Who is this Joseph Trevithick guy anyway? His linked in profile says "Journalist and researcher with experience using various open source and public domain resources", "Acted as an on call military history consultant for various miniatures gaming products."
I feel a lot of the reasoning seems a little dubious.
> Russian radars, such as the one on the new Sukhoi Su-35, at least match the JSF’s APG-81, according to data compiled by Carlo Kopp at Air Power Australia. While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates ...
Air Power Australia have a MASSIVE axe to grind when it comes to the F-35. They also have a history of publishing things that look like F-22 fanfiction (e.g. an article saying that navalizing the F-22 should be a piece of cake, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html).
> But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles that spread out their exhaust plumes,
I think they are flat mostly to shape radar reflections. I think the fact that the B-2 exhaust nozzle is on the upper half of the aircraft also is supposed to help the IR signature, but does the flatness really affect anything?
> Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes ... “You can’t stealthify against long-wavelength radars”
Sure, but this affects every airplane, it's not a weakness of the F-35.
> The F-35’s limited weaponry was one of the major problems that a controversial simulation highlighted back in 2008.
Well, it was indeed controversial. As one article puts it "RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It’s about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions."(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-cap...). In particular, they concluded that the F-22 would also be completely outgunned, despite being indisputably the best air superiority fighter right now.
The War is Boring coverage of the F-35 in general strikes me as kindof shoddy, it's like they decided that writing snarky anti-F-35 articles is now part of their blog brand.
I feel a lot of the reasoning seems a little dubious.
> Russian radars, such as the one on the new Sukhoi Su-35, at least match the JSF’s APG-81, according to data compiled by Carlo Kopp at Air Power Australia. While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates ...
Air Power Australia have a MASSIVE axe to grind when it comes to the F-35. They also have a history of publishing things that look like F-22 fanfiction (e.g. an article saying that navalizing the F-22 should be a piece of cake, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html).
> But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles that spread out their exhaust plumes,
I think they are flat mostly to shape radar reflections. I think the fact that the B-2 exhaust nozzle is on the upper half of the aircraft also is supposed to help the IR signature, but does the flatness really affect anything?
> Even with its radar off, an F-35 could struggle to hide from enemy planes ... “You can’t stealthify against long-wavelength radars”
Sure, but this affects every airplane, it's not a weakness of the F-35.
> The F-35’s limited weaponry was one of the major problems that a controversial simulation highlighted back in 2008.
Well, it was indeed controversial. As one article puts it "RAND’s core conclusion is not about specific fighter performance. It’s about the theoretical limits of better performance under adverse basing and logistics conditions."(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-cap...). In particular, they concluded that the F-22 would also be completely outgunned, despite being indisputably the best air superiority fighter right now.
The War is Boring coverage of the F-35 in general strikes me as kindof shoddy, it's like they decided that writing snarky anti-F-35 articles is now part of their blog brand.