F-35: Realities vs Hypes(Low Observable Principles vs Anti-Stealth tech)

[BoQ77]

No-one denies that the US is the most advanced country in military technology.

The problem with the F-35 is that it's stealth is not as good as the F-22, and it has lower manoeuvrability and cannot super-cruise.

These are air-frame limitations and cannot be changed much.

There is no problem to make F-35 a stealth. It's a must do.
Assuming F-35 stealth isn't good as F-22, is it a problem? if it's still much better than any other?

F-35 wouldn't replace F-22, and vice versa. F-35 can bring bigger bomb internally than F-22

F-16, F-18, AV-8B... become obsolete to new developed air defence systems.

That's the reason to make F-35 which can approach closer to advance radars, undetected.

1. Some prefers speed, but it's easier to develop SAM fly at much higher speed and longer range than making manned aircraft could fly at Mach 3 all the time and turn easily.
So it's better to be undetected even within the effective range of SAM

2. Make unmanned vehicle to get more speed and G-power, and/or stealth

 

[ito]

Instead of f16, India should ask LM for f35. It has a long list of orders, but nothing wrong in trying.

There is no problem to make F-35 a stealth. It's a must do.
Assuming F-35 stealth isn't good as F-22, is it a problem? if it's still much better than any other?

F-35 wouldn't replace F-22, and vice versa. F-35 can bring bigger bomb internally than F-22

F-16, F-18, AV-8B... become obsolete to new developed air defence systems.

That's the reason to make F-35 which can approach closer to advance radars, undetected.

1. Some prefers speed, but it's easier to develop SAM fly at much higher speed and longer range than making manned aircraft could fly at Mach 3 all the time and turn easily.
So it's better to be undetected even within the effective range of SAM

2. Make unmanned vehicle to get more speed and G-power, and/or stealth

f22 is never a replacement for f35. f35 are meant to be work horse replacing f16, while f22 is the best that US can produce.

 

[BoQ77]

Instead of f16, India should ask LM for f35. It has a long list of orders, but nothing wrong in trying.

f22 is never a replacement for f35. f35 are meant to be work horse replacing f16, while f22 is the best that US can produce.

Totally true.

 

[Oldman1]

Go to time index 9:40.

Go to time index 8:40.

 

[Taygibay]

Oldman mate, the opinion of the maker will of course be favorable to their star product.
As for the first take in the first vid, pilots also like their new machines but it is quite funny
that those guys' quite reasonable claim of invisibility ( likely the exercise was BVR ) is
immediately followed by a regular media type of encensement for the suppa helmet ...
that is still under its third iteration not quite operational due to recurring glitches!!!

Anyway, if the idea is that stealth will be a lot better on the F-35 than its predecessors,
one can only say : -Of course as it was built so! It's not like if that was accused of failure!

Honestly, commercial vids are not really good sources unless they cite specific capacities.

Wondering what kind of IRST those blind F-16s were sporting too.
Have a great day, Tay.

 

[Oldman1]

Oldman mate, the opinion of the maker will of course be favorable to their star product.
As for the first take in the first vid, pilots also like their new machines but it is quite funny
that those guys' quite reasonable claim of invisibility ( likely the exercise was BVR ) is
immediately followed by a regular media type of encensement for the suppa helmet ...
that is still under its third iteration not quite operational due to recurring glitches!!!

Anyway, if the idea is that stealth will be a lot better on the F-35 than its predecessors,
one can only say : -Of course as it was built so! It's not like if that was accused of failure!

Honestly, commercial vids are not really good sources unless they cite specific capacities.

Wondering what kind of IRST those blind F-16s were sporting too.
Have a great day, Tay.

Don't even need the opinion of the maker. Another exercise, they used IRST to try to find the F-22.

Australia will acquire another 58 F-35A Lightning II aircraft in a major boost to the nation’s air combat capability, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced in Canberra on April 23. The additional aircraft will lift the total number of F-35As Australia will acquire to 72, after a previous decision to purchase 14. This will create a total of three operational squadrons – two at RAAF Base Williamtown and one at RAAF Base Tindal - and a training squadron at RAAF Base Williamtown.

The F-35A will replace the Royal Australian Air Force’s fleet of F/A-18A/B Hornets.

The first aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018, with Number 3 Squadron operational by 2021. All 72 aircraft are expected to be operational by 2023. The total cost will be $12.4 billion including about $1.6 billion for new facilities at RAAF Bases Williamtown and Tindal.

The Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, is enthusiastic about the F-35’s stealth capabilities. He was on the receiving end of fifth-generation stealth technology when he flew an F-15 “aggressor” against F-22 Raptors on Exercise Red Flag in the United States several years ago. “We were never in a situation where we saw them at any time on radar or infrared,” Air Marshal Brown said. “We never knew where they were or where we were killed from, so we had no situational awareness. Then to go back and look at the situational awareness the F-22 had, it was quite a dramatic difference. It the same sort of technology we’re getting but a little bit more advanced in some respects with the F-35.”

 

[Taygibay]

Another exercise, they used IRST to try to find the F-22.

Thanks for making my point! If an aircraft can be found with a light spectrum
tool ( IRST or OSF or whatever ), it cannot be termed invisible.
I'm not making an opinion into an point here, I'm citing a definition and facts.

I did defend Dassault's use of omnirole way back until the trolls relented but
that was a contextual use of a given word. There is nothing contextual about
the use of visible in science.

An aircraft is visible even if it's more stealthy than all others. That's why the
F-117 flew at night and that why there is an EODAS on the F-35 ...

