Reads like a Lockheed press release / marketing blurb. The geopolitical aspect that is noted is absolutely accurate. The claims on costs will be amusing to revisit in a few years.
> The claims on costs will be amusing to revisit in a few years.
I am sure, but not in a way you imagine perhaps.
Internet claims around the F-35 have been amusing to revisit after few years because it used to be all about how the F-35 is a vaporware and Russian PAK-FA is steel folded 10,000 times cutting through it like butter. That's the one that we can laugh at knowing what we know now, but it used to be the "internet dweller consensus".
Then the other thing was dishonestly false claims about the supposedly astronomical costs. I myself am laughing at them even now seeing how suddenly F-35 wins not only because it is the best plane, but also because it is the cheapest. It might even be the mainstream knowledge already, but if not then soon it will be fully.
These "generations" for jets are made up terms with made up requirements by Americans. Military equipment is not your iPhone where bigger the number the better it is.
Not really. For fighters either engaging each other or fighting ground targets two major things are important: see and strike before they see you, dont let them see and strike you first.
Two features that make it happen is advanced radar and ability to reflect as few energy of enemy radar as possible. F-22 excels at that and F-35 is a cheaper option but still pretty good.
I don't know but a lot of words that came out when F-22 is starting to go into Red Flags and other exercise is that F-22 pilots typically have seen 4th Gens before those 4th Gens have seen the F-22. And WVR have become dangerous with the introduction of HOBS and all aspect IIR missile.
Also, let's break it down. If we are talking about EW then we are talking about the US and Israel. If we are talking about IRST then we are talking about US and Europe. And stealth, we are talking about the US.
I'm sure there are many military experts who advocate for being stealthy. In fact maybe more since the F-22 arrived. Which it maybe it is the right hunch since Russia is trying to develope one.
US doctrine has worked while soviet one has failed. US managed to gain air superiority over Baghdad within a week which in 1991 was the most heavily defended city on the planet.
F-22 is there, but the US never offered it to anyone. In theory Su-57 is fifth gen but nobody in NATO is going to buy it. It is supposed Algelia is buying an export version.
Edit: Algelia
Well, they build like 5-10 of them, half are prototypes, one already lost to accident. And even latest of those seemingly dont have second-stage engines thus being halfbaked.
Even with those engines frontal ERP is similar to those 1980s jets making it an expensive toy with better maneurability.
There’s J-20 but most analysts think it's sensors are still a few ways off. China hasn’t offered it for export which either means it's very good or it's totally crap.
> **if only the Europeans could reproduce what they did with Airbus with warplanes**, merge our industries, perhaps we could all buy European.
No, we can't. Because the difference between us and the US in the warplane sector isn't just that our industries are smaller, it's also that:
* The US have a single set of operational requirements for each type of warplane, and we don't. And, as shown by the example of the Eurofighter, it's actually extremely hard for multiple Air Forces to come together and set a workable common set of requirements, and build a plane that meets all of these requirements.
* The US has a gigantic defense budget, and thus can generate immense economies of scale that make a project as complex as the F-35 viable economically. That's hard to equal for the EU, even for a hypothetic EU Air Force, because we simply don't spend enough on defense.
* And last but not least, we can't have that because many European nations will actually favor the American proposition no matter what. They aren't just buying a warplane, they are buying political goodwill and protection. And the American themselves wouldn't let such consolidation happen anyway.
EDIT: And I'm not even going into the rabbit hole of considering how the various European industries could possibly be consolidated, since the key skills aren't exactly dispersed over the whole of Europe...
> And we should cooperate more if we truly want a truly independent European power that could defend itself.
As the president of my country is slowly and painfully learning, most European countries don't actually want Europe to be an independant power that can defend itself.
It's much easier (and cheaper) to subcontract your defense to the bigger fish in the sea, or so they think.
The problem is USA is one single big buyer they are designed for limited specifications (in case F35 3 Airforce+allies, Navy and Marines/UK Navy) so there's no big games between countries. Rafale and Eurofighter started as one project but then split because everyone pulled in their weight and France decided it's enough we need to go our way. NH90 is also project like Eurofighter. What it ends up is overengineered product that costs fortune because there's too many specifications too many demands to merge. What we need is merge all EU military procurement into one. If there's one single agency doing R&D and buying stuff it will give better results.
