^ There is the under/offcenter intake/wing engine design of the Pak Fa and YF 23.

And then here is the Raptor. The Raptor is an entirely different design. Where the intake S veers into the center of the fuselage. And then goes into the engine. This is why the Raptor has a conventional look.

Not sure what you are cringing about…

You remind me of a guy who keep insisting that Ye-8 is the same as F-16 because their intake is at the same position. Very cringe.

That make the discussion even more pointless now. If there is no counter source then i think it already settle. No point continuing it. Can we back to F-35 new please?

The root of their discussion is not really about strengthen airframe vs arresting hook. It is in fact about maneuverable. All because Picard speculated that because M and C version share the same airframe that must mean the ultimate load limit of Rafale is 16.5G because navy aircraft need to be extra safe.

Except that with the F 35, most of the criticism is coming from people close to the program. This doesn’t always happen.

Can you give an example ?

There will always be some fanboys collecting information and making up big theories to fit their view. They will try to look knowledgeable with some charts, numbers etc…Classic but not impressed. I am simply bored in advance of being dragged in a pointless BS number comparisons. Arguing the F35 is agile/maneuvrable compared to most 4th jets is simply silly. It has plenty of other qualities but maneuvrability is not its strong area.

A classic demo says much more to me. I don’t care about a particular BS number, charts etc that would prove a B52 is maneuvrable aircraft. The reality check of a demo reveals a lot if you learn to watch it well. Of course it won’t tell precisely everything but it is a very good overview.The performance the gap between the F35 and the crowd of the 4th gen fighter is huge, so obvious that all the charts & numbers of the fanboy are blown away. It is not credible.

talk about dumb…

a video, showing nothing except a slow in formation flight, followed by a pull up… nothing else.. except that one can easily see that the F-35 has a much higher AoA thing the F-16 for the same speed.

what can one conclude from it?

1/ having to be at so much higher AoA generates obviously more drag – energy depletion – you need more thrust to compensate, and, from what’s been said in the “vs F-16 fight” leaked report, the F-35 looses energy consistently compared to an F-16 – looks quite on the spot there

2/ well… that’s about it… would another fighter be able to pull up like that? yes, anything that flew in the last 40 years. Take just an >F-16, he’ll do it just as well… while needing less AoA, in fact, it will pull up just as sharply with less loss of energy to be expected…

as for the youtube link you speak about (and that’s not in your post), up to now, I’ve only see “the automatic recovery testing” videos of the F-35 (basically, you depart on purpose and look how the aircraft recovers when left on its own)

You can’t conclude anything from the video because
1/ as many posters have pointed out, lift coefficients, AoA and speed do not have linear relationships. Aoa limit at combat speed are different. F-35 and F-16 in video had different Trailing edge flap setting. You don’t know their fuel load

2/ In the leaked report, F-35 was using max elevated aoa to test CLAW while F-16 wasn’t

3/ WW II aircrafts will need less aoa than any fighter jet at low velocity , but that doesn’t mean they will be superior in dogfight

We are not talking about the relevance of the simulation or even the output of the simulation. Instead of trying to jump on another subject open a dedicated topic about simulation.
What we are talking here is a Danish professional involved at a high level within the F35 program who claims LM repetitively bull****ed the scenario of simulated exercise to make sure the F35, whatever was his development stage, is in a optimistic and not realistic position during the exercise.
That tells a lot about the credibility of LM reports regarding the more recent exercises.

Not only that he did not test the JSF but he also working for Eurofighter now. A retired Danish pilot who happen to work for Eurofighter suddenly decides to warn Australia about buying F-35. If you think he is telling the truth then you are too naive for the internet

Lt. Col. Anker Steen Sørensen, Danish Air Force (retired)

I’m a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety Armed Forces Denmark.

In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational requirements for new fighter aircraft.

In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England. To make the simulations as realistic as possible, we participated with operational pilots.

On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries. We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.

In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.

In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life.

We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.

My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.

It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.

It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations.

We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.

Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading / non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better performance than those who we were given permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.

We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command.

Due to these conditions and having insight into what else was going on, attempts were made from the Danish side to get an operational pilot to the Joint Program Office but due to some special circumstances it at that time failed.

With my speech, I would like to draw attention to the fact that at least some of the air to air simulations that have been carried out, in no way give a true and fair view of the Joint Strike Fighter in the air defence role.

I consider it to be a disaster if simulations as mentioned above are accepted and thus forms part of a possible decision to choose the Joint Strike Fighter. (end of excerpt)

I google the paragraph above and something very interesting come up 😀 so i will quote the exact words of member from others forum talking about that

I have saw that not just once but various time on various forum. Isn’t it very strange that a retired Danish Lt. Colonel decided to write to Australian Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee about F-35 and his experiences with F-35 simulated flights ?. What could possibly his motive to write to Australian committee ? and why did he leave some very important pieces of information out of his writing like what years when he took part of those simulated flights (that was at least 12 years ago), what was the development state of simulators then ? Even a child would know that 12 years of development means huge difference and if he has followed F-35 program he must know that most of simulation capabilities has been added after he could’ve possibly took part of those simulations.

Further information about Anker Steen Sørensen for anyone interested:

Anker Steen Sørensen siger:
25. november 2014 kl. 17:03

Jeg er Service provider for Eurofighter – bare så I ved det. Jeg deltog også i konferencen.

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/6442/comment-page-1
After google translate :

“I’m Service provider for the Eurofighter – just so you know. I also participated in the conference.”

Turn out he working for Eurofighter now

Looking deeper then this come up

But it is a problem that the Danish pilots have not tested the Joint Strike Fighter, in fact, Anker Sørensen, a former squadron leader and head of the operations department for Skrydstrup. He has flown F-16 for 16 years, and now works as a consultant for the competitor to JSF, Eurofighter

Anker Sørensen after his 40 years in the Army now a consultant for the Eurofighter.

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/eksperter-simulator-er-ikke-som-en-testflyvning

In conclusion not only that he did not test the JSF , he also working for Eurofighter now. A retired Danish pilot decided to warn Australia about buying F-35 ?? more like Eurofighter consultant doing some dirty advertising :highly_amused: