Wrong again.
Apparently we need to recapitulate missile’s flight profile, because it’s obviously another mystery.

Let’s take AMRAAM f.e., but the same goes for other non-airbreathing (Meteor type) missiles, as well.
Here’s a good explanation of how this works.

Anyway, let’s see what we’ve got here, then.
***I’m going to speculate here and put AMRAAM’s stalling speed at ~M0.8, for calculating purposes and will assume it’s capable of M4 at 20k ft.***

So, launching platform at M1.2 and AMRAAM’s burntime of ~10 seconds will produce a missile at ~M4 at ~10km, at which point the coasting will start.
Maximum load (M4)= ~25g; turn rate= ~11°/sec

As the guy in the link calculated, the missile will loose 25% of current speed every 10 seconds at approximate altitude of 20k ft.

So, this means that AMRAAM will fly ~M3 after 10 seconds of coasting (20 seconds total) and will make another ~11km, during that time.
Average load = ~20g; turn rate= ~10°/sec

Next checkpoint is at M2.25, another 10 seconds later and another ~8km farther.
Average load = ~11g; turn rate= ~7.5°/sec

4th checkpoint is at M1.68 and ~6km farther.
Average load = ~6g; turn rate= 5.5°/sec

Ok, so far we have ~40 seconds time of flight and ~35km of range covered.

Further, M1.26, time ~50 sec, range ~4.5km (39,5km total).
Average load = ~3.4g; turn rate= ~4°/sec

Finally, M0.95, time ~60 sec (1min), range ~3.5km (43km total).
Average load = ~1.9g; turn rate= ~3°/sec

From this point on, the missile closes stalling speed and usually self detonates.

So as you can see, speed drops down dramatically in the beginning, but less and less as the missile decelerates.
Top g advertised maneuverability of a missile drops with missile’s speed as well and is present in the first 20km only and after that it drops rapidly, towards the end when the missile is able to pull 1-2 g.
The thing with medium/long range shot is that the missile spends over half of it’s flight time significantly below it’s advertised capabilities and so the aircraft’s maneuverability is very important, when evading such a shot.

Several things jump out at me right off the bat. First of all, a late model AIM-120 has a lot more range than 43km, so the notion that it’d be flying at M.95 at that point is absurd. Secondly, assuming the J10 has maneuvering advantages, they’d be negligible as far as the incoming missile was concerned, if fired within its NEZ. Thirdly, late model AIM-120s have dual pulse motors for high endstate energy. Lastly, it’s a big assumption that the J10 would be aware of the approaching missile that far out, especially one fired outside the MAW range, and on a lofted profile. The J10 pilot would likely have a few seconds to maneuver and use countermeasures, and hope they worked.

Actually it does matter very much, since performance/maneuverability is the last line of defense against inbound missile, for all aircraft.

Whatever marginal WVR performance advantage the J10 may have, it won’t be enough to outmaneuver a missile.

F35 has it’s advantages over other fighters, but those aren’t the ones you think they are, so if you want to believe F35 is a top notch air combat, performancewise fighter, that’s your personal choice, but if you choose to persuade others to do that as well, expect someone to actually question that.

The problem many of us have with those that are quick to dismiss the F-35’s agility, is that aside from some anecdotes here and there(which have been very favorable), there isn’t that much known. It strikes me as being somewhat premature to say it sucks in that regard, especially when those who’ve flown it don’t seem to think so.

Most of the Western world is cutting orders, and are still stuck in a corner with nowhere else to go. So what’s your point? I suspect you had none.

Well, they could be in line to order Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, Su-35s, but they’re not.:cool:

😮

No inertial penalty? How much does a 500lbs weapon weights in the US? Is there some sort of parallel physics that applies to US bombs?

As for the drag. It’s not totally absent. It’s just built in the design of the JSF. Leading to drag penalties in peace time as well as in war time throughout the life cycle of the plane.

Nic

…..that the others have under their wings, further away from the center of gravity.

I see 4 GBUs on the Falcon, and 2 AAMs.

That’s 33% more than the internal capability of the F-35.

So what’s the standard load? 6 weapons? or 4? Make up your minds already.

The F-35 can carry 8 SDBs internally, too. The takeaway is that it has the flexibility to operate in either manner, with a much higher likelihood of survival against modern IADS.

So in other words, it becomes an overly expensive 4++ gen fighter through loss of most of its stealth? Not very good by any standard. And a 4 weapon load is, as said, rather tiny.

You’re missing the point. It’d be the F-16/F-18 having performance loss due to EFTs, targeting pods, and external stores. The F-35 doesn’t have to carry all of that externally, so it flies clean.

The F-35 can also carry 8 SDBs internally, and if stealth isn’t needed, a considerable amount of external stores too. The others have to carry everything externally.

No one claimed double the range for aim120d. The only official claim was “50% longer range over aim120C” Thing is, we dont know which model of aim120c is the reference there. That statement has been around for several years, before model C7 entered service. C7, in itself, has the same rocket motor as C5/C6, and somewhat increased range due to a better choice of flight profiles. It may very well be 50% more is refering to C5/C6. In any case, if i had to pull a number out of my rear, i’d put 120d in the 140-160 km range, a good bit of which is achieved due to a ballistic profile, meaning there would be no motor running for a good part of that distance, and a no escape zone would be significantly smaller, around 80 to 90km. Naturally, that is still huge compared to the no escape zone of previous amraams.

The numbers I’ve seen floating around put it in the 180+km range. The C7 had improved range over the C5 which was already in the 105-110km class range. You are correct though in that it’s the NEZ that’s more relevant, which is quite a bit larger than the earlier variants.