And this proves what? Surely I can use paint to draw that too, and would be more credible than APAA.

Yes you would. Either way,

So clearly, F-22 cannot even pull 5Gs; even at its empty weight at M0,9. There are a dozen stupidities I would show but I won’t even bother dismissing that laughable chart further.

Ok, either way. I havent seen reports about the F22 being garbage in dogfights vs the F15 or F16. I’ve only seen that in comparisons with the Eurofighter (and in a video against Rafale).

And in real life, airframe design is important too; for example, Su-27S design is negative stable subsonic (which improves maneuverability), which requires less than 2 degrees of elevator deflection to fly subsonically. At high altitude transonic speeds, its positive stable to increase controllability. If armed with missiles, its also negative stable when supersonic, but not when its clean. Such configuration would not benefit anything from TVC other than departure safety, because aircraft literally switches between maneuvering efficiency and ease of controllability when desired or required. Gotta love the Sukhoi engineers.

Yeah, they have a tendency to find unexpecteded solutions.

Either way, I agree that the hearsay performance figures for the F22 are counter intuitive. It’s just that evidence of the opposite is so rare. I would love to get actual performance points from non mythomaniacs. Like we have for the F35. Right now the few actual numbers we have are dry thrust envelope (which is quite impressive) and (armed) top speed of mach 2.25. Which i find strange because it doesnt have visible ramps, but with vents and internal ramps it is not impossible.

If it is as you say that there are no vents or no internal parts in the duct to manage airflow then the max speed is substantially lower and I believe performance will also suffer. I just havent looked it up.

Every simplification favors F-16 and F-15 most and F-35 the least, which was kinda my point actually.

Missed that.

Baseless claim; About F-22’s service ceiling, USAF says 50000+feet; LM says 60000 feet (no plus beside it). F-15E can also operate up to 63k feet.
F-22’s top speed is said to be mach-2 class, F-15E can operate up to M2,35 on STD DAY.

There is no single indication F-22’s flight envelope is greater than F-15.[/QUOTE]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238885[/ATTACH]
Then we have the dry thrust envelope and the high altitude maneuvering.

There is also the infamous video of the F15 pilot talking about how the F15C is slightly inferior to the Su30MKI in kinematics and way behind the F22 (I just assume that is most noticeable at higher altitude where thrust vectoring really does its job well).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU

To make F-22’s T/D equal with F-15E, either Cd curve or dynamic thrust must be improved by 15%. That is where all “simplifications” come in, so lets count them all;
Thrust:
1- a fixed inlet can never exceed a variable inlet. It may -at best- closely match it for a very limited part of the envelope.
2- Boilerplate exhausts have far greater losses, compared to round exhaust.
3- F-100 has lower bypass ratio than F-119, so higher % of thrust retained at high speeds.
Drag:
4-F-22 is newer design, so advancements like CFD should improve Cd0
5-F-22 has VLO considerations whereas F-15E is solely designed to be aerodynamic.
6-F-22 is negative stable F-15E is not.
7-Thrust vectoring may assist in trim, but may also have little or no effect at all.
8-F-22 has LE flaps so drag while maneuvering would decrease, and lift at hard turns increase.

That is 4 vs 4, with most important ones being 1,2,6,8 its 2 vs 2. So speaking of features doesn’t look very bright for F-22 is it?

I agree with every point in that list, but it isnt congruent with the reports ive read about the F22 meeting the F15 and the envelope charts Ive seen.

Similarily, I expected the F35 to perform better than it did in the David Axe report.

Finest? Possibly. Most maneuverable? Not in my eyes. At least, I don’t think there is enough scientific evidence that tells its even on par with F-15E.

At altitude wings and control surfaces lose their impact on controling the aircraft. The most efficient way to get the plane or object to turn is to point the thrust in a different direction.

You are assuming everything changes at high altitude? With inceasing altitude and decreasing air pressure, all aircraft will see degredation in maneuverability. And again, ALL aircraft will turn better without wavedrag holding them back, so best maneuverability will be made below M0,9, even for MiG-31.

