Nonsense to stay polite. The main difference is the way the F-35 program is run by LM. One of the most costly errors in aviation history. There is still a huge gap between an artificial design and real behavior. At least when some main components and the software in need were still under development and not near to certification level for the intended production run. The F-22 showed that desaster before for just a single mission design.

The presumption here, is that any other company could’ve done better, given the same challenges, which is nonsense to stay polite.

Well, to stick my nose in again here , imo maybe one of the reason LM has such a poor performance in this programme is this …they have little, and even lost, the “knowledge ” to built a front line aircraft in substantial numbers , on time , on budget , and on specified performance (especially important in these times)

In fact, looking at their past, other than F-80/F-94 and some F-104 (the bulk being built in Europe-and that aircraft having debatable performance anyway), what else have they built in numbers recently ? They havent had anything built 3rd and fourth gen wise. They’re very good at building high performance /high inovation limited series aircraft like SR-71, F-117 and whatever else they were working since ( classified), but other that that , what else ? They coped with some second line types like C-130, P-3 , S-3 or whatever, but other that that , they don’t seem to have any recent experience in building something like F-16 /F-18 etc. ( no, it’s not THEIRS the F-16, it’s GD’s ).

Anyway just a thought.

BTW i had no idea F-35 had canopy issues that limited it’s speed since recently…

Nobody has ever built anything like the F-35 before, so it’s a bit specious to compare it to
a simple design like an F-80 or even an F-104.

It’s definitely not normal. I find Spud’s claim about 37 years of experience being the reason as wishful thinking – there are other manufacturers with similar experince and miraculously they haven’t come to the conclusion that it’s logical to build a dozen of flight examples first and only then test the flight envelope, at all. Normally, the envelope is explored within first two years after the first flight.

Looks like there was (is) some issue with X-35/F-35’s aerodynamics or thermodynamics which LM were concealing. The big question stays – is the M1.53 figure a speed that would be routinely achieved during combat ops or just a single-time me-too measure? 🙂

M1.6 is the speed given for combat ops, so that doesn’t sound like a redlined, burned up engine kind of feat. Additionally if you read the article, it said speeds >M1.6 would be tested to insure a comfortable margin at M1.6.

I agree that there’s too much F-35, etc….talk in the PAK FA thread, but think you’re a bit optimistic in thinking the PAK FA follow on will be ready by 2025-2030. The Su-35 hasn’t even reached IOC, and that’s a Flanker. I’d be surprised if the PAK FA reaches IOC before 2018-2020. As for a follow on, I don’t see that before the mid to late 2030s.

The reason the A/C models have a later IOC, is due to the software that will fitted. The B models are going to reach IOC with Block II software.

I think if you want to prove that your planes are the best aerodynamically you need to look to prove yourself over the European planes not the Americans. Granted the F-15 was fantastic in its day but it has been outdone in recent years. Bar the F-22 which i believe owes its performance to massive engines and TVC which is no bad thing although Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen are agile without TVC.

With the exception of the post stall portion of the envelope, the F-22’s aerodynamic control surfaces, are what provide its agility.

The DAS has a 60 deg. (solid)field of vue, but with a cost: is effective at max. 10-15 nmiles. A dedicated IRST (AAS 42/Shadow, OSF, Pirate) has a much longer range, but a very narrow field of vue.

To be more precise, each of the 6 sensors has a continuous 60deg FOV, for a total of 360deg.
The range is less than a dedicated IRST, but have seen no range figures versus an air breathing target. It has been alluded to have near BVR ranges against fighters though, putiing it more likely in the 15-20+nm class.

For AA why not? For the time to come the F-35 won’t carry more than 4 internal AAMs, so that’s no operational config either I guess!?

So if a capability isn’t present for 3-5yrs of a 30-40yr career, then it’s not even worth mentioning? The Block 3 is by no means the definitive configuration, and the increased missile load is something that doesn’t have to wait on Block 5 software. It could be done immediately, if so desired.