ELP, I’m not sure your chart is very relevant for most of the F-35’s attack profiles anyway. why would the F-35 be doing Mach 0.8 while cruising to the target, if it could be crusing at mach 1.2 instead? How long would it take a MiG-29 or J-10 to catch up on a F-35 flying at M1.2 and 40,000 ft+ in a tail chase anyway?
Nah… They should buy the Su-35.
That would really put the cat among the pigeons! :diablo: 😀
Yeah, let Ukraine buy the F/A-18E:diablo:
Aerodynamically:
Sustained turn rate is shocking (was an early snapshot not quoted as inferior to that great dogfighter… the F-4).
High speed drag is also poor; not a complete killer, but not good if, like Japan (or Canada), you will want to use the thing as an interceptor to stop inbounds from attacking your shipping/infrastructure.
To be honest I don’t keep up with the very latest on the F-35.
But who knows all this information for a fact? Who has determined the F-35’s ‘sustained turn rate’, and how – by watching youtube videos? Has Lockheed or the US DoD made any statements on it yet?
A lot of the criticism of the F-35 seems to me like a lot of speculation and conjecture – but maybe there are wiser people on the Key forums?:confused:
All three aircraft are very early in their development stages so such questions are largely debatable on many levels.
I think the F-35 is just a little bit more ahead than the other pair in testing.
JSF has fundamental problems with the airframe (and indeed the aerodynamic platform); these are serious issues that none of the Gripen/Eurofighter and Rafale have.
What are the fundamental problems with the airframe of the F-35 – she looks like a nimble little ****** to me…
It wouldn’t be the first helicopter launched infra-red seeking “rocket” in USN service – what about AGM-119 Penguin, still in service?
So I reccon that thing is probbably even more powerful than the famed chain-gun of the Appaches?
It is a more powerful round than that fired from the Apache’s M230. Here’s a photo for comparison (2A42 round on far left, of course):
Mi-24Ps twin 30mm puts them both to shame.
But that was a fixed forward-firing mounting, a temporary measure.
There were problems with the recoil of the 2A42 on the Mi-28 in the early days of the helicopter’s development, but they seem to be resolved now.
The 2A42 is a massive gun to be fitting on a helicopter, especially if you are trying to mount it on a nose mounted rotating turret. It’s probably only possible to fit it on a helicopter that was initially designed to take it in the first place – just as the Fairchild A-10 literally had to be designed around the its 30mm revolver cannon.
The Gsh-23 mm gun should be adequate enough for the Mi-35M – I would be more interested in the sighting and targeting systems available for it, and its gyro-stabilised mounting.
Sens. Did you not once say that the F-5 (forget which variant) actually had a faster climb rate to 30,000 feet than the MiG-21?
Arquebus,
Don’t contradict alphaKilo too much on flying the F-104…:rolleyes:
What happened to the Russian AF order for the French Damocles designator pod? Wasn’t it supposed to have gone into production in Russia at some stage?
Dohhh…:o:o (Soviet/Russian aircraft designation “soup” again).
You’re right, I was thinking of Indian air force MiG-21PF (which had to have an external gun pod fitted)…:o
So if the Boeing deal goes through, the F-15 will have been in production for up to 40 years – has there been any other combat aircraft that has been produced for so long? Maybe MiG-21/J-7?