Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The F-35 is a lot more maneuverable than being credited for, but I doubt you're going to call it a dedicated air superiority fighter.
We might not but LM seems quite happy to:
"Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed vice president for business development, supported Lockheed's analysis, saying a single F-35 provides the capability of six F-15s in air-to-air simulations. Although the F-35's projected top speed of M1.6 falls short of the F-15's M2.5 maximum, O'Bryan says, the F-35's higher level of stealth offsets the F-15's speed advantage in calculations of overall survivability."
Let's see... if one F-35 equals six F-15Cs, then 8 F-35s equals... Umm, does this mean that 2 Spanish Typhoons can lay the whoopass on 48 F-35s?
JL
PS: BTW, did you see where Gates said that 8 Predators (IIRC) were equal to 36 F-16's as CAS assets?
EDIT: Here's the link to the O'Bryan quote:
SINGAPORE 2010: Lockheed says F-35s will replace USAF F-15s
The F-35 is a lot more maneuverable than being credited for,
And did you read the rest of my post???Lockheed Martin says it is very maneuverable.
How much manoeuverability actually matters for the F-35 is another matter. Plenty of capability to stop the combat before it gets within visual range.
Right On!I agree but similar thinking had the USAF eliminating guns from aircraft in the 60s-70s which proved to be a terrible mistake.
I personally believe vector thrust maneuvering will only be seen in airshows and rarely in combat.
.
If you ask us nicely, we promise to sell you some Typhoons to replace the F15 in the air to air role just in case the F22 doesn't want to get dirty.
My Lockheed retirement is safe - no worries! The F-35 will be everything it is promised to be. As for highly maneuverable, how maneuverable would it need to be if it shot you down before you detected it?
I personally believe vector thrust maneuvering will only be seen in airshows and rarely in combat.
.
It doesn't mean it hasn't been considered - HOWEVER "if" it was installed, it would affect over all performance.And not even then with the F-35. It doesn't have it
I'm going to address Joe's criticisms of my various 5th Gen-related posts as soon as I get the time, but until then here's something for the believers in the gospel of the holy trinity of stealth, BVR doctrine, and the do it all JSF.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
Just to clarify: The Rand Corp is neither left-wing nor an affiliate of CDI / APA. And whether you agree with their conclusions, or not, their study is worth the read.
JL
I remember the same things said about the F-15 and F-16 during the mid 70s.The same propaganda General Dynamics and the Pentagon gave us about the F-111 in the 1960's sounds quite similar to what were hearing about the F-35.
"Multi-role" = good at nothing, mediocre at best.
I remember the same things said about the F-15 and F-16 during the mid 70s.
Tell that to F/A-18 drivers who, during GW1 shot down MiGs with bombs on their stores, and then went on to bomb targets inside Iraq. in today's world, the F/A-18 and F-15E can be truly called "multi role" and these aircraft do "everything" well and have proven it in combat....
I was talking about the bad press during the Carter administration where there were some that wanted to scrap the F-15 for being too costly and criticized the F-16 when it got airborne during high speed taxi tests.Nope. They were both designed from the onset as fighters, both with some influence on what went wrong with the F-111. Being a fighter also meant they could be used as an interceptor or fighter-bomber. But neither were designed to be a true bomber.
Show us some documented negative evidence that the F-16, F-15E and F/A-18 suffered in their "multi role mode" operationaly during the past 15 or 20 years!!!!!And yet it sacrificed something to get both. It's a great fighter, but its also not a true great bomber either.