Note these are for an earlier model and the current figures are classified.

Which I mentioned when I first raised them, remember?

The damn thing had a worse sustained turn rate than a damn F-4 no time ago. Sure, some marginal weight savings have been made since, but that is only polishing a turd!

Also, maneuverability isn’t the be-all, end-all of aerial combat.

Yeap. So what happens when everyone else has a LO platform, reducing the effectiveness of your ARH missiles. IR dazzlers, reducing the effectiveness of your longer ranged IR missile shots… and the thing descends into what it always has done – a dogfight.

Maneuvrability by itslef matters very little in the overall effectiveness of the F-35.

Indeed, because the F-35 will not be effective.

If you are willing to accept the figures as credible then how can you not accept accept the Brawler modeling conclusion that the F-35 achieves a loss:exchange ratio 400% better than its nearest competitor? They come from the same source, and to do otherwise would constitute cherrypicking in my book.

I do fluid modelling for a living.

I know what a single marginally incorrect assumption can do for “results”.

You wanna go ahead and believe that bull****, fine. Meanwhile, the rest of us will point to the constituent numbers that simply do not add up to the final sum Lockheed are presenting.

What’s the T/D for a fully loaded F-16, 2 JDAMS, 2 AIM-120s, 2 fuel tanks, and a targeting pod I wonder?

Than an F-16 with a comparable load? You all are smoking some good dope.

With a full internal load of fuel and weapons, the F-35 is as agile as a “clean” F-16 carrying no weapons. In other words, in stealth mode, the F-35 gives up nothing in range or weaponry, but adds considerable ability to penetrate enemy air defenses.

You are the one putting up the posts with claims that it is as agile as a clean Viper.

You know what you can do with drop tanks or JDAMS in a dogfight? Shocker for you – you can jettison them. 😮

Imagine that – being able to instantly improve your maneuverability to a level beyond that of the JSF… better still, you can do it right when you need it most.

Why not a lot more simulator time?

Far, far cheaper, and aside from g’s, better quality training too.

So finally someone has come out, and called the senior test pilot for both the F-22 and F-35 a liar vs. merely omitting certain information.:rolleyes:

What about this guy?

Or this guy?

Or this guy?

Or this guy?

So….as you can see, either the plane flies pretty well, or every pilot is lying about it.

Yet not one number.

Regarding the case of out-accelerating an F-16 – I’ll demonstrate why you are extremely foolish to believe such opinions. The F-135 is a higher BPR engine than most military aircraft, therefore in military thrust, it will outperform most (especially older) engines.

If both went to full burner, the F-16 would smoke the F-35.

Max burner:
F110-GE-129; 129.0 kN (29,000 lb st)
F-135: 191.3 kN

Maximum dry:
F110-GF-129 75.7 kN (17,000 lb st)
F-135 128.1 kN

Here are the proportions.
75.7/129 = 58.7%
128.1/191.3 = 67.0%

So the F-16 has a much higher proportion of additional thrust in afterburner than the F-35. Guess which will actually matter in a dogfight? :rolleyes:

Except the claim is that an F-35 with 2 JDAMs and 2 AIM-120, outperforms a clean F-16 Blk 50

Rubbish. Complete utter rubbish.

Nowhere in the flight envelope outside ultimate post-stalled AoA does the F-35 outperform a clean viper (blk 50).

What else are you going to make up now?

INothing points in any way to LPI emmsions being detected apart from in your imagination.

Yeah, it was the MAWS that detected (and targeted) the raptor. :rolleyes:

Do OCA missions not count thesedays?

Where are you gonna find the spare 5th gen airframes for those missions?

5th gen aircraft (especially effective 5th gen aircraft) will be far too valuable to have conducting random CAPs.

[Although that is what they probably would be best at]