F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[asianobserve]

Lockheed meets 2017 F-35 delivery goal

Lockheed Martin hit the planned F-35 delivery total for the year,

rolling out its 66th jet in 2017 earlier this week.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-meets-2017-f-35-delivery-goal-444363/

 

[asianobserve]

F-35 Ascending: The Pentagon's Biggest Program Had Its Best Year Ever In 2017

In April of this year, the Defense Contract Management Agency predicted that Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the Pentagon's tri-service F-35 joint strike fighter, would not be able to meet a goal of delivering 66 of the aircraft in 2017. Delivering 66 would represent a 43% increase over the program's performance in 2016, and based on past performance the agency figured Lockheed would fall short by nine planes.

Eight months later, on December 15, Lockheed Martin delivered the 66th plane -- for the umpteenth time confounding critics of the Pentagon's biggest weapons program. Although the contracting agency managed to find an arcane reason why this wasn't really good news, the fact of the matter is that the F-35 program is going gangbusters. Developmental testing is approaching completion after 8,000 flights without a single major mishap, and all three variants of the plane are meeting their performance specifications.

With no show-stoppers left to find, production of the fighter is ramping up fast. The production goal for next year is over 90 fighters, and that number will grow to 160 five years later. In addition to the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, 11 other countries have signed up to buy the F-35, and half a dozen more are signaling interest. One reason is that the price of the most common variant, the Air Force's F-35A, is projected to fall to $80 million per plane by 2020, making it no more expensive than legacy fighters that lack the F-35's advanced technology (the latest Boeing 787 Dreamliner lists for $300 million).

Today, though, the F-35 has broken through the clouds and is ascending fast. Over 500 pilots and 5,000 maintainers have been trained.

Aircraft reliability is averaging 93%, which is extraordinary for a new, cutting-edge tactical aircraft. The fighter is operating from 14 different bases, and several allies are already flying it. Israel declared that its fleet of F-35s had achieved initial operational capability earlier this month. All signs point to F-35 being the dominant fighter around the world through mid-century.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...-had-its-best-year-ever-in-2017/#43bb90426fc5

 

[asianobserve]

F-35 testers wrap up Weapons Delivery Accuracy tests

The ITF used all three F-35 variants and delivered air-to-air missiles including AIM-120s, the AIM-9X and the United Kingdom’s advanced short range air-to-air missile. The WDA tests also confirmed air-to-ground delivery of the Paveway IV laser-guided bomb, GBU-39 small diameter bomb, GBU-12, GBU-31 joint direct attack munition and the AGM-154 joint standoff weapon.

Hamilton said the air-to-air accuracy tests finished in August with air-to-ground tests ending in October. The F-35 ITF then capped off WDA tests by completing testing on the F-35’s GAU-22 25mm gun at the beginning of December. The WDA gun tests included the Air Force’s A-variant where the gun is internally carried and on the Marine Corps’ and Navy’s B and C variants, which employ a gun pod beneath the jet.

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...ters-wrap-up-weapons-delivery-accuracy-tests/

 

[asianobserve]

The F-35 Could Be Headed Into Combat in 2018

The America’s newest fighter jet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, might finally see combat in 2018. According to the Marine Corps Times, the U.S. Marine Corps is sending the jet on two overseas patrols next year, to the Middle East and the Pacific. The Middle Eastern tour could see the jet sent into combat over a number of regional conflicts the United States is currently embroiled in.

The Marines are sending detachments of F-35Bs on two Marine Expeditionary Unit cruises, with the East Coast-based 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit on the USS Wasp and the West Coast-based 13th MEU on the USS Essex. USS Wasp will be headed into the Asia-Pacific, where one possible stop is off the coast of North Korea. USS Essex will be headed to the Middle East where it could visit Syria/Iraq, Libya, and Yemen. U.S. aircraft have conducted airstrikes over all three areas, and the F-35Bs of the 13th MEU could conduct some of their own.

