No pun intended, but having seen Pete Collins logbook, Yak 130, M346, Tornado (3 types), F16, Mirage 2000, KAI T50, test pilot on Harrier VAAC etc. Hardly what some said about his lack of credibility on modern types after his Rafale test in Flight… (explains some of my reluctance EElighting)

Anyone know the name of the river in the background of the above picture?

Considering it is probably Merignac area, either Garonne or Dordogne.

How important is weight compared to drag when it comes to fuel consumption?

WHen Norwegian F-35 are doing QRA (which will probably be the most common mission) most likely they will be equipped with two IR missiles and an empty bomb bay.

The F-35 will have a huge internal fuel load; OTOH I suspect it will also need it, due to a large, heavy and somewhat draggy airframe.

For the QRA mission I think the Gripen NG would be perfect; with only two IR missiles the drag will be minimal; and the small and light aiframe means that the fuel consumption will also be very low. IMHO Norway should have bought both the F-35 and the Gripen… 48 F-35 and 12 Gripen would be great! Costs could be kept down by outsourcing most of the Gripen maintainance to Sweden, which geographically is very close.

I wonder how the external IR missiles on the F-35 will affect the RCS? Why didn’t they put them in the bomb bay instead?

Because there is only rail launched IR missile in US and UK inventory (which dont fit in a bay without a deflector)

Exactly. Its a bit daft to criticise the acquisition of the F-35A by countries flying Vipers and Legacy Hornets with arguments like “it doesnt supercruise”.
Now if the argument is “either you slash half of your airforce or you ditch any long term investment in your Navy/Army/Both to acquire/suport the F-35A” (every EPAF Country falls in this category) then that should be seriously considered.

Agree about top speed, but supercruise can be of great help for time to station, thus increasing air superiority area , disminishing number of necessary planes etc. Dunnoif i was clear.

Possible as it was tested by US pilots. But tails werent canted afaik and landing gear different. Tho as prototypes they evoluted. Btw, Dassault was consultant on Vought design i think

Turn performance for the US Air Force’s F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g’s to 4.6 sustained g’s.
The F-35B had its sustained g’s cut from five to 4.5 g’s, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated
from 5.1 to five sustained g’s.

So basically less turning capability than a Rafale loaded with 3*2000L external fuel tanks + 2*1300 kgs SCALP + 4 mica? Weird.

yes, but it also enhances instability on 3 axes which is not desirable (vs instability on 2 axes)

Btw anyone noticed the last post on Rafale, clue it flew as slow as 15 Kts …

Paper presenred at the AGARD FVP Symposium on “Advances in Flight Tesring”,
held in Lisbon, Portugal, 23-26 September 1996, and published in CP-593.

Do that in a F35 🙂