well, first of all, what counts when you change direction is how much lift you can generate… not the AoA… if you can generate more G’s with less AoA, you turn will be tighter than your oponent, all other things being equal (thrust for example) as more AoA (regardless of what design you fly) will generate more drag, requiring more thrust to sustain the manoeuver

If you can generate same G at less AoA , you will be able to maintain that turn for longer not turn tighter. However, lift coefficient will keep increasing until a certain AoA, if you can maintain higher AoA , it likely that you can generate more lift for more G too

I am pretty confident time will prove the F35 fanboys wrong on maneuvrability. After more than a decade you cannot even find an F35 doing a proper vertical loop or proper fast barel rolls (without sinking). Current demos are far behind other 4th gen fighters in every regards.

So where is the demo of Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen that make higher average turn rate than F-35 (currently limit to 7G ) ?.After all they had their operational flight ways before F-35 , has been flying for several decade but still far behind Su-27 demo in every regard

wrong on all accounts

F-4 turn performer is far inferior to F-16

and wing load is going to be a problem at altitude

At very high altitude sure , but who will dogfight at 40K-50K feet ?

wishful thinking

Gripen was credited with lesser AA performance to F-18C according to Swiss evaluation

I meant compared to an F16, F18, gripen, rafale, typhoon, mig 29 etc…The F35 with its high wing loading due to internal bays and high fuel fraction cannot compete against 4th gen jets as far as maneuvrability is concerned. You can’t have it all. there is always a compromise

You cannot compare wing loading between 2 aircraft with different CL and Cd.May be you didnot read what i quoted earlier carefully, i do it again:

As for my ONLY claim about F-35 being better than F-16, it was this: Its 5,3G KPP threshold figures, and relaxed 4,6G “achieved” performance figure, is slightly better than Block 50 F-16’s flight manual data at same flight conditions. As proof of burden about this is on me:

Lets talk about F-16 with following equipped with 2 AIM-120s and 2 empty pylons to match F-35:

2xAIM-120s + 2xLAU-129 on stations 1 and 9 instead of 16S210 included in basic aircraft weight, 2xLAU-129 on stations 2 and 8 for previously spent A-A missiles, + 8 racks of chaff-flare + gun ammo; weigh 599kg in total.

Drag index = 21; (+1 for each LAU-129 at wingtips, +6 for each LAU-127 at stations 2 and 8, and +7 for F-16C basic airframe drag index)

F-16C Block 50, Drag indexAltittude = 15000 feet, Speed = M0,8:

22000lbs = 218 kg fuel (6% of total internal fuel capacity) == 6,3Gs @ Drag index = 0.
26000lbs = 2032 kg fuel (63%) == 5,3Gs @ DI=0, 5,1Gs @ DI=0, 5,2Gs @ Drag index = 21.
28500lbs = 3227 kg fuel (100%) == 4,8Gs @ DI =0, 4,4Gs @ DI=50, 4,6Gs @ Drag index = 21.

Now, I don’t know exact KPP details of F-35; but logically,
1- It will definately include two AAMs (as B variant has no gun, there is no point in giving it a “key performance figure” unarmed. Quite possibly, it will include 4 AAMs.
2- Logically, KPP of F-35 will at least involve 50% fuel, and judging how other KPP is given to other aircraft, it is quite possibly 60%, to include reserve fuel into equation.

I assume F-35’s specific range is consistent with its wing area and thrust increase, ballpark around 50%. Then, there are 4 possibilities;

Possibility #1: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 60% fuel and 2 AAMs. This translates to same maneuverability, but fuel for longer range than F-16 with full internal fuel. For same range, F-35 needs less fuel, less weight. This translates to better maneuverability.
Possibility #2: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 50% fuel and 2 AAMs. With this fuel, F-35 can match range of F-16 with only 88% internal fuel. This means, F-35 is slightly inferior to F-16 (by 0,1Gs).
Possibility #3: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 50% fuel and 4 AAMs. Then you would have to subtract some 304 kg from fuel of F-16 , and add 8 to drag index, to compare it with equal grounds to F-35’s KPP. Then F-35 will have better maneuverability for same range.
Possibility #4: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 60% fuel and 4 AAMs. Then, this translates to better maneuverability with fuel for better range. Translates to A LOT better maneuverability when fueled for same range.

This comparison actually favours F-16;

a) You cannot guarantee an F-16 to enter BFM with 2 AAMs and only 2 empty pylons; typically, it would almost certainly carry 2 additional LAU-129s at 3 and 7, plus MAYBE additional missiles on those pylons, non-jetisson fuel tank pylons on 4 and 6, centerline pylon on 5.
b) you cannot guarantee F-35’s 4,6G achieved performance years ago is not improved even by 0,1Gs. Maybe (just maybe) F-35 today is close to its KPP threshold of 5,3Gs?

Even if we take worst case scenario in this comparison, how on earth that justifies “F-35 can’t dogfight” idea?

