a Rafale (any version) lands at 115kts

Any source ?

This pilot is a liar. I would not be surprise if he is today a Typhoon consultant

Nice try, but atleast he fly against a real Rafale with real radar, real engine, real missiles, real RWR. And we know Frisian flag is a real even . As opposed to someone who may or may not fly the simulation before F-35 had its first flight.

Sry, but definitely unimpressive.(i) as you say look like, without any idea of paralaxe effect. (ii) time to bank and to unbank? Sluggish. However planes are still limited, we will see later.

Sluggish?, feel free to post video of Rafale doing better

Is there a video of an F35 doing a loop or/and a high speed roll ? I find surprising that as it enter in operational service I have not already seen this.

EAP and rafale A even a few months after their first flight demonstrated this publicly.

between 2:44-2:51, F-35 complete a 180 degrees loop, that equal to average turn rate of 25.7 dps

That pull up is impressive.. The static thrust of the F135 at low speeds gets shown here..

Static thrust is thrust level when engine is stationary on the ground, no inlet loss. Thurst of engine inside a moving aircraft isn’t static thrust.F-35’s thurst is quite high in subsonic, transonic regime

I stopped reading when i saw that you took information from defenseissues.net aka Picard :highly_amused:. He is the definition of clueless
If you want quality information i would suggest Aircraft 101 or Aerospaceweb

Against whom?

Conventional aircraft

even the best range L.M has confirmed still dont match gripen E

F-35 on internal fuel vs Gripen E using 3 subsonic external fuel tank

…and then there was the “minor issue” with 1 min. vs 30 min. after having lost out on range, too.

1 min on full AB vs 30 min on minimum power

2] i think SAAB really wanted to give L.M the best of chance and so only loaded up with 2 aam

More like they tried to downplay its capabilities by only listing 2 aam even though it can carry more

but nope, F-35 just refuses to SC no matter what, short of a teeny weeny bit of a/b,
which cuts down range to a paltry 150 miles

150 miles isnot the total combat radius but a part of it similar to F-22 combat profile. Even at maximum AB, the range wont be that short if it was flying at high altitude

L.M refer to gripen C, which is understandable since F-35 is inferior to gripen E

Wrong, it is because Gripen NG did not exist at that time

751 nm + 1 min. < 800 nm +30 min.,
read as: F-35 is lesser than gripen E both on range and time on station in the same profile,
hows that for a double whammy ?

_ F-35 was on internal fuel only while Gripen was on 3 external fuel tank + internal fuel
_ 1 minutes of combat is 1 minutes on max afterburner
_ On station is loiter time which is done at much lower thrust setting
_ crusing altitude and cruising speed was not specified, but very unlikely a Gripen with 3 external fuel tanks can cruise faster than F-35