It’s irrelevant, why the burners were lit.
What matters is that JSF didn’t sprint away, as a plane that is “superior to clean F16 Block 52”, is supposed to.

And you can tell from that low-viz video whether or not F-35’s air-brake function is deployed?

You may want to recheck the video. Two tanks on inboard pylons.

Agreed. I only noticed the starboard tank initially.

Well, that’s not what I’ve heard…
Besides, f.e. F16 can’t carry altogether (internally+externally) as much fuel as JSF can internally only, so your comparison is pointless.

Hardly, it makes my point fully. At usual fuel loads for both aircraft, the F-35 carries more I agree. That it still out-accelerates the F-16, is what is so impressive.

F16 has air-brakes extended.

Prove that the F-35 didn’t…

The film was uploaded in 2009, so how do you know if it’s preSWAT and how do you know what weight SWAT program actually accomplished (apart from target weights) and most importantly, what’s the actual AF-1 weight regardless of SWAT measures?

Because it is AA-1 that is flying beside the F-16… AA-1 was being built before the SWAT program commenced and it didn’t gain any of the weight reduction methods that SWAT designed…

What did SWAT achieve? 3000lbs off the empty weight of the aircraft and no loss in capability (except the STOVL variant)…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY&feature=player_embedded

A useful read, particularly considering JSF’s participation in the modern US air forces.

Interesting to read that US forces will purchase 1128 fighter aircraft between 2010 and 2020 along with about 380 unmanned “multi-role” UAS systems…

So much for the often touted “end” of USAF airpower that the Eric Palmer’s etc of the world like to predict…

Okay you got me there, now re-read the rest of the post, the focus is very obviously related to space, as has been mentioned by most of the other posts by various people on the subject. Besides, the fact that all this is based upon statement from a member of MBDA staff about the number of Meteors that can fit in the F35 bays including the STOVL version the relevant weight is one AMRAAM and 1 1,000lb JDAM.

Fair enough, I was only addressing the weight issue. I too very much doubt that 8x Meteor carriage will occur internally, but space is not my issue and obviously weight isn’t either given the internal hard points are rated to 2500lbs each, however simple need is my issue. What fighter aircraft routinely carries 8x BVR air to air weapons? Even the extremely A2A focused F-22 only carries a maximum of 6x the majority of the time.

4x will be plenty for initial usage, with perhaps 6x internal carriage being arranged down the track, if a user actually requires such.

I find that very hard to believe that there is plenty of room for four Metors in each F-35 bay! Two, yes, no problem. Three…Hmm at a push but I doubt it. Four, I very much doubt it no matter how well you organise them, can’t help but think that if theres four Meteors or AMRAAMs in each bay, they’re going to be ending up twating one another when fired. saying that, I maybe wrong but whats wrong with just having two Meteors in each bay? More would be nice but four is okay and besides, don’t want too much weight to luggage around especially when the F-35 is heavy enough as it is.

4x Meteor missiles per bay still weighs less than 1x 2000lbs JDAM and 1x AMRAAM per bay…

One has to remember the EF-18G is more restricted by range than any other Hornet model. Those self-powered jammers have to suck fuel to operate. Luckily they don’t run the whole mission.

Actually, electric power is provided by Ram-Air turbines, located in the nose section of the ALQ-99 pod, the “propellers” referred to by Peter G.

They are very large, so of course they induce drag and require additional fuel burn, but as I understand it, the pods themselves create all the electricity they require to run…

To match EF111 jamming power, EF18 needs 5 pods.
Now, the number of jammers isn’t important to missiles, since 4 are carried on outboard and fuselage pylons and in case of 3 jamming pods, EF18 will have two extra tanks.
EF18 is said to have 11 stations, so I don’t know about “shoulder” launchers.
As for HARMs, you can stick as much as it fits on EF111 (it still has glove pylons, free). If you want more precision you may want to install targeting system, but EF111 doesn’t lacks space.

The F/A-18E/F has 11 stations. EA-18G has only 9. There is this system known as the ALQ-218v2 on the EA-18G? It utilises (as part of the array) the wingtip rails. EF-111 had no such system…

I’d suggest this might account for the needed additional power of the EF-111.

The ALQ-218 does for AEA what the laser targetting pod does for A2G munitions…

I’m not going to argue though, I’ll just show instead:

And how many AMRAAMs EF18 carry?
Anyway, it’s better to have fast legs, than armament and maneuverability/performance the EF18 in EW loadout has…

A maximum of 4x AMRAAM’s can be carried on current EA-18G’s, AFAIK. I don’t know whether “dual” launchers can be carried for AMRAAM on the outboard pylons on the EA-18G, but I suspect not. It will always operate as part of a force package, so why 6x AMRAAM would be needed is a bit un-certain to me.

Actually EF111 uses ALQ99E, an enhanced installation of ALQ99, which EF18G took from EA6B.

EF-111 uses a repackaged ALQ-99 in a tailfin pod and internal bomb bay. It is pure speculation on Kopp’s behalf as to whether or not this was more powerful than existing ALQ-99 installations and most certainly on later ALQ-99’s, such as the ICAP II and even newer III editions. Of course being his favourite aircraft he WOULD describe the capability as vastly superior to anything else, a tradition he continues today. However I don’t see the EF-111 being upgraded in the 1990’s and yet EA-6B, EA-18G and ALQ-99 have been…

Any re-introduction of an EF-111A would require massive upgrade work. Funnily enough, not even the USAF has chosen this path…

True, but that can easy be remedied.
For a price difference of a few aircraft (against EF18) you may get away with far more superior EW platform.

You also get an aircraft with no ALQ-218 or ICAP III capability. No AESA radar capability. No AMRAAM/HARM/AARGM capability. You get an aircraft with no ATFLIR targetting pod capability and an aircraft that still only has 2x crew, rather than the 4x crew carried on the EA-6B.

You might get more jamming power, but as you yourself have already stated, EA-18G can match this if necessary. That the 3x pod configuration matches USN’s requirements, I’d suggest that the excess power isn’t strictly necessary…

RAF Squadron Leader Steve Long flew BF-2 at Patuxent River yesterday, 27 January.

Doesn’t matter. He won’t be believed anyway…

😉

The PAK-FA was delayed again?

Damn! Who could have seen that coming??? I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it boys and girls…