At sea level, M0,66, clean with 50% fuel, an F-16 block 30 can sustain 9Gs. An F-16 block 50 can sustain 8,1Gs. An Su-27 can sustain 8,7Gs. An F-15C can sustain 7,8Gs. That is up to 15% difference in performance, yet all these aircraft can easily “dogfight” with each other. If worse comes to worst, F-35’s unclassified sustained turn performance at 15k feet M0,8 is just 3% inferior to F-16s. If F-35 cannot dogfight with F-16, then nothing in 4th generation, be it late F-16C, F-15C, MiG-29 or M2k, can dogfight with an Su-27 or an early F-16C block.

Now if you are blowing gasket, at least answer to this claim that I am actually making.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?135460-test-pilot-quot-F-35-can-t-dogfight-quot/page34
And F-18 , Gripen , mig-29 all have interior sustained turn rate to F-16 at sea level as far as i know ( not sure about Typhoon or Rafale since there is no official information about their sustained turn rate

But if you are talking about video/demo, it is far to equal the high pace maneuvre of the hereabove jets. The F35 is flying for more than a decade and it has never done a demo than can rival 4th jets fighters. In comparison, EAP or rafale A only a few months after their first flights were showing first class high pace demos.

F-35 only get its G restriction relaxed to 7G for like 1-2 years ago , saying it been flying for decade is quite ambiguity/misleading .
Talking about demo, i cant find any video of Rafale or Typhoon getting better than 25.7 degrees/sec turn rate yet. If we stricly talking about turn rate , Su-27 has demonstrated average 28 degrees/second turn rate ( 4:25 mark, Su-27 complete a 360 turn in ~12 seconds) before while none of those 4.5 gen fighter have demonstrated anything similar either

Yes I don’t believe the F35 can perform “effectively” a vertical loop (I meant in a reduce vertical volume like for a demonstration). I don’t beleive it can perform “clean” (on axis without sinking) fast successive barel rolls.
If the F35 was at ease it would have been demonstrated in flight.

Just because it can do something doesnot mean such thing will be immediately demonstrated in airshow, there are hundred of different menuevers , pilot is not going to demonstrated everything in every airshow. Talking about barrel roll even the F-4 has done that before , there is no technical reason stoping an F-35 from doing similar thing

As far as average turn is concerned its ok for one turn (I wouldn’t say it equals 4th gen jets from the video) but it will bleed its energy much faster than 4th gen jet who will always be much more performant in the vertical, hence being able to get an easy lock in a traditional dogfight (which is of course irrelevant nowadays).

4th gen fighter do not out perform F-35 in the vertical , especially when you looking at its subsonic acceleration performance

We have read from a TsAGI report that a Su-27 could accelerate from 600km/h to 1100km/h in 15 seconds, on 1000m, with 18920kg flying weight:

The average acceleration is 9.25m/s2 from 600-1100km/h at 1000m.

We have also read from F-35 240-4.2 configuration report that F-35 could accelerate from 0.6-0.95 mach (696km/h-1102km/h) in 17.9 seconds, under Maneuver Weight at 15000 ft (4527 m):

The Maneuver Weight is defined as follows (60% internal fuel, about 5000kg):

(The 540NM combat radius is almost the radius of full internal fuel with JDAMs loaded at take-off (but launched afterwards). I will prove that later in the appendix)

The question is: how to convert F-35’s performance at 4527m to 1000m under the same standard? Let’s do it.

Calculation standard: Both aircrafts carry the fuel allowance for the same afterburner time.
This standard is justified as follows: If we adopt some conventional standards, such as 50% internal fuel, this will be unfair for the aircraft with very high internal fuel or low fuel consumption. We can obtain that under 18920kg flying weight, Su-27 has only about 2000kg (4400lb) internal fuel, because a Su-27 with 5270kg fuel, 2xR-27 and 2xR-73 missiles, has a total weight of 23430 kg:

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/

So we need to know how much fuel is needed for F35 to have the same afterburner time as a Su-27 with 2000kg fuel. This leads to Theorem 1:

Theorem 1: It’s fair to let F-35 carry only 1560kg fuel, for allowance of the same afterburner time as a Su-27 with 2000kg fuel.

Proof: The fuel consumption is proportional to engine thrust:
Fuel Consumption=SFC*Thrust*Time.
Modern fighter jet engines all have a specific fuel consumption of about 1.9 (this approximation could be easily verified with published engine data), therefore, since the afterburner thrust of a F135 is 78% of that of two AL-31s, the fuel consumption of F135 is also 78% of that of two AL-31s. The result is 2000kg*78%=1560kg.
Compared to the Maneuver Weight (19000 kg) of F-35, this new fuel standard yeilds a total flying weight of 15600kg, which is a 18% reduction. (15600/19000=82%)
We are facing a new problem: How is engine thrust at 1000m compared to that at 4572m? This leads to theorem 2:

Theorem 2: At a given airspeed (subsonic) and from medium to low altitude, engine thrust is proportional to air density.

Proof: This could be easily verified with published engine data. This is a very good approximation. You are welcome to use published data (i.e., RD-33 or AL-31 engine performance curves) to verify this theorem.
So, at a given airspeed (for instance, 600km/h), the thrust at 1000m is 1.44 times as big as that at 4572m, because the ratio of air density is 1.44.
We know the comparison of thrust. What about the drag? This leads to theorem 3:

Theorem 3: At a given airspeed (subsonic), the drag at 1000m is less than 1.44 times as big as that at 4527m.

