First up, apologies for the 3 photos – admin, if you want them just as links, go ahead and change them at your discretion.

You’re so confident (and arrogant) and yet you are wrong.

What depth perception do you have on that? Zero.

Examine this photograph.

We KNOW that the front nose gear is shorter than the rear.

Therefore, we KNOW the aircraft is at a nose down attitude relative to our viewpoint.

But wait… why do we see the upper inner surface of the intake duct?

Because Sukhoi are dropping the duct down then up to shield the compressor face.

Here, this brightened version of the above may help:

It’s very inaccurate actually. Again:

Red lines = center of the engines.
Red dot = center of the engine.
Red circl = engine inlet.

Again?

The engines are clearly canted inward. That means the red line you’ve drawn is NOT the centreline of the engines.

Until you and Kapedani realise that, this discussion is pissing into the wind.

“Boeing had initially selected Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines for its KC-X entrant, but has reportedly considered General Electric’s GEnx engine developed for the 787 and 747-8.”

I’ll re-write that for you.

“Boeing had initially selected the compatible and already in use Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines for its KC-X entrant, but now that Northrop-Grumman has withdrawn it is considering the expensive integration of the General Electric GEnx engine developed for the 787 and 747-8. Boeing has denied the allegation that the challenge of integrating the engine will be used as a means to hide program costs rises in other areas.”

I knew they would shaft you folk after “winning”… I didn’t quite know they’d have the brass neck to announce it after one day.

However if you are stealthy, you have a much greater chance of breaking a missile lock.

At terminal maneuvering range?

Who you trying to kid?

Here’s one from a LM press release-

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3063.html

It is known a development freeze of the F-35 does not match the F-16 in sustained turn rate.

In fact, it cannot match the F-4E.

Unsurprisingly, Lockheed lie and people believe them.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml

maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft.

An F-16 will go from 0.8 to 1.2 in under 30 seconds at 30,000ft!

You’re missing my point- from an agility standpoint, there are negligible differences in survivability in modern fighters.

No. There are not. Typically before finding yourself in the situation of having to dodge a missile you will have been maneuvering. If your aircraft bleeds off more energy, then you are in a more vulnerable energy state when it comes to trying to avoid the missile.

I wonder if you’d care to provide the numbers for comparison.

Care to provide the statements?

The airframe in question will allow that F-35 a far higher degree of survivability against modern SAMs and fighters, than those with higher RCS, which will need raw performance, to have any chance of getting home.

In my opinion many F-35 pilots are going to pay in blood for this lunacy.

Effectively, the F-35 is gonna be caught with their hands in the cookie jar… and have no fall back excuse to get out of trouble.

The A400 and its engine come to mind.

In keeping with:

I for one do not like to see the general public (anywhere) get shafted by corporate greed through ****ty govt decisions.

They should have went with the Pratt & Whitney option.

The head of whoever forced that decision should be on a proverbial plate (i.e. they are sacked).

Soon Asia and russia will take market share from them both. 🙁

‘specially with the way Airbus runs itself these days.

Engineers are no longer in control. Bean counters (procurement) are running the show.