wilky510

I read about this not too long ago, i heard that the 300 'golden' falcons were getting AESA's and that's it. Nice to see other upgrades being thrown in. Thanks for the link Cali! a backup plan incase they don't buy the intended F-35's? Or if production/progress on the program stays the same (really slow paced at the moment). I'm not really sure why.

43,000 lb thrust in burner, and the F-135 is downrated from 51,000 lb (it's been pushed even higher) for parts lasting longer. the engine is 29,000-30,000 lb on dry thrust, the same thrust as the F-16 engines in BURNER. You're right the aircraft is overweight. But it's nothing in a few years that can be fixed. If they find parts, that last just as long in the near future allowing the engine to be ran at max thrust without hurting the parts lasting longer, the F-35 isn't such a bad aircraft. It's the price they had to pay for fuel, just an example. With 50% fuel the aircraft is almost at 1.07 with full burner on. They tried to make an F-16 class aircraft with 19,000+lb of fuel and honestly that's too much. This aircraft is far from shit, it actually has alot of advantages that an F-22A doesn't have... HOBs + AIM-9X combo, an advanced IRST; better electronic fusion... etc.

Most likely. Australia as a country does not like the F-35 and the whole JSF program. But top brass in their military chose it over other aircraft. So anything in the press about the F-35 is gonna be blown way out of proportion. I agree Su-30's and other Su-27 families are more maneuverable than most teen series aircraft. But you gotta remember, F-22's weakness isn't all in WVR, it's just ALOT easier to kill there. The YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23 even though the YF-23 was WAY more stealthier simply because it had better maneuverability. They learned their lessons in Vietnam and i feel they did the right choice, even though i think i'm more of an YF-23 fan and kinda hate that the YF-22 was picked over it :cry:. Edit: I feel the biggest weakness of the F-22 is a lack of a IRST. In the near future when the PAK-Fa is fielded and has actual numbers; and stealth vs stealth aircraft is actually viable. I feel an IRST will become a huge role in BVR combat. It's kinda sad the F-22 had the Advanced IRST cut from it's budget. It's still on the board for later blocks, but i highly doub't they'll choose it.

What makes a F-22 lose too much energy with TVC that a Su-27 class aircraft doesn't? I read somewhere that Indian MKI's were having the same problems as the F-22 did vs the Typhoons. They were bleeding too much energy in WVR vs F-15's in an exercise. edit: found something about this 'pacific vision', apparently this was released after a rumor was started: http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html

TVC doesn't make an aircraft the WVR king. I'm also glad to know you have alot of insight on an classified aircraft (F-35) and somehow know it'll struggle in a dogfight.. Oh right, because the wing loading is high on the aircraft so armchair generals assume it can't turn. I'm also positive it was a pilot who challenged to fight any aircraft in a dogfight, and it was with the Su-37 prototype. Plus, if that youtube page is that one Russian girl, (i'm not even gonna bother to click) she is the biggest propagandist on youtube i've seen in a while.

Correct on the blended wing + lifting body. other peoples post: I'm almost positive the aircraft is more optimized for subsonic speed as just shown with the F-16. it's the most fuel friendly way to get to the target. I'm pretty sure even if it can't supercruise on dry thrust. Engine upgrades down the road it will certainly most able to. I read somewhere the F135 is downrated to 43,000lb max thrust. It can go to 51,000lb for future upgrades.

I noticed the lead was popping flares while the second one wasn't. I'd honestly be too paranoid NOT to pop flares, especially looking at Afghanistans history of MANPAD's. :D

Those upgrades look really effective. I hope they can pull some money to get those upgrades. I'm also really hopeful for that rumor of them switching to a high powered diesel engine too. Even 'IF' GG is doing that, the street goes both ways. That's the problem with forums sometimes. You can't blame one person for it, I've seen plenty of stuff on these forums talking down to American stuff. Not even close in numbers - The T-90 is just too new to keep up in numbers with the M1A1s, M1A2s, and as some people suggested out there. Why do you need more tanks when you've already got triple the numbers than a military that has more of a budget than you? (T-72s, T-80s + upgrades of these).

Pretty sure if an F-117 is flying really close to any air defense, they're defeating the purpose of stealth. Stealth is meant to decrease the effective range of most air defenses. But at a certain range stealth can still be detected (usually pretty close, 3-4 miles). This doesn't make stealth ineffective either. Slipping through radar nets is much easier with stealth. Plus if stealth is so useless. Why is Russia looking into their next generation of bombers most likely being VLO?

I worded that wrong, my bad :P. Nah, the USAF puts fuel tanks on to hide the real RCS of the aircraft (in most, if not all exercises), coupled with RCS emitters.

Noone in this thread from what i've seen said that it was. Mostly people are saying Red flag isn't a place to brag about winning engagements. It's training, as most training.. it's set up. Some other info on this: Tiffys were slicked off/cleaned as much as possible. Some speculate that the F-22's were carrying fuels tanks to hide RCS (they did in past exercises for this reason). F-22 by far isn't invincible and what makes the F-22 a unique aircraft is it's ability in the BVR regime which for some reason USAF doesn't like showing off in exercises (maybe to hide tactics?) Instead of asking the question to why people can't accept the F-22 not being invincible, why do other countries go out of their way to write articles making the F-22 look like an inferior aircraft to 4.5 generation aircraft?

Funny part too is the Super hornet engines have been already tested and increased to 26,000+ (22,000ish normal i think?) thrust. If these were put on, it would put the aircraft above 1.00 for sure. Wonder if they'll ever be put on a sooner or later block upgrade. I hope so.

This will be cool! It will be weird seeing Russian aircraft mass launch beside USAF aircraft. I hope someone will record their launches like with Indian Su-30MKI's.

Pretty sure all the later blocks have uprated engines to help with the increased weight. But you're right. Even with the thrust increase, a heavier aircraft isn't going to perform as good as a lighter aircraft. Didn't know the aggressors flew the Block 30's for that reason! Cool!

Hold it's own against a F-22.. I agree (WVR anyways).. Sadly that site you linked makes it seem like the Eurofighter would do loops around an F-22. I will agree the F-22 is not the best of aircraft in service right now. But there's so much hate going on it's quite pathetic reading it. I heard the PAK-FA is having Cracking issues.. and not to mention it had an engine problem in the recent MAKS flight. Why does noone shed light on this; but they continue to hammer the F-22 problems?

Went through my pics and i'm pretty sure there is where the internal gun is on the F-35A model: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/f35gun.jpg/

Probably gonna get hate for this, but i'd rather see the money for these go for keeping the 5 A-10 squadrons that are being cut off than buy these.

Pretty sure the F-35A has an internal gun. It's the other two models lacking (B, C). Apparently they have a 'stealthy' gunpod for those two though; and they plan to use it after day one operations (where stealth won't be needed as bad). Regardless of it being stealthy.. it's still an RCS increase.. My personal opinion on the subject makes me think those two models were trying to keep weight down by removing the gun (plane is close to being overweight for the B model) and the C was already heavy because of the fuel weight increase.