I don’t wanna go through those endless debates about mph to Mach, which make exactly as little sense as this bickering about SC. Unless officially stated, for me the F-22’s top speed is not M2.4.. I will gladly change my mind if someone OFFICIALLY confirms this figure.

Ok, let’s use MPH then. Which other fighters can exceed 1600mph with a combat load aside from a Mig 25/31? If we can’t agree on MPH either, let’s just not use any figures at all. That still begs the question- which fighter other than the aforementioned Migs, has a higher top speed with combat load?

$97mil for a Viper? For a long-term F-16 user which has all supporting infrastructure already provided.. And I thought that Rafale was expensive…

Raising my threshold for real F-35’s price to > $150mil.

You forgot this part.

as well as associated equipment and services.

It’s still slower than most fighters if need arises.

How do you figure? It’s top speed is >M2.4. Aside from a Mig-31, what other fighter is going to go faster than an F-22, especially carrying weapons?

Who are you to make up definitions here?

Supercruise, as stated by various military personnel, is SUPERSONIC CRUISING.

The point here, when regarding the F-35 is that LM doesn’t consider anything below M1.5 to be supercruising, therefore, when they say it doesn’t supercruise it doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t cruise at >M1 but less than M1.5.

Exactly.
That’s why i take claims re simulations being proven accurate with a large pinch of salt.

So that means an Su-30/35, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen need to be looked at in the same way though, rather than in unrealistic scenarios. Most Air Forces fight using systems, rather than merely platforms.

All very fine but refering to the original post, could you just detail for me exactly when the simulation was bourne out by the F16 and F16 meeting and fighting comparable fighters with comparable support as that provided to the 15’s and 16’s?
For reference:
Bekaa / Israeli – No.
Kuwait / Iraq – No.
Balkans – No.
Afghanistan – No.
Iraq – No.

To be fair, any fighter is going to have a much tougher time if it doesn’t have support from AWACs, datalinks, Jammers, ground based systems, etc….

Or maybe he’s simply responding to the partial quote posted by those who woud paint rosy pictures.

I could accept that possibility were it not for his previous posting record dismissing anything that sounded positive regarding the F-35.

Beesley is quoted partially by many posters, here. In fact, what he said is that while F 35 “is not far” from F 22 in subsonic, “it is unfair to compare it with F 22 in supersonic“. His opinion is shared by another test pilot, Paul Metz, speaking about F 22 vs. F 16: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2000/articles/oct_00/f-22/f22_1.html

There is no contradiction in what Beeslet said, if the full statement is quoted.

He’s not interested in being accurate, when quoting people who state things counter to his paradigms though, as long as it paints things in a poor light.