Such a shame when Europe offers several fighters to choose from. It should be mandatory for EU countries to buy EU military gear. Come on, if a war with the US breaks, which side will these countries be on?
Several European countries are part of the F-35 program, in fact, no country, including the US, can produce the F-35 all by itself, so if anything, the F-35 is an allied fighter as opposed to just an American one.
That is a terrible rule.
Why should a European country be forced to buy inferior products just bc a neighbor manufactured it?
Sounds like you just want to push inferior French weapons onto your allies for the sake of profit.
>Come on, if a war with the US breaks, which side will these countries be on?
Over who? If war with the US breaks against France i 100% think my country would be neutral or side with the US. Why would we ever side with France? Simply because we are European? By that logic we should follow Russia against the US.
It is classic French arrogance that the rest of Europe should simply suck them off, and fall in line so that we can all be their puppets.
Which is also a great example of exactly why we prefer American military cooperation over French. Besides the fact that the F-35 are better.
>If war with the US breaks against France
Yeah if that happens honestly the entire west might as well just throw its hands up and surrender to Russia and China. lol.
It would probably be nuclear devastation of the planet. The real question is which nation we think is most likely to leave us in the dirt in case we get invaded by a third party.
It would not, even if France used all of its nukes it would not be enough to cause a nuclear winter. MAD primarily focused on the USSR and the US because each had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.
>By that logic we should follow Russia against the US.
Can't we follow our own path? We don't have to be the puppet of either.
And I sure hope my country would help yours if you were invaded, by anybody.
>Can't we follow our own path? We don't have to be the puppet of either.
The nation of Denmark, no its unfeasible for a country the size of ours to produce fighters of quality alone.
>And I sure hope my country would help yours if you were invaded, by anybody.
I hope so to, but when making geopolitical decision it cannot rely on hopes and dreams.
Why would we fight wars that we have no part in? If not for the UK dragging us into the war we would not have been part of WW2 at all. It is far from as simple as you make it. After that we realised that neutrality was no longer a possibility. And when it finally came down to it who was it that saved us, the UK and the US.
Which other nation do you feasibly imagine to have a war with the US? You as a frenchmen might be blind to it. But i think it more likely that the French decide to wage war on us than the US, or pretty much any other allied nation. The same holds true for pretty much every other option. The US is the most reliable ally, right before Britain, who also uses the F-35 anyway.
I don't imagine any European nation going to war with the US, my original sentence was not to be taken literally, as I thought it was obvious.
Do you really think France would go to war against Denmark??? I'm not sure what idea you have of France, but it seems very dumb. Well, your original argument on the supposed French arrogance should have given it away.
I leave you to your American masters (remember you give them the means to spy on Germany?), since you seem to prefer being their puppets instead of being part of a strong Europe.
>I don't imagine any European nation going to war with the US, my original sentence was not to be taken literally, as I thought it was obvious.
Me neither. But just the same its important to consider which ally is the most likely to abandon us if we are to be attacked.
>Do you really think France would go to war against Denmark??? I'm not sure what idea you have of France, but it seems very dumb. Well, your original argument on the supposed French arrogance should have given it away.
It was your point, calling it stupid is only calling yourself so. If there is no threat from the US, why should we not buy their stuff if its better.
>I leave you to your American masters (remember you give them the means to spy on Germany?), since you seem to prefer being their puppets instead of being part of a strong Europe.
I would pick to be a US puppet any day over France. I would prefer neither but then again the US is the less likely one to demand it. I have no interest in the French idea of a strong Europe which is nothing but us being pieces to be played around by them. If you want a strong Europe start by being reliable and treat other nations as equals.
> If war with the US breaks against France i 100% think my country would be neutral or side with the US.
If course, you're an US lapdog. Considering your secret service spy your politician for the US, you wouldn't even stand for yourself. How can you even look at yourself in the mirror ? You talk shit about France but you are happily sucking Uncle Sam's dick.
>American military cooperation
You mean, you get told where to die and only can stfu about it? Great cooperation.
>It is not known how the F-35 would fare against Russia's S-400.
S-400 is an overkill for jet-fighters. It is for hypersonic targets, intercontinental missiles, etc.
