They also had the APG-81 & data-links as part of the tests.
Participating in the Northern Edge exercise for the second time, the AN/APG-81 radar demonstrated robust electronic protection, electronic attack, passive, maritime and experimental modes, and data-linked air and surface tracks to improve legacy fighter situational awareness.
I’m not the one who brought up the F-35 and how it relates to the PAK-FA’s timeframe.
Is it late, yes. Over budget, yes. At FRP will the F-35’s annual production be more than Russia’s entire PAK-FA order for the decade.. YES 😉
Even late and over budget the F-35’s acquisition cannot be considered in the same timeframe as the PAK-FA.
What kind of production schedule can they achieve considering this is their first foray into VLO airframes? And since you are now talking ~2018, you can up the worldwide F-35s to ~500 with another ~200 arriving every year and all 3 versions in IOC (along with numerous Partner nations). I still fail to see how that can be considered the same.
Sen. McCain is a self-aggrandizing idiot.. and I voted for him (as I did not have much of a choice) 🙁
By 2016, F-35 Blk3 will be out of development, have over 235 F-35’s delivered (with another 190 in production, not including long lead items), and be operational in the F-35B. These numbers do not include Partner sales.
I would say that is quite a lead over the PAK-FA in 2016. As of today the F-35 is 20% ahead of flight tests and 30% ahead of test points per the 2010 reset which is about 18 months behind the original 2007 plan. The biggest stumbling block holding the F-35A back from going IOC by 2016 is that only 3 of the 32 ground test labs and simulation models have been fully certified. Once these start to happen you will begin to see the IOC date shift to the left as they come on line and the number of test flights/points are reduced.
the US will be getting F-35 in the same time-frame as PAK-FA.
Really??? You are aware that there are, IIRC, 13 flying SDD aircraft, 7 ground test SDD airframes, 2 production F-35s delivered (13 more by the end of the year), & 48 more in production (through LRIP4). The Russians have two flying SDD aircraft.
With that kind of lead you still think that the Russians will get the PAK-FA in the same “time frame”?
That is a little misleading; it was the F-35 (as a whole) that was tested “virtually” in Alaska. The Blk3 hardware (EOTS & EODAS) and software were “actually” there flying in a BAC-111 testbed aircraft and they were tested against “actual” threats at Northern Edge.
The biggest RCS problem that the X-32 had was the exposed engine face. This would have required an inlet blocker of some sort.
In terms of 1978 they may have been speaking of 1m² as “low signature”. I can’t tell, but there may be edge alignment and RAM involved.
Single chin intake for a 43,000 lbf thrust engine and a nose design that will not obstruct the pilot’s view for carrier landings.
The X-32 was redesigned for the final bid (lost the delta wing, redid the nose, and gained conventional horizontal stabs). Here is a couple of shots of the new config that lost the bid.



“Monica” Er, as in “Lewinsky”?
Now what ever gave you that idea? :rolleyes:
don’t you mean unlucky? its airframe was likely cheaper to maintain.
What would lead you to that conclusion? Boeing has ZERO stealth experience to draw on and no patents have been filed (like LM’s stealth coatings as part of structure) and it’s engine is buried deeper in the airframe.
With the apparent success of Brimstone in Libya, how long before that is integrated to the Apache as well as a heavier weight missile than the Hellfire ?
The upcoming JAGM missile is is direct (physically) replacement for the Hellfire. It uses the same launchers and connections. It has the Brimstone’s laser tracker & MMW radar then adds an IIR seeker (its a trimode seeker). Its basically a Brimstone with and IIR seeker added.
As far as a heavier missile, why?
It’s a matter of altitude, temp, air density, etc…
That’s why as far as ground speed is concerned, mach 1.0 at sea level is different than mach 1.0 at 40k feet.
Try the calculator at the bottom of this linked page:
http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html
In the above Mach 1.53 @ 39k feet it works out to be 540 knots CAS. To get to your Mach 1.22 @ 700 knots you would have to be at 10k feet.
F-35 (AF-1) hits Mach 1.53 at 39,000 ft.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072&c=FEA&s=CVS
Within the past month, they have moved from a top speed of Mach 1.3 to Mach 1.53 at 39,000 feet. Soon, the pilots hope to hit the aircraft’s maximum speed of 700 knots.
The F-35 has been tested at the speeds and altitudes required for the Eglin training course, but the airframe needs more flight hours on it, Griffiths said. Normally, an aircraft needs to have 2,025 hours in the air before the Air Force orders production to start, but the F-35 has accumulated only 1,332 as of June 6, he said.
Hinting at supercruise
Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don’t allow it.
The F-35 can’t supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain.
“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going … you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you’re pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising,” Griffiths said. “So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air.”
Pushing beyond Mach 1.6
Though the F-35’s maximum speed is Mach 1.6, the F-35 test program will eventually push the jet a little beyond that limit to make sure operational pilots have a margin of safety, Griffiths said.
Count yourself lucky we did not end up with the F-32 ‘Monica’.

Care to share a source where Israel was denied the F-15SE, but got the F-35 instead?
The reason that SDD contracts are “Cost+” types is that no company would take the risk if they had to pay for unforeseeable issues in such a complex program.
Once all the issues are stable, then they change the contracts to “Fixed” where LM will pay for overages, ie the LRIP4 production contract.