Marine Expeditionary Units are unique self-contained combat units capable of air and ground missions that travel in amphibious task forces. A typical MEU consists of approximately 2,200 marines and sailors and is centered around a marine infantry battalion reinforced with tanks, light armored vehicles, artillery, engineering, communications, medical, and logistics support units. A MEU also typically embarks up to 30 aircraft, including F-35s, MV-22 Ospreys, CH-53 Sea Stallions, AH-1Z attack helicopters, and UH-1Y Huey utility aircraft. Previously, MEUs embarked about six AV-8B Harrier jump jets per cruise, and it’s likely each will sport the same number of F-35Bs.

Aside from scheduled training missions, MEUs sometimes have no agenda at all other than to provide a roving, battalion-sized rapid-reaction force capable of showing the flag, amphibious assaults, raids, conventional and unconventional land warfare operations, rescues of downed pilots, evacuating Americans from crisis areas, and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions. MEUs are basically packages of heavily armed Marines that cruise around in amphibious ships for months at a time looking for trouble.

The Marines declared its F-35B jets initial operational capability in 2015, meaning the aircraft were capable of at least some of the range of combat missions the aircraft will eventually be capable of. For ground attack missions, the F-35B is armed with the 1,000 pound GBU-32 satellite-guided Joint Directed Attack Munition (JDAM) and the 500 pound GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb. For air combat, it carries AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missiles.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...the-f-35-could-be-headed-into-combat-in-2018/

 

[asianobserve]

Stealth Mode vs. Beast Mode

 

[asianobserve]

Some older photos of F-35 on board USS America:

The video:

 

[asianobserve]

South Korea, Japan may put the F-35B stealth fighter on combat-capable ships

• South Korea and Japan reportedly are considering F-35B fighters for warships.
• Experts say the stealth aircraft could potentially conduct strikes deep inside nuclear-armed North Korea.
• China, though, has protested Japan's interest in putting the F-35B on warships.

"We urge Japan to do more that may help enhance mutual trust and promote regional peace and stability," Hua Chunying, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, was quoted as saying Tuesday in state media. She also said such actions by Tokyo would violate Article 9 of Japan's 1946 constitution, which renounces war and technically the use of force.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/28/sou...35b-stealth-jets-on-combat-capable-ships.html

China is definitely not happy...

 

[asianobserve]

Interesting short F-35 comparison videos:

 

[asianobserve]

Israeli F-35 Demonstrates impressive performance at Hazerim Air Base, at Flight Academy course #175 graduation

 

[asianobserve]

Electronic Warfare: The Part Of The F-35 Fighter Story You Haven't Heard

Modern warfare is waged largely on the electromagnetic spectrum. Although bombs and missiles get the headlines, they are just the kinetic step in a "kill chain" that relies heavily on electronic sensors and computers to detect, track, prioritize and target enemy assets. If the enemy is technologically advanced, it will be using its own array of electronic devices to deceive, disrupt or destroy attacking forces. These defensive measures will typically include methods for interfering with the electronic signals that smart bombs depend on for accuracy.

The struggle to control and exploit the electromagnetic spectrum makes today's conflicts fundamentally different from those of the past. Although Sun Tzu understood 2000 years ago that success in war often depends on deception, the opportunities to confuse, disorient and demoralize adversaries have multiplied as the military enterprise came to depend so heavily on electronic tactics and tools. Electronic warfare thus is a central feature of military strategy for the foreseeable future.

Which brings me to the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, the F-35 fighter. Begun at the dawn of the new millennium two decades ago, the F-35 program is providing the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps with replacements for most of their Cold War tactical aircraft (nearly 300 have already been delivered). Three distinctly different variants of the plane will supply each service with performance features tailored to their unique requirements, in an exceptionally agile and versatile aircraft designed to be far more survivable than those that came before.

If you have paid any attention to the F-35 program, then you know that stealth technology is critical to its survival in wartime. Stealth, also known as low-observable technology, enables the aircraft to avoid danger by minimizing features that can be detected using radars or heat-seeking sensors. For instance, radar signals are either deflected by the fighter's shape or absorbed by its materials, so little energy returns to the radar that can be used to track the plane.

