New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Hide From Russian Radar

[gambit]

Nato are buying F-35 is that there is no other choice. If the US was to offer F-22, then you would see how popular the F-35 really is. At least it offers 5th generation avionics and a degree of stealth.

The guy is not a troll as he makes valid points.

Har...YOU are just as much a troll as the other guy.

Despite all the explanations I gave on this forum, you still think that 'stealth' is a definitive line that anyone can trespass and declare his design 'stealthy'. There is no such line. Low radar observability is about the decreasing distance of detection. Not yet tracking and targeting. So what if the F-35 can be detected at -- say 40 km ? We already have anecdotal evidences that the F-22's opponents have difficulties tracking it in the visual distances -- around mid-20s. So what if the F-35 is detectable at double that ? Forty km is still well within AMRAAM range. Or do you trolls have access to secret US 'stealth' data ?

 

[banvanaxl]

Klingon cloaking devices

That cracked me up.

Anyway on a serious note though, I wouldn't get me panties in a bunch as far the the F-35 is concerned. Its a bloody capable platform and and of the best MR platforms in the horizon. Wouldn't be surprised if it was another run-a-way success like the F-16s.

 

[UKBengali]

Har...YOU are just as much a troll as the other guy.

Despite all the explanations I gave on this forum, you still think that 'stealth' is a definitive line that anyone can trespass and declare his design 'stealthy'. There is no such line. Low radar observability is about the decreasing distance of detection. Not yet tracking and targeting. So what if the F-35 can be detected at -- say 40 km ? We already have anecdotal evidences that the F-22's opponents have difficulties tracking it in the visual distances -- around mid-20s. So what if the F-35 is detectable at double that ? Forty km is still well within AMRAAM range. Or do you trolls have access to secret US 'stealth' data ?

You should try your hand as a stand-up comedian rather than military analyst.

Following are FACTS about F-35:

1. No super-cruise
2. Low top-speed
3. Poor manoeuvrability
4. Compromised stealth

Planes like J-20 and J-31 would swot F-35s out of the sky time-after-time as they are designed with absolutely no compromises and as pure air superiority fighters, with ground-to-air a secondary requirement. F-35 pilots better hope that they have some F-22s to protect them.

It pleases me that US is spending such a large amount of treasure on a white-elephant.

 

[MilSpec]

You should try your hand as a stand-up comedian rather than military analyst.

Following are FACTS about F-35:

1. No super-cruise
2. Low top-speed
3. Poor manoeuvrability
4. Compromised stealth

Planes like J-20 and J-31 would swot F-35s out of the sky time-after-time as they are designed with absolutely no compromises and as pure air superiority fighters, with ground-to-air a secondary requirement. F-35 pilots better hope that they have some F-22s to protect them.

It pleases me that US is spending such a large amount of treasure on a white-elephant.

Please tell us the specs on J31 and J20 which have led you to your conclusions...

 

[gambit]

You should try your hand as a stand-up comedian rather than military analyst.

At least I have my personal experience in avionics, military and civilian, to back me up. What do YOU have ?

Following are FACTS about F-35:

Yes...

1. No super-cruise

Does not need it.

2. Low top-speed

Same as the F-16.

3. Poor manoeuvrability

The WW I era Sopwith Camel is more maneuverable.

4. Compromised stealth

In what way ? Again, you have not learned an iota of what I posted.

Planes like J-20 and J-31 would swot F-35s out of the sky time-after-time as they are designed with absolutely no compromises and as pure air superiority fighters, with ground-to-air a secondary requirement. F-35 pilots better hope that they have some F-22s to protect them.

F-35 pilots will shoot them out of the sky before the Chinese pilots have time to twitch their control sticks.

It pleases me that US is spending such a large amount of treasure on a white-elephant.

It is more like petty jealousy, to me.

 

[boomslang]

When was the last time a Chinese designed, built and piloted aircraft fired a shot in anger ?

 

[500]

Nobody is copying the f35. Certainly not the Russians.

Russians are copying the "gimmick stealth", Chinese are copying both the "gimmick stealth" and the "junk F-35".

And no people don't want to buy it.

All leading powers want to buy stealth.

Nato countries have no Plan B so they either buy it or they are left out of " next gen " fighter class.

There are plenty 4+ gen fighters (EFT, Rafale, Su-35, MiG-35, Gripen, Super Hornet), yet countries prefer "junk F-35" with "gimmick stealth".

 

[BestUsernameEver]

Instead of speculating day and night about things we don't really know anyway (none of us is an engineer at Lockheed nor an F-35 pilot) let's apply common sense for a second to the whole F-35 thing...

- The USA have the world's largest economy.

- The USA have, by far, the largest military budget.

- The USA are the most technologically advanced country.

- The USA's military has tons of combat experience.

- Including the time prior to their merger, Lockheed has been in the aircraft biz for over 100 years. Martin Marietta for over 50.

With all of this in mind...What seems more likely?

a) The F-35 is a piece of crap, they don't what they're doing, internet forums know best.

b) The F-35 might actually be more than meets the eye, even more so given that key specs are classified/willful disinformation etc.

 

[notgoodenough]

I'm glad you believe your own propaganda. Getting everyone else to believe it. Well, that's a whole different story. One that isn't really working out at the moment.

Good luck though.

Russians are copying the "gimmick stealth", Chinese are copying both the "gimmick stealth" and the "junk F-35".


All leading powers want to buy stealth.


There are plenty 4+ gen fighters (EFT, Rafale, Su-35, MiG-35, Gripen, Super Hornet), yet countries prefer "junk F-35" with "gimmick stealth".

