Why is the US Navy still committed to the F-35 then, in spite of recent delays and cost increases?

Boeing has proposed a 10% price reduction which would bring the fly-away of SH down to 50 million USD; The Growler will cost some more but with multi-year buy of Growlers I am sure the price of the Growler will also drop.

actually, in case you missed it, it’s the navy that first pulls the alarm handle concerning the F-35… and may very well be the first to pull out

I don’t speak about low freq antenna in an AAM, but a SAM (which is a bit larger). the AAM would be guided from the launching aircraft and have independant terminal guidance only.

besides, I don’t speak about it as an easy task, but ever since the first stealth aircraft were known, you can be sure most if not all, modern countries do research to overcome it (which is about good 20 years by now, if not more)… Sooner or later, first “counter stealth” models will appear… possibly there are some in tests as we speak about it..

how long will it take, in your opinion, for some engineer to put dual detectors in use for a missile?

– one low frequency to get to some 5-10km of the target,

– another more precise one (IR for example) for terminal guidance?

Russians already have long range IR missiles. Obviously these don’t see the IR signature of the target @ 100km

With such a weapon, you guide an IR missile with lower band radar to the vicinity of the target (you know its position with a 3-500m margin) and the IR sensor takes over when it sees it. And that’s just one possibility.

Another may be to make SAMs with dual detectors, one low freq for initial guidance and another for terminal one… possibilities exist, they just need to be developed, and you can be sure that, all over the planet there are lots of guys working on it

for now… it’s like the sword and the shield.. one gets better, than the other improves…

all stealth designs aim to counter X-band radars, and you can be sure all manufacturers are doing their best to find alternative ways to detect.. IR, or going to other bands. Once one succeeds (and it’s monly matter of time) the today’s stealth will have to find something else. In 20-30 years, it is quite possible that we see radar types that “see” today’s stealth designs

actually, what I’m talking about is the reflections not on the “petals” of the nozzle, but from turbine blades staring out through the nozzle.

Basically, the nozzle from behind looks like this, more or less:

considering that RAM coating is fragile and need lots of support, how do you imagine coating and maintaining that part which is the one that has to support very high constraints (temperature,gases flow and pressure), and therefore, how do you imagine preventing the radar waves entering the nozzle from coming out and giving away your position?

While “saw-tooth shaped nozzle may help reduce the rcs somewhat from the sides, from rear aspect, it’s the inside of the nozzle that poses problem

What do you suppose the exhaust temperature for any aircraft using full afterburner is, seeing as how you’re using a very specific condition(i.e. verticle landings w/ full A/B).

As for the construction, I wonder if you’d be so kind to provide the materials that are used in the nozzle, internal radar blockers, etc…, seeing as how you’re claiming that LM/USAF are incorrect in their assertions.

just saw that…

actually, one thing makes me wonder whether some here have personnality problems…

in PAK-FA thread, everybody and his uncle (anti-pak-fa) claimed that it couldn’t be stealthy because its engine could be seen. Yet, you assume that a part of the engine that has to stand much higher efforts (temperature, pressure, gases flow…) is made of some material that besides having such high resistance acts like rcs reduction material?

LM and DoD were saying that the program was more or less fine, yet it ends up being way over cost and over schedule (yes, pfcem, we know you don’t agree).

If they told you it can fly directly to mars, would you believe them just because they say so? If the had the technology to render the rear of the engine “non reflective to radar” in a straight duct (nozzle) don’t you think the wouldn’t loose their time on designing S-ducts on air intakes, loosing internal volume at the same time as well?

Try to think logically. LM has a piece or equipment they try to sell (and at a price way over that initially proposed) and the DoD did everything it could to terminate anything even remotely concurrential to it… They say to you “yeah, the rear of the engine is stealthy, yet, we couldn’t make the front part that way so we hid it behind an S-duct so the radar doesn’t see it”, doesn’t it sound strange to you?

The intake is directly in line of sight with engine here too. Though it is a ucav not a fighter but where would be the S-duct to make the Neuron completely stealthy ?

most certainly vertical S-duct and probably also radar blockers… it’s a subsonic design (talless designs tend to have problems if trying to go supersonic) so you rely mostly on stealth for it