About which, I'm not by far on the loudly critical side of the F-35 commenting crowd.
I have an extremely dim view of the program and I can't let Lock-Mart say anything
as if we should like their products out of faith regardless of science but I have no
doubt that the F-35 as a fighter will have a purpose in the forces. Whether it will
be remembered as a great plane, it's way too early to tell.

Heck, I could find you a Frenchman even right here on PDF that holds a worse outlook.


Have a great day, Tay.

 

[gambit]

Thanks for making my point! If an aircraft can be found with a light spectrum tool ( IRST or OSF or whatever ), it cannot be termed invisible.

We never said any of our 'stealth' aircrafts to be 'invisible'. That is a media descriptor, not official USAF's.

The fact that you persists on using the word 'invisible', which is an impossible standard to achieve, means you want to judge our aircrafts against the impossible but let others off the same hook.

 

[Taygibay]

The fact that you persists on using the word 'invisible', which is an impossible standard to achieve, means you want to judge our aircrafts against the impossible but let others off the same hook.

No, no! Not at all, all aircrafts are visible.

There is research and are prototypes of "light camouflage" by bending the waves
at or near the surface of the object to protect from detection.
If these come to fruition, the result when activated on a mobile could be termed invisible.

And US stealth planes are probably less detectable on average than almost any other.
But that's at ISO variables; if you make a stealth plane twice as big as a LO one, in the
light spectrum it will be more detectable because of its size.
A fully stealth C-130 would still be easier to spot with binoculars than a Super Hornet at
the same distance and camo. But if you put a bright orange F-22 in flight formation at a
low level with a non-stealthy Hercules painted in the exact coloration of the skies that day,
people on the ground will spot the stealth bird first. Then hike their altitude and it reverses.

I have a very favourable opinion on the Raptor, BTW. I don't like comparisons with the F-35.
They are almost opposite programs in my mind only linked by the fact that both suffered from
American war budgets finally hitting a money wall. The F-22 is a great jet fighter.

Have a good day, Tay.

 

[Oldman1]

Thanks for making my point! If an aircraft can be found with a light spectrum
tool ( IRST or OSF or whatever ), it cannot be termed invisible.
I'm not making an opinion into an point here, I'm citing a definition and facts.

I did defend Dassault's use of omnirole way back until the trolls relented but
that was a contextual use of a given word. There is nothing contextual about
the use of visible in science.

An aircraft is visible even if it's more stealthy than all others. That's why the
F-117 flew at night and that why there is an EODAS on the F-35 ...

About which, I'm not by far on the loudly critical side of the F-35 commenting crowd.
I have an extremely dim view of the program and I can't let Lock-Mart say anything
as if we should like their products out of faith regardless of science but I have no
doubt that the F-35 as a fighter will have a purpose in the forces. Whether it will
be remembered as a great plane, it's way too early to tell.

Heck, I could find you a Frenchman even right here on PDF that holds a worse outlook.


Have a great day, Tay.

Nope, it doesn't support your point. As you mentioned before the F-16s went in blind with no IRST. I just pointed out the F-15s went against the F-22 with both radar and IRST and still didn't find them. Perhaps you have to be really close to find it, but that means you have been detected long before then and shot down. If we developed this tech where it can find any aircraft even stealthy ones at far distance, we would have just ditched radar already.

 

[Taygibay]

Perhaps you have to be really close to find it, but that means you have been detected long before then and shot down. If we developed this tech where it can find any aircraft even stealthy ones at far distance, we would have just ditched radar already.

Ahh, it all depends on what you call "really close"!
Yes, the radar bears a lot farther than an EO solution but
in exchange, the latter gets you a verified firing chain first.

In a clear skies, on a face to face run at each other and max
range separating the opposing fighters, a full stealth aircraft
has an undeniable advantage as radar is the central tool.

Then of course, other variables come into play. For example,
if the stealth plane detects its enemy at max radar range, say
one hundred eighty kliks, but its main missile reaches 85-90 kliks,
the LO in front of it may get radar firing at "only" 120 Km but
with a 110 km NEZ on their missile still end up firing first.

It's not who has the most awesome magic trick up their sleeve
but who most effectively controls and utilizes means to get a lock.
Good EO systems have now reached BVR distances and are still
improving which again is why the stealthy Lightning II has one.

As for exercise results, those from an organization bent on proving
its new tool to outperform the old ones mean little without details.
We are talking about a program whose metrics have been revised
down a couple times.

There is no doubt that on a first day of war, stealthy planes will have
an important advantage that can only be edged off by proper tactics.
In a more dense environment and with all factors computed in, that
assertion may yield to reality yet however.

If it was all-mighty stealth alone versus old school slingshots, then,
chances are that the second best fighter plane would be Chinese and
Fat-35 on the third step of the podium. But from what we know now, the
radar / EODAS combo should allow it to claim silver instead of bronze.

Stealth is useful but it's neither a magic trick nor a cure all.
And you can't claim that what works for you doesn't for the others.

Good day to you, Tay.

 

[gambit]

Ahh, it all depends on what you call "really close"! Yes, the radar bears a lot farther than an EO solution but in exchange, the latter gets you a verified firing chain first.

In a clear skies, on a face to face run at each other and max range separating the opposing fighters, a full stealth aircraft has an undeniable advantage as radar is the central tool.

Then of course, other variables come into play. For example, if the stealth plane detects its enemy at max radar range, say one hundred eighty kliks, but its main missile reaches 85-90 kliks, the LO in front of it may get radar firing at "only" 120 Km but with a 110 km NEZ on their missile stille end up firing first.

Buddy, I do not know how the French train their pilots, but for US, if I detect the other guy at 180 km out, you can bet all your francs that I will not remain 'face to face' when I launch my missile up his butt.

His BUTT...!!!.