secondly , you would be surprise at the number of AA cannon and short range air defense that pointed at the sky at all time . Nap of the earth flying isnt new , it been used since VietNam war and USA lost alot of aircraft because of it

Well, actually I think you have misunderstood.

The criticism on the F-35 is based on the fact that it seems the designers have put all their eggs into one basket and assumed that noone else would be able to ever make something that can beat this planes strengths.

That is why I gave you the example, to show you that it is arrogant to assume that you’ve got a hand that others can’t beat.

And no, the MiG-29s shot down, were never russian planes flown with experienced pliots armed at a reasonable level. But that is besides the point.

On one hand you have a school of thought here that says “buy and believe this very expensive product because noone will ever see it coming and nothing else matters”

On the other hand you’ve got some people reading this as a very dangerous thing to do.

We are not Russians, or Chinese necessarily; The Russians as they have always done, have looked at the threat out there and designed something that they think could provide them a solution to the problem.

just like they did with their tanks, their ships, their guns, their bombs, their missiles. They are unaffected by what we say in this forum or anyone’s opinion about the F-35.

We are the ones who are debating if this is a safe and sane strategy.

If you believe LM’s rhetoric and hence you have something that is that good, it is then very dangerous to think that noone else won’t get it. What if they do?

I have asked many times in this forum and no one has ever provided a reasonable answer; so I am asking you too..

every airframe is a matter of compromise ,you cant have something fly fastest , highest , have highest combat radius , have biggest radar , have lowest RCS and IR signature ,..etc all at the same time . If you want something then you sacrifice others part that is less necessary , not only because it not possible to make an aircraft that surpassed other in all caterology but also to keep the cost down .
What is more important : a few degree better in turn rate that doesnt actually matter that much when both side have HOBS missiles or a stealthy airframe ?
..etc
Surely it nice to have something that is very fast and agile like F-22 while still stealthy but look at the cost , how many of them can you afford ? and it not like F-35 fly like a 747 either

can and F-35 track, lock and engage another F-35 ?

If the answer is no, you have a problem,
if the answer is yes, you have an even bigger problem..

stealth fighters can detect others by IRST , ( at BVR if we assume good weather )

Exactly my point mate, not only that, they can act as area deniers since you can use them as active aerial mines if you catch my drift.

i think the disadvantages of UAV is that they are not fully autonomous yet , and still required command from control center ( or mother ship ,,etc whatever ), thus what they may try to do is to either jam the data link or find the command center and destroy it