Here the lighter F-16A has the adavantage too. The heavier F-16C were in need to relax stability again by more control area. I will hope you missed my post before otherwise you are resistant to facts. :rolleyes:

And below the basics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio

With a faster true airspeed the radius of turn is dramatically larger, and with a slower true airspeed the radius is dramatically smaller.

I was pointing out that with the high thrust, maintaining airspeed(lift) would be easier vs. bleeding energy(or going fast with a bigger turn radius).

None did deny that. One side of the coin (=F-16) is a plus in installed thrust, when on the other side the underlined ones are in minus.

A highly unstable aircraft can perform maneuvers that a stable aircraft with a lower wing loading can’t do. Available thrust(dry or wet) keeps airspeed up(which in turn helps maintain lift).

All points well taken and I thank you for them, however all I was trying to do was to reply to Over G who was stating that the F-16 was a bomb truck. It was not designed as such. The F-35 to me looks like it has been built around the air to ground scenario first and the (notwithstanding considerable) air to air capabilities are secondary in that philosophy. Wing area, relatively poor rearward visibility and apparent g-limitations on the “C” variant all tell me that the designers did not start out thinking about air to air first. Typhoon simply put was.

Which is the better obviously remains to be seen.

Cheers

As for the rearward visibility, the DAS/ESM should adress that, in terms of situational awareness. Granted, if one does find themselves in a furball, it’s nice to have good visibility. As for the C variant- it’s supposed to have very good low speed handling/turning performance. There’s also the notion of prolonging airframe life, considering the additional stresses carrier operations cause. The thing to bear in mind though- you can still have a tight turn radius, even if you’re not pulling 9gs to do it(i.e. A-10, F-18).

Let the fanboys skewer me on this one but there is no way a glorified bomb truck like the F-35 will ever be the dogfighter the Typhoon can be.

You’re not looking at the 2 aircraft as weapon systems though. The Typhoon may enjoy some WVR advantages, but….the F-35 is less likely to have to get into the WVR fight(which isn’t where you want to be anyhow). You’re also not taking into account how effective weapons/sensors are against a (more)conventional airframe vs. a VLO one. The F-35 is still more likely to have the element of surprise whether BVR or WVR, which is a huge advantage. That combined with a still very maneuverable airframe, HMS and HOBS missiles.
The question then becomes- does the % advantage the Typhoon might have in WVR offset its disadvantages? The F-35 is most always going to enjoy first look, first shoot advantages over the Typhoon, and a greater ability to hide. Those are pretty important capabilities that shouldn’t be dismissed.

Could a Typhoon intercept and destroy a Su-34?

Could a F-35 survive an intercept by a Su-27/35 or Mig-31?

Yes, and yes. What are you asking?

Obviously the Typhoon is the better aircraft for all aspects of air to air combat – isn’t this obvious? The acceleration of the F-35 will never compete surely?

It’s not obvious, which is why there is discussion. There are areas where each aircraft has advantages. The question is which advantages are most important in current/future air combat.

I know the F-35 carries it’s weapons internally but the trade off for this is that you have increased drag when those bays are empty.

Right now we only have the opinions of the test pilots to go by, and they’re saying the plane accelerates/climbs rapidly, and handles very well. That would tend to make me think that the internal weapons carriage doesn’t give a very large drag penalty to the F35.

The PAK-FA project has long since been funded. Awesome Russophobic analysis from you once again. :rolleyes:

As opposed to a Realismphobic analysis.:cool: