They dun have term of fuly stealth.
low observable or very low observable.
As for jsf is still under vlo but putting more emphasise on frontal rcs.
X-band and upper s-band would have tough times tracking it.
Btw the closer you are to the radar the higher chances you will be detect are applied to all stealth fighter.
nothing wrong being single engine.
it only allowed to carry more heavier payload and longer distance.
Rand analyst were having quite lots of dispute.
But meh I dun expect much fron these f35 anyway still need lots of times to develop.
What do you mean by fully stealth ?
Production aircraft will likely be delivered in 'high stealth' (US) and 'low stealth' (export) configurations.The stealth capability in the JSF is designed for low cost and maintainability, rather than best possible stealth performance.
Stealth is achieved by a combination of shaping, detail design and absorbent/glossy materials, with shaping being the most dominant feature by some degree. While detail design and materials can evolve over the life of a design, and be upgraded incrementally to match an evolving threat, airframe shaping is fixed and whatever limits it imposes are unchangable.
This is the pitfall of economy 'narrowband' stealth - it can defeat upper band radars used for the engagement control, BUT IS MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE IN DEFEATING LONG RANGE SYSTEMS USED TO ACQUIRE TARGETS. IF A Su-30 CAN BE POSITIONED CLOSE ENOUGH IT CAN ENGAGE THE JSF IRRESPECTIVE OF STEALTH ,and with a kinematic and missile performance advantage the odds are unlikely to favour the JSF.
Source:-http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
" What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft…"
Pierre M. Spey, a key member of the F-16 and A-10 design teams
Source:-http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-
controversy-05089/
Stealth fighters are not invisible just difficult to detect on certain radar frequency.Countering stealth ? Nebo SVU VHF AESA -already in service, Chinese CETC Y27
Source:-
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42891479/Air-C...sent-and-FutureIf you want huge weapons loads without compromising stealth might as well use b2.
JSF F35 -
SEVERELY REDUCED STEALTH CAPABILITY
An air-to-air load of eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s is possible using internal and external weapons stations; a configuration of six 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s can also be arranged.
STEALTH MODE WITH INTERNAL WEAPONS
2 (TWO) Air to Air missiles, 2 bombs ONLY
So stealth or reduced stealth ?
When the F35 fires their 2 (TWO) AAM's they will have to turn back and run for dear life with their totally not stealthy red hot nozzle facing the Enemy errr Sukhoi has 12 weapon stations AND AN INTERNALLY MOUNTED GUN . ONLY AIR FORCE F35 has an internally mounted gun and the others GUESS? in STEALTH ATTACHMENT POD ! OH yes F35 has short legs may not make it back to carriers as carriers have to be placed out of anti ship missiles be they land or ship based (let alone air launched). ALSO it has 1 engine !
Since advent of BVR missiles 588 air to air kills have been recorded by BVR equipped forces. ACTUAL BVR KILLS 24 !
Source:-http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42891479/Air-Combat-Past-Present-and-Future
Most aircraft cant take much hits unless it were su25 or a10.
F 35 is the exception extremely thin skin as they had to reduce weight. Also they can only manage sustained turns at 5g or less USAF 4.6g (just like 1960's aircraft).
Source:-
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-...troversy-05089/I do recall they did some a2a and bvr testing not long ago.
Yes they did but there is limitation as to what they can carry internally as internal weapon bay area different sizes and limited specs as to length of missile.
not sure about it cannot fly during raining times.
Read /watched somewhere that it could not (minor kink not sure if its rectified) will try to get and attach the link.... and F 35 LIGHTNING 2 , cant fly during lightning !..they are fixing it.(video interview with Gen.Bogdan below)
Are you sure they cannot communicate with each other?
Yes read it / watched it sometime back ...have been trying to find the link but not successful. Will post i once i find it.
Meanwhile here is an in depth report by Four Corners Australia on the F35 with critical interviews with Lt.Gen.Chris Bogdan, Executive Officer F35 programme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pteMgYPm1xMAlso article dated 30th October 2013 by the Center For Arms Control and Proliferation titled
Fact Sheet: The F-35 “Lightning II” JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)
http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/securi...ke_fighter_jsf/And in order to be complete and fair Rand issued a statement in September 2008 regarding the report:-
“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft”
However in May 30, 2013 Defence Industry daily stated "That last assertion is true. On the other hand, DID managed to obtain a copy of the RAND Power Point briefing external link. When the full briefing is read, RAND’s study does have implications for the F-35. They are decidedly mixed.......
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-...troversy-05089/Once the F 35 programme matures it may be a great plane once it finds its niche as there a great many proponents to this plane concept. How great only time will tell.
Military Thread V10, Merry X'Mas and Happy New Year 
Nov 20 2013, 02:18 AM
Quote
0.0799sec
0.46
6 queries
GZIP Disabled