That guy claim that a smaller jet like F-35 is equal or even better in STR that of its larger Flankers.
with that he puts out some strange pre-set fuel state and weapons(two AIM-120), cause the F-35 can’t carry 9x internally i guess.

Then he says something even weirder.. the AIM-120 being heavier than -9x.. point being?
Well how many fighter jets are only armed with two AIM-120’ish on any given mission profile..? Oh wait! the F-35 🙂

You missed the point of gta4
Originally a Chinese poster said that F-35 sustained turn rate is very bad becaused the demonstrated value by F-35A 240-3 is only 4.9G at Mach 0.8 , 15K feet or equal to 11 degrees/second. Which is inferior to Su-27 at 12.5 degrees/seconds, and much inferior to F-16 at 14.5 degrees/second.

However, KPP value of F-35 as far as we know is taken at 60% fuel and 2 AIM-120 while the value of aircraft in table are 50% fuel and 2 IR missiles.So that isn’t a fair comparision. The first point is that aircraft in table carry less percentage fuel than F-35. The second point is that if you equalize them for similar afterburner time ( or similar mission profile) then F-35 should carry less fuel percentage than those aircraft in table.
He gave example that Mig-29 in the table uses only 1700 kg as performance standard (1700=3400*50%). For the same afterburner time, a F-35 needs about 2000 kg fuel (fuel consumption = SFC*thrust*time. Since most military turbofan engines have similar SFC of about 1.9, fuel consumption is proportional to total thrust.)With 3000 kg weight reduction, the total flying weight gives a factor of 16000/19000=0.84. Since the normal load factor is inverse-proportional to weight, the turn rate will be increased by 19%. Which is 13.1 deg/sec at M0.8, 15000 ft. As a result,when carry fuel for with similar afterburning time, and similar number of air to air missiles. F-35 will be slightly inferior to F-16A but superior to Su-27. His comments about AIM-120 vs AIM-9 is only a bonus because AIM-120 is slightly heavier but we dont have F-35 KPP for 2 AIM-9 , so no direct calculation.

Then i proceeded; why not load up with more missiles, and do that calculation of his again.
Put on eight or just six AIM-120’ish with fuel and see how great the F-35 does against larger Flanker.

The more weight and drag you equal mount on F-35 and Flanker, the more penalty F-35 faces with its smaller lift and mass.

If the loads are very heavy then the scale would be in favor of big aircraft like Su-27 , F-15. But i think if the loads out are 6 AAM or less then it probably still in F-35 favor, even though the weight affect F-35 more, it can carry those missiles internaly so no added drag while these still some drag increase for Su-27 ( iam not entirely sure about this , so you can ask Andraxuss )

Further more, where does he get turn rate of Flanker with just two Amramski.. Su-27SK flight manual?
Flanker would have at a bare minimum two Amramski and two Shraam

Came from US estimation. Probably the same as Russian estimation manual for F-15

This guy…..*

So at the end, he talks about AIM-120 being heavier that of AIM-9’ish..(probably due to F-35 can’t carry any int).
Yeah well how about you put on eight or even six AIM-120, and then give it a go :rolleyes:

Guess that wouldn’t be fair eighter.

Pretty sure fuel weight plays more important role than small different between those missiles

Excuse me, it was not a years long mantra of hardcore supporters of 5 gen planes that stealth was about shaping first, after this about more shaping and both of them followed by shaping again…now it only takes a pixie dust RAM coatings to solve everything?

Who say the shaping of 5 gen fighter isn’t already adapted to reduce aircraft RCS at low frequency ?
One major visible break through is the change from full facet on F-117 to blended facets on B-2 , F-22 , F-35 which already help reduce RCS at low frequency because they will cause less surface scattering.That is just what you can see on surface, there are internal structures that help reduce RCS by internal cancellation too.Now add in the effect of RAM that has extremely bandwidth.
Btw, there is actual patent from LM for the wide band RAM so they are far from being pixie dust.

Good luck with that… Very good one…

Given decades research and billions dollars budget, i doubt that they need luck

These dudes are extremely bad at drawing the rafale.

They are not artists so i dont expect much

Anyways the rafale is a whole lot better than the F-4, even with APG-65/AMRAAMs.

I was being sacastic and using his logic

Thi time KGB said it right, it would be just absurd that after having managed to introduce all movable stabs, 3D TVC and LEVCONS on PAK-FA, they would revert back into using conventional rudders and canard in a successive plane

All designs have trade off. A certain controll surface can be more beneficial in one case but worse in another.For example: 3D TVC is very helpful for post stall maneuver but if your goals is only to get better acceleration, range, sustained turn rate then TVC is wasted weight.Another example: a variable intake give you better maximum speed, but if you only concentrate subsonic regime then it is a wasted weight compared to a fixed inlet .There is no perfect solution. What kind of control surface they use will depend on aircraft exact mission requirements

The problem is that you are not making any progress.. You and the guys at RF are still masturbating on the huge success where four linked F-35s can take out eight not linked Vipers or Skyhawks or Idontknowwhattype.

Do you have any evidence to support the fairy tales that aggressor F-16 and F-15 weren’t linked? They care enough to make poded IRST for somes aggressor and give them surface to air missiles support but for some reasons decided to disable their link16 data link?

(let us conveniently omit the fact that a single F-35 could still have a problem to take out a single F-16 in 1-vs-1).. the problem is that the world has moved on and the real opponents from Russia and China will be a completely different league, not an ancient Viper with an ACMI pod..
Have a nice day

Luckily F-35 has no problem with F-4 or Jaguar

Which will get you close to the enemy planes real quick without missile and with reduced energy. Good luck if your missiles miss!

Talk about an half-baked tactic.

Lower speed and altitude mean it is harder to detect both by radar and IR sensor due to higher clutter level.It is much harder to find any aircraft in hot surface background. When the altitude is low enough the pilot can turn aways if he want with very small chance of being detected. At the same time thicker air at lower altitude aid maneuver for missiles evasion in worse case senario. It is tactical sound than your tactic of turn away immediately and get on full reheat knowing full well that they will see you.

AHAH you’re absolutely certain you have no idea about that? How about maybe, it’s run out of missiles and he doesn’t want to approach the targets?

F-35 fans are so naive sometimes.

According to Red flag comments, F-35 run out of missiles still staying in the area and act as sensor for the fleet. Talking about naive, if F-35 think he will be detected right after he turn always then there is not much motivation to turn aways and alot of motivation to just reduce speed and altitude