The JASDF may field the F-35 in the future, but as was mentioned earlier it won’t be available to be delivered in time to replace the F-4EJs. Japan has requested information on the F-35, but I don’t think it has shown a real interest in it for the scheduled replacement in question. In that respect the Typhoon has received more attention after the Raptor.

If the F-X project moves ahead in 2010 or 2011, assuming the F-22 isn’t made available, and I had to put money on it, I’d go with the Typhoon winning.

F-X program has been delayed at least a year…

http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/2205/Japans-F-X-delay-could-open-door-for-Lockheed.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/JAPAN060909.xml&headline=Japan%20Likely%20To%20Delay%20F-X%20Order&channel=defense

…and Japan is relaxing its ban on arms exports.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JAPAN052609.xml

Both of which greatly increase the probability of Japan selecting the F-35 for F-X.

i see, anyone selecting the SH obviously must have been fooled

No.

absolutely zero chance it was the best fit for their situation

Seriously, how could the F/A-18E/F be a better “stop gap” to replace the F-111 than the F-15E…

No saying that there are not valid reasons for choosing the F/A-18E/F over the F-15E. But if your claimed requirement is to replace the F-111…

That is not consistent with LM experts take on it:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2438829/Aerospace-Power-Journal—Summer-2002

With all due respect to whom ever made that statement it is factually incorrect. The RCS of the aircraft does not change. What does happen is with the aircraft ‘facing’ a different direction, a different aspect of its RCS is presented to threat radars. The F-35 has ‘all aspect stealth’ meaning that it is stealthy from more or less all directions (as I said it does have a number of small aspect ‘spikes’ but unless one of said ‘spikes’ are pointed directly at a threat radar it will not be what the threat radar sees).

So for example as the F-35 turns, one of the ‘100 times RCS spikes’ may momentarily pass within the detection range/direction of a threat radar (need to think three dimensionally here so even if pointed in the correct horizontal direction the ‘spike’ may not be pointed in the correct verticle direction) but unless the pilot stops his turn at that very point & maintains that orientation towards the threat radar for any given amount of time, the ‘spike’ would be only momentary. As the F-35 continues to turn the ‘spike’ is turned away from the threat radar & ‘lost’ as the threat radar is presented with a much lower RCS aspect of the F-35.

As I said, I was going a bit overboard but what I posted is more accurate.

Yes i know IIR, but heat is heat and cold is cold, aspect will play a huge role in IR detection, just like aspect will play a huge role in radar detection.

And yet stealth naysayers want people to believe that IRST is the counter to stealth…

Remember just a simple maneuver can increase F-35 RCS 100 times ?,

I am going to be a bit overboard on this but no a simple maneuver does not actually change the F-35s RCS to any significant degree. What it does do is change the orientation of the F-35’s RCS in reference to threat radars.

It is not like the F-35 has this tiny RCS from near dead on front aspect & if it is pointing in any other direction its RCS is huge in comparison. Aside from a few degrees from dead on rear aspec, the F-35’s RCS is quite low in all directions with a number of small ‘spikes’ which the pilot (& the F-35) knows exactly where they are & can quite easily keep said spikes pointed away from threat radars.

So as a F-35 maneuvers, a give threat radar may get a momentary ‘blip’ as one of the ‘spikes’ passes within its detection range/aspect but radars get momentary ‘blips’ from all kinds of things that are not aircraft…

***

Agreed, again.

However, to presume the enemy RWR will simply “ignore” a signal (knowing stealth+LPI aircraft are in vicinity) is a presumption, which is similar to TWS example from my previous post. So, obviously the RWR has a physical capability of detecting emissions and it’s a matter of filtering and data-interpretation that needs to be solved in order to turn LPI to non-LPI.

Cheers, Cola

No, because that is what LPI is. It is making your radar’s signals not look like radar signals but rather just a part of the ‘noise’ that is normally present. Unless your ESM knows or is somehow able to decipher the pattern that the LPI emitter is using, the LPI signal “look” like ‘noise’ & is interpreted as such. If RWR/ESM did not filter out the ‘noise’ it would be costantly going off & thus become useless.

***

If we take his words for granted, then the all-singing all-dancing ALR-94 greatly lags behind TRUE detection of LPI capable-radars, even those with well-known characteristics, let alone something foreign. Assuming that in five-six years, every single major aircraft developer will have access to comparable/better technology, it raises a question – what is the ALR-94 good for?

LOL

60% for the F-22 is real

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/02/17/af-likely-to-get-60-more-f-22s-allies-out-of-luck/

Note that “stealth issues” only added 10% to the total…

IMO they all also remind somewhat of F-117, i wonder how much maintenance they will need, to my knowledge F-117 didn’t need the kind of nursing today’s “stealth a/c” need.

Quite the opposite.

The F-22 & even more so the F-35 don’t/won’t need the kind of nursing the F-117 & B-2 needed/needs.

pfcem

No, I said that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet & the Hornet 2000 are not the same. I never said that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was not developed from the Hornet 2000 program, quite the opposite in fact.

***

Stop being so pedantic about it. The list you gave isn’t really relevant anyway and the examples have very little in common with each other. (One compares a study to a production aircraft, another a prototype USAF aircraft to a production naval aircraft, and so forth.)

No the list I gave is absolutely relevant as demostrating that just as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is not the Hornet 2000 but a later program, several other modern fighters have come about from different earlier programs as well – it is nothing unique to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The fact remains that the upgraded Hornet (whatever label you want to stick on it) was sold as an interim aircraft and now the navy is stuck with it.

No the fact remains that the 80’s Hornet 2000 was sold as an interim aircraft until the NATF & A-12 were opperational but did not even get as far as the NATF &/or A-12 while the 90’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was/is in no way an interim but rather a low risk/cost replacement for the A-6 since the A-12 was cancelled.