Yes, i know, i’m trying to guide you through this step by step

A sustained turn IS the highest turn rate of an aircraft at a given altitude without energy loss. You continually make the same mistake regarding your understanding turn performance, yet attempt to be snarky. You interchangeably use agility and sustained turn rate as if they are the same. Guide yourself to a site that explains basic aircraft terms.

Physics behind turn is same
@Tu-22M work
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123370-F-35-Debate-thread-(2)&p=2030179#post2030179

I’m afraid missiles shot at any distance other than point blank is in an even more dire situation, as it doesnt even have thrust, so the only means of changing direction is with a couple of tiny wings with a load of a couple of tonne /m^2,
and it goes without saying that won’t cut it.

You consistently confuse a sustained turn with instantaneous turn. The aircraft needs sufficient SEP to SUSTAIN a turn. The aircraft can trade speed and or altitude to achieve a higher rate of turn. I feel this has been explained to you repeatedly.

The typical missile, exempting cruise missiles etc, are balancing lift needed for endgame turn rate with drag robbing the missile of range/energy to turn. The AAM will use the massive amount of total energy available in terms of both altitude and KE to achieve a high degree of turn to intercept target.

@ Obligatory

At high alt which is the only BVR alt, wing load very much dictate agility

Its basically due to the fact air gets thinner at the altitude. In order to stay in level -let alone make a turn- an aircraft a) higher lift coefficient -OR- b) needs to go faster.

What Andraxxus was describing was sustained turn performance. There are many different metrics of agility, many of which are not determined by wing loading. If you recall I posted about a dozen links of papers describing agility.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?128845-What-metrics-of-Agility-and-Maneuverability-matter&p=2113513#post2113513

Yes, low wing load improves sustained turn performance. In truth, at 30,000 feet even fighters with very low wingloading don’t sustain more than 3-4 g’s. As far as low wing loading being an indicator for BVR performance? Certainly a pilot would like to keep the P’s high when engaging especially with today’s fire and forget missiles. That ability to turn away while retaining energy would be one of the important traits for an air-superiority fighter. It does not improve the ability to “dodge” incoming missiles the way APA crowd likes to opine.

I did FBW, but it was already posted 😉 Remember i dont only think/post bad news 😉

It just came out yesterday. You are thinking of the GAO report card on F-35. The selected acquisition weapon report is different, covers all major DoD programs.

And with some good news, there is also bad. The first cut in the F-35 order?

For example, the F-35 program requires $107 billion in future funding to cover cost growth, even though it will procure 409 fewer aircraft than originally planned.

I wonder if this is a permanent reduction in the orders which the DoD was adamant would not happen.

wing sweep looks too extreme to be a B-2. Perhaps an prototype from the NGB program that is being flight tested for LRS-B requirement. Lockheed has several facilities in TX.

More on F-35s to Farnborough, including an unusual target set. Reuters via Chicago Trib.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]226683[/ATTACH]

That’s one way to sell a plane, but do they need to denegrate those poor women with such offensive language? Reuters spell checker must have called in sick.

They have been reporting this for quite some time. Not exactly unexpected, even if problematic. The Marines will most likely be impacted by this due to their upcoming IOC date. Both Pentagon and LM claim they will meet the deadline. Software has been a major bottleneck for both the F-22 and F-35 programs.
here is the GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661842.pdf

Reports from early this year:
http://defensetech.org/2013/12/26/experts-to-study-f-35-software-delays/
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_01_23_2014_p0-657478.xml

Edit- GAO target Unit cost 2019 F-35A 83.3 million, F-35B 108 million, F-35C 93.3 million (note states that unit cost reflects current planned procurement by U.S. and partner nations, changes in procurement will effect target cost)