Sorry if I lost you. Obligatory seems to be inferring that the F-35 isn’t maneuverable in general at the F-16, and then trying to cite the high AoA test case as his evidence. I think the report is quite explicit that the purpose is to test the control laws during high AoA maneuvers, but he’s trying to extrapolate the findings out to general performance. My quote from Lt Col Raja Chari was to show that other pilots understood that it was only certain test points that were being evaluated, and it wasn’t a dog-fight like he (and some journalists) are trying to infer.

As my counter-evidence to Obligatory, I pointed out that the video from recent air-shows has shown that the F-35’s sustained turn is very comparable to the F-16, so it’s quite maneuverable.

Thank for the kind and argumentate reply.
We seems to agree 100% of the true limit and significance of the test.
I so think that it would be a very good starting point to consider that it showed a well delimited and specific problem, although in a very important field of modern air combat.
Because as it would be IMHO uncorrect to use it to infer that the F-35 is a wholesale lemon, the same have to be considered true also in reverse and so saying that there is a well definite problem here would not allow anyone to infer that you consider it a wholesale failure, putting in your own mouth words you have neither said nor even thought.
And believe me, this is the standard reaction there unfortunately: an all out attack or an ecqually acritical defense on each aspect of the program, also in points that the same MOD i.e. the real customer have reiteratedly said to be problematics or even all out wrong.
So thank you again for your post as it showed a way different possibility to address things.

All that’s happened is the actual performance has been found to be better than the “minimum performance thresholds”.

Ok, still not such a great feat considered the money and the time spent on such a program. Obviously, as it would to be always considered implicit IMHO.

That is an extreme stretch. Izd.30 will start ground *testing* in October if things go well and those will take 2 years atleast before it is ever tested in air. Then a couple of years of testing in the air. Hardly “almost complete readiness”. And the contract for the initial 12 frames will be signed before year end, again if things go well.

So, did you think they will start a truly serial production of the intermediate model or, contrary to their usual practises, they would keep it at low rate until the new engine is ready?
I don’t know it they envisioned the engine to be interchangeable like it was in the case of F-16, you all know how stealth can be a bitch in such a case but this would solve theproblem.

Two great news : the almost complete readiness of izd.30 and the contract for the first serial PAK-FA went out thse days.
Together with the less credible one about completion of all prototypes during this solar year.
Did you think that all of those news are related in any way?

Let explain myself better: they have said that the 9th prototype would sport complete avionics dotation while the 11th would be the final structural one.
So probably the izd.30, now ready, would now be installed in the last two, the russian ones I mean (the 12th is for India).

In the meantime, once they have 8th & 9th done, they can think to produce a very limited first serial batch, with still interim engines: even if test about the said planes avionics would still to be concluded they would have it fitted aniway and so they would be used for the initial training and in a second time even to be transferred to (limited) operative duties.
In the meantime of their production the new engine prototypes would begin testing and, hopefully, come to such a point that the successive batch would sport a complete package in terms of both avionics and engines.
After it, let’s call the first 12 Su-(whatever number they will chose)-P and the other -S and problem solved.

If you use the reference wing area. Due to the wide F-35 body, the percentage of the 42.7 m2 wing area that is actually part of the fuselage is pretty high. The actual F-35 wing area is only ~25% larger for more than a 50% weight increase. Also, later model F-16s are not known for their low wing loading. Then again, even 10 tons empty weight seems to work fine with the F-16 wing (F model), but an air superiority fighter it is not.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248047[/ATTACH]

Eagl , i think you would deserve an award for your own knowledge and another even bigger for your moderation and independence.
Really.

Don’t think it’s a theory. Pretty much confirmed. Not suprising to see them mounted on external pylons, we’ve yet to see ANY pictures of the internal bays open or any weapon testing with internal weapon deployment reported. It seems there should have been some information on separation tests or static tests with bay doors open.

Those test from inner bays are done in Athubinsk aka the Black Hole.

MiG-23M entered production in 1972.

The MiG-23 kill ratio of yours is a nonsense.. First it includes bloated CLAIMS of western pilots, not actual kills confirmed by the other side.. Second, it includes confirmed losses of western planes, not claims by MiG-23 pilots.. Double standard, eh?

Third, it includes the MiG-23BN radarless attackers which, logically, can’t shoot anybody down as they only carry cannons, bombs and rockets..

10:0? WTF? Get a grip.. 🙂 Those were claimed kills against Afghan Fitters..

In reality, Pakistanis have only claimed two MiG-23s, none of which has been confirmed by Soviets (for obvious reasons).. one F-16 was lost, too, BTW..

Which western proxies were competent against Soviets? :confused:

It seems me that there have been assembled a sort of recap of all urban legend about fighter planes, instead to going under reliable sources.

Some of them were IMHO also pourpose oriented, F-4 was really an ahead of its time bird but Soviet introduced heavier fighter than MiG-23 well ahead of it just in the PVO.
Su-9 was introducted in 59, Su-15 entered service in 1965, MiG-25 in 1970. Tu-28p, do you remember it?

Same for tactical light fighter: Mig-21 was introduced in the 1959 and MiG-23 in 1970, F-5A is of 1962 but F-5E first flew in 1972, Mirage III 1961, F1 in 1973, Mirage 2000 is of 1982 so same age of Fulcrum, Draken 1960 and Viggen 1971. So in average in every 10-12 years there was a generation change.

The main difference was instead doctrinal: there was not any equivalent of F-4 made by not just Soviet but any other producer, nor it has any comparable successor able to cover all its roles: both USAF than US Navy had to purchase two different planes to substitute it.

Or maybe when the Cold War ended in 1989 and they saw Russia declining rapidly in the 1990s, it didn’t have the same urgency it would have had if the USSR had remained intact. That said, stupid decisions were made, like building different pieces across 42 separate states, that was a bad idea and did lead to increased costs.

Still it remain the only case in which instead of just slow down production and just cut the final order they decided to end production and keep instead +30 years old planes in service for almost other 20 years…
Western Europeans even in the years of the so called peace dividend kept on with production aimed to replace old planes with new ones, russian also with all their past problems are actually replacing their legacy fighters at a quite fast rate, USN has kept on buying Super Hornets n score
So only USAF plan to keep planes build before the end of the Cold war in the next decade. And in the one after that.
So if you still didn’t see a problem there, i’ll not be the one keeping to try to change your minds.

In any case tomorrow i’ll take a weekend off, so let’s see you in another week and probably in another thread also, as i fell that this one has served its own initial pourpose quite well, so keeping on quarreling on secondary aspects of the whole matter would only keep putting its quality down.