.

i’ll be amused if whomever said f-35 can continue at m1.2 for 150 km didnt add ‘its not supercruise in a technical sense”,
to cover up the fact that F-35 can take a dive and carry on 150 km at m1.2 before crashing in the ground

let not spread nonsense here shall we?
it is 150 miles not 150 km to begin with, and how shallow the dive have to be for F-35 to be able to go 150 miles? and exactly such shallow dive add enough thrust? and talking about diving, what magical reason do you think a super extremely shallow dive can make F-35 fly at mach 1.2 below 10000 ft in mil power? ( since by your words, it will crash into ground after 150 miles)

The techniques described in your link are pretty primitive, sorry to say that.. What exactly are we dealing with here? “advanced cooling system”,

some IR reduction techniques are explained in simple terms here :
RCS/IR reduction measures

The test was very very selective, it uses the most favourable scenario tailored to the F-35, if you read where the JSF came in second it doesn’t mention what to… Just take a guess, or where the opposition have 2 extra air to air WVR missiles.. Apples to Apples Pfffft.

F-35 dont have 6 internal AAM until block 4/5, and it unlikely that 2 aam will affect range significantly

Its been worked out with as the combat radius with only 1 min of combat where the JSF was able to successfully disengage(LOL)

they simply use standard profile for all competitors for the purpose of comparing, they did similar things in Brazil competition with the Raf, Gripen and F-18E

, at the cruise height which the JSF was designed to fly (Typhoon best cruise altitude is much higher and the more combat time it sees the worse for the F-35 results)

It depend on what you defined “best”, most optimum cruise altitude for turbofan engine aircraft are relatively similar, while the air at higher altitude are thinner and could lead to lower fuel consumption, you need more lift which either mean higher AoA or faster speed, both can increase fuel consumption. Moreover, it much easier for IR sensor to detect a fighter fly high and fast, and aircraft maneuver at high altitude are very poor due to thinner air (even in case of F-22 and Typhoon) so that could be a really bad thing if you get attacked.
it not just for fun that most military mission profile are between 25-35k feet instead of 60-65k ft

.

The F-35 is an aircraft where external fuel carriage isn’t a priority? hmmm thats ok if someone has dozens of spare tankers available to ferry them to the areas of conflict, strange that ferry ability is now not important!

It also leaves your refueling aircraft very vulnerable to counter air attack, given your F-35 are obviously optimized for 1 min of combat the enemy will have to be pretty permissive to let you get away with trailing tankers behind you in case it goes on for 10 mins. Or are you only planning to fight enemy’s exactly 760Nm away? obviously the Israelis think the situation is far from ideal, that’s why they are looking into EFT’s and CFT’s or are they being silly developing unnecessary capability?

you left out the fact that others aircraft like F-18, F-16, EF-2000, gripen.. etc need 3 external fuel tank just to achieve similar range and similar combat time. While the tankers for F-35 may be vulnerable to counter attack, for the competitors case, even they, themselves are vulnerable to counter attack since they need to carry 3 EFT.

For example:- The Typhoon can go ~800nm with a 1 min combat at the end with 3 tanks, the 750nm figure quoted by Eurofighter is for a different profile and an additional 10 mins of combatloiter, now that’s not the profile the JSF is using.

no, all aircraft in the comparison use the same mission profile, and iam quite sure there is no official source that state that EF-2000 have combat radius of 750 nm with 10 minutes of combat. (it important to know that combat here mean using after burner, loiter mean you reduce you speed significantly to have more time on station )

, but 10 mins of combat in a F-35 isn’t going to end well for the fat slow kid, especially against a faster, higher flying foe that has more missiles.

it depends, in this case, the fast and high flying foe is blind, the kid isnt

So now you pull out the crystal ball so that you can read what I “clearly think”… Well, I think that you don’t think too clearly or is that just immaturity.

what else do you mean by the statement then ? , I think it quite immature to say one thing then dont dare to admit it .
QUOTE=xman;2313812]
Guess Boeing had incentives from US government to participate, in order of giving some legitimacy to a “competition-selection” process lacking competitors. Must admit that their participation seemed to not have been tuned for success. They pathetically aired a commercial, as an example, on some obscure local FM rock station. One can only wonder, what were they thinking and who were they trying to reach?. So all in all it did not seem very serious to me. Hence I guess they are now pretty upset ,from having been abused into participating as some kind of justification by their government and getting hammered on top of it in the end.[/QUOTE]
So by your logic ,LM is USA favorite manufactured ? USA loved LM so much that they made others US manufactured joined competition just so that LM success look more legit ? ,
And you think that Boeing some how know they will lose so they only advertisied on local Rock station , but in the end still mad when they lose ???? what kind of logic is that ??
And can you prove evidence for an of that?

Don’t respond to him, there is no treatment for whatever it is he has got.

Yeah , i dont know why i even bothered

its complete new hardware. the pods are getting bigger as they become newer.

hardware of internal EW can be upgraded too

show me example of upgrade.

just google various upgrade of internal ECM for F-15 , F-16 , F-18E

need to be dealt with high speed Iskander or Brahmos land attack version. not with slow moving subsonic fighter jets.

fighter jet can move supersonic too

Stealth planes are overweight,

compare to what ? , su-34 ? not at all

draggier

same as above

smaller internal fuel capacity

F-35 carry ways more fuel than F-16 , F-18 ,AV-8B , Gripen, EF-2000 and Typhoon

not flexible to upgrade.

It depend on what you want to upgrade

Su-34 with giant hump pack still need big pods on on wingtip and big tail almost the size of F-22 nose.

And Su-34 have massive RCS compared to F-22 , if you have higher RCS , you need more powerful jamming to cover your ass , it as simple as that