Sounds like you've got the F-35 mixed up with something else. Might want to pull your head out.Originally Posted by mikoyan.1991
achive air superiority an aircraft with turn rate worse than f-4.it was a strike plane than was given air super.mission
if Vietnam got the cash, why not, they operate flankers already (some of them look really dated by now), so PAK FA makes the logical choice for future replacement
PAK FA is seriously geared towards foreign sales, especially with current Flankers operators with booming economy like India, Vietnam, Indonesia
i know f-35 has air superiority capability,mostly BVR.in WVR is not good coz its manueverly is really bad.
according to USAF f-22 would be an air superiority fighter which duty was clear the skies (it has also some ground attach capability),while f-35 would be cheaper stealth multirole in f-16 role.
Do you have any evidence of this? Any at all? No? Then STFU about it already.
we are making constructive debate here no one was insulting u,so u mo***fuc*** shut up.i see your knowledge about aviation u piece of sh*t
Where's your "constructive debate"? Show us some evidence to back your claim. Oh, that's right, you can't because you don't have any.
i dont have time to argue with u.i can understand just when u said that f-35 is a manuveuer fighter,in fact is a flying whale
Looks like I've encountered a fanboy. Welcome to the ignore feature.
Go and sleep kid.your avatar is telling me i am arguing with a kid.
Bahahahaha! Sorry....bahhahaha! Also have a nice time on the forums while you still can
As an example the F-35 has a worse thrust/weight ratio then the F-22, F-16, F-15, Mig-29, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen. While far from being an exhaustive examination of maneuverability it's certainly indicative that it's at best en-par with 4th generation aircraft.
What load out and engine thrust are you using to determine T:W? According to test pilots its maneuverability is equal to or greater than the F-16 and F/A-18, neither one of which is exactly a slouch.
Full load out with full fuel. Naturally if you have neither of these you're going to get a lighter more maneuverable craft. Link Link With 50% fuel things get better of course but I don't really see this as indicative since that's something all aircraft can do. What the test pilots may have been referring to is turn rate which is harder to track down as a figure otherwise I'd have been happy to compare that.
P&W themselves have said the engine has run at over 50,000lbs thrust. Also, are you including the additional drag that weapons, tanks, etc. add to conventional fighters, as well as the load limitations of those items?
In general, higher wing loading ~=> lower maneuverability (all other things being equal).
PAKFA = 329,95 kg/m^2
F-15 = 357,52 kg/m^2
F-22 = 375,45 kg/m^2
Su-27 = 377,90 kg/m^2
Mig-29 = 402,63 kg/m^2
F-16 = 430,57 kg/m^2
F/A-18 = 438,68 kg/m^2
F-14 = 509,54 kg/m^2
F-35 = 526,23 kg/m^2
PS: Please no flaming about lift-to-drag, etc. I am generalizing. But it's a pretty valid generalization to make with regard to F-35's maneuverability relative to other aircraft.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
