You misunderstand me. When I say that the F-35 is designed for frontal stealth I mean that it is optimised for stealth from only the front. Whereas something like the F-22 is designed to be very stealthy form almost all angles. And since aircraft do not fly with exactly 180 degrees from each other or exactly at the same altitude, I'm saying the F-35 isn't as stealthy as the F-22.
And you are wrong.
Assume that the F-35 have a higher radar cross section (RCS) value than the F-22, it was not because Lockheed paid less attention to the needs of RCS control than for the F-22. People like you who have no clue of what you are talking about misused and abused the word 'optimized'. I have posted plenty of explanations on the basic principles of radar detection and cross section control methods on this forum. Look them up.
Ah, see the F-16.net fanboy begin the personal attacks.
What 'personal attack' ? I did not called you stupid or ugly.
As for f-16.net, outside of professional organizations and Lockheed itself, it will be very difficult to find a more knowledgeable group of military aviationists. You are talking about people from pilots to engineers to maintenance that have
DIRECT experience with a wide variety of military aircrafts, including non-US ones. Did you know that we have MIGs in our inventory ?
Mikoyan MiG-29 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A MiG-29 is on display near the entrance at the Pima Air and Space Museum adjacent to Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona.
4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123314594
If
WE are fanboys, and I have no problem calling myself that, we are the best at what we do and we wear the 'fanboy' label as a badge of pride, young man. You are talking about a group whose American members worked on MIGs.
I'm a student, and therefore have 0 salary.
That is even worse for you.
What if I asked you: Go to the medical forums and criticize oncologists (cancer specialists), brain surgeons, or even general practitioners on how they do their jobs ? You would answer that you are a student and it would be insulting to the doctors for a student to talk about these highly educated, trained, and experienced people.
But here you are, a student, which mean you have no professional experience whatsoever in the real world in the technical fields, let alone in aviation, talking about an aircraft that is the result of decades of experience from tens of thousands of professionals.
Right...
But they are all crammed into a slow, heavy, unmaneuverable and draggy airframe, which is why it can only do Mach 1.6, which, whatever you do with it, is slower than even a MiG-21.
This is why
YOU, a student, should remain quiet.
There are so many things the Iranian members got wrong about the F-35, but I will comment on the top speed for now.
Why is the F-35's top Mach is limited to less than Mach 2 ?
1- Approaching Mach 2 should have complex inlet geometries.
Most people uses 'inlet' and 'intake' interchangeably so I will use 'intake' for ease of understanding.
When an aircraft's design requirements have the it going past Mach 1.8, certain air flow behaviors begins to create complex problems for an air channel such as a jet engine intake. One of those behaviors is that supersonic air is destructive to jet engines, so intake air
MUST be slowed down to below subsonic regardless of whatever speed of the aircraft.
The SR-71 cruises at Mach 3+ but its intake air velocity is definitely below Mach, or at subsonic. Else the airflow would rip the engines apart.
2- Because the F-35's mission requirements (plural) necessitate wing designs that limited the jet to lower than Mach 2.
The F-22 have a higher leading edge wing sweep angle than the F-35: 42 (F-22) to 35 (F-35).
Above Mach 1.8 should have higher leading edge wing sweep angle. The Bell X-1 have straight wings and it went Mach, but its straight wings produced high drag. So if the goals are fuel conservation and Mach 2, do not use straight wings. But the more the wings are swept, the less available room for hardpoints to carry things. The F-35 was designed to carry external ordnance when 'stealth' is less necessary. So a highly swept wings for the F-35 would not be supportive of its missions.
3- Smaller combat radius.
The Korean and Vietnam wars were learning times for jet fighters combat. In fact, what we know of air combat today are magnitudes difference to those yrs.
A 'combat radius' is defined as: The total physical distance a combat aircraft could travel from home base to target area, accomplish an objective, and return to base (RTB).
Running to that target area at supersonic speed consumes high qty of fuel and actually reduces the combat radius. Higher fuel gives either greater combat radius or longer loitering time to support ground objectives. This is why it takes literally hours of planning for a combat sortie so that pilots DO NOT have to use supersonic flight if they can afford it.
Further...Because the F-35 was designed with international customers in mind, and many of them lives next door to each other, it make little sense for the F-35 to have Mach capabilities beyond 1.8 when high subsonic is enough to get the jet from border to border. Is it possible that a Luftwaffe Tornado will fight against an Aeronautica Militare F-35 ? Yes, it is possible. We hope it never comes to that.
So just because neighbors are friends today, that does not mean they cannot be enemies tomorrow, so like it or not, all governments must plan their self defense accordingly. The F-35 suits diverse needs.
And the electronics, while good, are not the very latest, owing to the F-35's protracted and extremely expensive development. And that is set to become even more expensive, with Canada dropping its order, Australia possibly reducing orders, Boeing pumping out F/A-18s, etc. etc. So the technology? Yes. We'd love it.
Our 'not latest' is other countries' best.
We'd chuck the junky airframe though.
Iran wish it could produce something that good.
Looky here...You are ignorant of many things, and I say that kindly, if you are still a student. I have been debating this subject long to recognize a pattern: That you have not considered arguments in favor of the F-35.
You made up your mind and facts do not matter.