The F-35 has an integrated stealth design, meaning it not only minimizes "signatures" in the microwave segment of the spectrum used by radar, but also the infrared and visible-light segments exploited by electro-optical sensors. Emissions from on-board communications equipment are also managed to leave enemies with few options for finding the fighter. So while a long-wavelength search radar might occasionally detect a distant F-35, there will usually be no way of tracking or targeting it.


This is the main reason why F-35s are achieving kill ratios of 20-to-1 in simulated combat against adversary aircraft. As one pilot of an adversary fighter put it, "We just can't see them like they can see us. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on trying to find someone in a huge space." This state of being nearly defenseless harkens back to pre-radar days, when a very worried Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin warned the British Parliament that "the bomber will always get through."

But there is more to F-35 survivability than stealth. All three variants of the fighter are equipped with a highly automated electronic-warfare system that disrupts and deceives enemy electronic capabilities -- not just radars, but heat-seeking missiles, communications networks and navigation signals. The combination of this advanced electronic-warfare system with F-35 stealth, speed, agility and weapons assures the U.S. and its allies will have unfettered access to hostile air space through mid-century, and probably beyond.

The F-35's electronic-warfare system is built by BAE Systems, Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Britain's biggest defense contractor. Like F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems is a longtime contributor to my think tank and consulting client. But the company is so reserved in discussing features of the system that I didn't bother to solicit comments for this story. Fortunately, there are a few other sources one can turn to for a general grasp of how effectively F-35 maneuvers in the electromagnetic realm.

Unlike legacy tactical aircraft that had "federated" electronic-warfare systems, the F-35 architecture is highly integrated. Radio-frequency and electro-optical receivers are embedded around the edge of the airframe to provide continuous sensing of hostile emitters in every direction, with collections from all sensors fused through a central computer before being displayed on the visor of the pilot's helmet. The system also merges information from off-board sensors to provide a comprehensive picture of the local electronic environment.

F-35 is the first fighter that integrates threat data from across the relevant segments of the spectrum before displaying it to the pilot. That reduces the time required to respond to dangers while also easing pressure on the pilot. In fact, if the pilot is preoccupied with other facets of the mission, the EW system will automatically generate the optimum solution to a threat, whether that means jamming a radar, releasing chaff to confuse it, or launching false targets (usually high-tech flares) to draw away heat-seeking missiles.

Onboard EW functions are closely coupled with the F-35's agile radar, which like many other onboard electronic systems is built by Northrop Grumman. The radar is used not only to track and target potential threats, but also to generate jamming signals that overload enemy sensor and communication receivers so that they cannot be used effectively. These software-driven functions must be performed with great precision to generate effects at the exact frequencies where hostile emitters are operating without disrupting signals used by friendly forces.

Because the F-35's EW architecture is fully digitized, it weighs less, needs less space, and requires less power than legacy technology. However, the F-35 provides much greater electrical power for electronic applications than last-generation aircraft, enabling it to collect information and generate effects over larger areas. The radar is designed to generate highly directional signals for jamming so that emitters in specific locations can be disrupted without causing collateral effects elsewhere in the battlespace.

To summarize, the F-35 is essentially self-sufficient in its capacity to detect, localize, prioritize and defeat hostile emitters. It not only doesn't require dedicated support aircraft, but it can act as a jamming aircraft for other planes that are not so well-endowed. Whatever information a particular pilot cannot get from his or her onboard systems can generally be obtained from off-board sources (including other F-35s) via secure data links. This is yet another way in which the Pentagon's biggest program is building the foundation for U.S. global air dominance in the decades ahead.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...ighter-story-you-havent-heard/2/#2fb9a9bec90f

 

[asianobserve]

Here is Su35 maneuver for you:
Watch it and compare with F35. Son't compare junked planes like MiG35

Can you not understand English? I did not say that the F-35 outmaneuvers SU-35 which is TVC-equipped. I said the F-35 can do maneuvers that only TVC-equipped aircrafts can do like this back flip and pedal turn:


BTW, I already posted this video above.

