http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/292478

The AIM-120D is the most recent version of the AMRAAM and features an improved data link, enhanced navigation and longer range.

2009. Still no sign of HOBS.

And what limits the MTOW of the aircraft?

I think it is still very theorical, it haven’t flown yet and have to carry extra-weight, how much of this can be compensated for is still unknown.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

Dimensions
Overall Length 45.1 m
Wing Span 42.4 m
Overall Height 14.7 m

Cargo Box Dimensions
Length (excluding ramp) 17.71 m
Ramp Length 5.40 m
Width 4.00 m
Height 3.85 m
Height (aft of wing) 4.00 m

Weights (2.25g)
Max. Take-off Weight 141 t
Max. Landing Weight 122 t
Max. Payload 37 t
Total Internal Fuel 50.5 t

Performance
Cruise Speed Range Mach 0.68 – 0.72
Max. Operating Speed 300 kt CAS
Initial Cruise Altitude at MTOW 29,000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude – Normal ops 37,000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude – Special ops 40,000 ft
Range at Max. Payload * 1,780 nm
Range at 30-tonne Payload * 2,450 nm
Range at 20-tonne Payload * 3,450 nm
Ferry Range * 4,700 nm
Tactical Take-Off Field Length ** 980 m
Tactical Landing Field Length *** 770 m

wrightwing
It’s not even a sure thing that the F-16 is more manueverable. The F-35 has much greater nose pointing abilities.

???

LOL! READ F-16 test-pilot reports and you will figure one thing…

F-16 was pushed to 100* AoA, it is now limited to 26* (by memory) due to a super-stall issue but it could be way better than F-35 with relaxed FCS laws.

I snapped the stick full aft and was able to command over thirty degrees of pitch change and near 100 degrees AOA

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1994/jul_94.html

Note that his F-16 was already above what F-35 have demonstrated as Maximum AoA before he got mad.

YES it is more maneuvrable, and i don’t know how you figure LESS lift from a higher wingload would give you a better turn rate.

Please elaborate. 😀

The F-35’s vastly superior situational awareness, HOBS weapons, and avionics more than makes up for it’s supposed lack of maneuverability.

Looks like one of L-M PR revues but you are mystaking performances for systems.

And as F-22 pilots says, performances makes them the winners.

Yes, you aren’t. The F-16’s overall performance is entirely inferior to the F-35.

The F-16’s overall performance is entirely inferior to the F-35.

NO they are not, it doesn’t out-perfom it at all.

But i concede you will try untill the sun goes over the horizon so i don’t really care.

I think it have something to do with a block, but not that of the aircraft. 😎

The F-35 is still superior to the F-16 in AtA combat. You’re forgetting about all the other factors involved, and instead just focusing on maneuverability.

AND performances.

I’ve already told you (two or three times now) that maneuverability alone does not dictate the outcome of aerial engagement.

So you are an Air Combat specialist now?

You have to include all the factors, not just cherry picking one.

That we do and we’re not impressed, when you talk about sensors, these have limits and needs time for detection…

Higher performances allows for smaller detection times.

Higher ceilling allow for higher kinetic energy levels for both aircraft and AAMs.

Higher maneuvrability allows for a higher chance of surviving an engament.

Add ot that equal S.A and sensors (Mostly more developed IR for countering EM L.O) and we’re not impressed.

Simple, really.

No, it is not. Neither is the Mirage 2000 (both being moderately unstable).
The point of the free floating canards is to remain flyable in case of battle damages on control surfaces (including one or both canards).

Let’s point out also that the close-coupled formula adds Dynamic instability which remains in supersonic so that the real instability %age is higher and doesn’t depends only on static gc to cl ratio.

Cola1973
However, that doesn’t explain why free floated canard has positive inclination (positive lift) as opposed to close coupled (negative?) lift.

Both are countering the effect of static instability in subsonic and have to be trimmed negatively or rather neutral (as close to neutral as possible to reduce trim drag) with the help of wing variable camber, in supersonic when the cl shifts, their level of static instability becomes negative. (Corrected a typo fro cg to cl 6th November 2009 at 22:25.).

A Typhoon will have a marked nose-down moment while a Gripen and a Rafale will be supported by the dynamic instability provided by the integrated canard formula.

Daniel Ikaza, ITP project manager – nozzles, says Dasa’s study shows that a Eurofighter flying at 30,000ft (9,150m) and a speed of M1.8 requires a 4° upward flaperon deflection to maintain level flight. A 5° upward nozzle deflection instead would enable the aircraft to fly “clean” and reduce the required engine thrust by 3%.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2000/05/23/66017/ej200-thrust-vectoring-backed.html#FIPageTop

Your argument is irrelevant, since an F-35 is still vastly superior to the F-16 in AtA combat. Even you agreed with this.

NOT in terms of performances and certainly THIS subject of maneuvrability is absolutly relevant for many known reasons related to physics. 😀

Valid for F-22 and Valid for the rest.