Scooter, all I hear from you is nonsense.

The F-22 being less survivable than the F-35.

Your weak grasp of technical concepts.. including wing loading, external stores vs. internal stores.

The fact that you bandy about words like 5th generation, 4th generation, 4.5 generation; as if they mean anything in this context… The mere fact these marketing terms exist seem to make you think stating them is proof, that the F-35 is superior, in the areas of comparison you’ve made. Its quite naive and embarrassing actually.

You need to try understand that despite the F-35 being able to carry internal stores; a Eurofighter with 4 semi recessed BVRAAMS and 2 WVRAAMs and a centerline drop tank might well out-maneuver/climb/accelerate, a clean F-16/35. Eurofighter is a step improvement in kinematics over all teen designs – its not an incremental improvement.

The Lightning it replaced in RAF service was more manouverable and had higher performance in all but range and actual weaapons loading.

Tornado had far greater sensor range which no variant of the lightning could hope to match. Maybe a derivative could but no variant. That was the point of the Tornado – it gave the RAF a credible BVR capability.

I think you can easily rank BAE as a global leader in aerospace and fighter design. In fact I would rank it right up there as one of the most capable companies in the world in this regard. I see it above Dassault, SAAB, EADS, Sukhoi/MIG UAC and right up there with LM/Boeing/NG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8_Harrier_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Harrier_II

They were joint projects where BAE and MDD upgraded a BAE jet with all of the original innovation behind the VTOL concept coming from the predecessors of BAE. Meaning Harrier II would not exist without BAE and its predecessor.

The original Harrier proved itself as an effective fighter in the Falklands did it not? Many of the ‘proper fighters’ don’t have a record as successful.

Also you can claim BAE designed and built those early aircraft as it took on those companies and integrated their design teams and staff into what is now BAE. Also taking their factories and infrastructure.

Can I just ask, apart from the awful Tornado ADV (and unsure if that was 100% in house), which fighter have BAe designed and produced?

BAE and its predecessors have fully designed or at least been heavily involved in the design of:

Eurofighter
F-35
Tornado
Hawk
Harrier
Spitfire
EE Lightning

and others

It does (other parameters being the same) and that’s the whole point, of the concept (to mitigate delta’s drawbacks).

Do you have any data to backup this “knowledge”, on F15?
USAF, for one, doesn’t concur (as have been presented on this forum several times over) and they operate the model.

Maybe you should recalculate these figures.
LM doesn’t concur with 37k engine and neither does the USAF.

This reminds me of AF-1, which doesn’t weight 29k lbs (2008 figures), but ~24k (pre 2008 figures), although noone actually documented that (and for a good reason).

Let’s not indulge fanboy’s dreaming, here…

Hardly, the public released figures in every single form they have ever been released in were talking about the thrust class – there was a requirement for a 35000lb thrust class engine. But numerous reports over the years have indicated the F119 produces more than 35klb. At airshows the F-22 display team announce the F119s produce 37000lb each in peace time, and Bill Sweetman has estimated they generated 39-40klb.

So I don’t care about official documentation when all it refers to is a general KPP. This one being exceeded according to the said evidence.

Cheers.

Never said it was ;).

Oh Bluewings – the F-22 does Mach 1.5+ on 80% of Military Thrust – from code one.