Well, it is simply NOT the case for many reasons, the first it that it was simply NOT designed to out-turn F-16 in CLEAN configuration but in A2G configuration and that appart for the F-16 versions with the lowest TWR it just wont happen.

That’s not what the folks that have flown the plane are saying(though I suppose they’re just lying to save their jobs).

More to it you EXPLAIN to us how the 7.0 and 7.5 G (structuraly) limited versions are going to out-turn a 9.0 G aircraft?

Look at it another way- what do you suppose the turn radius of an F-4 at 8g is vs. an F-16 at 8g(or an F-18 at 7.5g vs. an F-15 at 9g for that matter?)

The G number alone doesn’t tell everything with regards to turning ability. I’d be more curious as to what the instaneous/sustained turn rates are, than the max G number.

This is simply forgeting that concurent manufacturers do not stay iddle:

SA in a 360X360* bubble is already in service in Europe, both EM and IR and there are new generation IR systems in the pipeline as capable if not MORE than DASS.

Looking Sci-Fi doesn’t mean SUPERIOR it just mean ADVANCED US design and sometimes as in the case for EOTS “atractive packaging”.

Reality lies in the REAL set of capabilties and technologies, in the IR Dpt, europe is ahead of the US not behind, you simply are not aware of this fact.

What system and aircraft have an equivalent system to the DAS/EOTS?

According to its politico-industrial history it was for a Supersonic Harrier II+ which is basicaly the same and BTW its service ceilling requierements were the same too, USAF only added to INTERNAL weapons load to this.

That was the USMC requirement. The USAF and USN requirement was to replace F-16s and F-18s.

I’m certain DAS will pick it up, but my point is it will do so later than is shown on some of the videos posted with an end result of no more than a handful of seconds’ worth of warning time. About all the pilot can do in that time is use expendable countermeasures and manoeuvre, surely. DAS may have helped him see the incoming round but it’s not going to help him avoid it much.
Consider me persuaded that an aircraft is unlikely to close with an F-35 (though I don’t attribute that to DAS – if an enemy has got within DAS range then it’s pretty much a given he knows the F-35 is there or he wouldn’t be there, and if the F-35 was out to kill him he should have downed him with an AMRAAM long before), but my argument was based more on a SAM engaging an F-35 (a far more likely prospect by any measure).

My point is that DAS(and the ESM even greater range) has a greater detection range of threats, than those threats can detect the F-35. A threat aircraft may very well be within the DAS detection range, and not know that the F-35 is there. A threat missile(radar guided) will certainly have a much smaller detection range, so unless it’s getting guidance updates from a sensor that is locked onto the F-35, the F-35 could maneuver outside of the incoming missile’s radar coverage.

I think he made some interesting comment although i am NOT a specialist in terms of EM signature…

So there is NO WAY F-35 is anywhere close to be in the category classed as “Air supermacy” nor “superiority” for that matter simply because it lacks performances and stealth features to qualify.

For many Air Forces, it will be the Air Supremacy/Superiority fighter though.
Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that the test pilots aren’t BSing, then performance wise your dealing with an aircraft that-

Can turn as well or better than a clean F-16. Can out accelerate a clean F-16 on A/B with dry thrust. Has very good high AoA capabilities. And the most important take away is it does these things with a combat load.
This isn’t even taking into account the situational awareness advantages, NCW capabilities, EA capabilities, first look, shoot, kill advantages, etc….
I’m just not seeing how you’re viewing it as a 5th Gen A-7, when that’s certainly not what the US military or foreign customers were looking for. Lastly we’ll just have to see what its cruising speed capabilities are. Not mentioning a capability does not equal saying that it’s not capable of something.

His job’s?

I guess I’m just less cynical, to think that he’d lie about his observations. It’s one thing to not highlight unfavorable findings, but quite another to tell a complete falsehood.

I have severe doubts about the credibility of test pilot’s claims. They are on the pay bill of LM and don’t enjoy any kind of freedom of speech, every word they speak out was carefully prepared and filtered by the PR dept.

