Sounds more like it remains at supersonic speeds with minimum afterburning setting. Wow.:eek::dev2:

Can a conventional fighter fly in supersonic with 8 tons of fuel and 2.5 ton of weapons in min. AB? Guess not…

It will not work that way. Most possible export buys will be limited to the absolute minimum for cost reason, when for the bulk and less demanding mission something cheaper will fill the ranks. 😉

Please, tell me that you didn’t think at EF or Rafale as “something cheaper”!

While no one think that the cumulative export of F 35 will be comparable with > 3000 (F 16 + F 18 + F 15), I’ll bet that will at least double the ~ 600 estimated so far.

Hezbollah, proved the opposite against Israel in the last conflict in Lebanon. So, yes you can vin a war without air power.

Since when Hezbollah won a war against Israel? Did they conquer Jerusalem?

Hezbollah did what any other Islamist organization (and a number of small countries, when attacked by a far superior force) did: put its positions, rocket launchers, storage facilities, etc. near schools, mosques, hospitals, in order to oblige the opponent to act with restricition.

He actually said the F-35 offered better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope. While no exact conclusions can be drawn from this yet, it certainly doesn’t sound like he has riden a Lambo vs. Buick Regal.

I said before that I expected the 35 to have better acceleration than the 18 at low speed regimes where raw engine thrust takes over the aerodynamics. So far all reports (excluding Beesley’s media stunts) seem to support this stance.

Or, maybe the advantage is in the upper right corner of the flight enveloppe. After all, you probably know that the difference between F 16 and F 18 is at higher Mach, in subsonic both birds have ~ the same acceleration.

On the record, not that it matters, I think that F-35 could pretty happily live even with flight performance identical to the F/A-18 but you fanboys desperately want it to outfly Typhoons at all costs, so go on, convince us with something more than just paid LM’s PR puppet (nothing personal, Mr.Beesley)

I don’t think that F 35 fanboys are worried about the Typhoon. I can’t see why.

Surprisingly, USAF reports seem to be pretty objective and realistic so far.
OTOH, I won’t even comment on the crap LM feeds the public with.

:edit: Nothing you have posted came from USAF. It was all LM. I beg to differ here.

That’s because USAF just receive the first F 35.

I know. But now we have a clear contradiction – the F-35’s E-M diagrams put the F-35 as similar to the F/A-18, according to Kelly..

No, he actually said “better”, but again, the guy flew only the B variant.

We can safely assume that they predominantly specify subsonic performance since the F-35 wasn’t flown over M1.3 as we speak..

:p so we can assume that this is the max speed, no?

I understood it well. The F-35A is roughly 7-8% lighter than other versions. It shares the same aerodynamics with the exception of shorter wing span.

More like 10 % lighter and 22 % smaller wingspan vs. the C.

What exactly do you expect from that?

Better acceleration.

I don’t have this data so I can’t comment on that. Got a source?

many, but they are from LM or USAF, so they must be unreliable…

However, here is some:

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in “large measure like the F-22, but it’s smaller, and stiffer” than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said. Ironically, the Navy version, which has larger wings but a lower G limit of 7.5G, has the best turning capability of the three F-35 versions Beesley explained. The Air Force version, meanwhile, has the best acceleration and is rated for 9Gs, Beesley said. Davis, explaining that the Marine Corps deemphasizes manoeuvrability in its air combat doctrine, said that the short take off, vertical landing (STOVL) USMC plane has a 7G limit. Beesley said that the aircraft makes up for the lower G limit by offering the flexibility in basing required by the Marines. Nor does the STOVL give up too much in range because of the engine driven lift fan installed behind the cockpit, Beesley said. The jet has “a range of more than 500 miles”, while the Air Force and Navy planes both have ranges greater than 600 miles, Beesley explained, adding that the USAF version has as much internal fuel capacity as the larger twin engined F-22 Raptor.

Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as “supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there,” Beesley explained. “In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter,” Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts’ much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability

.

Tell me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the F-35 supposed to have the same dynamic performance as the F-16? As far as I know the F-18 in WVR is a class below the F-16,

On the contrary, in WVR, the F18 is over the F16 — better maneuvrability, better AoA. Pilots who flew both types (Navy Top Gun instructors — they use some F 16 as agressors at Fallon) say that is “almost impossible” to not have the first shot in an F 18 vs. an F 16.

so to me it seems that this news conceed that currently the F-35 is not achieving the functional requirements (at least from a dynamic point of view).

He is talking about the B&C models, not about the A (CTOL). The A will accelerate better. Nevertheless, since the B is comparable with the F 18 (but with an improved acceleration !) it is a huge leap vs. the Harrier.

No it isn’t (and if it had been it would have been 300nm on the deck, since it’s a radius figure), the low-altitude part of the flight profile represents the JSMs launched at the half-way mark.

The combat radius is 610 Nmles, 390 of them flown at 30,000 ft. If you add the JSM range, you obtain 760 Nmiles, as you can see if the graph.