You shouldn't follow nonsense blogs. You might want to google it, but the aesa radar for the f-16 actually saves money on maintenance, over its time and pays for itself

Oh, let's not get there. You didn't give any factual basis for anything you said, so let's keep it civil.

You can. IF you are short enough and your head is far enough from the canopy to be able to actually move that helmet in that cockpit. One of the pilots complained that he could not use all those wonderful systems because he simply couldn't turn his head.

I think they did that even when the helmet wasn't operational. As a matter of fact they made NINETEEN vertical landings on USS Wasp AT SEA without that Nintendo gadget.

Well, back then the loss of "only" 10% of a passenger plane issue made a good safety record. We now expect a bit more from our planes, don't we? And losing a plane two weeks after the first Japanese squadron was declared operational is a bit 1970-ish, don't ya think?

Really? What exactly is the difference? The result is still a "BOOM!".

In your own words, explain that to the family of the Japanese pilot who has likely lost his life in that plane.

If you told me that, I would remind you that it is only true for the USAF planes. For the export ones, it's more like the same as F-16 and maybe a bit larger. And the "Level 1 partners" paid a lot of money for that program BEFORE they knew that. And quite a few air forces around the world have either dropped the plane completely or reduced the orders by A LOT.

As far as I know, ALL military planes have those, even the Tu-95. Because civilian ATC don't use primary radars but rather get the information from those transponders.

Would you be so kind as to point me to the right quote? The "opposing pilots" is who? Chinese? Russian? North Korean? I'd love to see what they say about the beast. :)

OH, WOW! It banks almost as much as an A340!!! And gains altitude almost as fast! When the afterburner is on. COOL!
And now, this:

Check out the 2:25 mark and WEEP! :{ If you show that video to F-35, it won't stop running until its only engine stalls.

A lot of words, Propax. I'll only correct your first point, re the f-16 pilot and seeing behind. You may find that the wide seat headrest, in an early block without EODS, that restricted his view. Let me know when they put mirrors on the Bow, like other aircraft :O

It was a nice video though. I'm unable to do an EM chart from a video, so I'll leave it to those that can. I'm not that good on flight departure and recovery. The SU does kinetic energy stunts well, as you pointed out at 2:25. One of the test pilots commented on the SU and it's airshow and how the f-35 wasn't designed for show. Perhaps it was sour grapes, perhaps not. I find both put on a good display.

Though both wouldn't like an IR missile at them, while doing their air show maneuvers. It's not that entertaining to have the announcer say that a f-35 is in the area and took out aircraft, but you can't see it.



talking about a kinetic display

Propax
 

I may be wrong but I always thought that those "stunts" are the missile evasion maneuvers. Correct me if I'm wrong. The missile can't maneuver fast enough to catch such a target.

Two things that don't impress me. One, it's a corporate marketing video with a lot of clever editing. And two, they're doing that at what looks like 5,000-6,000 meters altitude. And they are losing A LOT of it.

No offense, but talk is cheap. I'm sure Su-35's designer can talk a lot about his creation.

And you know the answer to that question? I don't. On paper and video F-35 looks like an inferior plane. Single-engine design is less reliable in combat that a double-engine. Su-35S is more agile allowing it to evade oncoming missiles. Its electronic suite is unknown. The rest is in the numerous comments sections on numerous websites.
PS For everyone else's info, I don't want to start or join an argument about which plane is better. With so little reliable information it's just silly. I'd much rather prefer a sensible discussion without any symptoms of fanboyism. Yes, I do have my opinions and I'd like to have them tested by counter-arguments. But no, I don't think any plane is inherently "better" than any other.

That comment alone confirms what we've thought since you started posting. You know absolutely nothing about the subject.

Propax, Proximity fuse, but we are getting way off topic for this thread now. I would encourage you to start a SU-35 thread.

Or if a MOD could move them please?

So maybe, just maybe...
 

You are very wrong. Do that in the air to counter a missile and you will die. The Flanker might be swopping ends and rolling very quickly, but it does so at a very slow speed while moving along the same path. Combine that with its enormous size, and its big hot engines, I would say that even an oldschool AIM-9 M/L type of missile would easily hit it.