 

[asianobserve]

On a lighter note from the Clown-in-Chief of the U.S.A.:

Trump lauded delivery of F-52s to Norway. The planes only exist in ‘Call of Duty.’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...exist-in-call-of-duty/?utm_term=.8e7afb6ce574

 

[asianobserve]

Meanwhile, despite the American idiot's goof-up Norwegian F-35s are already training in Norway...

 

[asianobserve]

F-35 Lightning II Strike Fighter Jet flying at Luke Air Force Base

 

[asianobserve]

F-35 versus legacy aircrafts

 

[asianobserve]

F-35 EOTS demonstration

 

[asianobserve]

Turn comparison between a "clean" F-16 and F-35

 

[asianobserve]

Pasted hereunder is an interesting compilation of quotes and articles on F-35's kinematics compiled by Dragon029.

Kinematics
Return To Index

Other Aircraft Kinematics

• Technical / performance documents of Cold War aircraft

F-35 Maneuverability

• Ex-[F-15C, F-16C, F-15E and A-10] pilots prefer the F-35A in nearly every air-to-air scenario.
  
  • Source article / paper
• F-35 was designed to be comparable to F-16 and F/A-18.
  
  
• "...The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.” “Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA..." (underlining supplied)
  
  
• “When I’m down range in Badguyland that’s the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that’s where I think the F-35 starts to edge-out an aircraft like the F-16,” Kloos says. The F-35′s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50 F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35,” Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it.”
  
  
• Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.
  
  
• “The F-35 actually flies very, very similarly to the Hornet, both classic and Super,” he related. “In fact, it’s probably more like the Super in the way it feels. The alpha (angle of attack performance) and the power is similar to a Super Hornet, although it’s got a little bit more power down low.
  
  
• “Being this well prepared, I experienced no surprises whatsoever during my first flight. I found it relatively easy to convert from the F-16 to the F-35. Because both are Lockheed Martin products, there are many similarities between the two types. When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16. The power of the aircraft is really impressive.
  
  • F-16.net text version
• [F-35C] After a rapid climb to 25,000ft I try some slow flight, but the computer won’t let a full aerodynamic stall develop. Instead, the sink rate simply increases. I add power until the sink rate is arrested at 120kt, then Kenn says, “You can loop it from there − just go to full afterburner and pitch up”. I can scarcely believe it is possible but do as I’m told, and it works as advertised.
  
  
• The F-35, in most of its flight envelope, is unstable in pitch and neutrally stable in yaw.
  
  
• The visual fight will most likely already be decided before the adversary knows it’s in a dogfight, continues Gladys. “Even so, slow-speed and high angle-of-attack performance is much better than many fourth generation fighters like the F-16. High angle of attack testing has been an eye-opener for previous F-16 pilots, who are not used to very good slow speed performance. Straight line acceleration is also much better. At higher speeds, the F-16 has the sustained turning advantage (as it does over many aircraft like the F-18), but only when fighting in training configurations without any missiles or bombs. When flying in combat configs, even the high speeds sustained fight becomes much closer.”
  
  
• "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get."
  
  
• F-35 subsonic acceleration Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.95 vs F-16.
  
  
• A page from the 2015 Marine Aviation Plan, stating that the F-35B's cruise speed is Mach 0.94
  
  
• The F-35, in most of its flight envelope, is unstable in pitch and neutrally stable in yaw.
  
  
• One of the things CLAW does not protect us from, for example, is overspeed. We can exceed Mach and KCAS limits in nearly every configuration (Mode 4 being the exception), though an OVERSPEED caution alerts us as we approach them.
  
  
• Niemi said typical approach speeds are 150 knots and strictly by a 13-degree angle of attack all the way to the ground. “It’s a real easy plane to fly and it has good powerful [air] brakes. At 100 knots it will sit down pretty good,” he said.
  
  
• Landings in the A and B are similar to the F-16 in terms of speed and angle of attack. The C-model is as solid as a rock and pilots land at a much slower speed—high 120s to low 130s [knots]. The angle of attack for landing is much lower in the C-model so the pilot can see over the nose. The angle of attack control is very precise.”
  
