@Andraxxus-

While your point listing various engine thrust classes, and their actual thrust is a good point. Those engines all have their specifications available open source.

The F119 has no such specifications available: BPR ( seen everything from the commonly accepted .2 through .3) pressure ratio?, intermediate thrust?
None of this information is available. And you can’t take 35k thrust class as totally accurate. P&W fast facts had the F135 listed at 40,000lbs, not the commonly known and stated 43k thrust. That’s a 1.5 ton omission.

I too remember “Dozer” the F-22 pilot’s post stating upwards of 37,000lbs, and the first air shows that the F-22 appeared the pilot was quoted as saying 37,500lbs of thrust from the F119.

while there is little open source information on the F119, it is hard to discount the significant anecdotal evidence that the engine produces something in excess of the 35k of thrust stated.

Edit- LM “fast facts” had the F135 at 40,000lbs thrust. P&W has 43,000lbs listed it’s specs chart.

considering thrust:

F-15, air superiority fighter with variable geometry inlets, obviously it will optimize airflow at every moment to extract maximum thrust from its engines

F-35, medium altitude striker with fixed geometry inlets… they’ll obviously have to be a compromise with regards to where the thrust is needed. And, considering again, that most need is on take off and landing of the B variant, unless others have different inlets, it will be optimised for low speed/low altitude maximum output

So, unless there’s something very well hidden inside, or some pixie dust involved, the F-35 (starting with less static thrust at sea level) will, most certainly, have significantly less thrust at altitude than an F-15

No, there are many factors to consider outside of fixed vs. variable inlets. Bypass ratio for one. Variable ramps are critical to limiting spillage at high Mach, does not mean that variable vs. fixed are more efficient at higher altitude.

As the F-119 shows- it puts out more thrust in mil power at high altitude than the F-100 did on max thrust at high alt. Can’t judge by intake ramps. It was not so much about the F-35, it’s about making assumptions that I was addressing.

P.S. No I really don’t think that the F-135 engine puts out more thrust at high alt., than two F-100’s but we really don’t know do we? Hence stick to what’s known.

Does anyone have a F-15 NATOPs laying on the desk? Please enlighten us on F-15 clean at 40k, and F-35 at 40k..

Really? There is no NATOPS for the F-15, it is not a naval aircraft.

The F-15c flight manual is available online, or was (many have been taken down recently). Anyway, what are you going to compare it to in the F-15. There just isn’t any official information available on the F-35’s turn performance at 40,000 ft.

And it would be truly impressive for any fighter to sustain 5.5g at 40,000ft. Maybe the F-22 and Typhoon at high (m .95+) speeds, but still doubtful. The F-35 ain’t doing it at any speed at 40,000ft.

Source? Not sure what you mean by source for an event which thankfully did not happen.

Two novels of some repute written about WWIII- including air war would be:

The Third World War- sir john Hackett
Red storm rising- Clancy

The third world war is a bit less rah rah the west wins than red storm.

Oh, I’d same more SAM losses incurred by NATO, more air kills suffered by Warsaw Pact. Different missions and philosophies.

so it has been confirmed that the F-35 is not a dogfighter, far from it, because “it doesn’t need to be”. as I’ve long predicted
so if the Finnish Air Force wants a dogfighter, the F-35 is not an option. if dogfighting is not a priority, then they might as well go with UCAVs

Super, so pick the air superiority UCAV they should buy from the long list available….oh wait.

Still many years off, and most likely autonomous air to air capability will not be fielded first. UCAV’s capable of true air to air missions will debut as part of a swarm with a manned aircraft providing the tactical picture, engagement decisions to the “shooter” UCAV, or using the sensors on the UCAV “swarm” to engage from a safe range.

Finland’s choice will be instructive, honestly think it’s a toss up between the F-35 and the Gripen. The rhetoric will heat up soon. How do you say “anti-F-35” blog in Finnish?

Sorry if I offended, did not mean to.

I was made attempt to show the electronic warfare resistance potential for these IADS against aerial based jammers.

If NATO E-3A could not block, then how can APG-81 do so?

If you want proofs then here are foto that E-3 was in MACE 8..

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/album.php?p=543&pg=1&order=

Repeat, sorry of any offence made, I’ll make attempt at better language translation.

Glyph, the E-3 is an AWACS. It does not possess an EW capability per se. The APG-81 and other modern AESA have been designed with cyberwarfare and jamming capabilities. How capable they are is certainly not open source material, but considering (as you say) the s-300 is an older system and a known quantity as the U.S. has long been rumored to have bought an S-300 system, I would venture a guess that the F-35 has the S-300 in its threat library and the APG-81 has the ability to counter it.

All those LockMart studies resulting in “unparalleled SA, sensor performance and sensor fusion” are usually focused on comparisons with what looks like APG-73 equipped F/A-18C Hornet. In the meantime, the world has moved on quite a bit..

On what basis are you coming to that conclusion? Is this another fluff statement pulled from thin air?