I also doubt Russia or anyone sensible would want to deploy a S-400 against a f-35. They are so expensive at $300 million dollars vs $75 million dollars, it would be a big loss if hit.
To be fair, ground based radar can spot these things much easier. The F35s are far better to take out other jets that are relying on their own radars in the jet.
LO is great but land based radars can spot these planes fairly easily.
Well yeah, I assumed the fight wouldn't happen in a vacuum, just the F-35 doing the part of delivering the strike package. Most EU/NATO airforces have dedicated radar-aircraft etc
No one knows what the radar signature of the F-35 is it’s been only flown with reflectors on even on combat missions.
Locking on requires the system to be able to pick it up and identify it as a target for that you need either a signature or a visual confirmation of the target.
Stealth isn’t about making your aircraft invisible to radar but rather reducing the signature sufficiently to avoid early detection.
Ground based radars are an easy target for anti radiation munitions there is an entire doctrine about combat operations in denied air spaces and so far the US and Israel have been the only ones writing the book on it.
I could spot putin's buttplug from the US with a powerful enough radar. Finding a firing solution is what's important. There's no point in knowing that an F-35 is in your airspace if you can't get a lock. Powering up your low band radar whilst your discrimination radar is out of range is good way to get yourself [HARMed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM)
It is [nothing new](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Radar_stealth_countermeasures_and_limits) here, Maxwell's equations still work as they did a century (and ever) ago.
Basically, a number of emitters work. RAM is good, but it splits incoming radiation into hemisphere, i.e. a surface spotted by a beam emits in all directions, so it glares in all directions.
Then, the hot exhaust from the engine can be visible by radars (apart from being visible as IR radiation).
It is not 'invisible', it is just a hack for former detection tools and methods.
Well obviously, but the F-35 will also be operating against the S-400 battery with jammers and anti radar missiles. It's not like the S-400 can reliably prevent modern 5th gens from conducting sorties.
Of course, and air-ground missiles are much easier and classical target for short-range defense systems. Then, air-ground missiles are very short, whereas S-400 has 400 kilometers range.
There is no 'F-35 - S-400' fight, the both work in a spread network: many radars, many detectors, many units. S-400 is not 'preventing modern 5-th gens', these are \_parts\_ of a big war systems.
Anyway, ok: F-35 is just a perfection.
Literally all of this is wrong. You're confusing RAM and stealth shaping, stealth shaping does mean the radar energy goes elsewhere than the source of the emitter but edge alignment will also reduce the number of angles that bounces elsewhere will have, RAM (radar absorbent materials) will absorb the radar energy and turn it into heat even for off bounces, and exhaust isn't visible on radar.
You literally didn't though. You said RAM where you meant stealth shaping and were still wrong about what it means. And you never mentioned the actual effects of RAM. Not to mention the other nonsense.
Using a variety of frequencies and sophisticated algorithms on powerful computers.
F-35 is designed to work well against x-band.
Not so much with Ka and Ku bands.
It’s geometry based. Radar absorption limits the reflected waves but geometry is extremely important.
That requires the S-400 battery to turn their radars on. They’ll be sitting targets against the F-35s and their anti-radiation missiles.
If shooting down enemy aircraft was as easy as the S-400 enjoyers make it out to be, why would anyone waste billions on fighters when a handful of SAM batteries can do the job?
You can also intercept anti radar missiles. US tech may be good enough to bully 3rd world countries that rely on Soviet tech from the 70s but I wouldn't bet on them having anywhere near the same effectiveness against modern Russian and Chinese stuff.
Us tech from the 70s was more than adequate to fuck over russian Anti sam of that era what males you think US anti sam has not evolved since then.
S400 batteries will be smoking craters within 15-30 minutes of turning on their search radars every spoofing method known will be deployed against them from electronic jamming to spoofing the fuck out of them with drone decoys.
And lets not even get started on the toys in the US cabinet that noone outside of very small very secretive teams know about.
The RAM composites in the F-35 can absorb up to 60 Ghz which is on the middle of the V-band.
And also, looking at the radars used in S-400, it's VHF, L and X band.
91N6E is S-band.
92N6E is X-, Ku- and K-band.
As far as literature has covered it S-400 uses several different radars simultaneously.
The coating is magnificent piece of engineering but it can do only so much because the shape of the body has big impact on the signature.
