>> The F-35 is not invisible to radar, it like all stealthy aircraft has lower RCS or lower observerability, this does not mean the AMSAR equiped E/F2000 cannot find it, this is a better argument for the F-22 but certainly not the F-35 JSF. The E/F2000 will probably only have a marginally larger RCS than the bulkier and larger F-35 (It‘s main RCS advantage being internal weapons bays). The air force and the others will never invest in a new fighter if it's not really stealthy. Of course ultimately it can be detected, but that's not the point. Its RCS will be much closer to that of an F-22 than that of an EF-2000. Don't forget also that the F-35 is smaller than the F-22 so it will be easier to render it stealthy. >> Yes you can, if they can be detected and the F-35 can certainly be detected by radar. Even the F117A Nighthawk was detected by coordinated sixties vintage Serbian Radar ground stations and shot down by an SA-3 surface-to-air missile during the 1999 Kosavo campaign. So the air force and the others a wasting billions of $ on stealth then.. the F-22 is basically useless, as well as cruise missiles etc.. >> The Meteor BVRAAM is due to enter RAF service in 2010. I bet what you want that it won't be in service by 2010...

Hellfire is correct here, T800. Your ability to judge maneuverability based in observations from the ground is not going to yield accurate results for a wide variety of factors. Hellfire pointed out how size can create illusions of maneuver (remember the Super Bug is considerably larger than the ordinary Hornet). Pure agility (roll-rate and pitch-rate) looks great at airshows, but sustained turn rate remains the largest single factor in ACM. A lot of what you see close to the ground is not at combat weight. They are close to home running light, but these aircraft are markedly different with the gas tanks half full and loaded down with ordnance. To be frank, I'm pretty sure the USN would tell you the Super Hornet has a slightly lower sustained turn rate compared to the original Hornet. The aircraft is optimized as an air-to-ground platform because that is what is most useful. The Super Hornet makes up for pure maneuver in other areas (HMS+HOBS weapons; AESA radar; Stealth). The Super Bug is fine for what it is (an interim platform of an attack focussed multi-role fighter) and it is quite dangerous in air-to-air combat, but it is not a nimble aircraft. -- Shaken - out --

"The air force and the others will never invest in a new fighter if it's not really stealthy. Of course ultimately it can be detected, but that's not the point. Its RCS will be much closer to that of an F-22 than that of an EF-2000. Don't forget also that the F-35 is smaller than the F-22 so it will be easier to render it stealthy." It is really stealthy by contemporary standards, so is the E/F2000 but unlike the F117A, B2 and the F-22, the Eurofighter Typhoon has not sacrificed flexibility of weapon carriage, manoeuvrability or performance to produce an inflexible stealth aircraft but it does contain a comprehensive suite of stealth features. My opinion is that it is closer in RCS signature to the E/F2000 because it does not feature as capable or dedicated stealth features as the F-22 Raptor (which is almost as good as a Nighthawk) partly for political reasons, partly because of practicality, fact is no-one outside the programme knows exactly. The fact remains it is still considerably bulkier and larger than the E/F2000, it is designed as a bombtruck first, not an air dominance fighter. I will be more specific and say that theoretically, the RCS of the F-35 is big enough for it to be detected by the long range CAPTOR AMSAR before it gets into a position to lock on to the E/F2000 and fire from BVR thus it does not have the advantage of first lock, first kill. “So the air force and the others a wasting billions of $ on stealth then.. the F-22 is basically useless, as well as cruise missiles etc..” No of course not, the F117A is by performance ratings, the best surviving fighter/bomber in the history of the USAF (1 kill in over 1300 missions). The advantages stealth bring are worth every penny but the point I am trying to make is that it does not buy invulnerability. “I bet what you want that it won't be in service by 2010.” Your on. http://www.mbda.net/publications/FO/scripts/newsFO_complet.php?lang=EN&news_id=113

From what I've heard around town, in the air-to-air radar frequency range of interest, EF-2000 is looking at an average RCS of 0dbm/1m2 with some stores, and when nearly clean maybe -6dbm/0.5m2, at best. Everybody says F-35 is at worst around -20dbm/0.01m2 clean, maybe even smaller. That sounds pretty significant to me. Displacedjim