Based on what?:rolleyes:

He’s got some very valid arguments and elaborates to a level i haven’t seen in this forum, so i wonder what you guys real motivation IS at bashing the guy’s up.

If you think he is so bad why dont you just tell us why in technical terms?

Please counter his claims properly instead of going personal which have little impact on the subject anyway.

I dont care your opinion on the guy, this is not a saloon for old gossiping ladies but a military forum (or am i mystaking?). 😀

NOT according to L-M themself if you have an official refresh feel free to post it otherwise this is another legend forum trying to survive reality.

WRONG: As requiered 35.000ft.

Yes problem: Way lower than F-22.

Sorry mate every single engine curently inmservice posses these but NO IR superssion measure as such i.e engine case AND exhaust cooling.

Yea sure. You still CANT read limited to….

For your info, the current generation of AAMs needs to pull 3 X a target amount of Gs to score a kill WITHIN its NEZ, which means a 7.0 or 7.5 Gs aircraft is history even out of the NEZ.

I leave the 9 G version off the hook as in many scenarios other aircrafts will be limited to 9 Gs too but…

When one CAN pull 11 Gs it’s another story alrogether and does a LOT more for survivibility than limited EM L.O. expecialy vs an IR AAM when your engine runs hotter than anything else in the world and isn’t colled as much as some concurent.

Below 7.0 7.5 or 9.0 G, i know a few trainers capable of this…

Welcome back to hearth.

What are your thoughts on these critiques of Carlo Kopp’s analysis?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k5DHtmVN-8A/R1-EtvVfbxI/AAAAAAAAAEI/LgKFdKUPWMU/s1600-h/FA-18E+Super+Hornetcockpit.jpg

Well as long as this is fantasy, and money is no object-

USA: Attack- A-10 Warthog, F-35B, AC-130U

Fighter- 750 F-22s(with cheek arrays, IRST, and JHMCS), 1,763 F-35A, F-18F/EF-18G, F-15E+(i.e. APG-63 (v)4, GE F110-232, IRST, etc…), 1000 F-35C

Cargo- C-17 Globemaster, C-130 Hercules, C-5 Galaxy

Helicopter- AH-64, RAH-66, CH-47

Unmanned- Q-1 Predator, Q-4 Global Hawk, MQ-9, X-45/46/47

Electronic- E-3G Sentry, E-10, MC-130

Tanker- KC-10, KC-767

Reconnaissance- U-2/TR-1 Dragon Lady, SR-72

Bomber- 132 B-2 Spirit, 96 B-1 Lancer, EB-52

Sorry, but I really can’t see how what you’ve posted relates to what I said at all. Obviously it picks up missiles and sees things well at night. I never contested that. What caused my eyebrows to raise was the claim that it ‘made manoeuvrability irrelevant’ because in the event of not getting the first shot (which DAS should have little effect on in A2A at least as the F-35 would seem certain to see any approaching aircraft from a very great distance with its ESM gear anyway) then seeing a missile heading for you is no great comfort unless you can do something about it. When you combine the fact that DAS operates within a sphere that will be covered by a Mach 4 missile in a matter of seconds, and that the pick-up of long-range missiles will be delayed even further because their motors will have gone cold some while ago, other than chaff and flares, it’s difficult to see what the JSF driver is going to do except manoeuvre.

If DAS can see waves in the ocean, I suspect a missile travelling at Mach 4 will have a larger IR signature. Additionally, the DAS should see a threat aircraft/missile, before they see the F-35.

This gives F-35 what i regard limited Air-superiority capabilties considering the USAF requierements for it and current 4th generation fighter performances:

1) Supercruise.

2) High Max Ceilling.

3) EM Low Observability

4) IR Low Observability.

5) High maneuvrability.

F-35 responds ONLY two out of five of these requierements.

Actually the F-35 meets 3 of those, and possibly 4 once the full flight testing is finished.