Don’t bite. It’s Christmas. :angel:

Cruz probably not (but then again, it is a 1950’s design, if your goal is to beat 60 years old designs, you most probably succeeded, indeed), Mirage 2k or Rafale easy… unless you load them up with lots of heavy stuff which this obviously didn’t carry either…

Did you have an attentive look at the alpha rate versus the gain in altitude ? I am sure not.
A delta can do that and enter… a spin (see videos of pitch departure training on Draken); yes. A canard delta FBW’d, no (out of domain restriction).

as for “higher cruise speed of the design…”, to me it is rather “poor low speed performance design”… when looking for approach speeds, I get about 130-135kts for the C version and 150-160kts for air force version… for comparison, a Rafale (any version) lands at 115kts… quite obvious it has much more excess lift (meaning more G’s, climb, and so on) available for a given speed. The F-16 lands @ 141kts… sitting more or less in the middle of the two

Cruise speed of F104 511kts – Landing speed 170kts 😉
G is passé, sorry. Remember that the name of the game at the age of OBM is gaining your nose pointed faster in a turn… That’s all about the F35 that can achieve this without any seemingly apparent TV. Your extra Lift, aka huge wing surface will simply impart more drag in most of the other domain of flight where thrust is a sensitive asset.
Yes High Alt still needs lift surface but body lift and clever design are there for to achieve this more efficiently (and anyway altitude is not the primary domain of the Rafale). I’ll point to you the the Blackbird for example. Not something really revolutionary but still a LM design.

For the Cruz, you should know that going on Alpha was one of its trick against same generation fighters (ex Phantom) (only my 2 cents)

th F 35 is beated by an old F16 not clean that doesn’t disturb anyone ?

Have a look here:

This conversation around an early simulator are meaningless when the fleet has reached IOC and every week we’ve got new info or display of achieved [often spectacular) performances. Again, as explained by FBW earlier:

In the case of Anker Steen Sørensen, he retired in 2004. Considering that the F-35’s first flight was in 2006, I doubt they could accurately model: RCS (testing was ongoing in 2004), air vehicle performance (SWAT was ongoing in 2004), avionics performance (CATBIRD testing began in 2007). I’m not sure why he thinks that any simulation conducted in 2004 (or earlier) would have represented “real world” capabilities of either the F-35 or threat aircraft.

In other words, Sørensen’s testimony before Australian Parliament in 2014 seems curiously vacant of those details. Unfortunately he never expounded on his testimony before taking a job as a consultant with Eurofighter consortium.

Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile being loaded on South Korean F-15k jet

[ATTACH=CONFIG]250314[/ATTACH]

Source:
defense-watch.com

It’s not like the vertical stabilisers were particularly small on V1. I’m sure SAC are hoping the navy will bite for it as a carrier fighter (or better yet, that the air force will pull the trigger on a medium weight stealth jet to supplement J-20), but I don’t see any modifications on V2 that strongly indicate that.

If we saw it had folding wings and a tailhook OTOH that would be a much stronger indicator…

Twin wheel front landing gear 😉

Mostly aluminium.

Transonic design refined (SC?)

I am doubtful about Spin characteristics

The WB door are massives

The PakFa has small vertical tails simply because it does not need bigger one. It uses differential camber variation in yaw (levcon and close coupled horizontal tail).

The pakFa is certainly closer to a “6th gen” design with no tails on that point than any other known flying design. The J20 use its canards on the same way. Hence the small vertical surface somewhat aero masked by th fuselage and double delta albeit with a smaller aero envelope.

Navy lifts operational pause of Growlers, Super Hornets