Not everything changes, but while wings and control surfaces are doing their job in dense air they do lose that in thinner air. And at high altitude only the aircraft with thrust vectoring will maneuver well.

Speaking of videos, F-22 sustains some 18deg/s at airshows. Immediately claimed that F-22 flies under G limitations in airshows. Its real funny to talk about G limits for an aircraft that flies for 25 years and in active service for 10 years but OK, lets swallow it and compare; an F-15C with half fuel needs puny 5Gs to sustain same 18deg/s. IF F-22 is better than F-15C, how strict can it be limited so it performs same? 4Gs? 3? I dare say, Something must be REAL wrong if you limit your 9G capable aircraft to just 3-4Gs. Even unmaintained, old, 7,33G capable F-14 had ended their career at 5,5G limit. In any case, F-22’s instantenious turns in videos show the problem is not pulling Gs, its sustaining them.

I would also claim BS on that. However, my claims are about the F22 at mostly high altitudes. So far, despite math saying the opposite, it does look like the F22 does perform better than the others at high altitude. I may be wrong though, but so far i have to go with the actual results that are presented to me instead of a strict number by number guessing game.

Then people claim a miracle happens when both aircraft climb to 20k feet, and F-22 suddenly becomes a monster that defeats anything else. No, I don’t buy it. The thing is, all these features like negative stability or LE flaps etc are ALREADY making difference at S/L too. Other then air density, NOTHING changes between M0,85 S/L and M0,85 30k feet.

Thrust vectoring doesnt lose effectiveness at the same rate as other control surfaces.

Some F-22 lovers may call me biased, but I am merely asking WHY? If F-22 had so low wing loading that it would hold it back at low altitude, but give an edge at high altitude, or it had so tremendous T/W that it overcame the drag came with higher AOA needed for high alt maneuvering, I would accept. But TVC trimming? No, not a sufficent answer.

Im no F22 lover, and i recognise it got its a$$ kicked in BFM by Rafale. But at high altitude, being the only western fighter with TVC I’d guess the F22 is in its own class.

By the way, Speaking of videos, my calculation gives 87,7% T/D, and 87,8 T/W ratio between F-15 and F-22. I agree I am oversimplying and I DO expect some 5-10 improvement to drag figure, but do you really think that the ratio between F-22’s max observed sustained turn rate (18 deg/s) and F-15C’s stated STR (20,5 deg/s) is also 87,8% just because its a silly coincidence???? Or science is more important than looks and propoganda?

As I said, i believe even a clean Gripen C could out turn the F22 at low altitude. I just believe (because of TVC) that the turning capabilities of F22 deteriorates slower with altitude than for other fighters.

As a numbers guy, I am really curious about WHY F-35 is called bad, F-15/16 good, and F-22 phenomenal.. All F-22 lovers may trash my post all they want but;

My point? Every claim about F-35 cannot dogfight (based on its heavy, or underpowered or have small wings) must also apply to F-22; either that or this claim is wrong.

I think your claim is just over simplified.

For instance, the flight envelope of the F22 is greater than for the F15. The maneuverability at altitude (thanks to thrust vectoring among other things) is much greater for the F22. Also the cruise speed is pretty extreme.

All in all, at high altitude (where the F22 is designed to be) it is probably the finest aircraft in the world. At low altitude I could imagine that even a clean Gripen C would turn tighter. (Based on the video where different fighters do 360 deg turns)

You know this how?

I’d say the P42 (Stripped down pre production Su27) had some pretty impressive performance specs. So did early F15, and the F16A has AFAIK been regarded as the most nimble F16 in the lot. I’m not sure ebout how the early MiG 29 faired but I assume it performed better in most regards to the MiG 21 and other jets it was replacing.

And that is without taking the new avionics into consideration.

Given that it is the test pilot himself who believes the plane has more to offer… I don’t see any reason to doubt him.

Well, the performance was in an aircraft without limitations so… the improved performance should rather be about energy conservation than instant pitch authority.

Based on this: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog

It actually seems that David Axe was right.

So the F35A with “no limits” can’t out turn or out run an F16D with two wet bags, at least not on a regular basis.

