| >I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms. Yes a sophisticated network of radars, sensors, and computers could potentially detect lower RCS aircraft from further away. But that problem would exist for larger RCS aircraft as well. Such a system is a prime target for first hour strike by cruise missiles as the radars required are very large and power intensive. It's not just about detection, but also being able to acquire a firing solution. A lower RCS plane is harder to track, easier to hide with jamming, and ultimately much more of a headache than a higher RCS plane. >My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens. F35's performance is superior to the planes it replaces while providing both greater range and payload. It's got very high AoA capabilities which only the F-22 can surpass. Even more impressively it is able to do maneuvers which other plans cannot do without thrust vectoring.[0] >Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners. Wrong. Lot 14 F-35A's cost $78M.[1] That's less than new Eurofighters and Dassault Rafale. The F35 is the best thing currently in production. That's not to say it's perfect. The F-35's biggest flaws are not that of maneuverability or insufficient stealth. But of range. Despite improving on the airframes which it is replacing in range, it is not enough given the realities of Chinese A2/AD capabilities. The USAF needs a new fighter which is capable of significantly greater ranges as to not over stretch it's tanker network. The NGAD program hopes to address this. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-APFmIGo1k
[1]: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-de... |