Let us analyze stealth:

Yes lets…

Stealth does not mean invisibility, but only reduced detectability.

Nobody with an understanding of stealth says it is “invisibility”, PRIMARILY that comes from ignorant media.

Since this thread is about the F-35, I will stick to that. Its RCS is such that its “detecatbility” compared to that of the F-16C is about 1/8th. That means that if your radar detects a F-16C at 160km, it will detect a F-35 at only 20 km…In which case you will detect the AMRAAM it just shot at you BEFORE you even know the F-35 is there (you MIGHT get a momentary blip from the missile being fired). 😉

Now even the F-22 can not be invisible to all electromagnetic waves, in fact light which is another electromagnetic wave makes the F-22 very visible, your eyes which work like a radar and basicly are passive radars, see very well the F-22.

No, not ALL electromagnetic waves. Just those used by tracking & targetting radar.

Yes your eyes can see a F-22 (or F-35) but only at quite short range. AND just because you can ‘see’ a F-22 (or F-35) does not mean that you can engage it…

The Lockheed propaganda is the F-22 will be undetactable to known radar systems, however that is far from the true.

Where has Lockheed made such claimes?

Russia says, they have anti stealth radars and the Su-35BM can even detect stealth aircraft, you think that is propaganda but if your eyes can detect very well the electromagnetic frequencies that make vissible the F-22 to your eyes, then a radar can do it

Russia says they have ‘plasma stealth’ too. LOL

You obviously do not undersatnd the difference between radar & visible light…

Stealthy treatment means simply a treatment to some radar frequencies, however even old radars can detect the F-117 if well used.

Already addressed above.

The Americans know the F-22 is detectable, they think under their predictions only from very few miles, but according only to the radar technologies and frequencies they think it will be possible to use, not what the other guy might really use.

The frequencies that radars use are chosen because THOSE frequencies work better than others…

density plays a very important part in detectability as well as atomic number, some materials abosorb well some frequencies but reflect other, density will also affect visibility, you can see it in water, ice and vapour, so some frequencies won`t be fooled by plan forming and RAM like light that let you see a F-22

:rolleyes:

When the russians say they can detect stealth, do not think is a fairy tale, very well they are using frequencies that won`t be fooled by stealth.

😀

Supercruise is not something special, because some fighters did so in the 60s.

BS. There is a HUGE difference between being able to supercruise at Mach 1.1-1.2 with a half a load of fuel & NO ordanace vs Mach 1.72 with a FULL load of fuel & ‘standard’ ordanace.

Much more important is the question, when, where and what is the tactical use from that?

Lets just say that if you don’t know, that is YOUR problem…

For the F-35 it is dropped f.e.

No, just not a REQUIREMENT for the F-35…

Generals do work for companies because they have the power to buy the products those companies sell and have to justify expenses to the general tax payer.

BS. Generals work to the US Government & have virtuallly NO power in determining what system the US Govertnment buys.

the F-22 has several data that is inconclusive.

For example ,the F-22 has a max range quoted of more than 2900km using only two external fuel tanks , nothing specific, the aircraft carrying no more than two tons in weapons since six AIM-120 weight less than 950kgs and two AIM-9X of less than 300kg has to have a total fuel capacity like the Su-35BM which Sukhoi says specifically has a max ferry range of 4500km with only two external fuel tanks and a max fuel range in cruise conditions of 3600km and 1580km at sea level and Mach 0.7.

Do you understand what MORE THAN means? Much of the F-22s performance is still calssified. No doubt its TRUE range/combat radius is something few people know…

This basicly means that the Su-35 and F-22 must have more or less similar cruising capabilities.

It means no such thing.

But the Su-35BM is at least a third of the price of a F-22.

So?

And despite the SU-35BM is not totally an equivalent of the F-22 and definitively is less capable however in performance and agility it must be quit comparable, its supercruise capability might be less impressive though however see the US air force claims in its webpage that more than 2900km is ferry range with two fuel tankshttp://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199

Why must the Su-35BM be quit comparable to the F-22 in ANY way whatsoever?

The Generals to justify such expenses must claim the F-22 outclasses anything. this is probably true but in reality it must be only in stealth against a modern fighter like the Su-35BM

LOL…

of course sustained turn rate is not the be-all of ACM, but in most cases, it will decide who ends up being the winner. and it is one of the most important parameters used to judge how maneuverable an airframe is.

No, sustained turn rate is just ONE of many factors which will decide the winner & will only be THE deciding factor IF the fight is dominated by sustained turns…

I didn’t say that it isn’t CAPABLE of carrying external fuel tanks- I said that if it were to carry external fuel tanks, its single biggest advantage, STEALTH would be gone. learn to read properly.

This is what you posted: add to that the fact that it can’t carry external fuel tanks without losing its stealth advantage and that seriously affects its range, loiter time and time on station. I’m not saying that the F-35 is a bad airplane- just that the yardstick that was used to compare the J-10 with the F-16C and MiG-29SMT variants, if used for the F-35, it doesn’t stand out either.

Both points are nonsense. The F-35 carries more fuel INTERNALLY than its 4th generation ‘competators’ with THREE external tanks, thus not carrying external tanks DOES NOT seriously affect its range, loiter time and time on station – it was DESIGNED from the start to carry enough fuel internally RATHER than have to carry external tanks. For the F-35, external tanks will likely only be used for ferry missions (or missions where, because of its great range on INTERNAL fuel, external tanks could be dropped well before stealth is needed). And just because the F-35 is not an F-22 DOES NOT mean that it is not an EXCELLENT fighter that will more than hold its own against any adversary currently flying. Read the test pilot statements about the fight performance of a F-35A with 12,000 lbs of INTERNAL fuel, two 2000 lbs JDAM & two AMRAAM (or any other internal payload of equivalent weight) on just military thrust – not to mention all the OTHER advantages the F-35 enjoys over its 4th generation ‘competators’…

if you want an air superiority fighter of the 5th gen, you need to have its sustained turn rates and instantaneous turn rates as high as possible. its not a NICE TO HAVE- its a NEED TO HAVE for a 5th gen air superiority fighter, which is why TVC was included on the F-22..you think they added it just for fun or because some general thought it was a neat addition !?

No, you need good instantaneous & sustained turn rates, they DO NOT have to be as high as possible. Even the F-22’s are not as high as possible, just higher than anything else. 😉

Yes it is ‘too bad’ for everyone who gets the F-35 that they will have only the 2nd best fighter in the world (again, sustained turn rate is NOT the be all that is all in ACM & ACM is NOT the be all that is all in fighter capability/effectiveness), but assuming we get enough F-22s that will not be a problem for the US as we will have the best fighter in the world as our ‘high end’ air-superiority fighter [like the F-15 before it] & the 2nd best fighter in the world as our ‘low end’ multi-role strike fighter [like the F-16 & F/A-18 before it]…

going by your arguments, you should obviously consider the MiG-31s to be very capable/effective, since they have super-powerful radar, long range AAMs, very high max. speeds and are an absolute truck as far as maneuverability goes..the only thing it lacks is stealth and that is almost useless as far as ACM goes.

BS. I said that sustained turn rate is NOT the be all that is all in ACM. That DOES NOT mean that high sustained turn rate is not important, it IS, but just because one fighter has a higher sustained turn rate than another DOES NOT mean that it will win the fight – there ARE many other factors.

The Mig-31 is a pure interceptor.

Utter BS ! its people like you who twist the facts to make it appear that “regular” USAF units got trumped by the best of the IAF.
I know it hurts you to accept the facts, but AW&ST had in its article CLEARLY stated that the IAF did’nt send all experienced or “Top gun” types to the Cope India ex..here is an excerpt from its article..

link

Good God, people need to READ what others post before jumping to such idiotic conclusions.

The FACT is that India’s VERY BEST pilots participated in Cope India AND OF COURSE some “regular” & some inexperienced pilots did as well. A lot of Indian pilots participated (you HAVE to if you when you have the advantage of 3-va-1 odds). BUT the US pilots were just “regular” unit pilots AND as has been pointed out, they underestimated the Indian pilots & tactics.

READ YOUR OWN LINK!!! US forces had NO AESA, NO AMRAAM & fought against 3-vs-1 odds…

Jump to Red Flag & Indian sent a mixed group of its BEST, “regular” & inexperienced pilots & flew against a similar mix of US pilots. BUT some of the US pilots had recently been fighting vs the F-22 & (most likely) all had been briefed on Cope India…

Umm are you serious? You are seriously trying to retort the points made in the second email? Coz if you were joking you should be using emoticons or something.

Absolutely serious.

What the pilot describes is EXACTLY how it operates! Every illustration (drawing, pic or video) EVER posted ANYWHERE shows that quite clearly.

jdsgn:
You need to get with the program. If you want to be relevant AT LEAST watch the part that I have indicated. From 7:05-7:38 of part 1 he is clearly talking about the 1-1 engagement and complete with Hand Gestures (“looking at the rear end of the airplane the thrust moves like this (V gesture)”)

The problem is that not how the operate in flight, see the video I posted. If you still think its ONLY operating in way he is pointing…..I cant really argue with your delusions.

Good God man have you ever even seen a SU-30MKI fly? What the pilot describes is EXACTLY how it operates! Every illustration (drawing, pic or video) EVER posted ANYWHERE shows that quite clearly.

***

And here is another one, posted by Shiv on BRF

LOL…

1. The pilot in the posted clips SAID THAT 1v1 were flown on day one Mountain Home AFB PRIOR TO the actual Red Flag exercises! And it was the Indians who wanted to stop because they weren’t doing so well…

2. That right there is how those of us reasonably well infomed folk KNOW this is complete Flanker fanboy BS. The numbers were correct for NON TVC turn rates. 😉

3. And will remain so.

4. The pilot in the posted clips SAID THAT many of the “friendly” kills were due to the Su-30MKI not being on the US network.

5. What, I thought you Flanker fanboys were saying there was no FOD issue…

6. Given that the Indians were flying VERY new aircraft but most (if not all) of the American planes all likely had exceeded their initial flight hours life…

7. The pilot in the posted clips SAID THAT!!!

8. LOL…