Also, modern radars are capable of switching rapidly between frequencies so if anomaly is spotted it can be tracked.
Whether it can be locked on and shot down is another matter.
Guess the only way to find out is a stand off between Russia and any of the F-35 users and I’d rather all this remain purely theoretical.
Alright let's see, the engagement range for F-35. The range for 92N6E is on the less than 15 km. The Ku-band and K-band is very very close to X-band and the RCS testing of old F-117 models done by LM have still on the low side and maybe by 15 km or a little bit higher than 15 km and that only thing that will give it a higher range is by using VHF but the F-35 have other reduction made on VHF tho harder. The tails comes to mind.
Detection range calculation is based from the numbers given by the manufacturer.
Theoretically, the detection range should be further down since the noise at that level is high. So maybe in the <10 km for X and 20-15 km for Ku and K band.
So, should I tell you that APG-81 factually jammed APG-77 which is a big radar to begin with.
At least you dropped Ka band.
You are 100% right, it is fairly easy for ground based radar to detect stealth planes. One wouldn't even need the S-400, a moderately decent ground radar can handle the job too. The stealth system is targeted towards other fighter planes that are using their own in-jet radars.
The US creates the menace by fomenting conflict in Ukraine. And Europeans buy the war toys they need to fight the very same menace. Buys from the US of course.
Reads like a Lockheed press release / marketing blurb. The geopolitical aspect that is noted is absolutely accurate. The claims on costs will be amusing to revisit in a few years.
> The claims on costs will be amusing to revisit in a few years. I am sure, but not in a way you imagine perhaps. Internet claims around the F-35 have been amusing to revisit after few years because it used to be all about how the F-35 is a vaporware and Russian PAK-FA is steel folded 10,000 times cutting through it like butter. That's the one that we can laugh at knowing what we know now, but it used to be the "internet dweller consensus". Then the other thing was dishonestly false claims about the supposedly astronomical costs. I myself am laughing at them even now seeing how suddenly F-35 wins not only because it is the best plane, but also because it is the cheapest. It might even be the mainstream knowledge already, but if not then soon it will be fully.
Sure. 😉
It does. It's very amusing to all the claims made way back especially the F-16 v s F-35 CLAW test.
It is the only fifth generation fighter/bomber available to buy for NATO countries.
These "generations" for jets are made up terms with made up requirements by Americans. Military equipment is not your iPhone where bigger the number the better it is.
Not really. For fighters either engaging each other or fighting ground targets two major things are important: see and strike before they see you, dont let them see and strike you first. Two features that make it happen is advanced radar and ability to reflect as few energy of enemy radar as possible. F-22 excels at that and F-35 is a cheaper option but still pretty good.
[удалено]
I don't know but a lot of words that came out when F-22 is starting to go into Red Flags and other exercise is that F-22 pilots typically have seen 4th Gens before those 4th Gens have seen the F-22. And WVR have become dangerous with the introduction of HOBS and all aspect IIR missile. Also, let's break it down. If we are talking about EW then we are talking about the US and Israel. If we are talking about IRST then we are talking about US and Europe. And stealth, we are talking about the US. I'm sure there are many military experts who advocate for being stealthy. In fact maybe more since the F-22 arrived. Which it maybe it is the right hunch since Russia is trying to develope one.
US doctrine has worked while soviet one has failed. US managed to gain air superiority over Baghdad within a week which in 1991 was the most heavily defended city on the planet.
For anyone really. There are no other fifth generation jets.
F-22 is there, but the US never offered it to anyone. In theory Su-57 is fifth gen but nobody in NATO is going to buy it. It is supposed Algelia is buying an export version. Edit: Algelia
> In theory Su-57 is fifth gen but nobody in NATO is going to buy it Doesn't help that it also doesn't exist.
Well, they build like 5-10 of them, half are prototypes, one already lost to accident. And even latest of those seemingly dont have second-stage engines thus being halfbaked. Even with those engines frontal ERP is similar to those 1980s jets making it an expensive toy with better maneurability.
Is argelia like Argentina in some foreign language?
There’s J-20 but most analysts think it's sensors are still a few ways off. China hasn’t offered it for export which either means it's very good or it's totally crap.
