Yes , this allow not just better performances but also help to solve the issue that hopsalot has highlighted, allowing a shorter landing run, more security and the possibility to be used on carrier.

Well, Rafales operates from Charles de Gaulle without any problem, so it just work.
Viggen and Gripen take off and landfrom motorways also, so I think we can take it as a matter of fact.

A matter of fact that it is possible to build a delta winged carrier aircraft?

I can’t tell if you are struggling with the language here or just being difficult.

Canadian plans put interim Super Hornet deal on hold

They are really serious about competing with India for the worst run aircraft procurement program in history title.

Testimony to F-15 toughness (aswell as mirage 3)

Aircraft that are rated to withstand 9Gs are intended to do so even at the end of their fatigue life, with some load (certainly not a maximum load), and with a significant margin of error. That a lightly loaded aircraft can pull more than 9Gs without catastrophic failure under some circumstances really shouldn’t be surprising.

Have there been any report about F-35 being actually faster than mach 1.6/1.7?

Are we talking about spec sheet/airshow performance or real world/combat loaded performance? Because if you want to talk spec sheets the F-4 Phantom and Mirage 2000 are faster than the Eurofighter and Rafale. Strangely enough I don’t recall any former F-4 or Mirage 2000 pilots complaining about how their new rides were slower than their old one.

Nobody has ever debated whether a clean F-16 can achieve a higher max speed than a clean F-35… and nobody really cares either because that is essentially trivia. These are combat aircraft and it is their performance in their combat configurations that matters.

So I’ll keep on my previous opinion.

Exactly as I said, the fanboys will refuse to accept what they don’t want to.

I don’t see you going on and on and on about how the Eurofighter is slower than the F-4 in the Eurofighter thread. Why is that? :rolleyes:

It can have a lot of good qualities but it still the slowest of the whole lot. And given that it has an excellent, almost fantastic engine and a overall good T/W what I can blame for it, except its own aerodynamics i.e. being a flying brick?

…and yet a real-world F-35 and F-16 pilot had this to say :

I’ll be a bit more precise: With full war equipment, my experience with F-35A is that

It’s easier to fly than F-16.
It’s faster than F-16.
It has a longer range than F-16.
It flies higher than F-16.
It is more maneuverable than F-16.

Fanboy world versus professional world.

One says it is a flying brick, one says it outperforms the aircraft it replaces in more or less every category. Guess which one flies fighter jets and which one flies a keyboard on the internet. :very_drunk:

Pilot testimony said that it, at maximum load (what it mean with it? just internal or with all the pylon full?) it was faster than a F-16A block 15 with the same load.
Interesting but not surprising at all if it refers to internal against external load.

Where did they say maximum load? And what would be the point of comparing an internally loaded F-35 to a clean F-16? The F-35 flies operationally with internal loads… F-16s fly only airshows with internal loads.

Thank you for proving my point though. This exchange has been an absolutely textbook example of the sort of behavior I was talking about. We have had numerous pilots going on the record in public describing the F-35’s performance in glowing terms with a fair bit of detail, and yet fanboys refuse to accept their expert opinions in favor of their own ignorance.

The descriptions made by respectively hopsalot and MSphere are both so extremely partial that can be cited as perfect examples of that acritical and biased approach to the F-35 theme that reigned supreme until now.
Plane is actually operative, although in an initial configuration and well behind its shedule, so let’s it speak with facts, showing the many things that it can do flawlessy and the ones in which it has surely some shortcomings.

Actually any discussion about F-35 cost bore me to death instead.
What are actually the viable alternatives to it? Maybe keeping on with the Typhoon production can work for us and Uk (both not for CW use) but for the rest of air forces involved ? F-15C and F-16block15 until the next half of a century?
So no mastter what it will cost in the end , we would have to stick on it.

Please, there is nothing biased about my description of events, and that is readily apparent to anyone who has actually been here over the last few years.

The real gulf between the trolls/fanboys and everyone else in this thread is the use of facts and actual sources.

One side is citing factual reporting on costs, the other is alleging, without evidence, a vast conspiracy. :stupid:

One side is citing first hand accounts of how the aircraft flies/performs, the other insists it knows better… just because. :stupid:

It goes on and on in this vein.

BIO, you win the award for the most patient poster here and I do not see why you are responding to what is clearly trolling. If the respective posters cannot understand the logical and evidence supported statements you have made then they never will.

The trolls have proven over and over again that they can’t be forced to understand something they fundamentally don’t want to. They insisted for years that the F-35 was a bomber, or “flying brick,” and an unbelievably expensive one at that… and then a funny thing happened. The plane got into the hands of actual pilots who proved all of the troll/fanboy arguments wrong, and the price of the F-35 has fallen below its competitors and continues to fall.

Of course their response isn’t to acknowledge that they were wrong or anything silly like that… instead they call all the pilots liars and insist that the official budget documents they once loved to point to as proof of how expensive the F-35 is are actually all cooked. :stupid:

On the subject of pilot testimony…

I’ll be a bit more precise: With full war equipment, my experience with F-35A is that

It’s easier to fly than F-16.
It’s faster than F-16.
It has a longer range than F-16.
It flies higher than F-16.
It is more maneuverable than F-16.
It finds opponents on a longer distance (than F-16 would have done).
Opponents discover F-35 later than an F-16 would be found.
And it looks tougher!

Much more at link:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnettsteder.regjeringen.no%2Fkampfly%2F2017%2F06%2F02%2Ff-35-og-luft-til-luft-rollen%2F&edit-text=&act=url

I don’t include them because:
— They have nothing to do with the annual production efficiency calculations, you know, the point of comparing one year’s cost vs previous year’s.
— They are impossible to assign to any particular lot and differ even in the same production year.
— They literally belong to a different portion of the budget than Procurement.
— They are already known and have been talked about to death.
— The monies included in the contracts were actually set aside in multiple previous years and was spent in one contract.

So you admit they are extra secret hidden contracts and evidence of a vast conspiracy!