This is a dated excuse. Some of the performance information is no longer classified. Since 2012 we got some solid numbers instead of vague “better than XX” type claims. And unfortunately, the acceleration figures we got range from very modest (F-35A) to outright poor (F-35C).

Regarding the kinetic performance, APA were never wrong. And if the folks in charge really had “true access to F-35”, they must have known it. Which says a lot about their intellectual honesty. Interestingly, we can observe similar behavior with local JSF fans which are unable to admit that lagging 40+ secs behind expectations in acceleration times only confirms what Kopp et co. have been predicting for years.

I won’t comment on stealth (yet) since there were no specs released thus far.

Frankly you don’t know what you are talking about.

Very little performance information is available for the F-35, nowhere near enough to make a serious judgement about how it compares to other aircraft with combat loads.

There is a heck of a lot more to aircraft performance than level acceleration at 30k ft with an unspecified load. :rolleyes:

Even the APA doctored slide with various accelerations plotted on it has been shown to be riddled with errors.

That is at best extremely sloppy argumentation.

Nobody denies that greater speed is an advantage. I doubt there is a single pilot on earth that wouldn’t welcome additional speed if it came without other penalties.

That is not however relevant to the current discussion.

When the Australian defense ministry states outright that APA’s presentation, “made several errors of fact and misrepresentations about F-35 capability,” what they are saying politely is that APA was factually wrong and either lying or ignorant about the F-35’s capabilities.

Later they also say that APA’s analysis, which they noted “is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and lack of knowledge of classified F-35 performance information,” was at odds with that done by the experts within the Australian defense establishment that actually have access to the F-35’s performance data and of course experience as fighter pilots.

The question here is not one of “would it be nice to have F-22 level aerodynamic performance?” Naturally there isn’t a pilot out there that wouldn’t like to have such.(including of course pilots of very modern 4th generations types such as the Eurocanards) The question is whether what the F-35 offers is sufficient to be effective in combat. The experts in Australia, along with those in a long list of other purchasers of F-35s believe it is.

In terms of a response to what was supposedly a serious presentation by APA… this is pretty harsh.

So should I spell everything out in multi-coloured crayon in future?

If you present yourself broadside to the missile, then go into an inverted 9g dive at the optimal distance – then yes, you can easily work out the missile does have to achieve similar turn radius*.

If you present your tail to the missile and go into a 9g pitch up – then no, the missile doesn’t need anything like the same turn radius as the vector differential is less.

[I did mis-spoke earlier using the instance of directly running away as it is numerically incorrect.]

*following on from this… its a bit too early in the morning for my brain to be fully woke up yet – but to dodge a single incoming missile… presenting yourself head on and going into an inverted 9g dive at the optimal distance would mean the missile has to significantly beat your turn radius due to the vector differentials involved. Wouldn’t it? Surely someone has automated the radar/MAWS/RWR to provide cuing for what the pilot should do for best evasion…

If I get time later, I’ll run through the numerics of it. Could be next week by the time I’ve a proper chance though.

No time now, but I will say that this would be highly distance dependent. If you began your turn too soon the missile would simply cut across the interior of your turn and nail you that way. There are scenarios where you can dodge a missile, but it isn’t nearly as simple as some around here seem to present it and the missile doesn’t need to match the aircraft’s turn radius to intercept it since it is moving far faster.

Practically all, yes. Especially those with many contenders. It is unreasonable to expect that the companies suddenly start to behave differently and lose billions in deals just because hopsalot likes fair play.

:rolleyes:

Sure man, every deal, everywhere… all bribery.

Evidence is useless. You only pretend to want any, in reality you have already made up your mind. In your head, BAe are bribers because it was written somewhere and I bet you never cared about what evidence was provided or who the source was. At the same time, Lockheed are not bribers, regardless of several sources having been provided. Bias talks…

I never said LM never gave a bribe, there are parts of the world where it is almost impossible to do business without them… only that it is ridiculous to take the position that all deals everywhere are a result of bribery. As for BAe… there were formal criminal investigations in both Saudi and Austria. That is a completely different level of evidence than baseless accusations from someone who claims that all deals everywhere are always the result of bribery.

There is nothing like better or worse product. I only recognize products more or less fitting particular requirements and expectations.

