From last weeks sea trials

Is this the first video of it using anything more than Mil power on a catapult?

People doesnt seem to care about actual info, so i stopped. Can’t be bothered.

Please keep posting, its really appreciated.

The 4×4 results are hardly worth a medal, given the claims of 400-600 per cent superiority in air-to-air.

Thats exactly why it will make for interesting reading. If it ends up they never lost an F-35, which given the careful wording is almost certainly not true, then those percentages start looking good all of a sudden….who was flying the F-35s, what type of configurations etc. Even looking at the start of the F-16s career the test pilots were given a few lessons when they visited operational squadrons and setup for an engagement.

Read the report again!

Technically it doesnt actually state whether any flight control restrictions were placed on the F-35, it only states the software revision used. As this aircraft was flown to +9 previously on the same software its logical to assume it was not limited to +7.

LO care to share your secret knowledge?

….so the JPO is not in denial of this test pilot view, unlike certain forum members,
but rather are of the view that F-35 won’t be ending up in close combat,
or at least hope so

Not sure thats what was implied by the JPO statement:

“allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

Any aircraft getting into a knife fight these days is going to be rolling the dice, the only way its tidy is in a 1v1 format, theres probably a reason every modern AF trains to avoid it.

Without someone releasing the whole report, which I presume is only being done to protect the individuals involved, its going to be very hard to get any concrete data from it, especially wrt production aircraft. Great fodder for the internet tho.

Well it hasnt had the best of luck as yet. Break down during rehearsal apparently meant it had to be towed off Red Square

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEY8kjQUEAAq1xX.png:large

Have a google for F-16s with HAVE GLASS II upgrades, theres a definite reason as to why its darker…

France went to Ivory Coast on its own; a recent example where a EU nation that considered they had interests (beside having a cooperation traty to enforce) in acting alone. And they have the numbers to send their aircraft on an external mission. What can do a country that has barely enough aircraft to ensure its own QRA?

obviously, having their own aircraft, they did not need anybody’s permission or support. Can you tell for sure that no other european country may have some similar ideas/interests for the next 40 years (and even further, as once they get that route, they’ll be pretty much dependent from the US for much longer afterwards)

in any case, your “there’s no evidence…” is utter nonsense, as I said that:

“when you have only handful of aircraft that you can afford, and needing assets from the US to use them effectively (because the needed assets won’t be bought by nations that can barely afford a squadron of F-35s), you DO depend on the US good will, and therefore you have lost your independence” it’s as simple as that (Independence = not depending on somebody else, it should be simple to understand)

This is a great example tho TC, France is 5th/6th on world spending on defence in 2013 (Depending on whos numbers you choose but somewhere around $60Bn). They have always chosen to field their own aircraft and keep their indigenous industries alive, but its at a cost, and a cost most other nations cant afford. So using the example of the 6th biggest spender being able to deploy a limited force to a remote location just underlines how improbable this would be for almost any other EU country. Apart from the USUK Frances defence budget is around double the next highest JSF partner.

Its not something anyone here can say as to whether a country will need to do it in 40 years, but the basic fact is that France and the UK may be the only EU countries that can do it today. And its something that will only become more costly in time. The cost of the F-35 is a major issue (a massive one imho) but none of the alternatives are cheap, even just keeping the existing capabilites is expensive. I completely agree with the sentiment of your argument but I think the fact is that it was decided a long time ago to abandon that kind of capability as the costs are unsustainable.