Fake or not, such claims are not useful in any way.

It fails to answer even what was the fuel load of both aircraft? To what range can they reach with that fuel? Without this critical information, any comperison is pure BS, with ZERO scientific value. To exegarate;

Block 40 with two empty underwing tanks and half internal fuel, can far outmanuver a clean Su-27 with full fuel load.
Block 40 with two full wing tanks and full internal fuel can be easily outmanuvered by an F-4E and 30% fuel load.

also an F-4E can outmanuver a Su-27 *in sustained turns* if F-4E is at 30% fuel, and Su-27 is at full. Based on this fact, it would be very silly to claim F-4E is more maneuverable than Su-27.

I am completely ignoring the conditions or limitatons during the alleged dogfight.

I have a few reactions to this story.

First is that the F-35 was never intended to be a dogfighter. The F-16 in its initial form was a WVR only aircraft armed with older (non-HOBS) sidewinders. Its maneuverability in WVR combat was its whole operational concept. The F-35 is designed around a completely different vision of air combat. Its primary design emphasis is on stealth, sensors, and networking… not pure aerodynamic performance. The design team traded aerodynamic performance in exchange for the features that are the design’s primary drivers. The types of tests described by the blog don’t accurately represent how an F-35 would be employed in combat. They don’t really represent how an F-16 would be employed these days either…

Next, as Andraxxus has already said, we lack crucial details to put this in context. What exactly was being practiced? Did these tests include simulated use of the AIM-9x to its full capabilities? (seems unlikely given that the AIM-9x isn’t even integrated yet…) Similarly, what was the avionics fit and software load of the F-35 participating? What version of the helmet was used? Was DAS present/used?

We are dealing with a “five page brief” as summarized by David Axe, a trollish ignoramus. This is the same individual who wrote a story about the F-35 engine fire that opened with ” The F-35 Lightning II is supposed to be America’s primary warplane for the next several decades. But here’s one big problem. The F-35 can catch on fire … just while trying to take off.” This latest blog post of his actually quotes only a handful of complete sentences, and a number of sentence fragments out of a total report he claims is 5 pages long. Where is the rest? This style of quoting is highly suspect because it deprives the reader of needed context.

You should probably take that advice yourself.

Did you even bother reading the link you posted? The 40 numbers comes from StrategyPage, a complete joke of a source.

The last time the actual number was tallied up from evidence, it was sub 20 Abrams lost. Not giant losses at all considering the scope of the fighting.
Of course, you have yet to demonstrate the other Arab users of the M1 utilizing the tank any better- because they have not used it in serious combat whatsoever.

Nobody claimed the Iraqi army is perfect, or anywhere close, but they simply haven’t abandoned that much “expensive, high tech” US equipment. HUMVEES and M113s don’t count.
Would have been nice if the US left in Iraq vehicles actually useful to the fighting (like the M1117) but instead they have to make do with wholly inadequate armored Humvees that apparently have crap contractor support in any case. Oh well, not much about the US choices regarding Iraq make sense for over a decade now.

Also, between this:

“The return on these training investments? The Iraqi army had 30,000 soldiers in Mosul, who ran away in the face of about 1,000 Islamic State fighters. The same thing happened just a few weeks ago in Ramadi, where 10,000 Iraqi soldiers, collapsing faster than a cardboard box in the rain, fled ahead of only 400 Islamic State fighters. The Iraqis left behind more weapons.”

…and what actual Iraqis have been pointing out about the nature of the fight against ISIS and local Sunnis, I think I will stick to the Iraqi perspective.

Also, nice to see you keep skirting the actual thread topic. Overpriced, third tier F-16s that the US has somehow managed to not deliver a single example of, 5 years after the Iraqis have made their request.

Let me get this straight. .. my source says 40 tanks captured while yours, which you forgot to cite btw, says 20. That is your counter argument?

That Iraq abandoned thousands of pieces of military equipment without a fight but you think only 20 tanks?

The bottom line remains the same. Iraq’s problem is anything but equipment.

Feel free of course to continue to believe whatever you want. …

Are you trying to even sound serious?

…

Maybe you should read what he wrote a little closer instead of repeating nonsense about Iraqis running away in droves from a few guys in pickup trucks.
Might want to start with checking how many Abrams and T-72s they have actually abandoned. News flash- the number ain’t all that high at all, all things considered.

Educate yourself, then post.

Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles when Islamic State overran the northern city of Mosul in June 2014, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi*said*on Sunday in an interview with Iraqiya state television. Coupled with previous losses of American weapons, the conclusion is simple: The United States is effectively supplying Islamic State with tools of war the militant group cannot otherwise hope to acquire from its patrons.

In addition to the Humvees, Iraqi forces previously abandoned significant types and numbers of heavy weapons to Islamic State. For example, losses to Islamic State include at least*40 M1A1*main battle tanks, as well as small arms and ammunition, including*74,000 machine guns, and as many as*52 M198 howitzer*mobile gun systems.

“We lost a lot of weapons,” Abadi*admitted.

To help replenish Iraq’s motor pool, the U.S. State Department last year approved a sale to Iraq of*1,000 Humvees, along with their armor upgrades, machine guns and grenade launchers. The United States previously donated 250 Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers (MRAPs) to Iraq, plus unaccountable amounts of material left behind when American forces departed in 2011. The United States is*currently*in the process of moving to Iraq*175 M1A1 Abrams*main battle tanks, 55,000 rounds of main tank-gun ammunition, $600 million in*howitzers and trucks, $700 million worth of*Hellfire*missiles and 2,000*AT-4 rockets.