  
• • At MIL power and a 5-10 degree climb gradient, the jet will exceed 300 knots before the end of the runway.
  • With less than half throttle, the jet will climb at a gradient of 5 degrees, at 300 knots.
  • At 1500ft (in a circuit), the jet maintains 300-350 knots in a straight line with 20-25% engine power.
  • When you see an F-35A's nose pitch down at the end of an aerobraking, they're travelling at least 110-120 knots - the jet is more nose-heavy (when the landing gear is involved) than an F-16.
  • English translation

F-35 Range

• Fuel flow is measured in lbs/min in this aircraft. Normally 20's - mid 30k cruising .8-.92M you're burning between 85-100 lbs/min; generally figure 100 for planning but we will beat that a lot. FADEC seems to keep fuel flow pretty constant in a lot of different situations. Max endurance will generally stabilize around 85lbs/min 250-280kts. Unlike a lot of other a/c, you don't buy nearly as much during an idle descent as it seems to take a lot of fuel to keep this gigantic engine turning, around 50lbs/min.
  
  For reference, two tanked F-18 max endurance with pylons you figure 4800 lbs/hour fuel burn. Goes up quickly with speed increase.
  
  With ppm versus pph, are we talking about the Stubby or the Bug?
  
  Ppm is for the f-35. Pph displayed for the hornet. You would be amazed at the ppm burned in blower... 90ppm at .85m (or 10.5 lbs/nm) is pretty awesome for a motor that produces 40k thrust, especially with how much internal gas we have.
  
  Is that with internal GBU's? what F-35 variant?
  
  Yes, w ord. B model, but they’re all about the same.
  
  F-16.net thread
  
  • Doing calculations on the above numbers - a 250nmi radius mission, assuming 18,000lb of usable fuel, Mach 0.85 cruise in/out (no allocation for climb or descent) and ~250 knot loiter = 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of loiter time.
• F-35 FY2018 SAR combat radius data:
  
  • The demonstrated combat radius of the F-35A for a strike mission used to be 625nmi, it is now 669nmi.
• In this diagram it states that the F-35A (1 gallon of JP-8 = 6.7lb) burns about 4000lb of fuel per hour, cruising at Mach 0.75 and 40,000ft (which according to Wolfram Alpha is about 430 knots TAS). 18500lb / 4000lb/hr = 4.625 hours. Fuel will need to be burnt to get to that cruise altitude and airspeed, although at the same time, the aircraft can operate at an even lower thrust level or even idle when descending and slowing for a landing. Just for a rough indication; 4hrs * 430kts = 1720NM.
  
  
• 760NM for the F-35A on an internal air to air configuration (with the context being Israel air defence)
  
  
• F-35A has double the combat endurance of an F-15C with 2 external tanks.
  
  • Direct video link
• Although the jet has enough fuel to fly from the Azores to Canada without refueling, it was refueled in flight three times for safety and security.
  
  /u/vanshilar: It doesn't really specify where in Canada, but the closest Canadian place to the Azores that I could quickly find with Google is St. John's, NL. Google gives this distance as 2447 km, or 1521 miles, or 1322 nm. Obviously this is a minimum, so the plane's actual ferry range is somewhere above this. I guess not it's not particularly surprising, but this is one more data point as to the F-35's range I suppose.
  
  
• For the quick two hour, ten minute jaunt from Florida to AirVenture, each fighter jet burned about 5,000 pounds of fuel at 270 knots.
  
  Eglin AFB (Florida) to AirVenture is about 800NM. Also, one of the figures is wrong, as they the time, distance and speed don't meet up. I believe that it's the 270 knots. Why? Because, 270 knots is fairly slow for a jet aircraft and on top of that, if you use 370 knots, the distance (800NM) closely matches the time (2.167 * 370 = 801.67NM). Naturally the speed (assuming they were flying 370kts) and the 5000lb fuel burn figures are going to be rounded as well.
  
  
• The commander of the Israeli air force, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, even spoke with his Italian counterparts, who took the jet on long flights (including from Italy to the United States) and reported that its range is significantly greater than what is now being claimed.
  
