Even the F-16 will not “play” something like a sustained turning.
http://www.130pld.de/greni/www/subs/wissen/images/highyoyo.jpg
😎
Nothing is more misleading as an external look. Willy Messerschmitt labeled the P-47 Thunderbolt as a “flying barn” compared to the Bf-109 at first and was proven wrong, when it came to the real combat behavior. Similar thing with F-4 and MiG-21.

Old Willy was right about that one. The P-47 was a brick, and like any brick, it had momentum on its side. So you can say that it was good in a dive (and maybe a zoom climb) But that was all she had.

Now on to the comparizon between the F-35 and say the Rafale. The Rafale can loose bulk and weight by dropping external tanks. The F-35 can only loose weight. However, if the F-35 drops fuel, it will still have to use the AB more than the Rafale, to counteract the bulk. This means that the F-35 will run out of fuel quickly. So it is more like the Mig-21 in this respect, actually.
The Mig was only good when the can was lit, and it ran dry in a snap.

So you allready know the taktics to use against it. Use agressors to run it dry, make it ditch, bomb the airfield. Or simply go bomb something else.

So in my opinion, the F-35 is a bomber, it will do a good job if it has the luxury of doing it in a straight line. Compromises were made to get the aircraft down in price. Sadly they are connected to the agility of the platform as a fighter.

This may be ok for you if you are American, and have the F-22 to fly top cower. I am Norwegian however, and the prospect of having the F-35 performing national defence against the Pak-Fa, is less than glorious.

Ever use a mirror to flash sunlight around?

Can you tell me at what angle it reflects back at the source ?

And what is your point ?

has MoD put out a statement on the news article yet ?

http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/okonomi/100315/–-det-danske-forsvaret-vraker-jsf

No, the Danish MOD has yet to decide. It is the Defence forces that has concluded on the f18. This is based on the time and cost overruns on the f35. The Norvegian MOD, regrets this in this interview. They were probably hoping for a common pool of spares with European users, as on the f16.

Uhm.. Why are you going about debating the Su-34 & Su-50 export..:confused:

First of all the Su-50 will not be on sales for anybody but India.
After say 2020 perhaps they export it to others, but with a downgraded version.

And the Su-34..?
AFAIK the Su-34 have not been up for export promotion yet.
I think it will have the same export restriction as the Mig-31 had back in Soviet days..

Thanks

As i suggest in my last post, the question is is teoretical, to discuss the merits of the designs. your reply is therefore beside the point.

We both know that Australia will not be buying a Russian design in the forseeable future.

What he’d likely get is stuck with is Super Hornets for the next 30 years. It would almost be worth it just to see the look on his face. :diablo:

The smart thing of course, is to do like India. buy a 50/50 mix of F-18 and PAKFA.

Russia is after all not a natural adversary to Australia.

The latest info i have read puts the A400m at $120mill.

You do not better, do you. Read the UN-reports about that, what did happen at the crossing-points and stopped the flow of supplies temporary. Gaza was never a Ghetto or will be one. Maybe Hamas is working hard to create such dubious pictures. At least Hamas has no intrest to stop the present suffering.

Neither do you apparently.