USARStarkey

Watching you backpedal in increasingly contradictory monologues since you tried to use that boing test pilots claims is going from amusing to irritating. Pierre Sprey is a lunatic whose opinion is so far out of touch with anything that it is ludicrous that it would be brought up here at all. He believes that everything that isnt the F-16 is a "turkey" and that includes the F-15 and F-22! His being a "designer" means absolutely nothing. So lets look at the last few posts: 1. You post a non-nonsensical video of a bought and paid for test pilot who talks complete bullshit the entire video and claim that it reflects on how the F-35 is a worse design to the F-16 because of compromises due to stealth. This is despite the fact that everything that pilot says in the video has nothing at all to do with facts what so ever. Flap sizes....please....the F-35 has quite large flaps. 2. GG calls you on your nonsense and you immediately backpedal, now claiming that the guy was over the top and that it was only posted to demonstrate how the whole issue is completely ambiguous because the designers are clearly all juxtaposed in opinion. 3. You then start arguing about Spreys credibility, well known to be exactly nil, yet another example of a BS source of information. You list this as another example of supposed ambiguity among "experts" In short, you started by posting a video you clearly thought was a legit source on the aerodynamic compromise of the F-35 and then did a U-turn when called on it to make it sound like you were just pontificating on this supposed ambiguity issue. It is clear from the context of your first post on this page that idea wasnt even part of this discussion yet, much less within your scope of intent.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-382078/

If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35′s, “It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there,” Flynn says. That applies even to the F-35 B and C models with their respective 7g and 7.5g limits. “You’re not going to see any measurable difference between the aircraft,” Flynn says. In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says. - See more at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/eglin-f-35-pilots-fly-tactical/#sthash.TSIFe1uJ.dpuf

Maj Lauren J.W. Vije---"The F-35A turns like a heavyweight F-16, but climbs, descends, like a clean one."

Some quotes from Air-Forces monthly from their issue that was only about the F-35 ""Performance wise, the F-35 with a full internal weapons load is comparable to a fourth generation fighter with no weapons at all." "In terms of maneuverability, the F-35 will be cleared to a 50deg angle of attack, similar to the F/A-18 Superhornet with a load of 2 2000lb bombs or eight SDB inside." "When I did supersonic testing carrying 2 2000lb bombs and 2 missiles, the aircraft had no trouble getting to supersonic flight, which is really quite and accomplishment. The F-16 chase aircraft was occasionally tapping the Afterburner just to keep up"

But that is literally the purpose of this thread.....hence the title F-16 vs F-35

What also needs considered is relative cost of parts and constructions. I dont just mean taking then dollars and converting to now dollars. Relative cost means taking those conversions and making a proportional comparison to then airforce budgets, how large the airforce budget was compared the overall dod budget then as opposed to now, how much money the goverment had to spend then as compared to now etc. If I had 10 dollars then and spent on on the F-16, its not any different than if I had 100 dollars now and spent 10 on the F-35. Ten times the price, but not ten times as much in terms of how that hit the overall budget. Even if we do this, there are still other considerations. For example, is air superiority in near peer conflicts more important than it was 40 years ago? How has the overall budget changed? Have concessions been made in other areas that justify enormous costs of fighter jets? Are we spending too much in other areas that could be cut to make room for more expensive planes? When we weigh all of this, how does it compare to the cost of the F-16 from day 1 to now, taking into account changes in threat and need? As you can see, making any direct comparison is quite complicated. For example, against modern IADS, 4th Gen fighters are horribly over-matched. Obviously, air-power is just as key as it was in the 80's if not many times as important. Even presuming the the F-35 is in fact much more expensive dollar for dollar, it might be the case that the strategic need in near peer fighting makes that cost justifiable. If that is the case than any comparison is meaningless as what is spent today on one item is done for totally different reasons than money spent on another. Stealth is a absolute necessity if you hope to dismantle a modern IADS system, and when you consider the strategic responsibilities and concerns of a nation like the USA, every ounce of superiority counts.

My basis for that statement was a peer reviewed journal article from my university database. Ill try to dig it up, but im not even sure i can send you the whole thing legally, as it costs money noramlly to aquire and i have access though my school. I will try to quote the relevant info when i dig it up again

Which is the same tired argument history has repeatedly shown to be false. Like I said, people fight over principles. We are not perfectly pragmatic organisms. WW1 and 2 hardly started with a lineup of weakling powers. You also underestimate the human capacity to rebuild. Europe was practically flattened in ww2, yet it was completely rebuilt. Your argument has no basis in human nature or historical precedent, or what continued human practice implys.

The F-22 and F-35 are actually no more expensive than the legacy fighters in general if they were produced in equivalent numbers.

I was briely deployed as i recall. I didnt say it wasnt ever used, just not significantly. Fact is, if you just wanted to bomb terrorists you could hook a TGP to a P-47 and call it a day.

