Again.. it’s a “dash’, not the entire flight.

Critical missing info on the above: What altitude, weight, and SC speed was being maintained at min AB?

Maybe he’s talking about the LM/DoD definition of SC, ie Mach 1.5? Point is that you are comparing a vague reference to SC from Griffiths to a specific number supplied by O’Bryan and using it to call O’Bryan’s quote “spin”.

btw, Thanks for once again demonstrating that “de-nile” is not just a river in Egypt 😉

A lot of stuff regarding the F22 and F35 is pure marketing BS.

Just to mention a few current claims from the F35 camp (one of which was recent).
F35 can supercruise: No, it turned out that to get above mach 1,2 the F35 needed to use full afterburner thrust to reach a higher mach number to be able to stay above mach 1,2 while using full dry thrust in 5 minutes. After that it can’t stay above mach 1,2 unless it uses afterburners again untill fuel runs out.

1. Show an official quote where it says that it needs “Full Afterburner” to get to M1.2?
2. Name one fighter (with official source) that claims supercruise without needing AB (or a dive) to get to its SC speed?
3. Do you know the meaning of “Dash”? The 150 is used to describe a portion of the flight, not the total capability. This is similar to the F-22’s range that was reported as 410nm of which 100nm is a SC “dash”.

And the list goes on about stealth effectiveness, costs, the EODASS with TV-helmet etc.

Stealth isnt a silver bullet, it is a countermeasure against one threat.

Did you forget that radar is PRIMARY means of detecting and attacking a fighter?

IIRC, The “Fiber Mat” is under the green stuff.

Spudman, I never understand why couldn’t they use the tail nozzle on the B model to do vector thrust. I thought the rotating joints are independent? I think in theory you can swivle in any direction…at least up and down since that’s proven.

Nozzle cannot swivel up (needed to pull Gs), to the sides (tail in the way), and cannot swivel down while in AB.

There were two primary reasons that the F-22 got TVC.
1. High altitude supersonic maneuverability with less dependance on traditional control surfaces.
2. The need for the F-22 to point it’s nose in order to acquire a WVR target for the AIM-9M.

Neither applies to the F-35.
1. It’s not going to spend a lot of time > M so High-Altitude/Hi-speed flight is not the norm.
2. EODAS allows the AMRAAM to be launched without the need to point the nose.
3. Traditional TVC weighs too much to be of little benefit to the F-35.

However, newer (and lighter) TVC technologies coming down the pike may get put into the F-35 in a later upgrade.

The F-35’s RAM is part of the composite panels. It is not a simple paint/paste that has been used on previous generations of stealthy fighters & bombers.

Due to this, the composite skin would have to be physically damaged (ie scraped, gouged, etc) before the RAM is degraded and the RCS increased. You will never see the RAM (but maybe the paint) on the F-35 peeling off like has been seen on previous generations.

The LM VP’s point was that since no manufacturing process is perfectly smooth as small specks, ridges, etc will still be on the panel. Over time, air & dust will slowly polish the panel surface thereby reducing the RCS (by a small amount).

Just in case you’re wondering, the F-35’s RAM CANNOT be washed off in the rain or saltwater spray.

Also, many of the F-35’s panels & components can be accesses without the need to remove & reapply RAM thereby reducing labor cost and maintaining the RCS of the F-35.

If that < $5000 per hour is for older versions of Gripen based on ’80s data then stop comparing it to the F-35 unless you want to bring those numbers up to date.

Or did you (Ob) think that ignoring 30 years of inflation and ignoring the current cost of systems was an intellectually honest argument. 😉

VLO strikers also are a good deterrence because potential enemies must either spend a LOT more money closing all the gaps in their IADS or leave all their hi-value assets at substantial risk.

Anyone believes an F-35 will ingress into a modern IADS without heavy EW support and escorts is simply living in a dream world.

Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of radar observables will already be well aware of reality.

They are the same people who actually know what they are talking about like what the F-35’s capabilities actually are (not just going off public info/pictures).

btw, that graphic is vs the typical adversary and not EVERY adversary.

Exit question: If the F-35 cannot handle it without “heavy” EW support, what chance does a 4th gen asset from a country that does not posses “heavy” EW support have? The last time I checked only the US and Australia have it in the F-18 Growler.