Is that supposed to sound sophisticated? There are in fact better and worse products, what constitutes “better” may vary from one buyer to another, but to claim there is no such thing as a better product…

And when it comes to bribes, all depends on how deep your pockets are. Lockheed is obviously richer, with more political backing and more black funds available than the rest of the field. To my knowledge, SAAB have not received $1bn bailout from taxpayer money, that should give you a hint.

Oh, that explains it! Of course it doesn’t do anything to explain why Boeing isn’t doing just as well now does it? Nevermind, clearly it is no use trying to reason with you… you are 100% correct, all deals are corrupt and since LM wins the most deals they are clearly the kings of bribery. The most honest companies are the ones that don’t win any deals at all, that means Dassault followed by Saab. :very_drunk:

I have never read about bribes in Oman. Got a link?

I said two thirds, the two of the three are the Saudi and the Austrian deals.

Ethics has nothing to do with this, I am simply being pragmatic. If Sweetman had a source, we would never learn his name, anyway. This is the point where I simply have to depend on the journalist’s reputation.

Ok, so just make up whatever you want, right.

It isn’t like you would disclose your source if you had one so what is the difference, right?

Makes perfect sense to me.

(This attitude actually almost makes me doubt you are Norwegian. The Norwegians I have worked with wouldn’t have struggled to understand the ethical question here.)

Yes hopsalot, you can solve your problems the typical way as we see you or your peer do in the picture.

Now, tell me that this is not a sign that a tender is rigged.

Thats just one of the examples. Regarding Korea i have no say because there isnt proof of anything yet. And the F35 isnt even ordered yet. It just smells fishy. Personally I think they could make good use of a couple of F35s. Im getting tired of explaining 1 + 1 = 2 to religious fanatics.

I wont talkt to you for a while since we clearly see that you dont even read the shortest articles in your preferred language if they dont support your beliefs.

Seems to me you haven’t posted any articles about bribery in the recent contest in Korea… just the predictable conspiracy theories.

So here you are without even a hint of evidence. Nothing at all, and yet you claim corruption.

Let me put it to you this way, suppose you were going to rig the contest… is this how you would do it? Why wait until the last minute to deviate from the established procedures? Why not intervene during the dozens and dozens of rounds of bidding? Why relax the rules to allow Eurofighter and Boeing to compete at all? It would be far easier to just stick with your original requirements that only the F-35 could meet….

Whatever, I see that as usual you are intent on believing what you wish and need no evidence whatsoever.

Yes, the F-35 has always the presumed frontrunner. Except it lost the deal to F-15SE. It must have taken enormous money to revert that decision. If it took $2 million alone to bribe South Korean politicians in order to accept LANTIRN on the F-15K, how much would one need to pay to Koreans for dumping the whole tender and making “the right decision” for 60 mutirole jets?
A bianco cheque seems like a good idea.

So it is necessary to bribe the Koreans to do what they already wanted to do? And that would be expensive you think?

You don’t think it seems more plausible that the Koreans realized they screwed up how they structured the tender and rather than spending billions of dollars on equipment they didn’t really want, they decided instead to put their requirements first and bought the aircraft the rated in first place?

I think BAe’s history of bribes looks very pale if you compare that to Lockheed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

But I think it is safe to assume that everybody in that sector does the bribing and deceiving. If there were any honest defense companies, they are long gone. It makes no sense to do the fighting in boxing gloves if your opponents use knives and pistols.

Plus it is convenient to be able to dismiss any results you don’t like by blaming them all on bribery. :stupid:

Bribery is real and it does happen, only a fool would deny that, but it is equally foolish to reflexively allege bribery every time an aircraft you don’t like is selected.

You post this…

then post:

What on this green and blue earth did you think I was proposing?

As soon as a missile is fired at you turn and go around in f**king 9g circles?!?

Well, you said this:

If the target is pulling 5g on an inside turn from running directly away at V = 1, and the missile is doing V=2, then the missile must turn at 20g to maintain the turn radius. Otherwise it will start to overshoot.

Nothing changes that maxim.

g = V^2/R

Given that you said nothing other than that a missile would be challenged to achieve an equal turn radius to a manned aircraft flying at far lower speeds…. (which isn’t even relevant to what we are talking about here given that achieving a similar turn radius is by no means required for an intercept)

No, I actually don’t see any indication there that you were talking about the same thing I was. I suppose you might have been, but that would only make the discussion of turn radius all the more odd.