What’s with that link is the part discussing the different engine nozzle that will be on production F-35s, from the one that’s on the ones currently in testing.

Do you think that the english used in this document clearly confirms the ability to deploy a2g munitions from the F35 at supersonic speed with no room for doubt whatsoever?

Absolutely. There are 2 very distinct terms- internal weapons and internal air to air missiles. That’s not ambiguous.

The “argument” re supersonic release of weapons has revealed an striking lack of english comprehension amongst some posters.

At no point in the data provided in post #257 does it mention a2g weapons.
The phrase “including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air-to-air missiles” cannot in english be used to imply anything with regard to the capability for a2g.
It also does not implicitly exclude the possibilty that a2g at that speed may be feasible.
It is a very well written piece of marketing.

Anybody trying to make anything more than that out of it has an agenda that is not supported by the current data available.

As for comprehension, do you not note the distinction made between internal weapons, and internal air to air missiles? What do you suppose these non-air to air missile weapons might be? It would seem to me that the agenda is in trying to deny various postive attributes.

I find it rather peculiar that exactly the same people that call T-50 a non-stealth aircraft because of round engine cowlings insist on the F-35 with the same cowlings being an all-aspect stealth..

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2006/articles/oct_06/f35_detail/index.html

To reduce cost, the nozzles of engines flown on the first aircraft do not have the low-observable characteristics that will be found on engines for subsequent aircraft.

Of course to be fair, the T-50 is likely to have a different layout in its final production form, but in it’s current state, it’s nowhere near the level of refinement of the F-35s in testing.

I read what you wrote. But it seems to me from your responses that you will not concede the Growler victory until you know all the circumstances surrounding the kill – which is currently impossible since we do not have access to all information surrounding the event, and will not until it is either leaked or becomes operationally insignificant.

A prudent operator / analyst would accept the victory, dissect the engagement, identify errors, and redress the tactics to minimize the vulnerability. I am certain that the USAF is doing exactly this with the information available to them, and an intellectually honest observer would do the same.

Where did I challenge the Growler victory? I just said that without knowing the circumstances, it’s hard to draw meaningful conclusions. I have no doubt that the USAF has/is testing the F-22 against everything it can think of to see any areas that need to be addressed, or to develop tactics to deal with any results that they find.

I agree with what you say above, however a poster was stating that the F-35 was an all-aspect stealth aircraft. While the aircraft does have VLO design features affecting all aspects, the design is optimized for the frontal aspect. The military and industry does not consider the F-35 class as an all-aspect stealth aircraft vis a vis the F-22.

Actually the military does consider the F-35 to be all aspect VLO, just with a higher signature than the F-22. The F-22’s best aspect is frontal as well.

Thanks, gonna be picky and point out that it does not mention a2g weapons, whilst it does specifically mention a2a.
Being the thoughtful chap i am i’d like to understand why a2g are not specically mentioned. However it does show that the doors can be opened at supersonic speed for a2a.

It says supersonic launch of weapons, including air to air missiles. I’m not sure what’s confusing about that statement, unless you just really want to believe it means something else. Carlo is clearly wrong here.