Looks like David Axe is on the best way to become a new Carlo Kopp or Bill Sweetman. There has to be some leftist F-35 hating conspiracy and a scape-goat who is to blame.
But dissing Kopp or Axe doesn’t make the F-35 a tiny bit better than it really is.

The best lies are the ones close to the truth.

What we acutlly now from other sources is the following:
The AF-02 had, in january, flight controls that wherent finalised.
The-AF02 was tested against an F-16 to see how it would look if they faced off.

This is what the manager of the program director says:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

As we now from previous occasions, the actual test pilots usually have a more critical point of view (save Beesley and others..)

What strikes me as odd is that the F35 was supposedly outrun by an F16 carrying two wetbags + externals. And not only outrun, but out turned etc.

I believe that it may have been possible once or twice (Viper pilots know their aircraft darn well and can often surprise even Gripen or Eurofighter pilots). What strikes me as odd though is that it is supposedly the rule, and not the exception, in this scenario.

Regarding helmets and sensors… we know that has been a long time problem and since the F35 hasnt reached IOC yet there is no point debating it. Whether it is true or not.

And the most important part is… there is no report. At least not online. At least POGO, DoD etc release their reports online or they always find their way out. But this report was only given to David Axe out of all people? Why not to other journalists as well?

Very limited analysis. Storm Shadow offers VLO strike but at what range, if the target is over 1000km inside enemy territory, then it can’t.

1000km inside enemy territory means that, as an example, the F35A needs to be based within artillery range (artillery like BM30) from the frontline to accomplish that. And that is assuming they fly in a straight line.

Pak FA will likely be the only way to accomplish the scenario you desire.

Also… 1000 km inside enemy territory means, as an example, that you would be flying from Jerusalem to bomb targets in Iran (near the Iraqi border) while crossing two countries you are at war with (Syria and Iraq or “hostile territory”). Those are the ranges we are talking about.

However, with a jet like the Rafale you could fly over neutral territory (Turkey, Azerbadjan etc) and from the Caspian sea launch Storm Shadow to stealthily hit targets inside Tehran. The flying range for this would be roughly 1800km x 2 + 500km for the missile. That is a target over 1500km inside enemy territory that is accessible thanks to longer range of the Rafale and good endgame stealth in the form of Storm Shadow.

This is what the Rafale can do and, to some extent, has done in missions like Libya and Mali.

Doing “deep strike” missions deeper than some 500km inside enemy territory usually means you have gone from one side of the country to the other. Germany, from east to west measures from 640km to 400km. And that is a pretty large country.

Thats how most fighter programs are run..and why I was surprised that a company as pragmatic as SAAB (and the operators in Sweden and Brazil) would like to have a hard FOC at induction as was claimed last year ( (FOC by 2018).

They did that with Gripen C…

Here is a historic overview of different upgrade paths and “Material Systems” that Gripen has had.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237263[/ATTACH]

The avionics and weapon integration in each “MS” system is clearly defined and after verification and training it is operational. As per this one:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237264[/ATTACH]

I have never heard of SAAB delivering anything similar to IOC-ready aircraft other than the first Gripen A that didnt have a fully verified FCS at deliveries. And since it was a new ac it ofc had fewer weapons integrated initially than others. But it did come with A2G and A2A from the start.

With Gripen E though, they have changed the architecture. And if the weapon integration comes in the form of “apps” then by all means they can ship it with just AA support to save some time and then the operators can install the apps/weapons they want on the fly. In that case we will be seeing IOC becoming a term that is applicable in Gripen E.

If that is the case I promise to get off my high horse.

This is the proposed future “lätt” means light:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237265[/ATTACH]

Modified Gripen C/D will have the core capabilities of Gripen E, but somewhat “light”. After all the chassi is older, the operator might not want to install a new radar, a new engine, add pylons and so on.

What might differ from other manufacturers is that once an order for an MS system is placed the order cannot be retracted or changed. Ie, they can’t change their minds and say “but we want HARM and MICA NG integrated *cryface”, thats a complementary order for MS22 or so.

But as stated above. This might have changed with the new split avionics system…