only lordassap would use expressions such as:

“take the mikey”

You’re not fooling anyone 😀

And referring to other posters as “boy.”

So…are you saying a load of <6 AAM’s is unrealistic in the sense that an aircraft with less then 6 AAM’s should’nt engage in AA battle ? 🙂

Just askin to pinpoint your take 😉

If you’re trying to allude to early block F-35s, nice try.

Yeah who’s Konk?

And who doesn’t do LPI in 2009?

A lot of folks!

Both OSF and PIRATE are WAY more performant in their FLIR role, you compare the incomparible and i am not talking about them though but current IR technologies.

EODAS is not a long range system as for EOTS it is limited by its technology and mono-channel/mono-bandwidth design, both OSF and PIRATE uses dual dandwidth today, OSF uses a dual channel too, next stage being bandwidth subtraction for even better all-weather performances.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/F-35LightningIIEOTS/

Can you post some imagery/clips from the OSF/PIRATE systems for comparison?

Try Read Flag. 😀

It lasted only two days up to the point the French detachement had demonstrated enough abilities to adapt their ECMs and make F-22 lock-on a lot more difficult for them, they weren’t engaged/targeted from this point on.

LPI doesn’t mean undetectable and recent ECMs just need enough processing power to be able to discernate a signal from the others.

Before you ask this is “Squadron radio” repports, no links there but companies like Thales who sells LPI AESA radars to the US DoD certainly knows how to detect and jamm them.

Just a thaught.

So there’s no source for the Red Flag performances then? I’m somewhat skeptical as the F-22s and Rafales are both Blue Force aircraft in the excercise, and don’t fly against each other. More importantly, I’m guessing that the F-22s weren’t using any emissions that they didn’t want French aircraft trying to use ESM systems on(i.e. like the Indians don’t use regular modes of their radars when around foreign air forces).

Well it would be a nice theory is KPP and performances weren’t actually all-public unless that is you prefer not to know what you pay taxes for so now these datas are now bogus cause it’s classified information is it? :rolleyes:

There’s a lot of information about weapons systems that isn’t public knowledge.

Ahem he sure isn’t speaking about Typhoon or Rafale is he?

He compares to US Legacy fighters and Rafale like Typhoon makes cold meals of Legacies since along time.

Better than legacies, and any projected threat aircraft I believe is somewhat close to his statement.

Now i’m SURE you got yet another definition of the words almost exactly.

It means negligible in other words.

Where does he said “a combat loaded” F-35 and where does it say in A2G configuration? SHOW us please.

I’m not doing all of your homework for you.

No sorry mate YOU are ignoring OBVIOUS points and FACTS he made himslef no point was made other than F-35 can ALMOST match F-16 turn rates.

Loaded vs. clean though, which is an important distinction.

LOL! Non issue?

OK try to overturn a 9 g aircraft while being limited at 7.0g, because in this interview, he also CONFIRMS what i was saying that the variants are 7.0, 7.5 and 9.0g.

It’s turning radius that counts most, and the C has a smaller turn radius than the A.

Therefore in this role its performances are inferior to the aircrafts designed to be and not US Legacies.

One more time….

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34173

And like the F-22, there is nothing out there that can outfight F-35. Except the F-22.

So which of the two would win in a dogfight? Difficult to answer, says Beesley who states that “subsonically, the F-35 and F-22 are very much the same airplane.

Nevertheless, the F-35 is not designed to be an air-superiority fighter, and so when I suggest it not be billed as such, Beesley suggests “That may be a naïve point of view,” adding “those who attack the air-superiority capabilities of the airplane use a benchmark that’s way above everybody else.”

“If we talk about my ability to go out in my airplane and engage and destroy the enemy, control the skies in many aspects, then the F-35 is very much an air-superiority airplane.”

“Does that mean it [the F-35] can presently defeat anything that we can see? Yes.

“Can we defeat anything we can project they can do? The answer is also, yes.

Now tell me again where Beesley was not saying that the F-35 was an excellent A2A fighter.

No boy it’s a matter of informing yourself properly, or eventualy as some have and still do, serving in one AFB and knowing about it, you might not like the idea but some of us actually do serve.

Nice:rolleyes:

Yep, AN/APG-77 famous LPI technology is detectable, pinpointable and jammable, just give us the opportunity to be in the same area, this is what 5th generation IT Core architecture and Interferometric ECMs does for you these days.

A- when exactly did an F-22 fly against a Rafale in DACT, using LPI modes, and get detected/jammed?

B- the only way to jam the APG-77 is to have enough emitters to jam every frequency that it’s capable of using simultaneously. In order to do that, you certainly would make yourself a inviting target. The most you could hope to achieve is some degradation, as there’s no way for the jammer to predict the order of frequencies that the radar is hopping to. In any event, the ALR-94 would’ve pinpointed your location long before the radar was seriously degraded.

Combat ceilling and Crusing ceillings are different, the combat ceilling for LWF was 20.000 ft higher.

The F-35’s ceiling isn’t in the 25-35k ft range though.

So are you saying that if you post datas which are disagreing with L-M own we should take this as a complement to our intelligence?

There are vanilla fact sheets out there to be sure. If one pays attention to other sources(i.e. aviation journals, pilot remarks etc…), then additional blanks can start to be filled in.

And now that we are also told that F-35 will “not need to maneuver in combat thanks to EODAS”, this sort of arguments makes even less sense.

Not needed is not = not able

You can look to the KPP tresheholds for yourself, the only requiered specification were “F-16 like” maneuvrability in the A2A role and naturaly they wouldbe equal to superior in the A2G role.

The turn rate/roll rate/high alpha/acceleration capabilities are only resulting from design points, not requiered specs.

F-35 was never optimised for the A2A Role but A2G.

LWF was ONLY designed for the A2A role at the time the programe was launched.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34173

According to Beesley, one must first define what is meant by air supremacy. “If air supremacy means there not being anybody out there that does a specific role better than me — hence air supremacy — then we have a challenge and build an airplane around that role,” he says. “If we talk about my ability to go out in my airplane and engage and destroy the enemy, control the skies in many aspects, then the F-35 is very much an air-superiority airplane.”

http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html

Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future.

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.

Ironically, the Navy version, which has larger wings but a lower G limit of 7.5G, has the best turning capability of the three F-35 versions Beesley explained.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Swords_and_Shields_F-35_beats_Russians_999.html

Moreover, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF’s reported service ceiling of around 57,000 feet is superior to the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 Fulcrum’s 56,000 feet and the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker’s 55,000 feet.