Well the T-50 test programme doesn’t seem to be any faster than F-35 flight testing or the F-22 programme from 15 years ago. Seems a lot faster than the Chinese J-20 programme though?

I haven’t kept up with the timeframes, but I think the PAK-FA program is quite a bit faster than the F-35.

I will try and bring this discussion a bit back on track so we are not digressing too much.

I think the major issues can be summarised into:

1 kinematic performance
2 avionics performance
3 suitability for missions
4 cost
5 wisdom of developing only one design that may not suit allied (NATO) needs

We can there see how we feel about these broad areas without analysing things we don’t have info about.

It just came to me that EOTS is installed just after the nose cone on the bottom half. I am wondering how this affects close encounters in relation to IRST function when the opponent is positioned on the inside of the F-35 turn ..

Its got the agility of a lightly loaded F-16C and maneuvers nearly as well as the SH at high angles of attack.

The F-35 will almost always have the first shot even within visual range. With the EODAS doing the tracking for him and beaming imagery directly on his visor, the F-35 pilot can identify and engage enemies at all aspects. He shoots first and his opponent is the one worrying about ‘a fighting chance’ against the missile.

‘Gadget’ implies its trivial add-on, which it isn’t. And its performing just fine. There were issues with the helmet but they’ve been addressed with Gen 3 unit that starts deliveries next year.

Unless the opposition is fielding better AAMs the kill probability of the missile makes no difference to the aircraft’s loss-exchange ratio. Halve the Pk and the F-22 may ‘kill’ only half as many targets. But it’ll also ‘die’ only half as often (assuming the other side is also similarily restricted).

Which block of F-16’s ? Not all performed equally…

I don’t think this is even physically possible. You can’t have the first shot if you have ran out of missiles for instance. But there are other reasons at play. For example the enemy may lead you in a position where launching a weapon is not permitted due to the launch parameters of the plane during the manoeuvre (I don’t have any data on the F-35 on this, I really don’t know what its launch envelope is)

Until it it sees widespread adoption and fielded use, it remains a gadget. I do recognise however that this is my personal view and I could be wrong. (also nobody knows the details of the fixes of the issues we talked about.

That is just it. Nobody knows when the opposition missiles will work better. Each weapon has an envelope of optimum operation and therefore increased Pk. Although your math is correct, it is also not telling the full picture.

Given the huge developement cost of the F-35, one can expect that it would have capabilities that the others wouldn’t have.

Given the price tag of Chivas Regal you’d expect it to be better than average Scotch, but it’s not.

Or between the Nissan GtR and a ferrari .. .

Also –

1. In terms of physical performance the F-35A matches or exceeds the Super Hornet on most parameters.

2. Most modern close combat missiles can pull 60-80Gs at Mach 3 and are equipped with 90 deg off-boresight swiveling IIR seekers. Long drawn out ‘Top Gun’ style dogfights are a thing of the past (nothwithstanding training setups under restrictive RoEs).

3. In WVR combat, the EODAS maintains a constant track on the target throughout the missile’s flight and provides constant updates through the 2-way datalink to ensure a high kill probability (this will be particularly important once DIRCM comes into play). So no, a Aim-9X launched from a different platform isn’t the same as one from a F-35.

4. The F-22 has dominated every exercise it has participated in, where real world combat was simulated (as opposed to friendly engagements where it fought with one if not both hands tied). Some of that was because of its brute performance (TVC, supercruise, etc) but most of that is still chalked up to stealth and avionics. The F-35 features comparable (possibly superior) characteristics at both aspects.

1. It remains to be seen.

2. So it pays to be somewhat agile to have a fighting chance at least.

3. That is a nice gadget, let’s see how it performs first.

4. F-4 AUP’s dominated exercises against F-16’s with their longer range radar and 100% assumed lethality of the AIM-120 they were carrying. Real missiles don’t work as well as simulated ones. Can’t comment on stealth though.

Either:

a: T-50-1 got pressure sensors instead of pitot or:
b: It got pressure sensors and radar. (less likely)

A closer photo might show if the radiation stickers are in place, unless they are stack on regardless.