Then perhaps you should place more weigh on LM and the US DoD before Aviationleak or some Australian civilian outfits.
Perhaps.. not. Why should I? Althought LM has delivered way more than what it promised (I have some experience with that) when it came to the F-16 development, It is still a company that placed a lot on the future of the JSF design.
The half-fuel load figure is significant. If two fighters have similar turn characteristics but one has superior fuel load, that one will be able to sustain the fight longer, increase the odds of being able to compel his opponent into fighting under his own rules, to exit and re-enter the fight at will. Like it or not, fuel is life. Regarding g-turn rate -- it is about thrust, the ability of the flight control system to exploit aerodynamic forces created by that thrust, specifically to changes in direction, and the load that those forces must carry throughout the maneuver.
Gambit, I believe you are partly correct, but wrong in an important way. The greater fuel load can in cases provide a pilot with a (great) advantage. But G-turn rate and wing loading is crucial. I am sorry.
The very design decisions of the JSF show this, the F22 is superbly designed for supersonic agility,the JSF throws away supersonic performance to maximise subsonic cruise efficiency (which explains the larger fuel load decision) - classical bomber optimisation rather than air combat optimisation.
The JSF cannot match the turn rates and loading of other combat planes. Period. It has great thrust yes. And larger fuel load yes. And Besides, when I was talking about the "inferior" charac/cs of the JSF, I mostly said, it will have a problem dodging enemy fire. More over
it seems it is not ablt to match the supersonic performance needed for chasing down supersonic opponents like the Su-27/30, F-16/18,Rafale and EF2000 or supersonic cruise missiles, or supersonic cruise missile launch platforms like (potentially) the SU -34.
Again, this is important for countries denied access to the F-22.
More over in engagements,as the JSF will be twisting and turning to avoid fire, it'll expose itself even more for more shots (as all planes do) but cruicialy now, it does not have the agility of say an F-16 or and EF2000 to do so..
Granted, it'll be able to attempt dodgings for longer as it carries more fuel, but I see an inherent risk there. Again especially for countries that only field F-35s. Besides some countries have layered ground defences and a vast area. (India and Pakistan/ china come into mind)
The F-35 may be able to hold its own against F16s and 18s, (of some revision and under certain conditions) but I am not so sure about higher performance aircraft.
Damages to the F-35's public perceptions was in part abeted by those eager to take cheap opportunistic potshots at the US in any possible avenue without bothering to verify their sources, most importantly the technical ones. Above the core philosophy of having low radar reflectivity is the one that say we are reluctant to engage in any conflict, strategic or tactical, that will result in a high casualty and attrition rate. This has been the ideal for any military -- kill as many of the enemy as possible at as few as possible the cost to one's own. But if we must engage in any conflict, we should exploit as much of our technological prowess as possible to minimize that casualty and attrition figure.
I told you before, I don't take potshots at the US. I am sure the F-35 / F-22 pair makes excellent sense to the US strategic/tactical thinking. I am not arguing that.
I am saying that if you strip the F-35 away from the US modus opperandi, (export market) then things are different.
The difference here is that I have established fighters to prove my point, whereas you are asking the readership to impute whatever capabilities they want, preferably yours, into the PAK-FA. Your argument consists mainly of 'if' and 'could' and 'potential'. All based upon a take-off, go-around and land flight barely one hour long.
It's not like that at all.I'm sorry. Your argument is flawed for a number of reasons but at the top is the fact that the T-50 is not operational yet. No matter what I say or you say, it could end up being the best fighter plane so far, or another paper exercise.. that has nothing to do with this discussion. And this discussion is about what a successful PAK-FA design that meets the design requirements as set will bring to the table. Why can you not see that ? Strange.
Air dominance = The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to reassess their tactical positions, usually at their expense and into inferior positions, over contested grounds.
Air superiority = The ability of an air force to achieve total airspace control over contested grounds, leave, return and achieve the same goal. Do so consistently. If there are any losses, said losses will not be in sufficient numbers to adversely affect said ability.........
Yes.. and a number of NATO/Allied countries that were denied / couldn't afford the F-15 built their operational requirements on the F-16 with confidence and certainty (proved by exercises and simulations over the years) it can achieve air superiority on the battlespace. You cannot deny that. I don't think the F-35 even if trusted to do so, will make it, for all the reasons mentioned by either side before.
How can anyone incorporate that into the training regiment without actually firing live missiles at live targets, aka pilots, to assess the hardware-human coordination?......
You know very well the exercise range instrumentation is quite capable to factor in missile flight characteristics and reliability. It has consistantly done so when simulating russian missiles.
Well, don't you see a problem with that ?Why should I not be?
I have nearly 20yrs in defense related experience, particularly avionics, from military active duty to civilian life in weapons testings and development, including Soviet avionics. I have seen avionics so badly assembled that even a drunken American FAA inspector blotto-ed out of his wits would not pass. Our testings indicated inconsistent across the board performance, from being greater than %90 of claims (excellent) to barely functional. I heard plenty of horror stories on how we found the conditions of Soviet NBC repositories and equipments. Russian aviation is barely more than a shadow of its Soviet self. I see no reasons to place great credibility on the many claims out there regarding the PAK-FA.
I am sorry, I am not convinced. You don't act it or look it or sound it, I you are talking about yourself that is and I understood correctly.
I have worked with military hardware of both US and USSR origins,
and german and French. This information alone would suffice for such an educated man as yourself to figure out where and how that was.
I remember examining an SU-27 as to my usuall F-16 blk 30/M2000, I have actually used the tracking systems of an S-300. And Tor M1 and Patriot. I have great respect for what the russians can do and how.
And pardon my saying so, but if the US had so little respect for russian made planes, they would have never come up with the F-22. Simplistic but true.
I do not idolize anything russian made, but neither do I anything US made. .