What are the sustained turn rates of the mig29, Su27 and J10?

I would say, "YES". I does matter from both a lethality and survivability viewpoint - I'm talking air-to-air here as that will be a very important role for this platform.

The ability to get to high altitude and high speed has a massive effect on energy at launch for, say, AMRAAM. That should be ONE of the big advantages of F35B over the old Harrier/SHAR. Any reduction in that will adversely affect lethality and "first kill".

Sustained g affects the aircraft's ability to evade/defeat incoming air-to-air missiles and SAMs. I'm not talking about close-range stuff here (although that is obviously an issue too, should you choose to go in close and "mix it"), I'm talking about long range f-pol and a-pol manoeuvre, designed to deny or defeat the enemy's firing solution or to defeat the missile at range, soon after launch, kinematically. Unless you really believe that stealth will truly keep you 100% safe.

Spaz - "The service remains committed to the F-35B" means what it says, but what it means does not mean what you think it means.

It means "The F-35B acquisition is current policy and is set above my pay grade."

Because the F-35 is a joint program (and because of its enormous size) neither the Navy nor the AF - not even the CNO/SecNav or the CSAF/SecAF - is authorized to terminate it or cut their orders. Even the decision to constrain B production until jets can be delivered without known mechanical flaws (which stands, the "off probation" brouhaha notwithstanding) had to be taken by the SecDef.

CM - As a JSF team guy told me, "maneuvering is irrelevant". Firstly, because stealth. You will detect, track and close to high-AMRAAM-Pk range of your target without being detected.

If any of your hapless, dumb Gen4TM adversaries do survive, you blow through them while the all-round EO-DAS infrared system tracks them all with sufficient tenacity and consistency to maintain ID and guides HOBS missiles on to them, in lock-on after launch mode if necessary, over a 360 degree engagement zone.

Then bomb your target and home for tea and medals. Simples!

Must have been on the F3 development team before hand then!!!;):E

Ducks and dons helmet....

ah, but if the F3 got a 180 by zip, it could blow through without being engage-able. I'm not sure the F-35 has that turn of speed/acceleration.

If one is going to "run away bravely", it behooves one to be good at it!

No, they are not, by the conventional definition, and neither were the carriers the Soviets used to deploy with using the Forgers.

The Royal Navy used to have cat and trap carriers. The Royal Navy chose not to maintain that capability. The Italians had, or have, Harrier capable carriers. VSTOL carriers certainly have a place in power projection (see Falklands 1982) but also have significant shortcomings as compared to cat and trap carriers. You get a fast jet capability, but it is modest.

The French Navy still has cat and trap carriers. (Or are they back ton 1). It is certainly an expensive capability to maintain.

When's the last time any LHA or LHD deployed with 20-25 Harriers on board? :confused:

'LO' - so in other words the F-35B is safe then.

Not a simple number I fear.

The answer will depend on weight, config, power, height and IMN/IAS. The number may be surprisingly small if all the conditions really are sustained.

I remember Victor Pugachev arrving at Paris in 1989 in a clean Su27 and doing a prolonged yank through 360 deg in the circuit in a tad under 10 secs which had a few people stupified. But I am sure it was not sustained.

Given that for good truly sustained g you need to have a modest induced drag (comes with a high aspect ratio) plus all the poke you can muster then I would guess that the order of merit for the aircraft you mention is likely to be 27, 29, 10.

Which begs the question, why build a fighter jet to begin with?

Spaz - The F-35B is safe from Bob Work because (1) he never had the juice to kill it and (2) he's on his way out.

Whether the Marines' lobbying machine can keep it safe from budget realities, its own costs and Obama/Hagel remains to be seen.

LW50 - I would be kinder to the QEs than that. They are at least designed to deploy an air wing capable of providing multiple air warfare missions (CAP, strike, CAS, AEW, ISR) to a task force.

LO:

ISR Yes
CAP Yes
Strike Yes
CAS Yes
AEW Really? What has really changed?

My standard for AEW capability is the E-2. I note that the French decided to go that route as well.
I am open to considering that capability in other forms that are Vertical lift or VSTOL. Various Helicopters have the kit to do some AEW, certainly. Heck, I used to provide a modest AEW capability for the cruisers and destroyers I deployed on with an SH-60B. The APS-124 and the associated data link could provide some air to air picture extension to organic ship sensors, though I don't know if some of the software and processing upgrades we suggested in the early 90's to improve on that were adapted in the R.

The SKASaC seems to have a pretty good radar and control suite, if platform-limited.

Not an E-2 by any means, but much better than nothing against an ASCM threat.

Nice piece of kit. :ok:

MTI very handy upgrade.

Hmmm,

Lots of interesting points and questions.

F-3 chaps. I hear your blow through argument. It is (was) all well and good if you don't (didn't) suck up a weapon in the face just prior to it and the other guy's turn and stern WEZ don't (didn't) come and get you afterwards.

F-35 types. I like the notion of not being seen - but can you really not be seen by anything? Because if you can someone can launch at you. And given the length of time this programme is taking we are giving the opposition enough time to develop things as out landish as fighters launching on link tracks provided by surveillance or even IR sensors...ground, air or space based.

So whilst you can probably rely upon beating a Fulcrum who is using the I and J band to try to find you - are we really convinced that those exploiting other parts of the EM spectrum will have the same issues?

Courtney - whilst I completely agree with your BVR thinking it seems a shame to spend so much on this aeroplane, and in particular making it LO and then operating it in a legacy mindset which will (think tropopause;)) result in every man and his dog being able to see the thing.

Turn performance you say. Give me 9X and a Joint Helmet and I won't even bother looking in the tactics manual for what your figures are!

If you don't understand your own energy management and that of your opponent then you are going to get hurt. Shooting a missile off boresight does nothing for its energy. If your opponent is more careful with his energy you are looking at the silver medal position.

Detecting an F35 is not hard - lots of nations have been able to do that for decades. Tracking and hitting it is more tricky but the EM spectrum is quite large and we forced the market to look 'above and below' the typical modern threat band quite some time ago. We shall see what the adversaries come up with but the F35 delays have given them quite a head start!

In traditional BFM with low off boresight weapons - I agree. With the modern stuff I'm not sure I do.

It seems AEW for vertical take-off has been on the wish list for time.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e6...scan0002-1.jpg

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.*****...riers.html?m=1

Now that's a joke. No downward coverage due to the fuselage, none forward due to the blades, limited to the rear due to the tail. Best coverage would be when on the deck - in which case eliminate the airframe.....

a sensible option would be the Vigilance pods/configuration proposed.

Then there's the issue of the F-35 only being equipped with the the MADL, which is a directional Ku band formation link (multiple aerials, point to point). So the platform also has to have a MADL/MIDS/L16 translator and aerials...

I am looking for a job by the way.....

Guys,

Perhaps I can help here.

The 'V-22/Invincible' picture shown here dates from the 80s, when BAe were teamed with Bell/Boeing to push the V-22 for maritime use. I recognise this as a very early 'marketing' picture. IIRC the radome was supposed to elevate as per the E-2, so as to reduce 'wooding'. The 'Vigilance' pod solution was many years away then.

Hope this helps

Engines