the Enterprise would totally lose to a Star Destroyer as the Star Destroyer would call in the Death Star to save it in a pinch.

What happens if the Flanker goes and gets fitted with a nice R-172 or R-37? It would be a rather quick upgrade to get those missiles flying on the Flanker if there was a legit need and while they are not in the same league as the the planned euro wunder (yes wunder not wonder) missile they may well force the Gripen to turn tail and run before it even gets a shot off or fire off its load from such a distance that the Flanker has time to escape. The russkies arent exactly limited to R-77 and 73’s even today.

How many R-172/37s are the Flanker going to be carrying though? Those are huge missiles, designed to go after AWACS, and inefficient to be used against a Gripen. What sort of RCS penalty will the Flanker suffer, carrying them(i.e. the Gripen will be able to fire the Meteor even further out, if it can detect the Flanker sooner)?

Well that’s what i’ve been asking: can it be confirmed that F-35 had a combat load that Mr Beesley claim is similar to F-16 ?

Btw is there any independent source on F-35 agility instead of Beesley/APA ?
I couldn’t find a source provided when APA claim it’s worse then even the F-4, tho i expect them to have some source or else they are digging their own grave.

edit: Ok the very first post in this thread actually had something substantial that seem to verify APA’s claim

http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler05012009.html

From the same article-

“As with all previous radar dependant fighters, the F-22’s big radar and avionics (and stealth) added major weight, drag, and complexity – thereby severely degrading combat essential characteristics, such as maneuvering agility…..” :rolleyes:

“Also, has everyone forgotten that we lost two stealth F-117s to the radar defenses of the technologically rudimentary Serbs in 1999?”

That would be 1 F-117, and it’d be nice if the circumstances of the shoot down were discussed in more detail.

“Instead, the air force stages what amount to (self-deluding) publicity exercises based on ground rules that cripple the forces replicating the enemy, denying them the effective technology and countermeasures that a real enemy surely will have.”

Based upon what?

There’s an awful lot of hokum in these remarks, that cause one to question the veracity of any of the opinions.

As for the T/W ratio, takeoff weight, etc… there are a few things to consider.

A- the most liberal weight figures are being used
B- the most conservative thrust figures are being used
C- a lot of the weight is fuel, which will be consumed enroute, or can be dumped rapidly.

At fighting weight, the F-35 will have a very high T/W ratio, along with no maneuver restrictions of external stores.

The point is simple – Beesley is a strongly biased source. Whatever he talks, you can be 100% sure that it is shifted in favor of the LM – how far, we don’t know.

For that matter, if Beesley came out today and criticized some F-35’s feature, I would take him very seriously because if someone in his position dares to criticize something about the premier product of a company feeding him, then it must be really bad. But that won’t happen so it’s pointless to think about it.

To sum it up, all those journos Sprey, Wheeler, even Kopp are far more credible than the premier fanboy’s source Beesley because they at least tell us what they really think, not what LM’s PR dept has dictated them to.

He’s flown the plane. They haven’t. You’re assuming that he’s lying.

That is a guess from the *** to stay polite.

Well based upon the supercruise persistence of the F-22, it’s more of an educated guess than from the *** to stay honest.

It’s the added weight that reduce maneuverability on a given a/c, and where you add it.
(ie stove it as close to center as possible to reduce negative effects.)

And btw: is two bombs your idea of a “Fully Combat Loaded” ?

8 bombs, or 4-6 AAMs, or variations on this mix.

I’m not pro or anti F-35, but to me it’s pointless for some nations to commit to the F-35 unless you are getting some serious offsets for your local aero industry. Just wait a few more years until it is in service, look at the performance numbers numbers, look at the production price ONLY THEN DECIDE!!

Plus
Stealth? Even a downgraded version (less advance coating?) frankly is likely to be stealthier than alternatives due to shaping and internal carriage.

Kinematic performance? I think the Typhoon might actually be better but if the F-35 is as good as an F-16 then honestly that’s good enough.

Negatives
Price..price..price

GOGUNCAS

With regard to stealth and price, it’s all pure speculation at this point.
As for reduced stealth- has that even been officially mentioned, or is it more likely that there’d be reduced avionics capability for some partners, where sensitive technology was concerned? The vast majority of the low RCS is due to the shape of the aircraft, and not just the RAM coatings.

Knock it off, dude, you are getting beyond pathetic with constantly repeating the same nonsense. Back it up by something better than powerpoint slides with LM logo in the lower right corner or shut up, I got enough of this crap. :rolleyes:

Why is it that the only nonsense is pro-F-35 remarks, whereas anything critical is accepted without reservation? There are unknowns for sure, but when pilots that have flown the F-35 make claims, that’s hardly a powerpoint slide being used for evidence.

Or a frequency is found, which can not be reduced by stealth in a sufficiant way. 😉

The trick though is guiding a weapon. Until you can do that, stealth still has the advantage.