KenV,
>
Few weeks ago in a Flight Global
piece by Dave Majumdar, Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 had claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the
Eurofighter Typhoon and the
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
>
http://theaviationist.com/2013/03/07/f-35-visibility/
The F-35 rides body lift off the forward fuselage which, like the F-22, allows the jet to push the wing as far back as possible to maintain an aspect ratio compatible with transonic acceleration.
Just punching the Mach will give you a +20% F-Pole advantage in terms of range for time of flight.
However; in maneuvering flight you end up having a 'two airfoil airplane'. One forward whose AOA rises with the nose at one index angle and the other aft, which rises as the much higher, shoulder mounted, wing does.
What this means is that as the lifting body is running out of juice the wings take on more and more of the pitch rate + lift sustainment to keep the aircraft moving around the turn.
There is some help here in that the large vortices which wash aft from the corner 'horns' of the inlets help keep the wing lifting but, unlike the F-16 for instance, there is no reflex moment as the LEF/TEF move to 2` up and the stabilator moves back down to form it's own lift component so that the aircraft pulls rather than pushes (down, as tail force) around the turn.
The tails have to pull more and more lift as the lift from the fuselage runs out and this puts both greater down force on the wing and robs them (the stabs) of tail down moment sufficient to stabilize the nose point.
As a result, to keep the jet 'carefree' in it's zero-departure handling characteristics, it _must_ start to rob the tails of further pitch authority which is where you hear the Test Pilot complain that the jet doesn't have enough pitch rate in the 'transitional' 20-26 AOA range, even though it is supposedly stable to well in excess of 60` alpha, just like a Hornet.
If you can't use the absolute alpha point for guns because the rate of nose pitch is too slow and if that same rate issue prevents the sudden out-of-plane maneuvering that allows the jet to deflect and defeat equivalent gun/missile shots; it is not a capable Air Combat Platform.
Now, we all know that the JSF is shy of A2A weapons in comparison with the F-22 and that the F-35B in particular is also unable to load a BRU-61 with GBU-53 onboard due to wiring difficulties in the shorter bay. Finally, we know that the a is 8 seconds, the B is 16 seconds and the C is 43 seconds off predicted acceleration. Indicating a lot of lift at drag issues on what it likely a much heavier jet than the program wants to admit.
Without adequate shot count (CUDA) and without standoff (Meteor or T-3) weapons and with poor acceleration robbing it of that 20% F-Pole boost, the F-35 _will_ be brought to the merge because it can't fire enough, from far enough, to run away from it.
Now add to this the reality of a very poor pitch rate with _empty_ weapons bays and recall that the F/A-18E/F, the only other in-production fighter we can turn to if the JSF turns out to be a failure, ALSO failed it's KPP in OPEVAL with suboptimal alpha rates, loaded roll, pitch down and acceleration from a loaded state.
The F-35 is not simply across-the-board closer to a Corsair II than an F-16 as Bill Flynn stated but it is so in an arena where, for the Navy and Marines, there are no alternative choices, particularly in a high radar threat GBAD environment where the F-35 would normally be operating alone anyway.
I would like to bring up another set of points which I believe are relevant to your statement about the jet being a world class strike fighter.
As a function of shock tactics and agit prop defense, the JPO recently ALSO stated (as a direct contradiction of prior statements) that the F-35 has superior front quarter signatures to the F-22.
A. If they lied about performance, how do we know they aren't lying about signature values?
B. If the signature values are truly -50dbsm, -25dbms, -20dbsm for front quarter, beam and rear aspect signatures what happens when you try to bring a 12.5nm ranged GBU-31 or 32 into a target terminal area where the threats popup BEHIND THE JET???
Increasingly, you don't design a stealth jet as a standalone item and then slap on already fielded munitions as though the signature values alone are all the matter.
First, because a dumb bomb with a rough-cast casing is going to be a valid transonic target in it's own right. Second, because if you hit the target, you don't need even the 500lbs of a PWIV or GBU-12. And third because stealth enables standoff as a function of BOTH kinematic performance and sensor graze angles. Getting close to a target is violating the 'no see'em too good' understanding that Stealth needs to hide behind a wall of jamming and that jamming is more effective if the jet itself doesn't have to approach any closer than 25-30nm BRL for GBU-39/53. If F-35 could carry the SDB and if the SDB was cleared into service as part of the initial weapons load. It can't and the munition isn't.
With all these defaults in performance, the F-35 is neither a capable air superiority platform nor a capable strike fighter. It will be seen. It will be shot. And it lacks the energy performance to either improve it's F-Pole or runaway from threat counterfire. It even lacks an internal DRFM jammer or DIRCM (the latter of which was promised) to help defeat missiles already inbound.
This is why Bill Flynn was scoffed at by both RAF Typhoon and USAF Raptor pilots in making his superior kinematics claims. And it's starting to look like he was indeed talking from the rear as it were. Unless the F-35 has an AGrav generator or a really effective HPM mode in it's radar, all three of our services are in deep deep trouble as far as this aircraft replacing the entire fleet of Gen-4 types without being an operationally suitable, functionally well integrated, weapons system.