The F-35B and C barely get there, at all.. You need a set of specialized maneuvers which you won’t apply in real life, anyway..
The A could have it a bit easier..

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/08/f-35b-sea-trials-aboard-the-uss-wasp/

several things :
1) F-35B/C have quite higher drag than F-35A ( judging from their acceleration rate), the only equivalent ( aircraft with same role) of F-35B we have is the Harrier, equivalent of F-35C is F-18E/F, F-18C, Su-33, Rafale M, these other aircraft like gripen, F-15, F-22, Typhoon, su-35.. etc cant take off, landing vertically or doing that on a carrier

2) in the articles they mentioned that aircraft have to turn to continue to accelerate to mach 1.6 , that doesn’t make any sense, turning doesn’t help aircraft fly faster, so only one conclusion we can take from that is these fighter need to turn because the testing area is limited, so they cant continue to accelerate on straight line, and then turn at high supersonic and high altitude the radius will be very high too
either that or by turning they mean unloading which basically what all fighter pilot do when they want to accelerate not limited to F-35

3) PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE 20 MARCH 2012 (Tom Burbage) Transcript:
For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement

4) the report is from an unnamed pilot, as we learned from the past, unnamed claim are often making up claim, or claim by actual pilot but the reporter adding his own speculation ( which is often full of mistakes) in it.

5) the F-35B/C allegedly have not much fuel left after accelerate to
mach 1.6, let say if that was true, “According to Col. Rob Simms at the US embassy in Oslo the F-35s optimal cruise is around 32000 feet and 0.75 mach where it burns about 4600 pph. Simplified this gives about 4 hours of fuel or 1600+ nm effective range (3000+ km) on internal fuel ( or around 800 nm combat radius) — still with a 2500 pound internal tactical loadout.”

Mathematically speaking an F-35A with 2,500lb of weapons and 18,400lb of fuel would have a gross weight of approximately ~50,200lb and a .367 fuel fraction.So an F-35A getting .095nmi/lb should reach ~1750nmi range ( 875 nm combat radius) with 18,400lb of fuel.
An Rafale in test with 3 massive fuel tank and 6 AAM in optimum profile can reach 920 nm combat radius
( The Gripen NG with 3EFT have combat radius of 1700 km similar to Rafale carry 3 EFT, Typhoon is said to have quite shorter range than Rafale
, when they cut off the centerline EFT of Gripen NG, it’s range reduced to 620 nm, it should be obvious that Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale range on internal fuel is alot shorter than F-35 on internal fuel, if f-35 can’t sustain mach 1.6 for more than 2 minutes, how long do you think Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG can sustain mach 1.6 on internal fuel

, needs forever to crawl through the transonic region

F-35A take about 64 sec to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2,
Su-27 with 4 AAM take about 50 seconds, F-18C take 80 seconda

only achieves M1.6 for 2 odd minutes before it gulps all fuel,

can you provide any evidence that F-35 can only fly at mach 1.6 for 2 minutes in internal fuel?
how long does Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale can fly at mach 1.6 on internal fuel?

I am actually refering to you.

the picture is F-22 in mil but be fair F-22 IR signature doesn’t look too bad compared to other aircraft even the piston one

i see, your reading skill is not very good, what words in phrase bellow that is too hard for you to understand ?

the picture is F-22 in mil but be fair F-22 IR signature doesn’t look too bad compared to other aircraft even the piston one
( that being said we cant measures exact infrared radiation just by looking at pictures)

the picture is F-22 in mil but be fair F-22 IR signature doesn’t look too bad compared to other aircraft even the piston one
( that being said we cant measures exact infrared radiation just by looking at pictures)

Typhoon


A400

Propeller airshow aircraft

A380

Sukhoi superjet

File :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239080[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]239086[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]239081[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]239082[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]239083[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]239084[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]239085[/ATTACH]

Pure BS disminish to 0.5 °. At least. ever heard about phae shifting?

still irrelevant anyway halloweene
in 1 vs 1 engagement : RWR need enemy to transmit constantly for very long time, keeping their speed, altitude constant the whole time for it to be able to guesstimate the range ( and the range still have very bad accuracy like 20-25% error) , all of these mentioned above are not possible again non cooperation target, and they are not possible again AESA, PESA either because AESA, PESA have very narrow beam and they dont constantly have the beam on target => RWR cant be used in 1 vs 1 for range measurement

in many vs many engagement : in theory you can data link multiple aircraft to triangulate the location of enemy’s, however if enemy also linked information between their fighter keeping only 1 fighter transmitting , rely on RWR would equal leading yourself into a death trap
Not even talking about LPI yet

The first graph isn’t from Dasault but from Defesanet test pilot.

ok so basically what you saying is Dassault inflated ( out right lying) about Rafale’s combat radius? and not just a bit, alot
they claimed Rafale can have combat radius of 1000 nm for strike mission with heavy bombs and missiles, but in test the Rafale can only achieved 920 nm with 3 massive fuel tank and only air to air missiles ( and the mission profile involved take off, cruise in optimum altitude to target and come back)

While RWR on multiple aircraft -in theory- can be used to triangulate target’s location, this is insufficent to attack it as it doesn’t provide vector data.

if they triangulate for a while and f-35 doesn’t change direction, I think they can get speed and heading? no?

anyway i dont think it actually matter though
in 1 vs 1 RWR doesn’t really help in geolocate aircraft
in many vs many then datalink multiple F-35 and only let 1 radiate can easily lead enemy pilot into the trap

3- They both don’t radiate, F-35 dies stupidly because EOTS more like an internal Sniper XR and is less suited to A-A roles than PIRATE etc.

actually EOTS have IRST function unlike Sniper-XR, i
PIRATE could be better though, i have no idea

2- When BVR missiles are fired to very low flying objects, they have very short range, even if they are fired from higher altitude; ~20 km head on range for AIM-120B, againist non-maneuvering target for example. This will force stealth aircraft into IRST range, and missiles like MICA-IR and R-27TE can be used quite effectively.

i know missiles have limited range when launch again target fly at low altitude but wouldn’t f-35’s missiles still enjoying advantage here? like they can trade potential energy for more kinetic energy while the one launched from aircraft fly at low altitude will have to fight again gravity?

3-Low flying aircraft can turn very well due to increased lift, and turbofan engines are at their peak power to regain energy after hard turns. As missiles are too fast, they are already G limited to benefit from increased lift, and increased drag at low altitude will heavily degrade their terminal Pk. So evasion of missiles (by maneuvering) at low altitude is easier than that of high altitude.

wait, wasn’t high altitude mean thinner air, and air to air missiles have very small wing thus it harder for them to turn at high altitude than other way round?