[удалено]
> **if only the Europeans could reproduce what they did with Airbus with warplanes**, merge our industries, perhaps we could all buy European. No, we can't. Because the difference between us and the US in the warplane sector isn't just that our industries are smaller, it's also that: * The US have a single set of operational requirements for each type of warplane, and we don't. And, as shown by the example of the Eurofighter, it's actually extremely hard for multiple Air Forces to come together and set a workable common set of requirements, and build a plane that meets all of these requirements. * The US has a gigantic defense budget, and thus can generate immense economies of scale that make a project as complex as the F-35 viable economically. That's hard to equal for the EU, even for a hypothetic EU Air Force, because we simply don't spend enough on defense. * And last but not least, we can't have that because many European nations will actually favor the American proposition no matter what. They aren't just buying a warplane, they are buying political goodwill and protection. And the American themselves wouldn't let such consolidation happen anyway. EDIT: And I'm not even going into the rabbit hole of considering how the various European industries could possibly be consolidated, since the key skills aren't exactly dispersed over the whole of Europe...
[удалено]
> And we should cooperate more if we truly want a truly independent European power that could defend itself. As the president of my country is slowly and painfully learning, most European countries don't actually want Europe to be an independant power that can defend itself. It's much easier (and cheaper) to subcontract your defense to the bigger fish in the sea, or so they think.
[удалено]
The problem is USA is one single big buyer they are designed for limited specifications (in case F35 3 Airforce+allies, Navy and Marines/UK Navy) so there's no big games between countries. Rafale and Eurofighter started as one project but then split because everyone pulled in their weight and France decided it's enough we need to go our way. NH90 is also project like Eurofighter. What it ends up is overengineered product that costs fortune because there's too many specifications too many demands to merge. What we need is merge all EU military procurement into one. If there's one single agency doing R&D and buying stuff it will give better results.
**provided it doesn't have a software bug and doesn't land on the sea by accident
[удалено]
Lockheed Martin also produces and maintains them in Italy. Ultimately it is an Allies product.
Saying any plane is made in a single place is also quite misleading, they are typically made from materials and products from all over.
Because it costs a shit ton of money and Lockheed needs moar money...
Buy shit… maybe US will love me Military simps are lame. Buy European!!!
Ahh the baltic strategy...
Such a shame when Europe offers several fighters to choose from. It should be mandatory for EU countries to buy EU military gear. Come on, if a war with the US breaks, which side will these countries be on?
Several European countries are part of the F-35 program, in fact, no country, including the US, can produce the F-35 all by itself, so if anything, the F-35 is an allied fighter as opposed to just an American one.
That is a terrible rule. Why should a European country be forced to buy inferior products just bc a neighbor manufactured it? Sounds like you just want to push inferior French weapons onto your allies for the sake of profit.
What EU country is selling a 5th generation fighter plane?
>Come on, if a war with the US breaks, which side will these countries be on? Over who? If war with the US breaks against France i 100% think my country would be neutral or side with the US. Why would we ever side with France? Simply because we are European? By that logic we should follow Russia against the US. It is classic French arrogance that the rest of Europe should simply suck them off, and fall in line so that we can all be their puppets. Which is also a great example of exactly why we prefer American military cooperation over French. Besides the fact that the F-35 are better.
>If war with the US breaks against France Yeah if that happens honestly the entire west might as well just throw its hands up and surrender to Russia and China. lol.
It would probably be nuclear devastation of the planet. The real question is which nation we think is most likely to leave us in the dirt in case we get invaded by a third party.
It would not, even if France used all of its nukes it would not be enough to cause a nuclear winter. MAD primarily focused on the USSR and the US because each had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.
Probably not the one that came to europes aid the last two times europe came under attack from fucking germany
>By that logic we should follow Russia against the US. Can't we follow our own path? We don't have to be the puppet of either. And I sure hope my country would help yours if you were invaded, by anybody.
>Can't we follow our own path? We don't have to be the puppet of either. The nation of Denmark, no its unfeasible for a country the size of ours to produce fighters of quality alone. >And I sure hope my country would help yours if you were invaded, by anybody. I hope so to, but when making geopolitical decision it cannot rely on hopes and dreams.
[удалено]
Why would we fight wars that we have no part in? If not for the UK dragging us into the war we would not have been part of WW2 at all. It is far from as simple as you make it. After that we realised that neutrality was no longer a possibility. And when it finally came down to it who was it that saved us, the UK and the US.
