Why does he put the sustained turn rate for a clean F16 with 50% fuel and 2 x Aim9 at 14,3 degrees?

All other charts show a turn rate just over 19 deg/s (die schnelleste kurwe = tightest full turn = sustained turn rate).
see http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f16a-15k.jpg

So the final chart should be ~16,3 deg/s for the F16 with full internal fuel and it would likely be a little bit lower if Amraams are added.

That chart indicates a peak instantaneous turn, not sustained. This is clearly indicated because the arrow is pointing to the tip of the doghouse plot.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218476[/ATTACH]

Relying on Osprey support could be entertaining given the relationship between Osprey payload/range and the F-35’s fuel load. Trucks? Have you not watched the news for the last ten years?

Ospreys would have a hard time providing enough fuel and munitions for continuous long range/high-intensity strikes but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t support a meaningful capability. Just because an F-35B is capable of carrying a large fuel/weapons load does not mean that they would need to do so on every mission. In any case the Marine Corps is actively considering the F-35B/Osprey combination which I think is sufficient to prove that they are thinking about operations with airfield lengths beneath 3,000ft.

A second concept currently being examined is to deploy a whole squadron of 16 F-35Bs on board an amphibious assault ship, along with six MV-22s. Those MV-22s would be equipped with a roll-on/roll-off aerial refuelling kit which would greatly extend the range of the F-35B, Schmidle says. A MV-22 is going to be tested this “summer” with the aerial refueling kit.

That package of F-35Bs and MV-22 could also move ashore to implement the USMC’s distributed operations concept, where small number of fighters would be based at multiple austere airfields, Schmidle says. The MV-22s would support the jets with cargo hauls and aerial refueling, he says. The jets would also move every few days to complicate the enemies’ targeting problem.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-usmc-explores-f-35b-operating-concepts-387420/

As for trucks and watching the news the last ten years… I must have missed the update where we stopped using trucks. Obviously land logistics routes can be problematic in some operating environments but that depends on a lot of factors and not all wars are counter-insurgencies. I don’t think it is a reach to say F-35Bs operating from just behind friendly lines could be supplied from trucks in some cases. One could also come up with scenarios in East Asia( Japan, S. Korea) where missile strikes could deny the use of permanent air bases but where robust ground transportation networks would continue to function and would not be subject to any meaningful insurgent threat.

The JAS 39E is particularly interesting in comparison to the F-35B, since the Marines talk in practice about using 3,000-foot runways for the B.

The Marines talk about using amphibs for the F-35B. Ashore they could use a 3,000 foot runway if they wanted to operate with C-130s as well, or they could go shorter and rely on helicopters/Osprey and/or trucks to bring in supplies.

Also, so far it looks as if the 39E will reach full-capability IOC before the F-35, while the 2B/3I interim configuration looks less useful by the minute.

That assumes the Gripen NG goes into production at all, something that is less than assured given that its one export customer has yet to commit fully to the program.

The Gripen’s biggest problem is that Sweden has almost nothing to offer in terms of political quid pro quos, which play a huge role in fighter acquisitions. On the plus side, many air force leaders and defense ministries around the world are only just beginning to realize that the pounding sensation on their heads is Adam Smith wielding the clue-by-four.

The Gripen’s biggest problem by far is that it offers little that its 4th generation competitors don’t and has an extremely questionable long-term road map. A potential Gripen NG buyer would have to seriously consider that even if the Swiss commit to the program and the Gripen NG goes into production, it will have a total order book of less than 100 aircraft leaving its long-term viability in question. Any buyer of a new fighter type has to look beyond where the aircraft will be at the time of purchase to where it will be over the course of its operational service. Buying into a small program on a shoe-string budget may seem attractive in the short term, but could prove to be very short sighted.

For instance, when the US service leaders lined up on June 19 for their rah-rah-JSF session before the Senate, nobody asked them what they were ready to sacrifice to get their planned F-35 numbers.

Sure, and when the Swedes announced their willingness to proceed with the Gripen NG it was conditional on finding an export buyer… not much of a vote of confidence and another sign that the program may suffer for funding and continued support years from now.

All of that said I think the Gripen is a nifty product and actually wouldn’t mind seeing the US pick some up as advanced trainers/adversaries/air policing aircraft if a good business case could be made for them.

It’s still test aircrafts, but they are closer to final production standard than the LRIP we see in the F35 program.

Um… there are already F-35s with the first operational unit, which is scheduled to reach IOC in 2015.

I know of his strong bias, But of late his articles have become a lot more balanced, his forum postings are of course very anti-F-35, but that is acceptable as he is entitled to his personal views.

This is actually something of a pattern for him. He incessantly bashed the Super Hornet before later falling in love with it. He also dedicated a great deal of his time and effort to attacking the Osprey back when that program was suffering through its own developmental problems. (which were far worse than the F-35’s I might add)

It is a lot easier to be a critic than to actually run a program. At a minimum people tend to forget a critic’s track record. Just look at how often you still see people like Winslow Wheeler and BS cited as experts by some in the press.

Ok, that sounds like a reasonable request. It’s just that the weapons are the rulers that tells if the sensors and other components are good enough or not for the specific task.

But what I really wonder is if there will be any air combat at all in the future (as most fighter jet manufacturers hope for). With the cost of the current machinery why not just bomb the airfields with standoff missiles followed by SEAD and Attack/CAP/CAS? Once the enemy is hindered from using the main airfields along with suppressed air defence you basically have air superiority no matter what you fly.

This has been the plan going back almost to the very beginning of air power.

Planes have always been much easier to locate and destroy while parked.

It is noteworthy that force structures are much smaller today than they once were, both in bases and aircraft, and that cruise missiles and other precision guided weapons have increased their ability to threaten fixed infrastructure greatly.

This is actually one argument in favor of the F-35B variant. It may be the least capable of the F-35 variants by most measures, but if it is the only aircraft that can get airborne on a given day then it is the king of the sky.

The 610nm number is 220nm at 35kft, 390nm at 30kft and then a little “combat/maneuvering”. This is with 2 x ~1000lbs bombs. The difference in weight here is 1000lbs and it is roughly the same range. Considering the drag at 5kft and energy loss in climbing 20kft I think it is unlikely that the mission profile in the recce profile will involve much low alt at all (since cruising is at 25kft)…

How much is “a little combat maneuvering?”

For that matter the recce profile clearly said that cruise took place between 5k and 25k feet. It doesn’t specify how much of that was at each altitude, nor how many trips up and down might be expected.

Bottom line, there is just too little information here to make any direct comparisons.

I would love you to prove me wrong but I think the logic holds up and that the max range for the F35 is in the ballpark just short of 700nm on internal fuel and optimum altitude. But as always, I never go for the exact numbers, my focus is on finding the likely ballpark and build up a logical method to get there. Doing it your way requires too much work for me.

I suspect 700NM is quite conservative if you are really talking about an F-35 cruising at optimal speed and altitude.