[Skybird]

2600 sounds like a lot, but still: the US covers practically all the globe, and this thins out the av ailability of fighters in a given region. In 2003, before the launched agaiunst Iraq, some US general or poltixan claimed that the US could wage two wars simultaneously. I already had doubts about that back then, due to logistics and distrubution of supplies. Today I think it would be considered an insane statement as long as "two wars" do not mean two lof intensity conmflicts against some cow shepareds in some god-forsaken place. Compared to that, China has all its planes in a relatively compact environment as battle ground. Russia also has to cover a long border, and as is to be expected that too pouts stress on its logistics and supplies. Its the reaosn for exmapewkl why their hueg tank forc estill does use steel-penwetrator Sabots, not Tungsten loike the gewrmans and Uran as the Americans - its cheaper, since they must provide ammo to far more tanks. I do not know however if they still maintain that ammunition design today. I wouild expect that in a huge wear, smart ammo runs quickly, too. It was also the case in the the gulf war 91. Costs have gone up since then, I cannot imagine that stockpiled ammunitioon has gone up that dramatically since then, especially expensive smart amunitions. And what is a costly stealth plane with non-smart weapons? A waste of money.


On the reflectopr things, the article I linked said: "Hensoldt argues that passive-radar detection works in a different spectrum, making the presence (or absence) of reflectors irrelevant. In layman’s terms, passive radar tracks the entire physical shape of planes, versus being triggered by smaller, angular features on the body of a jet." - This is a summary of an more thorough explanation of a German article where I read about this story first (and then looked up an english news for posting it here). Their explanation is beoiuevable, my imporerssion was. The relfectors are meant for use aganst active radar. The apssiove radar does not depend on them atm, it dpends on presenc eof passive radar emissions in the environment that react to the whole framework of a plane.



I do not deny the F35 still has some advantages by its stealth feature,ks I only douzb t that they are worth the enormnous addit9nal costs, and obviously severla defence ministries see it that way as well and instead invest the money of diferent purposes. Its a bit like with super sport cars, maybe: enormous PS and top speeds, but lousy brakes and maybe also handling. But that does not stop some people buying them, due to the PS argument. It is not practically relevant, but they like to spend money on it nevertheless.



I doubt that the US will really buy those 2600 units. I think, as so often, the ordering numbers will see cuts. But this we will know not before many, many more years have come and gone.