The Hellfires and AT-4′s, anti-tank weapons, are presumably going to be used to help destroy the American armor in the hands of Islamic State. The United States is also conducting air strikes to destroy weapons seized by Islamic State. It’s a surreal state of affairs in which American weaponry is being sent into Iraq to destroy American weaponry previously sent into Iraq. If a new sequel to*Catch-22*were to be written, this would be the plot line.

The United States also continues to spend money on training the Iraqi military. Some 3,000 American soldiers are currently in Iraq preparing Iraqi soldiers to perhaps someday fight Islamic State; many of the Americans are conducting the training on*former*military bases abandoned by the United States following Gulf War 2.0. In addition, some*$1.2 billion*in training funds for Iraq were tucked into an omnibus spending bill that Congress passed earlier this year. This is in spite of the sad reality that from 2003 to 2011, the United States spent*$25 billion*training Iraqi security forces.

The return on these training investments? The Iraqi army had 30,000 soldiers in Mosul, who ran away in the face of about 1,000 Islamic State fighters. The same thing happened just a few weeks ago in Ramadi, where 10,000 Iraqi soldiers, collapsing faster than a cardboard box in the rain, fled ahead of only 400 Islamic State fighters. The Iraqis left behind more weapons.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/02/dude-wheres-my-humvee-iraqi-equipment-losses-to-islamic-state-are-out-of-control/

A battalion worth of Abrams tanks, a brigade worth of artillery, thousands of armored humvees… tens and tens of thousands of small arms… abandoned unused.

complain about the price all you want, but don’t expect much sympathy when you can’t be bothered to take the equipment out of its parking lot before surrendering the city.

Its clear To me. But really isn’t clear to you, judging from the words you’ve written above.

But anyway. Do you agree with me on the refund and forget idea? Would fit in to allay all your fears misconceptions and prejudices.

Sure dude, the check is in the mail.

on the official statement of the pilots’ death on the Iraqi MOD’s facebook page there are hundreds of comments with people referring to the F16-IQ as a… “moskvich model 1971”.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]238664[/ATTACH]

https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.iq/photos/a.1474021859493981.1073741828.1447878605441640/1673925962836902/?type=1&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22O%22%7D

yet conversely the US media / government seem obsessed about their fear of their “precious technology” (AiM-7, AiM-9M and old mavericks!) falling into the hands of the customer who paid for it.

howz about a refund and we forget the last 5 years?

everyone can be happy then?

Honestly, it does raise the question of whether supplying high-tech weapons to Iraq is a viable strategy. You are talking about a military that couldn’t defend one of its largest cities against a bunch of guys in pickup trucks. The capabilities of the weapons isn’t the problem. It is the capability of the guys using them… (or abandoning them unused in all too many cases)

Nobody with a brain would question whether the F-16 is an effective weapon system in the right hands, but in Iraqi hands? It would probably have been better to give them some of the IOMAX Archangel patrol/attack aircraft the UAE has been buying.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/iomax-commences-archangel-deliveries-uae

It would be a far better match for Iraq’s needs, and abilities.

Well that’s kind of my point. They don’t really need to have live AGM-88Es to simulate having them in a test. The fact they exist and are compatible is enough.

The USAF doesn’t have AGM-88E and most certainly aren’t going to simulate them in an exercise. (nor will they simulate or train with any other system they don’t have in their inventory) Why on earth would you waste precious training time on a system you don’t have?

My point in saying that it doesn’t matter whether any aircraft participated in the exercise with AGM-88E is that for the purposes of an exercise they don’t need to if SEAD/DEAD isn’t what is being practiced.

The exercise scenario might have a certain hostile system operating on one day or iteration, and then simulate its destruction (by turning it off) for another. The simulated destruction might be attributed to an imagery USN Hornet firing an imaginary AGM-88E, or it could be an imaginary Tomahawk or JASSM, or an imagery SOF team, or nothing at all. If SEAD isn’t central to the exercise it doesn’t really matter. (which is why LOs attempt to turn this into a discussion of exercise participation is misguided)

This exercise is one small data point. In this particular exercise on this particular day the F-35 performed better than earlier aircraft. Hardly earth shattering news, but those with obsessive anti-F-35 disorder seem to be compelled to attack anything positive about the F-35 no matter how mundane.

You both look like fools at this point.

It’s not at all surprising that you could construct a fighter and GBADS threat that would drop A-10s and USAF F-16s and fail to engage F-35s. The A-10 is not a fighter and doesn’t even have MAWS, I believe. The USAF F-16 has primitive MAWS and RWR and no active EW. If those jets did not have Growler and F-15 cover the exercise was a joke, and its public portrayal a fraud.

Also, there are no grounds to conclude from the evidence here that contemporary, properly equipped jets like Rafales or Gripens or Sufas would not have done as well or better than the F-35.

LO, you were wrong about USAF F-16s not having active EW. (Seriously?) …and what was the point anyway? Of course there is no evidence how some other system not used in the US might have done had it been at a US only exercise. So what?

If it’s compatible, then it can be used with. Isn’t that the meaning of compatible? And oh look, mass and aerodynamics and interface the same, just like I said.

Compatible doesn’t mean it is in service. There are tons of weapons/systems that are compatible with an F-16 that aren’t in USAF service.

Spare us 100 pages of pointless bickering about whether USAF F-16s carry AGM-88E, they could, but they don’t… and it is totally irrelevant anyway. In an exercise environment such a thing wouldn’t be necessary. (you can just turn off a radar when an imaginary missile imaginary kills it if that is what the scenario requires)

The F135 Block Upgrade Plan

https://www.scribd.com/doc/269303020/AIR-US-NG

This would be an absolute breakthrough if they can do it.