http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf

Here’s a document that details the effects of making the aircraft suitable for shipborne operation. Wingspan constraint by STOVL, sure. Length, don’t think so. I think single-engine is also highly preferred by USAF, which is by far the largest customer.

Getting back to the F-35, this little gem was in the news thread:

Why Can’t America’s Newest Stealth Jet Land Like It’s Supposed To?

Seems like a par for the course anti-F-35 article, and more than a little light on actual facts.

I’m frankly getting really tired of everyone blaming STOVL for just about everything. I believe CATOBAR and Navy requirements did more to degrade the F-35’s weight and performance more than STOVL.

I’m seriously hoping that USN’s F/A-XX and USAF’s Next Gen Tac Air will have separate airframes.

It’s got nothing on the MiG-29UBT.

Did this thing get spine cancer? It looks like a goddamn whale.

Okay, I’m frankly a bit confused about the VVS Flanker force structure. Disregarding the Su-34, there appears to be at least 7 Flanker variants being employed in various manners.

Su-27S/P – Vanilla Flankers that made up the bulk of Soviet and Russian Flanker force. Are these being phased out or being modernized to SM?
Su-27SM – Modernized Flankers rebuilt from Su-27S/P?
Su-27SM3 – Modernized Flankers with more upgrades? Are these new-build?
Su-27UB – Two-seat trainer for vanilla and modernized Flankers. Old ones are being repaired to be flyable.
Su-30M2 – New-build trainer for vanilla and modernized Flankers? Not sure what else it’s for.
Su-30SM – Trainer for the Su-35S. But what mission does this plane have other than that?
Su-35S – Heavily upgraded Flankers, similar to F-15C with AESA radars.

What the point of the Su-30SM is other than being a trainer for the Su-35S. What can the Su-30SM do that other VVS aircraft can’t? And can someone please elaborate on the whole Su-27SM and Su-27SM3 upgrade business? I really don’t trust the information on Wikipedia.

Thanks. That makes sense. The R-37 is old too now.

Is the 180 to be a ramjet missile?

Unfortunately, rumor from flateric is that the ramjet 180, or 180-PD, has been halted.

KH-58 is almost 16 feet (480 cm) long. Compare the length of the R-77 at 11.8 feet on the rails. According to Aviationweek the KH-58 fits. The front bays are at least that long then….
http://aviationweek.com/awin/t-50-details-emerge-moscow-air-show

No, the T-50 carries the Kh-58UShE, which is 13.75 feet (419 cm) long.

RUSSIA STRONQ

Thanks for the message JSR.

Which is strange when you consider that if European nations were really feeling threatened by Russia, a dispersed Gripen force would be a far more sensible investment than a handful of F-35s waiting to be obliterated by Russian TBMs.

But then of course there’s the strategic angle (i.e. the US/NATO buddy club) to consider. F-35 is an inspiring program from any number of perspectives — it’s just a pity about the aircraft. (Observe the contrast with Typhoon, which suffers from the opposite problem.)

A Gripen force would be just as vulnerable to obliteration as an F-35 force, or any aircraft force for that matter.

And what exactly is so wrong with the aircraft? The aircraft is essentially aerodynamically equivalent to an F-16C with DI of 50 (i.e. 2 Sidewinders, and 4 AMRAAM pylons) with much more range, second-to-none sensors and avionics (both radar and IR), built-in LANTIRN pod, and VLO. Given how many air forces have shown interest in the aircraft, I don’t think it should be called a “pity.”

Yes, the program had more than its share of f*ck ups, and the aircraft is much more expensive than anticipated. But at this point the program has largely stabilized.