that "turning on the spot" looked more like controlled stall than "proper" flying.

Netzbummler wrote:

Scytale wrote:I think a lot of us can agree the F-35 is hopelessly over-budget in terms of both money and time. But whether or not it would underperform in its desired role is another matter, and is subject to much more speculation than the other thing.

Just have a look at this list of horrors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... and_safety

The painful birth of the F-35 (early 90s) is beaten only by the Jager 90... sorry, I mean the Eurofighter 2000..., sorry, I mean the Eurofighter Typhoon, that began in the early 80s. Incidentally, currently only a *very few* of the German Eurofighters are usable at all, the rest is grounded. Now compare that to the Russian PAK-FA, where development started in the late 90s and under worse conditions (granted, development of the Russian jet is expected to be finished in 2017).

Now take the billions of Dollars/Euros that were spent on those flawed machines (the Eurofighter for example has minimal stealth abilities) and think for a minute about what could have been done with this money. In most of the countries that are operating or yet to operate these jets, infrastructure is crumbling, the schooling system is horribly underfunded, the healthcare system is failing etc. But hey, there'll always be a hawk who insists that any money spent on improving the lives of the many is wasted money. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

All aircraft have issues in development. The F-35 has had an extremely public development, contrary to many other aircraft of note, including the F-16. Now it's obviously true that it's had a lot of issues, and no one's denying the expense, but that doesn't mean that it's an incapable aircraft or that it's somehow doomed to fail.

Again, the F-35 has been performing very well in its flight readiness tests.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:that "turning on the spot" looked more like controlled stall than "proper" flying.

So is the Su-27's much-celebrated cobra maneuvre, but no one makes fun of that.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:that "turning on the spot" looked more like controlled stall than "proper" flying.

...made possible by using vectored thrust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_ve ... l_examples Note the absence of the F-35.

Netzbummler wrote:

Cornflakes_91 wrote:that "turning on the spot" looked more like controlled stall than "proper" flying.

...made possible by using vectored thrust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_ve ... l_examples Note the absence of the F-35.

There is no such absence..?

Scytale wrote:

Netzbummler wrote:

Cornflakes_91 wrote:that "turning on the spot" looked more like controlled stall than "proper" flying.

...made possible by using vectored thrust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_ve ... l_examples Note the absence of the F-35.

There is no such absence..?

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is currently in the pre-production test and development stage. Although this aircraft uses a conventional afterburning turbofan (Pratt & Whitney F135) to facilitate supersonic operation, the F-35B variant, developed for joint usage by the US Marine Corps, Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, and Italian Navy, also incorporates a vertically mounted, low-pressure shaft-driven remote fan, which is driven through a clutch during landing from the engine. Both the exhaust from this fan and the main engine's fan are deflected by thrust vectoring nozzles, to provide the appropriate combination of lift and propulsive thrust.

Only the Navy variant uses vectored thrust, and not to such an extent as many of the other jets mentioned in the list.

Very well, I accept. But I don't really get your point? Are you suggesting that have limited/no vectored thrust makes the F-35 inferior in WVR to other 4th-gen planes with vectored thrust?

with the big caveeat that the PAKFA is (co)designed as air superiority fighter, and the F35 not, so maneuverability wasnt that high on the priorities list as with the PAKFA.

Netzbummler wrote: Only the Navy variant uses vectored thrust, and not to such an extent as many of the other jets mentioned in the list.

and thrust vectoring method completely useless for steering to mention it.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:with the big caveeat that the PAKFA is (co)designed as air superiority fighter, and the F35 not, so maneuverability wasnt that high on the priorities list as with the PAKFA.

QFT. The PAKFA is not a multirole design. The F-35 is.

Another point: I think it's reasonably agreed that the F-16 will outmaneuvre an F-15 in a merge. But the F-15 has the superior BVR capabilities, with superior medium-range missiles (namely the AIM-120C - edit, I originally wrote this comparing it to the Su-27 but the comparison got convoluted. The F-16 may also have access to AIM-120s, I'm not positive right at the moment). American air superiority is focused on BVR engagements. This is quite rational: there have been very few WVR fights in recent decades, and merges (let alone guns-kills) are very much the exception. Situational awareness, sophisticated systems, and BVR capabilities appear to be the key air-to-air advantages of the F-35. An F-16 - or other thrust-vectored jet - may be able to outmaneuvre the F-35, but the F-35 pilot has the advantage in the approach. It might even have the advantage in a merge due to its off-boresight missile capability, but I don't think that's been tested yet.

And we're not even discussing the strike role that the F-35 is also designed for.

Scytale wrote:Very well, I accept. But I don't really get your point? Are you suggesting that have limited/no vectored thrust makes the F-35 inferior in WVR to other 4th-gen planes with vectored thrust?

I think so, at least that's the gist of many (American and German) articles about that topic. It is quite universally acknowledged that American 5th gen fighters currently have BVR superiority over the Russians and possible over the Europeans as well. However, the weapons load of the F-35 is underwhelming, and once the missiles have been spent (which is entirely possible considering that the other countries didn't drag their feet developing countermeasures), things get interesting. With vectored thrust it *might* be possible outmaneuvering missiles, I'm not sure of that. What I *am* sure of (and that seems to be a consensus) is that at short range and in a dogfight, super-maneuverability like the cobra maneuver is useful for aiming short-range missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra

The thing is that there is no definitive answer until the first real-world engagement, which I dearly hope will never happen, as it might very well mean the start of an all-out war.

Netzbummler wrote:

Scytale wrote:Very well, I accept. But I don't really get your point? Are you suggesting that have limited/no vectored thrust makes the F-35 inferior in WVR to other 4th-gen planes with vectored thrust?

I think so, at least that's the gist of many (American and German) articles about that topic. It is quite universally acknowledged that American 5th gen fighters currently have BVR superiority over the Russians and possible over the Europeans as well. However, the weapons load of the F-35 is underwhelming, and once the missiles have been spent (which is entirely possible considering that the other countries didn't drag their feet developing countermeasures), things get interesting. With vectored thrust it *might* be possible outmaneuvering missiles, I'm not sure of that. What I *am* sure of (and that seems to be a consensus) is that at short range and in a dogfight, super-maneuverability like the cobra maneuver is useful for aiming short-range missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra

The thing is that there is no definitive answer until the first real-world engagement, which I dearly hope will never happen, as it might very well mean the start of an all-out war.

Agreed. I'm curious about what you say about the 'underwhelming' weapons load - my understanding is it can carry 8 missiles, 6 for BVR employment?

I'm not really sure it's consensus that the cobra is really useful in combat. It could theoretically be used, sure... but I (as an armchair observer, so what do I know?) can't see it being used as a stock maneuvre. Executing the cobra requires switching off the fly-by-wire stabilization system of the Su-27, so that the pilot is momentarily controlling a dynamically unstable plane. It can be done, but it would take a lot of practice and is a dangerous maneuvre. Not to mention that in WVR, where energy maintenance is important, the cobra is deliberately designed to dump energy.

I would think that the Su-27's real strength in a merge would be its off-boresight capability coupled with the R-73 missile, for which the US only recently developed an equivalent, the AIM-9X. The Su-27 can out-turn an F-15, so if it can just maneuvre inside the F-15's turning circle it could get a potentially killing blow with a longitudinal deviation of 60 degrees. With this sort of capability, to me it just sounds like the Cobra would just be a last-ditch maneuvre.

In this light, the F-35 is set to equip the AIM-9X (AFAIK), which would be a big advantage in the rare dogfights it would ever have to enter.