And people would ABSOLUTELY fight over resources. You think Poland mobilized for no reason? Everyone is trying to avert a major conflict in that region but nobody is faffing about either. National sovereignty, resources, and other economic concerns are all at stake. The thing you are forgetting is that human beings fight over ideas and principles and not just pragmatism. I doubt this will turn into anything the way it is going right now, but there were numerous incidents in the Balkans before ww2 that were diplomatically averted until they failed once: and you had a ww1. Diplomacy only has to fail once. WW1 was fought more about ideas, principals, and national pride than anything else. WW2 started over intangibles as well. Had anyone been purely pragmatic, with no moral concerns getting int he way, it would proabably have been economically better for Europe to just let Poland get eaten up by Germany and Russia. This is what you dont get. People fight each other for more than just dollars or oil. We scoff at moral affronts, perceived or otherwise. And thank goodness we do, because I dont want to live in world where we dispense with morality just to keep our checkbooks balanced.

No. Globalization was the primary argument for ww1 and 2 being impossible as well. The stakes are higher now, that is all. Believing otherwise is a wishful fantasy that thinks human beings are so rational or so experienced that they wont repeat the mistakes of the past. Globalization doesn't prevent large wars. It makes them larger. It forces nations to force large coalitions to protect their vested interests. Simply being invested in the same region or interests does not automatically place these nations on the same side. So instead of small wars with small nations, you get gargantuan ones with many on each side. IE: world war. If it makes you feel better to think that we are past killing each other on such a scale, go right ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night. The USSR was reliant on American grain during the cold war, and while they didnt go to war, youd be crazy to think that it wasn't a possibility.

Well for one. No. The F-22 hasn't been used really in anti-terror operations despite being around for the better part of American's two middle eastern asymmetrical wars. Furthermore, the Su-30 etc family is the most likely opponent for F-22's/35s and EF2000's etc. The PAKFA barely exists. The United States is placing a heavy emphasis right now on reversing strategic emphasis to the pacific to combat threats in that region. Threats that field large numbers of Su-30s....China mayhaps? Nah Couldnt be. There is also the recent issue over Ukraine, which while nothing may become of it now, it only goes to show that large scale conventional war is still a very real possibility on the political stage. Several nations mobilized over that little bruhaha, and the USA deployed aircraft there to make a point. Large scale conventional war is not a thing of the past. It WILL happen again. If it wasnt a real possibility you wouldnt see nations shoehorning war plans away for it and placing money and resources into large conventional armies and navies to fight exactly that kind of war. I have a entire books published as recently as 2010 about the threat certain large asian nations fielding large numbers of Gen 4++ flankers are considered to be. Chinese Aerospace Power, Chinese Maritime Strategy, and Chinese Energy Strategy are just a few, and they are all peer reviewed. This modem idea that the only enemies of the future are terrorists is utter non-sense. They said the very same thing before both ww1 and ww2. In Short: The Su-35 or Su-30 are very realistic opponents, especially when you consider that they are exported all over the place.

Yes. But I was ridiculing your logic using hyperbole, not you as a person. It its much better than claiming "lies"

Its called satire. You know full well I wasn't actually implying that.

Well for one, the 48,000lbs thrust F-135 is only slightly more fuel hungry than the -229 in the strike eagle. Given that it clearly has a engine that is quite efficient at both wet and dry powers, and that at combat load it will be carrying everything internally it is almost certainly more fuel efficient. It has a better T/W at comparable fuel load in terms of time. It has a fantastically better T/D ratio considering no external stores and nearly 50k thrust. Pilot accounts of flying by each other confirm this. I have seen F-35 pilots say that during tests the F-35 flew like a clean F-16 with full weapons and that the F-16 had to tap the after burner to keep up with the F-35 at military power. So yeah, Id say its more fuel efficient.

I know, just pointing out another detail that would matter if we start to compare them in depth.

All true, and dont forget its new fly by wire. Many pilots had stated that the avionics of the F-35 allow it to do things that normal aircraft with similar attributes cannot. The F-35s advanced FBW system means the pilot can take it to extremes because the on-board computers ensure absolute maximum use of available resources are used to the limit.

Most definitely. As humming bird has so astutely pointed out, the performance of a plane is directly proportional to how old it is. :smilewink:

Granted. But very likely it is faster than anything that isnt a foxbat. Ive seen test pilots elude to speeds exceeding 1600-1800mph.

No, just hummingbird.

Ok I kinda thought you might be being sarcastic, thats why I asked. Im not very good sometimes at reading peoples inflections in text. :)

Thats why I noted the altitude difference(which would massively effect sustained level flight at high aoa compared to low altitude), or are you being sarcastic. I seriously cant tell man.