>> I will be more specific and say that theoretically, the RCS of the F-35 is big enough for it to be detected by the long range CAPTOR AMSAR before it gets into a position to lock on to the E/F2000 and fire from BVR thus it does not have the advantage of first lock, first kill. That's an hazardous statement that you make here. Let me say again.. the Air force and the Navy will NEVER invest money in a non stealthy platform. It's not just me who says that. I watched a program some time ago on next generation aircraft, and it is what a colonel from the air force said. Now will it make a sufficient difference to give the F-35 a significant advantage over the typhoon in terms of first look first kill, that's hard to tell. It depends on the difference of RCS indeed, and on the range of their radars. The F-35 will not have a very powerfull radar so it may compensate. And they might detect each other thanks to their IR signature also. In any case, both of them will have a hard time detecting the other, and the first one who detects the other is likely to win. Finaly, even if they are very good fighters, it doesn't mean that they can stop an attack of the other, simply because they would be hard to find - and engage. However good they are you can't have an effective defense against each of them..

That's the kind of figures I've heard too, but it's very hard to tell...

Regarding RCS, these are the average figures I have and I refer to my previous post for the notion of it being considerably less stealthy than the F-22 Raptor. I have some experience in designing stealthy hull forms and I would estimate it’s RCS to be around -4>7dbm based on the overall shape, size and structural difference in comparison to the F-22. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0168.shtml “Let me say again.. the Air force and the Navy will NEVER invest money in a non stealthy platform.” I agree but it doesn’t detract from my previous point both are ‘stealthy’, have low observerability, are more difficult to detect than previous generation aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 but it is not invisible and can be detected by the most advanced radars and sensors like AIS and PIRATE. I would argue that AMSAR will be the best in NATO on entering service. I entirely agree with the rest of your post. There is no definitive information to reach a conclusion, I am simply hypothesizing, like everyone else. Perhaps the only way to resolve this is to agree to disagree.

>> (Rule.B) >> Typhoon has not sacrificed flexibility of weapon carriage, >> manoeuvrability or performance to produce an inflexible >> stealth aircraft but it does contain a comprehensive suite of >> stealth features. (Shaken) You need to take a look at the hardpoint chart and stores plan for the F-35. Inflexible is not a word to describe the JSF. In addition to four internal stations (possibly six, with the added ASRAAM inner door mount), the JSF has seven external hardpoints with carriage weights of up to 5000 pounds. The first blocks of JSF will (according to plan) be cleared to carry a wider variety of weapons than the Tranche 3 Typhoon. The JSF can swing from a full stealth (Raptor/Nighthawk class) to an everything but the kithen sink bomb truck. In the mid-point, the program includes "stealthy pylons" which will allow it to maintain a modest signature while set up for external stores. That sounds like better versatility than any other platform currently available or in the planned future. Maneuverability and performance are harder to quantify for the JSF right now, as it is not flying and performance data is sketchy at best. It is tough to compare wing-loading and thrust-to-weight wise because the JSF can be all internal caarriage while its opponent will have external weapons and possibly tanks. The word of mouth description I've received is "as maneuverable as a clean, early model Viper" while carrying the full internal war load, which would be pretty impressive. I'm not contending that the JSF will be more (or less) maneuverable than the Typhoon and Rafale, but it certainly will not be a slouch. -- Shaken - out --

"I have some experience in designing stealthy hull forms and I would estimate it’s RCS to be around -4>7dbm based on the overall shape, size and structural difference in comparison to the F-22." I agree with you in that much of what I've heard also makes the F-35 sound less stealthy than the F-22. I know there are many variables at work in deriving RCS (I have a BS in electrical engineering) and that's why I tried not to sound like I was just ploping down a single, universal RCS value. But, if I understand what you just wrote to mean that your estimate of the F-35 is in the -4 to -7 dBm range, I've talked with people including F-35 system program office personnel who I trust are not shining me on, and you are definitely underestimating its performance. I've also heard some things about its radar that I could scarcely believe until I read a recent post here on SP about AESA radars and what we're looking to initially hang as a pod on the B-52. All in all, the F-35 is a beautiful thing. Displacedjim

You may be right. Basically I base myself on what I have always heard, which is that the JSF was supposed to be a real stealth aircraft - although a bit less than the F-22. Personaly, I don't see the use of a new aircraft if it's not really stealthy. If it's true, the F-35 may not be the "bargain" it was cracked up to be. No supercruise, not really stealthy, at a price approaching 50 million apeace...