Which years report was that please.

It’s not about opinions you need to check your facts more before posting – otherwise you are not really helping yourself!!

Thanks don’t need ur fact checking I know what I’m talking about. Google is ur friend.

Exactly what facts have u presented to refute AFM and the DOT&E, other than confusing a threshold with objective? BTW, aren’t you the same poster that tried to argue with me that there was no record of the F-35’s 370 kt 9g turn rate at 15,000ft till I shut you up with the article. If fact checking is your goal here, your off to a checkered start.

just add a pinch of pixie dust and its no stretch F-35 goes where no fighter has gone before

What an insightful post, please elaborate as we all know your exquisitely knowledgeable.

So Lets be clear. Can the F-35A do(certified) 9G with full fuel tanks? Thats over 8000kg of fuel..
Energo at F-16.net posted a chart from Norwegian MoD years ago showing it was confined to 4,6-5,5G. But that was probably with different Block versions..
.

I posted the link above, read it for yourself. Both -22 and -35 are rated for 9g with full fuel and aams. Requirement for LO fighters to be built strongly to carry internal weapons.

Back to the F-35 quite a lot of people here insist that the F-35A is/will be cleared for 9 g with full internal fuel. Is there any factual evidence available, possibly in the shape of a gross weight clearance? ?

Nothing like a gross weight clearance or specifics of the envelope have been released (other than corner speed for 240-3)

The first mention of the 9g maneuvering requirement with full fuel once air to ground weapons expended is in the oft mentioned Bowman paper.
Second is from http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2012/november%202012/1112fighter.aspx
There are other documents but these two come to mind.

I know, but that doesn’t make it. So what ?

No offense, but you jumped into a debate with an inaccurate statement. You wanted to say that the L-M document was outdated because the F-35’s range estimates were reduced. In truth, the range estimates have increases slightly since 2009 based on two things-
1. The testing has yielded

(the change was data maturation from recent flight test data which resulted in a lowering of the fuel flow factor margin from a ~5% to a 4% margin. Lower fuel burn means greater range)

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/15-F-0540_F-35_SAR_Dec_2014.PDF
2. Easing the USAF mission profile to allow the F-35 to fly at optimal alt/cruise at the very beginning and end of the scenario.
These are still based on end of life engine performance, and include the 5% fuel reserve required.

So… What? I suppose you should not be surprised if people correct you on a forum if your wrong.

I missed nothing, I just don’t care much. But the fact that you took an outdated source to make a point reinforces my feeling that you don’t deserve much attention.

I think your the one with dated information. The 2015 SAR made it clear that fuel burn was less than estimated and the range has improved from 2009. Btw, the specs were based on the eariler 240-3 configuration, which was early, heavy. So, in one way your right, it’s outdated-the range has improved.

The Su-35S..

If your facing and adversary with good persistance he is not going to be idling around so you can get your fat weezy kid (FWK) into a suitable nice safe firing solution, /B].

As someone already pointed out…. No to your Su-35 example.

And be careful there JW that fat wheezy kid has been taking your love child’s lunch money. Seems most Tiffy operators are keen on getting the FWK instead of upgrading the ugly little orphan.

The aforementioned typhoon will do it nicely :angel:

Cheers

Not according to the briefing by EADS test pilot given in Norway. Three EFT= subsonic