Only the B model is in any danger of cancellation, and that’s IF it can’t get back on schedule in 2yrs.

The analogy is ok, it’s your knowledge that is poor. The same design can have completely different RCS values for various frequency bands, just like a woman can have various attributes of beauty depending on the eye of the beholder.

This is true- the RCS vs. metric, centimetric, and millimeter wave bands will differ. To track and target an aircraft, you’re still going to have to rely on frequencies that provide the accuracy needed for fire control. The notion of firing a missile into a general area, and the hoping its seeker can detect a target is a guarantee for a very low Pk. Metric bands can serve as a tripwire so to speak, but don’t have nearly the resolution to provide a firing solution. Millimeter wave radar doesn’t have nearly the range to provide long range targeting, and the centimetric bands are where the RCS reduction is optimized.

The question though, is how capable is China of targeting a CBG? Do they have the satellite coverage(or other systems in the event that their satellites become unserviceable)? What’s the maneuvering capability of the warhead? If it uses an IIR seeker, a DIRCM system could be used in conjunction with missile defenses. Obviously it creates greater challenges for the CBG, but I don’t think that it renders carriers ineffective/obsolete just yet.

Yes, dynamic performance is, and will be good. Due to the small wing span and low aspect ratio, you would fully expect good roll response and roll rates. Pitch response should also be good due to the size of the horizontal tail as a ratio of the wing area.

But… due to the same small wing you would expect poor energy bleed. That (very) low sustained turn performance would seem to bear that out.

This comparison doesn’t take into account the body lift the F-35 has vs. F-16s, combined with a very strong motor.

With a good T/W ratio, and due to the bay a better T/D ratio, the F-35 should out-accelerate a loaded Viper – but… only in a straight line or mild turns (due to that wing). How many dogfights allow you to fly in a straight line?

F-35s have been out accelerating clean Vipers, much less loaded ones, and have far greater abilities to engage HOBS targets than F-16s, which means the F-35 pilot would be using different tactics to deal with a foe in the merge.

Oh, and once the drop tanks and most of the munitions are gone, then the Viper would be back to ruling the energy envelope (c.f. the F-35).

Once the drop tanks are gone, the F-16 will go Bingo quickly, if it is using afterburners.

If we assume the PAK-FA is about as good* as the F-22 as a maneuvering platform – then the F-35 is simply in deep trouble if it has to try and maneuver with a PAK-FA.

Unless the PAK FA’s RCS is on par with the F-35, then the F-35 will have first look advantages. You also have to look at air combat as systems vs. systems, rather than merely platforms vs. platforms, and this is where the PAK FA will generally be disadvantaged, even if it has performance advantages.

But your data is worthless because its from a source with a vested interest. And once again I remind you, you’re the one making claims, so you need to provide evidence, not me.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/17/f-35-lrip-4-costs-detailed/

The first batch of F-35As cost $221 million apiece.

The 17 F-35Bs in the deal came in the cheapest, at $109.4 million each, followed by the 11 F-35As at $111.6 million apiece, according to a Dec. 17 e-mail from the new JSF spokesman, Joe DellaVedova. The relatively small buy of four F-35Cs came in at $142.9 million per jet.

The source is the the DOD, who knows how much has been spent. I don’t think it can be argued any other way, other than the prices have steadily come down, as the production line/subcontractor production lines increase output. Once full rate production begins, and economies of scale are even larger, it only stands to reason that the prices will continue to fall.

Because none of those parties have a vested interest in making sure Congress thinks the plane is worth funding… :rolleyes:

Because those parties are the ones that will be operating the aircraft against modern fighters/SAMs if the need arises, and it’s in their interest that they get a good product.

According to your opinion, and considering your will to ignore evidence which doesn’t support your view, there isn’t much credibility in that.

Those figures aren’t my opinion, those are hard facts. As for ignoring things that don’t support one’s view, I wonder if you’d be so kind as to explain your view that full rate production prices are going to be anywhere near LRIP prices, when even the LRIP prices have dropped by ~50% in small production batches. To get to the $60-70M is less of a price drop, than has already occurred.