DEAD is more of a mission than a set of equipment. With accurate targeting info you can fly a DEAD mission using “normal” weapons. SEAD requires dedicated assets or systems, as your method of suppression may range from AGM-88 firing to sophisticated ECM spoofing.

It is not about SAM destruction at first, but SAM surpression

Correct. Hard-kill missions are called DEAD, or Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses. Often this is more of a strike sortie than an ECM/SEAD mission as the goal is to obliterate a known air defense asset or assets. SEAD is all about supporting a strike package or air operation. The idea is to jam an enemy’s air defense radars and employ AGM-88s (in the case of the USA) if necessary. A lot of times it has been noted that SAM radars will shut off when an AGM-88 is fired to try and avoid destruction (no longer a really good solution, thanks to the addition of GPS to the AGM-88). Even if the missile misses, it has accomplished its goal in a SEAD context, insofar as it has denied the enemy the ability to use that system to shoot down aircraft.

Another DEAD aircraft that often gets overlooked is the Russian MiG-25BM FOXBAT-F. It had a pretty decent onboard SAM detection kit, and carried four Kh-58s to kill SAM radars.

Speaking of SAM killing weapons, the AIM-47 was offered as the AGM-76 as a SEAD/DEAD asset during Vietnam. Instead, the USN’s Standard SAM was employed as the AGM-78 with a passive radar seeker.

Russia did blow up Georgian 36D6 TIN SHIELD EW radars. That set their AD network back a bit. It didn’t cripple it, but it did hurt it.

Were inflight RCS tests done for the X32/35 program?

Not that I can recall. Pole models worked better anyway, given that there were a lot of test aerials and probes and whatnot sticking out of the X planes.

The 32 in general is bashed for it “ugly” appearance….something that i find childish, anyway is probably that in some JSF parameters the 32 performed better, would be interesting to know more about that program, what i know is that the 35 won the contract because it successul VTOL system, but regarding g- envelopment, acceleration, AoA, etc, i know very little, remember that, for example the 32 had better wing area, and higher leading edge aspect ratio

Both jets had to have met the requirements in all areas, or they couldn’t be chosen. If both competitors meet the requirements, then typically the cheaper (or in some cases the less risky design) gets the nod.

Wonder if the exhaust’s pallets were a simpler design/solution than the LM one

Yes, very.

One question, how can we compare the internal volume of the weapon’s bay, i mean, between the 35 and 32, for me it seems the 32 had a larger bay, but i’m not sure

They were both sized to take a 1000lb or 2000lb (depending on USAF or USN/USMC) JDAM and an AIM-120 in each bay. There shouldn’t have been much difference in volume. They may look different because they are arranged differently?

Yeah, that’s what I meant. If you’ve seen one, it looks like a fan stage, but it’s really not.

I don’t understand the article, how they mix USAF with Navy planes?, will the 18G be used by the USAF?

The EA-18s, if handled the same way as the EA-6Bs, will be handled as joint service assets. We treated the Prowlers as theater assets, not service assets. When the EF-111As and the F-4Gs went away, they were the only game in town.

boeing aircraft choose chin air intake for XF-36 ,despite regard by some to be “unstealthness”,yet test show the aircraft has very low RCS.did boeing engineers coated the entire fan blade with RAM?

They put what was basically a fake, fixed set of fan blades in front of the engine, coated with RAM. The Super Hornet uses the same type of system.