Basher54321

It's all relative - the thrust and lift must be adequate to counter the drag and weight for a sustained turn at given parameters. Being clean is one major advantage sure.

Both will have T/W greater than and less than 1 in parts of the flight envelope depending on their respective weight, velocity, and altitude. Wing Loading does not just exist at some single undefined weight point, secondly it is largely irrelevant because it takes no account of lift generated by tail and vortex lift as some examples. Like the F-22/16 the 35 is truly unstable in pitch and features some vortex generation devices (e.g shaped air intakes edges)- although how much difference this makes is unknown - and overall performance comes from many combined factors.

F-16A Block 1 maybe

1. Wing loading is calculated from weight so is not a single static figure. 2. Wing loading as calculated is more relevant to older jets like the F-104/105 - however far less relevant to pitch unstable designs like the F-16/35 because its doesn't take into account the lift generated from other areas.

Ha the F-35 is required to be able to work in a Nuclear environment - being EMP resistant is a requirement by design.

1975: Prototype first flight (T8-1) 1981: Su-25 saw combat as part of testing and was slowly introduced after that. 1984: Prototype first flight (T8M-1) 1993: Su-25T was recommended for service after all the testing was complete.

IOC = Initial Operational Capability - the detail of which may differ between air forces - but for the US it basically means they have an adequate number of jets and trained pilots / crews to employ a minimum defined capability of the system. The A-10A in DCS looks post 1990 - it has LASTE.

1940: Prototype Mustang NA-73X 1944: P-51D Mustang introduced 1977: MiG-29 prototype & flight tests 1984: MiG-29A IOC 1990: MiG-29S flight tests 1993: MiG-29S At squadrons 1977: T-10A prototype testing 1985: Su-27 / T-10S (Flanker B) IOC 1994: Su-33 On Carrier 1972: YA-10A Prototype first flight 1976: A-10A Being delivered to squadrons

All challenging to fly and fight with - would go with the F-100D/F just for personal preference.

Dont worry - in 20 years they should all be replaced by F-35s - then you will have too many of them.

Photos would appear to show it was at zero V fairly quickly - would be good to know more about it.

Not much on any testing of this - a few claims in dodgy press article about an R-74ME where they overcome the rear mount aero issue by putting a cone over the end. Obviously you must be able to target objects behind you - so you don't hit friendlies for example If it's hung on the wing when it drops doing say minus 400KIAS - then assuming you can control it, does it burn as much rocket fuel to get to a useful maneuver speed as one that flies forward and turns around and always has positive energy? There might not be enough in it to warrant bothering with the rear fire model. On a striker it might be more viable but on a fighter you wouldn't want to waste a pylon when you could have a standard forward firing missile that can also hit targets 360 degrees around you.

GTX 670 2GB overclocked

Shame about Suarez - not many seem to consider that Italy's defenders were winding him up for the entire match in the hope that would happen. Not many people snap that way it must be said....

:megalol:

Part of its distributed optical EOS system ?

On the bright side it can only improve - I would prescribe a few years without reading Youtube comments and wiki.

Yes - expect an F-104 could also win against it - unrealistic 1v1 exercises have nothing to do with aerial combat. Again airshow performance has nothing to do with aerial combat - actually TV could be seen as a hindrance in some cases. The F-35 doesn't have TV and it's capable of wiping the floor with both F-22/Su-35 etc ;) Then you would be very wrong - it's not even a fair fight. Any 4th Gen jet is on the defensive against 5th Gen even if they don't know it............ :thumbup:

Nice one :smartass:

What you are missing is that stealth is just one factor in the equation - and its actually been a part of aerial combat since day 1. For example hiding aircraft from the primary sensor (the mk1 eyball) by painting camouflage on the aircraft or by coming out of the sun. F-22 capability is a combination of more than just VLO. That's a very poor analogy to make and has no relevance here - Afghanistan is a country with hardly any resource and certainly cant pay for its own invasion like Iraq can. The most powerful armies have failed in Afghanistan simply because all they do is hemorrhage money and blood over a long period of time with little gain. Happened to the British, the Soviets and now NATO - all the insurgents have to do is last out until the political will goes!

Hiding aircraft from radar didn't start and end with F-117 - its an ongoing research area - the techniques and material used on F-35 are nothing like what was on the F-117 Don't worry the 2000 or so F-35s will have no issues taking up the slack. ;)

That would be an understatement looking at their technology sectors. The Su-35 is a modernised Su-27 - a better comparison would be the FA-18E - except the SH probably has a superior avionics fit.

So why don't you try and comprehend why this is no surprise to anyone with any knowledge. it's down in writing for you. :thumbup:

The fact you keep bringing up this irrelevant argument shows you still don't understand what Stealth is...................... :lol:

A Typhoon/Rafale/F-16 etc in a clean configuration should win a 1v1 8/8 if they are allowed to use the HMS/HMCS that F-22 pilots don't have. Even if they don't they will still stuff a bad pilot in an F-22. Air Force monthly (April 2010) in an interview with a French pilot also printed the F-22 was only authorised to do 1v1 BFM only with foreign countries. Also stated that F-22s wore radar enhancers (look up Luneberg lens) so civilian radar can see them etc - so BVR would be a bit pointless. If that's the case it only confirms how unrealistic these exercises were............you certainly cant draw any useful conclusions from them.