I am sorry, I feel the need to say this again, although I have mentioned it before, again and again.

What is it are we trying to say with this argument? That all planes are lethal WVR and hence let’s not talk about it. BVR however the F-35 will reign supreme!

What I am explaining is that with modern missiles all aircraft are pretty darn lethal in WVR and nobody will have a decisive advantage. WVR fights will be short and will frequently feature mutual kills.

There just isn’t enough performance available to gain a decisive advantage in WVR. A Mig-21/F-5 with a really modern missile/helmet mounted sight would have similar lethality to an F-22 or PAK FA.

There is absolutely NO guarantee that the F-35’s sensors will be effective against similarly LO adversaries. The same applies to ALL LO planes.

What is the point of stealth otherwise? Why would the F-35’s missiles be able to lock on LO targets whilst the enemy’s won’t? Why will the Radar, the optical sensors the anything! That makes no sense and this assumption has never before been made for comparable weapon systems in history.

If we subscribe to this view, then the F-35 is the ultimate anti-stealth platform.

So you either accept this at its basis or you realise that LO planes may have to actually get really close to increase the efficiency of their respective weapons to begin with.

And when you get close, then kinematics always become important, from boxing, to tank battles to freakin dogfights.

I still can’t understand why people don’t seem to be getting this…

If an F-35 ends up “close” with another fighter, regardless of whether it is a J-20/PAK FA or any other modern jet the outcome is likely to be more or less a coin toss. You still imagine WVR fights being decided by kinematics, but this won’t be the case with modern missiles. Nine times in ten the plane that first identifies its opponent will take the first shot and will generally win.

Who said that? This is an aviation forum, not a dog barking contest. Provide elements, sourced from references or from a well built demonstration of yourself.

The last time I checked the number the “inferior” fighter had the best AoA on the market, by far, and its main user, the USAF, was seeking a trainer in large quantity with never-seen sustained G performances. Something that we haven’t heard from air forces flying the so claimed hot-rods (nor on the OP needs, nor on the potential capability of their industrial sector to build such at contracted costs and delays – I will remind you here the defunct Thales high G Trainer discarded on the ground that there was no OP needs to train Typhoon or Rafale pilots).

But I guess you’d think that the T-X is all about passing the frustration of USAF jockey’s. The true”comfort” ride of modern age’s Air forces.

One reason the USAF wants a comparably high spec trainer is because there are no two-seat trainer versions of the F-22 or F-35.

Another reason is the USAF is apparently considering using the T-X or a T-X derived aircraft as an aggressor aircraft.

As a numbers guy, I am really curious about WHY F-35 is called bad, F-15/16 good, and F-22 phenomenal.. All F-22 lovers may trash my post all they want but;

Comparing F-15E vs F-22 and F-16C vs F-35A;

F-35 has 146,2% empty weight of F-16C.
F-22 has 138,1% empty weight of F-15E.

Wing area linearly contributes to drag, and Thrust directly counters the drag.

F-22 has 138% wing area of F-15E. It also has 121% Thrust.
F-35 has 153% wing area of F-16C. It also has 146% Thrust.

In thrust/drag department, all else being the equal (I am not saying it is, just making a point), F-35 is 4% inferior to F-16, and F-22 is 12% inferior to F-15E.

At their empty weights;
F-35 has 99,8% T/W of F-16C.
F-22 has 87,8% T/W of F-15E.

F-35 has 95,4% Wing Loading of F-16C
F-22 has 99,7% Wing Loading of F-15E.

Now I generated a term equalised fuel, based on aircraft’s SFC and Cd are all the same, wing area alone will dictate thrust is required to move the aircraft, and this thrust will be directly proportional to range. ie, if F-16C carries 27,87*X amount of fuel, F-35 will need 42,7*X, because its more draggy. Taking X=50, at this equalised weight;

F-35 has 99,1% T/W of F-16C
F-22 has 87,7% T/W of F-15E.

