You misunderstood.
I said, J10 will make a short work of F18, due its performances and not just maneuverability. Even in an all out shooting head on, J10 has considerable kinematic advantage due design and so its chances of defeating AMRAAM are considerably higher than F18’s in defeating PL-12.

What’s the effectiveness of the APG-79/AIM-120D combo vs. the J10/PL-12 combo though?

According to Chinese claims, PL-12 is more capable than the American AIM-120 A/B, but slightly inferior than the AIM-120C.

If this missile is inferior to the C, then there’s no way it’ll have a kinematic advantage against a Super Hornet armed with AIM-120Ds.

LOL, I just had to address this one…

Well, maybe the LM guys installed “inertial dampeners” into F35, but I was under impression that those won’t be discovered until 22nd century?? 😀

:rolleyes:
i.e. having to overcome the extra weight on the wings when turning/rolling, and the G limitations that may be imposed(especially for A/G weapons)

SHOW us the 9.0 figure with two A2G weapons in the baies.

F-16/F-18-like maneuvrability in A2A and higher in A2G doesn’t mean 9.0g considering the external loads pylon/weapons aerodynamic, dynamic and mechanical mimits.

Try that with in an F-35 and you will likely snap the wings off, but before that the pylons will let go, the bombs tear the boies doors appart and go through them…

That’s the whole point of why the F-35 is far superior to the F-16/F-18, etc.. when carrying a similar load. It has far more agility with a combat load since its weapons are neither causing a drag nor inertial penalty, that the others have with weapons under the wings.

Sounds a bit high to me to be sustained. But who knows.

That’s what was said in the video, in any event.

Yeah?

5) Try pulling 11.0 g on a F-22.

Randy Cunningham pulled 12Gs in an F-4 Phantom, if we’re going to play this game.

In non-post-stall maneuvers F-22 flight envelop is inferior, what TVC provides F-22 with is an extenstion of surface control through this perticular porttion of the envelop.

Without, F-22 is less maneuvrable and since we’re talking turn rates appart for the very high ceilling, 50.000 ft or so it is not clear cut at all, even instantaneous turn rates are not as good…

I wonder if you could post the instantaneous and sustained turn rate figures for the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, and F-22, so we can see how they stack up.:rolleyes:

Actually all there eurocanard have much higher AoA limits than F-22 without TVC Rafale does 100*/40 kt negative speed, Gripen easly reaches 90* AoA, Typhoon and XF-31 70* AoA, what is F-22 woth without TVC? 19* AoA?

The reason whyh US designers doesn’t do delta canards is becaue they nevermanaged to truelly integrate the canards to a delta wing.

Try the reverse. :rolleyes:

Which F-22 model doesn’t have TVC? That’s like saying a Porsche handles much better than a Corvette with no tires.:rolleyes:

And what FACT doesn’t i know then?

I cant help it. Just READ about the conceipt you will se difference between the two.

The problem is that you want your cake and to eat it too. You’ll use an example for something when it suits you, but do a 180 if it doesn’t support your thesis.

You assert what the F-35 can’t do based upon certain specs, yet say that those same specs aren’t the only thing that matters when other aircraft exceed the capability you’re denying, with even less favorable ones.

NO it is not, is the F-22 Mach, supercruise is without A-B.

It is the definition that they use. It isn’t necessarily the aeronautical definition. The purpose is to show a distinction between aircraft that can break the sound barrier w/o afterburner, and those that can comfortably exceed the sound barrier by a large margin.