Yes, I’ll show them all right, but I haven’t made an assertion here.
You did and I’d like to see based on what?

Based upon figures that I’ve seen on more than one occasion, and from multiple sources.

Wishful thinking. It can also mean that F-35 has average low speed pointability of the F-16C combined with mediocre subsonic-transonic-acelleration & agility of the F/A-18… Which, judging by looking at the bird, would more likely be the case.

Now that’s wishful thinking if I ever saw it.

I dont know but I am not aware of anyone having found Kopp or Sweetman on Boeing payroll. If you do, I will be the first one to dismiss their claims as biased.

Well APA certainly had an agenda(upgraded F-111s(and the folks who’d get paid to do that) and F-22s).

No, not directly as for now. But nobody has confirmed these, as well. If we decide to believe the Italians that the F-35 comes closer to F-18 in terms of flight performance, then I would say that it is far away from what Beesley has once claimed. I will gladly sit down and wait for more news from objective sources (non-USAF, non-LM…)

So the only unbiased source would be someone that doesn’t actually make or operate the aircraft? How does that work exactly?

It does (other parameters being the same) and that’s the whole point, of the concept (to mitigate delta’s drawbacks).

Do you have any data to backup this “knowledge”, on F15?
USAF, for one, doesn’t concur (as have been presented on this forum several times over) and they operate the model.

If you have figures that differ significantly one way or the other, I’d love to see them.

Maybe you should recalculate these figures.
LM doesn’t concur with 37k engine and neither does the USAF.

Are we gonna use fact sheets that say M1.5 supercruise too, when it’s been established that the F-22 exceeds that spec?

Kid1: I got stealth
kid2: I got my s300
kid1: But i got sensor fusion
kid3: Also Lpi and Aesa! wow!! AESA!
kid2: But igot my L band radar
kid3: But i got my ESM stuff..yeah

You don’t even know what are the real life limitations for all that crap

Neither do you though. However the folks that are designing the equipment probably know a thing or two. 😮

It really requires a large portion of intellectual dishonesty in order not to recognize that so far all people bringing good news about the F-35 (Beesley, Thompson..) have mysteriously been found on LM’s payroll…

Whose payroll are the folks bringing bad news about the F-35 on though? Has anyone debunked any claims that Beesley has made as been untrue?

The TWR for a F-22 is 1.08 (1.62) and for a Typhoon 1.18 (1.65 max). Where please is 1,08 more as 1,18 or 1.62 more as 1.65?

Those T/W figures are wrong. Even w/ 100% fuel and 8 AAMs the F-22 has a ~1.21:1 TWR.

I am not quite buying that an A-A missile, designed for M2.8-M4.0 speeds can be draggier than its air-breathing carrier itself. Especially if carried as semi-recessed (AMRAAMs or Meteors on the Typhoon). The speeds you call supercruise for the F-22 are just a walk in the park for AMRAAM or MICA.

By “draggy external stores” I understand wet bags, large caliber bombs or large subsonic missiles. None of these can be carried by the F-22 internally. And only in very limited numbers and types by the F-35. This selling point actually has very little substance.

Well the Mig-31’s top speed clean is ~M2.8, but with missiles it’s limited to ~M2.3. The F-15’s top speed is ~M2.5, but with missiles it’ll only see ~M2, so you can see that the drag penalty isn’t insignificant.