F-35 has 96% Wing Loading of F-16C.
F-22 has 99,8 Wing Loading of F-15E.

*I assumed F-22’s engine thrust to be 156kN. If anyone has better value I can input that, but I must say, F-22 needs 177,8 kN thrust from each engine to match F-15E’s T/W.

Heres the table;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238846[/ATTACH]

Now according to these values, F-35 is much more closer to F-16 than F-22 is to F-15. Any assumption due to advances in technology (improved aerodynamics, improved SFC) that may benefit F-22 would F-35 even more.

Its true that F-35 looks ugly as sh!t, and F-22 is cool and looks more aerodynamic, but on numbers alone, it doesn’t give one reason WHY F-35 is underpowered, (it fares just as well as F-16, far better than F-22), or unmaneuverable (Very similar wingloadings and general layout and features).

On the contrary, F-22 looks clearly underpowered when compared to F-15E. Though addition of several aerodynamic features (negative stability, LE flaps etc) would offset this disadvantage, its important to remember F-35 has them too.

My point? Every claim about F-35 cannot dogfight (based on its heavy, or underpowered or have small wings) must also apply to F-22; either that or this claim is wrong.

It will be very interesting to see how the F-35 responds to an additional 20% of thrust. I think any complaints about the F-35’s ability to maintain its energy will prove short lived…

Pratt will conduct a rig test this year, and an engine test and technology demonstration next year. Kenyon noted that right now, the effort is not officially a part of the F135 program, but he and Croswell said the company is in discussion with the JPO about incorporating it into the program’s block upgrade plan.
“To get it into the F135, there needs to be a requirement for it,” Kenyon said. “So we’re working on the cost-effectiveness of it. What are the life-cycle cost savings from reducing your fuel burn? What is the mission-effectiveness that you might get from the additional range or endurance you get out of the fuel burn improvement? What else can you do with those technologies?”
Croswell noted that the company is looking at improving the F135’s thrust by up to 20 percent and its fuel burn by up to 15 percent through this Navy program and through two other Air Force technology development efforts: Advanced Engine Technology Development and Advanced Engine Transition Program. The service requested $246 million for the two programs in its fiscal year 2016 budget request.

http://insidedefense.com/inside-air-force/pratt-whitney-developing-future-upgrade-options-f135-engine

How exactly would these missing systems (nomatterwhat) help in a dogfight? Do you expect some magical software tweak, few lines of different code which will make the today’s F-105-like handling equal to an F-16? You’ll be disappointed, I presume..

How would a next generation HMD and HOBS weapons help in a dogfight? :stupid:

As has been said over and over again, the F-35 is not designed to get into slow turning fights. Since someone brought up the F-22, it isn’t either. Clearly the F-22 has substantial capabilities there, but the F-22 was designed in the days before the AIM-9x. Experience in exercises has shown that the F-22 is an incredibly lethal fighter, but not because of its dogfighting capability. What makes the difference is its stealth and situational awareness.

Most exercises are like that… That doesn’t change anything on the original statement about WVR combat playing a major role for the future.

That is a theory I suppose… I expect with the continued advances in missiles technology the opposite will happen. Engagement ranges in general will continue to grow and surviving to visual range will be a real rarity. What certainly won’t happen is 5th generation fighters regularly dogfighting at low speeds WWII style.

Two stealthfighters in a heavy EW-environment will likely end up in WVR engagements. Similarily, if jamming is effective enough that will also be the case against 4th gen fighters.

As demonstrated in the flyoff between F15C and Su30MKI the jamming can be so effective that getting a missile lock even at a few miles is impossible.

Demonstrated? Really?

That was an exercise with neither side showing their true capabilities.

but load-out, speed and altitude IS specified

Not for the sustained turn metric. Read your chart.

You might also note that the F-35 was required to be able to pull 9-Gs with 60% of its internal fuel load… more fuel than most fighters carry at 100%.