That's some real analysis right there. Or not. I don't listen to forums. Even though that's what your asking everyone to do since you've really said nothing of note. I prefer listening to experts who have no vested interest in selling this flying turkey.

Instead of speculating day and night about things we don't really know anyway (none of us is an engineer at Lockheed nor an F-35 pilot) let's apply common sense for a second to the whole F-35 thing...

- The USA have the world's largest economy.

- The USA have, by far, the largest military budget.

- The USA are the most technologically advanced country.

- The USA's military has tons of combat experience.

- Including the time prior to their merger, Lockheed has been in the aircraft biz for over 100 years. Martin Marietta for over 50.

With all of this in mind...What seems more likely?

a) The F-35 is a piece of crap, they don't what they're doing, internet forums know best.

b) The F-35 might actually be more than meets the eye, even more so given that key specs are classified/willful disinformation etc.

 

[gambit]

That's some real analysis right there. Or not. I don't listen to forums. Even though that's what your asking everyone to do since you've really said nothing of note. I prefer listening to experts who have no vested interest in selling this flying turkey.

No...You just listens to 'experts' who are not really experts, who never really designed anything, and who admitted to being at best peripheral to the development of the F-16.

 

[notgoodenough]

You can believe your own propaganda all you want. If it makes you feel better. But saying Sprey isn't an expert but some anonymous PDF troll named " gambit " is is quite laughable. Okay, he's a hack and you're an expert? Ahahahaha. You're not to be taken seriously at this point. You must own stock in lockhead. There no other reason you're riding their sack so hard, expert.

No...You just listens to 'experts' who are not really experts, who never really designed anything, and who admitted to being at best peripheral to the development of the F-16.

Lol

 

[gambit]

You can believe your own propaganda all you want. If it makes you feel better. But saying Sprey isn't an expert but some anonymous PDF troll named " gambit " is is quite laughable. Okay, he's a hack and you're an expert? Ahahahaha. You're not to be taken seriously at this point. You must own stock in lockhead. There no other reason you're riding their sack so hard, expert.

Sprey was never in the military and never designed an aircraft. He was employed as an analyst at Grumman for commercial transportation projects. Then he came to the Pentagon as a self proclaimed 'aviation expert' with not a single design to his name, not as a lead and dubiously as a contributor.

 

[Informant]

Easy on the guy American brethren. No need to rip him a new one.

 

[500]

That's some real analysis right there. Or not. I don't listen to forums. Even though that's what your asking everyone to do since you've really said nothing of note. I prefer listening to experts who have no vested interest in selling this flying turkey.

Its not "forums" its all leading powers, including ur beloved Russia who want stealth.

[/quote]
All his "arguments" are laughable.

1) He says that F-15 carried much of "junk" - much of complex electronic stuff that hand no relevance to combat, while F-16 was super awesome.

But what was the basic F-16? - It had not even the BVR capability! It had not laser or navigation pods. So it could only drop dumb bombs in daylight. It had primitive cockpit, virtually no countermeasures.

So all that so called "junk" was added later: BVR capability, Maverick missile, glass cockpit, decoy launchers, wide angle HUD, Harpoon and HARM missiles, navigation and targeting pods, EW suite... Only with all that "junk" F-16 became a real success.

2) He says that F-35 has "tiny wings" so in cant maneuver in combat. In fact F-35A has 42.74 m2 wings while his beloved F-16 only 27.87 m2. F-35C has huge 62.05 m2 wings.

3) "For CAS u need to loiter 4-6 hours". His favorite F-16 and A-10 cant do that either, not even close.
"U need a big gun". F-35 has very powerful 25-mm gun, although gun is last weapon u will use today.
"The tank s not visible from quarter mile or less." - LOL this is so 70-es. Modern megapixel thermals, GMTI and SAR radars can easily detect tanks from 10-15 miles.

4) "2 big bombs is a ridiculous payload". In facts that's standard payload of the F-16.
"internal bomb carriage cause more drag". Yes, clean F-16 has lower drag than clean F-45. However F-16 with externally mounted two large bombs and target pods will have much more drag than the F-35 which remains clean.

5) "Stealth is a scam, it simply does not work". Yet all the world, including the Russians and Chinese design stealth. Long wave radars have have terrible accuracy, thus they cant be used for guiding missiles. It basically can only tell that somewhere there is an airplane. You cant put long wave radar in fighter or even AEW&C, surely u cant put it in missile seeker. You cant put it on small mobile SAM. Due to their size and poor mobility they are vulnerable. Finally they are not majic stealth detectors. Thei r detection range is limited an they can be suppressed.

 

[BestUsernameEver]

That's some real analysis right there. Or not. I don't listen to forums. Even though that's what your asking everyone to do since you've really said nothing of note. I prefer listening to experts who have no vested interest in selling this flying turkey.

The past decades have proven Pierre Sprey's ideas/warnings/assessments to be completely wrong.

Therefore:

- I don't care about his opinions.

- Sprey has a vested interested in bashing the F-35 (which is basically the polar opposite of his ideas), out of spite.

Sprey was never in the military and never designed an aircraft. He was employed as an analyst at Grumman for commercial transportation projects. Then he came to the Pentagon as a self proclaimed 'aviation expert' with not a single design to his name, not as a lead and dubiously as a contributor.

Sprey is pretty much a textbook crank:

Crank is a pejorative term applied to someone who holds extremely unorthodox views on a subject and is often very vocal about these opinions. A crank will usually maintain their viewpoint despite, or perhaps because of, evidence to the contrary. The crank is usually an amateur in the field they are arguing against, but sometimes individuals with expertise in that field will become a 'crank' (which can lead directly to pathological science); sometimes for personal gain, which is ironic because cranks often accuse rational people of being driven by personal gain