Proof: The drag is given by:
Drag=½*Drag Coefficient*air density*speed^2*wing area.
Let’s compare 1000m and 4527m. The speed is fixed because it is given, and wing area remains unchanged. The air density gives a factor of 1.44. The drag coefficient is almost the same but slightly smaller, because the zero lift drag coefficient is identical, but the lift required to maintain level flight is smaller due to higher air density, which yields a smaller induced drag coefficient. This concludes the proof.

Theorem 4: At subsonic acceleration, the speed-time curve is a convex function, or in other words, the faster you fly, the harder you accelerate.

Proof: Theoretically, this is because the drag increases so rapidly as you accelerate. This could also be easily verified with published data of some aircrafts, such as:

Theorem 4 tells us that, If we have two aircrafts A and B, and aircraft B has the same or better average acceleration in a faster speed interval, then it’s safe to say B can out-accelerate A.

Thank you for your patience for reading through the theorem. Now here comes the essential part: performance conversion from 4527m to 1000m.

Math notation:
We note a the acceleration, v the air speed, T the thrust, D the drag, m the total mass of aircraft. At a given altitude, the acceleration, the thrust and the drag are not constant, but functions of speed, which is equivalent to write a=a(v), T=T(v) and D=D(v). Their relationship is given by:

—equation 1
At 4527m and maneuver weight, F-35 at maneuver weight, accelerates from 0.6-0.95 mach (696km/h-1102km/h) in 17.9 seconds:

—equation 2
At 1000m, notations are changed: we note a1000(v) the acceleration, T1000(v) the thrust, D1000(v) the drag, and m1000 the mass. Theorem 1~3 yields:

—equation 3
The time required to accelerate from 696km/h-1102km/h at 1000m is given by:

–equation 4
The average acceleration in the interval [696-1102km/h] is more than 11.06m/s2. According to Theorem 4, it is safe to conclude that F-35 can out-accelerate Su-27 in subsonic region, with a significant margin of more than 19.5%.
Sukhoi has been advertising Su-35’s acceleration for a while. Su-35 has about 8% increases over Su-27, which is still inferior to F-35.

Appendix:
Why the 540NM combat radius is almost the radius of full internal fuel with JDAMs loaded at take-off (but launched afterwards)?
F-35 with JSMs and 2 AMRAAMs loaded when taking off, JSMs released during the mission, has a combat radius of 610NM with internal fuel:

The JSM is very light and is less than 908 lbs
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014PSAR/albright.pdf

SO, with the much heavier 2000lbs JDAM loaded, the combat radius will drop significantly. 540NM is a reasonable figure

We already know F-35 has some special turning technique which delivers an astonishing 28deg/sec sustained turn:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?140845-Proof-F-35A-can-out-accelerate-Su-27-35-in-subsonic-region

Nope I said our ministers are a bunch of liars and I don’t think the Syrian Minister could be much worse

And that based on what ? absolutely nothing. Listening from Syrian/Rus media or Youtube channel doesnot mean you are immune from propaganda. Itis one thing to dobble check the news and another thing to just believes everything on Youtube

RT is mainstream media, too.. How come you don’t trust it, you conspiracy theorist?

You got it wrong , i got new from any media outlet with grain of salt ,especially the super retarded one like Fox new or RT new, but i dislike those poorly edited youtube video even more because more often than not they are also full of BS nonsense but people acting like those are absolute truth.

Who said I bought anything from Sputnik or youtube videos?
I don’t know how trustworthy the Syrian minister is, but I know for a fact that ours isn’t. & it’s not my fault that you don’t get a single paper on the Syrian minister’s comments at the UN in the french (lol) media, and you have to actually watch it on youtube.
BTW your reply proves that you didn’t understand what I wrote in my post.Nic

You basically say that our media isnot trust worthy so you assume that Syrian minister is. While in reality both sides are full of proparganda to support their cause.

Dudes, lets not squabble about who’s media outlet is the right and wrong one. I dislike RT for several reasons, but i do check into them from time to time, cause you get some input on them(Russians) point of view, but most important, they do cover a lot of military news, even if its Biased.

We could all endlessly debate news media like RT, CNN, BBC etc. But at the end of the day, they all are Biased one way or another.
You just have to take them all by a pinch(barrel) of salt, that’s all to it.

Thanks , finally someone with some common sense

There seem to be two sort of people: those who gobble anything the BBC/CNN/younameit reports (which is usually proven to be lying more often than not), and those who unplugged from the matrix a while ago and who seek alternative viewpoints. Seeking alternative viewpoints doesn’t mean you gobble it any more than you gobble BBC, it just means you try to inform yourself well enough to actually think the matter through instead of just regurgitating what you’re being spoon-fed.

Nic

More like you moved from one propaganda machine to an alternative propaganda machine. I like how most conspiracy theorists doesn’t trust main stream at all but eat up everything from a poorly edited YouTube video