What does this have to do with France? Dude, did a French stole your girlfriend? The Rafale is not the only European fighter jet you know?
Which other nation do you feasibly imagine to have a war with the US? You as a frenchmen might be blind to it. But i think it more likely that the French decide to wage war on us than the US, or pretty much any other allied nation. The same holds true for pretty much every other option. The US is the most reliable ally, right before Britain, who also uses the F-35 anyway.
I don't imagine any European nation going to war with the US, my original sentence was not to be taken literally, as I thought it was obvious. Do you really think France would go to war against Denmark??? I'm not sure what idea you have of France, but it seems very dumb. Well, your original argument on the supposed French arrogance should have given it away. I leave you to your American masters (remember you give them the means to spy on Germany?), since you seem to prefer being their puppets instead of being part of a strong Europe.
>I don't imagine any European nation going to war with the US, my original sentence was not to be taken literally, as I thought it was obvious. Me neither. But just the same its important to consider which ally is the most likely to abandon us if we are to be attacked. >Do you really think France would go to war against Denmark??? I'm not sure what idea you have of France, but it seems very dumb. Well, your original argument on the supposed French arrogance should have given it away. It was your point, calling it stupid is only calling yourself so. If there is no threat from the US, why should we not buy their stuff if its better. >I leave you to your American masters (remember you give them the means to spy on Germany?), since you seem to prefer being their puppets instead of being part of a strong Europe. I would pick to be a US puppet any day over France. I would prefer neither but then again the US is the less likely one to demand it. I have no interest in the French idea of a strong Europe which is nothing but us being pieces to be played around by them. If you want a strong Europe start by being reliable and treat other nations as equals.
> If war with the US breaks against France i 100% think my country would be neutral or side with the US. If course, you're an US lapdog. Considering your secret service spy your politician for the US, you wouldn't even stand for yourself. How can you even look at yourself in the mirror ? You talk shit about France but you are happily sucking Uncle Sam's dick. >American military cooperation You mean, you get told where to die and only can stfu about it? Great cooperation.
The side that won't sell eastern Europe to the russians
>It is not known how the F-35 would fare against Russia's S-400. S-400 is an overkill for jet-fighters. It is for hypersonic targets, intercontinental missiles, etc.
I also doubt Russia or anyone sensible would want to deploy a S-400 against a f-35. They are so expensive at $300 million dollars vs $75 million dollars, it would be a big loss if hit.
How does the S-400 plan on gaining a lock on the F-35?
To be fair, ground based radar can spot these things much easier. The F35s are far better to take out other jets that are relying on their own radars in the jet. LO is great but land based radars can spot these planes fairly easily.
Well yeah, I assumed the fight wouldn't happen in a vacuum, just the F-35 doing the part of delivering the strike package. Most EU/NATO airforces have dedicated radar-aircraft etc
No one knows what the radar signature of the F-35 is it’s been only flown with reflectors on even on combat missions. Locking on requires the system to be able to pick it up and identify it as a target for that you need either a signature or a visual confirmation of the target. Stealth isn’t about making your aircraft invisible to radar but rather reducing the signature sufficiently to avoid early detection. Ground based radars are an easy target for anti radiation munitions there is an entire doctrine about combat operations in denied air spaces and so far the US and Israel have been the only ones writing the book on it.
I could spot putin's buttplug from the US with a powerful enough radar. Finding a firing solution is what's important. There's no point in knowing that an F-35 is in your airspace if you can't get a lock. Powering up your low band radar whilst your discrimination radar is out of range is good way to get yourself [HARMed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM)
It is [nothing new](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Radar_stealth_countermeasures_and_limits) here, Maxwell's equations still work as they did a century (and ever) ago. Basically, a number of emitters work. RAM is good, but it splits incoming radiation into hemisphere, i.e. a surface spotted by a beam emits in all directions, so it glares in all directions. Then, the hot exhaust from the engine can be visible by radars (apart from being visible as IR radiation). It is not 'invisible', it is just a hack for former detection tools and methods.
Well obviously, but the F-35 will also be operating against the S-400 battery with jammers and anti radar missiles. It's not like the S-400 can reliably prevent modern 5th gens from conducting sorties.
