I have no doubt that the APG-81 can be used as a jammer.

On the other hand it is X-band only and limited to 60-deg. off the nose.

While X-band is used for some SAM tracking radars, there is a growing number of lower-band radars that can direct a missile into seeker range. For instance, the Sea Ceptor (CAMM) is intended to operate directly with the E/F-band Artisan.

Also, in order to perform continuous jamming, the “stand-off” jammer has to keep the target inside the arc of coverage, which means that it is closing the range to the target.

BiO – Nice photo. Reminds the customers that they need one of those for every three F-35Bs.

Andraxxus, someone in another forum doing some estimation of F-35 performance, can you check the validity of it (like where it went wrong)

Somewhere between the author’s conception and his hitting the keyboard. The whole thing depends on one very obvious and dubious assumption, which is that you can determine stability/instability from H-stab incidence.

I gave you one pointer already. But try overlaying the plan view of an F-35A on an aircraft of similar OEW – F-15C/Super Hornet.

Configuration counts for a lot. What do you think the longitudinal cross-section distribution of the F-35 looks like, compared to a Su-27/35 or a Typhoon, or even an F-16? Where’s the spanwise lift distribution on the F-35? (There are some photos out there which will give you a clue because they show precipitation patterns over the wing – poor man’s flow viz.) Is the body going to generate lift as efficiently as a Russian centroplane?

Like it or not, the CDA vehicle was designed with the Invincible’s lift in mind, and the PWSC design was set before it became apparent that it would never happen, and it was designed to operate on the narrow deck of a Wasp; it was also designed to accommodate 4x largish internal weapons and a lift fan (diameter within three inches of a 20,000 lbst civil turbofan) behind the cockpit. The result was some difficult trades.

Mkelly- Apologies for reacting too quickly and negatively. I had been dealing with a troll elsewhere.

However, I think your summary is too dismissive of the report’s discussion of energy maneuverability. The point the pilot seemed to be making was that there were two factor in the way of using high AoA in an unscripted scenario: the various limiters and EM, the latter meaning that using high AoA killed a lot of energy quickly and it could not be recovered. More pitch rate would be of some use but not fix the problem.

The other issue – it may be why the established critics are getting heard – is that “less EM than a Block 40” implies the diametric opposite of what program people have been saying loudly and aggressively since they squashed the RAND “baby seals” report in 2008.

It will be even more interesting to see when that 20 per cent more power materializes, how much it costs and where the threat and competition are by then.

A500 – I don’t think it has been shown to be impossible, but the AIM-9X is rail-launch only so you’d need some kind of trapeze. Same I believe goes for ASRAAM, probably why the internal-carriage idea for that was dropped.