By the way, and even further of topic, did you alp monkeys drop the Gripen NG so you could have a new fighter competition and select the F-35 like the rest of us? Those hornets can't fly on forever you know....

That idea gets trotted out on Pprune regularly over the years. But it's unenforceable. In any case the fantasists generally give themselves away. Like our friend above, by making daft statements which even a non military pilot like me knows is BS.

In any case he'll soon head back to YouTube or wherever he's gleaning his limited knowledge.
​​

Salute!
One of the misconceptions the armchair pilots have is that a quick turn without a large turn radius is a good thing for defense. It is not.

As pointed out above,, if I am the pursuing jet and do not have enough room for a missile to arm, then the jet performing the "cobra" or whatever you call it becomes a strafing panel in the sky. Otherwise, most of us would let the bandit try to get some smash to get away but I have gone vertical to get arming time for my missile (the IR seeker type). Nice rudder turn as you see in the F-35 airshow videos. Then good tone on mt Lima or "X" and off it goes,
Gums...

I always thought the whole point of "stealth" was to avoid being anywhere near the need to get into a dog-fight......... to compare the F-35 (and I'm not a big fan) with the Su35 is a very bad case of apples and...... just about any fruit you care to mention

Yo gums!

About the only useful purpose I can think of for the Russian jet's manoeuvre would be if it could assist nose-pointing to achieve a rather last ditch firing solution from the defensive. Otherwise - just so much snake bait as you describe!

I wonder what an old school PD / AIM-7E III would make of the Su-35's tumbling gyrations?

Whereas the Su-35 can be traced to the Sukhoi T10 of 1977...

Apart from the fact that China, Russia, the US, France, the UK and Japan are all looking at a future manned/unmanned mix. The only UAV to try launching missiles in combat against another aircraft was shot down. The work of Colin Willis (who will be known to many on here) based on his PhD thesis is instructive in terms of the potential and limitations of unmanned platforms in air combat (although as it's published by an academic press, it may well be as unaffordable as it is instructive).


One of the key reasons that the F-22 didn't participate in operations over Yugoslavia might be that the Dayton Accords were signed ten years before the first F-22 entered front line service, while Allied Force ended more than five years before that occurred. The part of the Iraq war where the F-22's capabilities against air defences might have been hugely useful took place two years before the 1st FW became operational. And as the Iraqi AF didn't fly, it's a moot point.

The F-22 has been used over Syria, as googling 'F-22 Syria' will illustrate.

This prediction will require some 180-200 airframes to be dismantled for spares for it to be realised.

Salute!

Yeah, BEagle..... the high AoA stuff is more for nose-pointing when offensive, and the F-35 as well as the F-22 demo routines show that as much as their great vertical capabilities.

As far as the Sparrow goes, the later ones were pretty good compared to ones my buddies used in 'nam. I feel the Skyflash verion would have done well in 1991, and not sure if the Tornado carried any on their missions.The local fighter wing at Eglin used to have a sign attached to their official one.at the gate. They had done very well in the Storm using the "M" model, and their humble sign stated "Largest distributor of Mig parts in Southwest Asia".

Gums sends...

I do think that the American habit of labelling anything small and tactical a 'fighter' has been to the detriment of the F35, in terms of it's media image. I suspect we will see far more of them dropping bombs than carrying out A2A

Salute!

You are correct, Dave.
They should have labeled the F-35 as "A" for attack. About 30 years ago we started to use "F/A" for planes like the Hornet. But I really do not see any rationale to call the F-35 a fighter. And it will primarily be used in the attack role and prolly carry one Slammer for A2A, or maybe have all bombs and such while a wingman has two Slammers or Aim-9X.
The F-16.net forums on the F-35 are an excellent source of accurate info as well as opinions that many of us express.
I have only had two close up tours of the beast and talked with a few pilots. Being at the training base, I can watch them in the pattern and such, but have not seen a demo, as I think that is done by a Luke AFB pilot, and he did one helluva demo at Melbourne a week or so back to please the Aussies.

Gums sends..

gums, neither the Tornado GR1 nor GR1A carried semi-active AAMs in Desert Storm. Just 9 lima. Whereas the RAF Tornado F3 carried Skyflash and 9L - but their only action was chasing Iraqi Mirage F1s in the early days of the war. The Iraqis bugged out at high Mach and couldn't be caught....