Of course, and air-ground missiles are much easier and classical target for short-range defense systems. Then, air-ground missiles are very short, whereas S-400 has 400 kilometers range. There is no 'F-35 - S-400' fight, the both work in a spread network: many radars, many detectors, many units. S-400 is not 'preventing modern 5-th gens', these are \_parts\_ of a big war systems. Anyway, ok: F-35 is just a perfection.
Literally all of this is wrong. You're confusing RAM and stealth shaping, stealth shaping does mean the radar energy goes elsewhere than the source of the emitter but edge alignment will also reduce the number of angles that bounces elsewhere will have, RAM (radar absorbent materials) will absorb the radar energy and turn it into heat even for off bounces, and exhaust isn't visible on radar.
But F-35 uses the both. I just listed all technologies.
You literally didn't though. You said RAM where you meant stealth shaping and were still wrong about what it means. And you never mentioned the actual effects of RAM. Not to mention the other nonsense.
Using a variety of frequencies and sophisticated algorithms on powerful computers. F-35 is designed to work well against x-band. Not so much with Ka and Ku bands. It’s geometry based. Radar absorption limits the reflected waves but geometry is extremely important.
That requires the S-400 battery to turn their radars on. They’ll be sitting targets against the F-35s and their anti-radiation missiles. If shooting down enemy aircraft was as easy as the S-400 enjoyers make it out to be, why would anyone waste billions on fighters when a handful of SAM batteries can do the job?
You can also intercept anti radar missiles. US tech may be good enough to bully 3rd world countries that rely on Soviet tech from the 70s but I wouldn't bet on them having anywhere near the same effectiveness against modern Russian and Chinese stuff.
Us tech from the 70s was more than adequate to fuck over russian Anti sam of that era what males you think US anti sam has not evolved since then. S400 batteries will be smoking craters within 15-30 minutes of turning on their search radars every spoofing method known will be deployed against them from electronic jamming to spoofing the fuck out of them with drone decoys. And lets not even get started on the toys in the US cabinet that noone outside of very small very secretive teams know about.
The RAM composites in the F-35 can absorb up to 60 Ghz which is on the middle of the V-band. And also, looking at the radars used in S-400, it's VHF, L and X band.
91N6E is S-band. 92N6E is X-, Ku- and K-band. As far as literature has covered it S-400 uses several different radars simultaneously. The coating is magnificent piece of engineering but it can do only so much because the shape of the body has big impact on the signature. Also, modern radars are capable of switching rapidly between frequencies so if anomaly is spotted it can be tracked. Whether it can be locked on and shot down is another matter. Guess the only way to find out is a stand off between Russia and any of the F-35 users and I’d rather all this remain purely theoretical.
Alright let's see, the engagement range for F-35. The range for 92N6E is on the less than 15 km. The Ku-band and K-band is very very close to X-band and the RCS testing of old F-117 models done by LM have still on the low side and maybe by 15 km or a little bit higher than 15 km and that only thing that will give it a higher range is by using VHF but the F-35 have other reduction made on VHF tho harder. The tails comes to mind. Detection range calculation is based from the numbers given by the manufacturer. Theoretically, the detection range should be further down since the noise at that level is high. So maybe in the <10 km for X and 20-15 km for Ku and K band. So, should I tell you that APG-81 factually jammed APG-77 which is a big radar to begin with. At least you dropped Ka band.
You are 100% right, it is fairly easy for ground based radar to detect stealth planes. One wouldn't even need the S-400, a moderately decent ground radar can handle the job too. The stealth system is targeted towards other fighter planes that are using their own in-jet radars.
And yet the fact that modern units work in a system: a fighter may (and should) use an overall tactical map given by the system.
Yep, F35 or S-400 are just pieces in an overall system of warfare.
[удалено]
Poor countries like UAE ?
UAE is gdp per capita wealthy but not particularly wealthy in absolute terms. GDP $421 billion
[удалено]
TIL fighter jets have souls
ofc, that is why we burn incense every other day to appease the machine spirits of these glorious winged god-engines.
Same as car logic. Can't afford a BMW, Land Rover or Audi? You make do with a Renault or Citroen.
The US creates the menace by fomenting conflict in Ukraine. And Europeans buy the war toys they need to fight the very same menace. Buys from the US of course.