  
• Norwegian slide stating a combat radius of 728NM for 2x GBU-12, 2x AMRAAM and (apparently) 2x EFTs on a surveillance mission; note that the cruise altitudes vary between 5,000ft and 25,000ft, which is non-optimal.
  
  
• Another slide indicating a flight profile for the standard ~610NM combat radius (with 2x JSM and 2x AMRAAM)
  
  
• Another slide giving a 732NM figure for the F-35A, for some unknown (strike without air combat?) mission
  
  
• Photo of a RAAF air show placard at Avalon 2017 - states that the F-35 has a 3000km (1620NM) ferry range and 1072km (579NM) combat radius - the latter might be a typo (the F-35A KPP is 590NM with a 2015 SAR actual performance estimate of 625NM; 1172km = 633NM). The 3000km is certainly a rounded figure, but to what degree is unknown.
  
  
• /u/vanshilar gives an estimate of the F-35A's loiter time based on an April 26, 2016 statement by Dr Michael Gilmore (DOT&E at the time) to the Senate Armed Forces Committee
  

F-35B Range

• F-35 FY2018 SAR combat radius data:
  
  • The demonstrated combat radius of the F-35B for a strike mission used to be 467nmi, it is now 505nmi.
• A slide giving 473NM for the F-35B on a USMC interdiction mission. 663NM is given for an F-35B + 2x notional 480 gal EFTs
  
  
• A slide stating that the F-35B would have to be able to divert / fly 700nmi with 10,000lb of fuel in the event of an emergency during a transatlantic crossing
  

F-35C Range

• F-35 FY2018 SAR combat radius data:
  
  • The estimated* combat radius of the F-35C for a strike mission used to be 630nmi, it is now 640nmi.
• A slide giving 768NM for the F-35C on a strike mission, with an optimal cruise in (at something like 40,000ft+), a drop of A-G weapons and air combat at 35,000ft. 927NM is given for an F-35C + 2x 480 gal EFTs
  

F-35 Speed

• The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
  
  "Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.
  
  
• https://www.defensenews.com/article...6130302/F-35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds/
  
  (Currently trying to get a fully copy of this article)
  

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dragon029/wiki/kinematics

 

[asianobserve]

Compilations and quotes on the comparative stealthiness of the F-35 versus F-22 and B-2 complied by Dragon029. The most interesting take-away is that the F-35 actually has better stealth qualities than an F-22

F-35 vs F-22 & B-2 stealth claims
submitted 2 years ago * by Dragon029

The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.

Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”

www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff

On a radar map, a 747 would appear the size of a hot air balloon and an F-16 would look like a beach ball. Drill down to legacy stealth aircraft and Lockheed’s F-117 Nighthawk would show up as a golf ball while an F-22 Raptor might appear as a pea. With the F-35, Lockheed is getting down to pebble size, according to Robert Wallace, senior manager for F-35 flight operations.

Wallace, a former chief of low-observability for the US Air Force’s B-2 bomber, says the F-35 has leveraged LO qualities from the bomber – but he could not elaborate on specifics.

Pilots will see a more advanced low-observable signature on the F-35 versus the F-22, but it’s the maintainers who see the greatest leap in durability.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-lasers-and-scanners-illuminate-f-35-ramp-u-432983/

November 25, 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it's effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how "stealthy" the F-22 is. It's RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx

• Note that the last quote dates from 2005; 4 years before they performed the first real-world radar cross section testing of an F-35. The next quote is particularly relevant:

As of May 31 [2011], Griffiths said, the Edwards F-35s had flown a total of 2,513 test points against a plan of 1,995. As of that date, the F-35A was hitting all of its key performance parameters, and radar cross-section testing is exceeding specifications.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110613/DEFFEAT04/106130302/F-35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds[dead link]

For anyone that reads this other than me; note that these claims are almost certainly subject to the band being used, the aspect angle, etc.

 

[asianobserve]

US State Department approves possible FMS of 34 F-35s to Belgium

WASHINGTON, JAN. 18, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Belgium of thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing aircraft for an estimated cost of $6.53 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/belgium-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-aircraft