A focus solely on manoeuverability was found to be obsolete in WW2, when it was realised that ‘zoom & boom’ could defeat it. Russian designers were (& are) as aware of that as everyone else.

Only if the circumstances of the fight could be chosen by the zoomer & boomer.

It was observed how well that worked in Korea and Vietnam… as well as the Battle of Britain (to name one WW2 instance of zoom&boom being a fallacy).

Not necessarily- having controllability at high AoA, can contribute to the care free handling qualities that a plane exhibits.

Quite irrelevant for a good pilot in real air combat. If a pilot pulls to an AoA of over 20deg, they are desperate, and are willing to sacrifice alot of energy for an increase in turn rate.

That usually means they are in the midst of avoiding one missile, and a second will be up their backside shortly…. and they’ll have nothing in reserve to avoid it.

Energy rules.

What evidence do you have to counter his claim?

I remember this happened a few years back:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20061110024507.html

Advanced Micro Devices, the world’s second largest maker of x86 chips, will sell its chip manufacturing equipment to a Russian maker of various chips, who will then produce microprocessors for the country’s government and military needs, the company’s Moscow office said Thursday.

According to local reports, AMD will sell Zelenograd, Russia-based Angstrem company its 130nm manufacturing equipment from the Fab 30 in Dresden, Germany. Up to the recent past, Advanced Micro Devices produced 30 thousand of 200mm wafers per month, whereas Angstrem reportedly hopes to manufacture 12 million chips per year with at least some of them targeted at international markets, whereas the rest aimed at governmental and military needs.

While current CPU industry standard is 45nm moving to 32nm… the chips within the F-22 or F-35 will definitely be no better that 130nm.

There are also good reasons for keeping the on-board electronics larger, an example being to protect against burn out.

They have the fabrication process. I would assume they also have the architect designers.

There are no protruding rivet heads in picture one. (The closeup of the AOA sensor on the F-35).

There is quite clearly a horizontal line of protruding rivets at the bottom of the 1st picture. The shadows from the cross lighting shows the rivet head above the surface with crystal clarity.

Kirkland isn’t going down without a fight

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4549138&c=AIR&s=TOP

Maybe he was the target of an elaborate scam where they were planning to have him put up a large sum of money, but Kirkland went public, blowing up the scheme?

(being as generous to Kirkland as I can here . . .)

Dearest Sir,

You have been selected as the chief negotiator in a prime aerospace contract worth several billion pounds, of which you can expect to take 10%.

However, before carrying out negotiations we need to check your financial state to ensure you are a solvent partner for our enterprise. We will also need an upfront payment of $5 million to cover our costs of investigating your finances.

Please provide your full bank details, and we will contact you regarding our exciting proposal immediately.

Yours sincerely.

Mr Putin

Go look at the 7 different ATF proposals. There are MANY ways to skin that cat.

Good point.

There are many different ways to approach a problem. “Different” does not necessarily mean “worse”.

(Perhaps a lesson that needs to be taken on board by some on here)

If the F-35 needs to get lighter in a dogfight, it can dump 3,000lbs of fuel in ~6-8 seconds.

Hmmm… 2 options.

(a) dump fuel into the afterburners to increase ke prior to fighting.

(b) ping a couple of missiles at the guy your gonna be fighting.

I know which I prefer… and it ain’t increasing speed.