....what attributes would you like to see in such an aircraft besides your favouring twin engines? If you were in charge would you buy the F-35 (without being forced for lack of alternative, obviously)? All of the US carriers now and projected still have the catapult and arrestor cable features, correct?
My example I gave about airframe vs missiles turning was, as I said, extreme. The reality is that you have to look at some kind of balance and that's the real question, do you favor maneuverability or weapon system?
A fighter that can't turn will be a failure and, while a missile may be able to maneuver enough to shoot over your shoulder, shots on targets behind you will still be harder than those in front if only due to the energy expended by the missile just to turn the initial 180 degrees. Fighters will still need to turn well to defeat enemy missiles fired at them, to enhance the probability that their own missile will kill, to maneuver into the proper position for an air-to-ground weapon delivery, or as a last ditch option when out of missiles or for that inevitable "unobserved entry" of an adversary. For CAS, the larger your turn radius, the harder it is to keep a target in sight.
So, how much maneuverability is enough? Well, with the exception of post stall maneuvers, manned aircraft are pretty darn close to the edge of the performance envelope that a man can survive. It's not like AH where you can sit there turning high G turns forever, G's are exhausting and there's only so much a man can do. You can build an airplane that can turn 40 degrees per second (missiles will do this already) but can a man survive the G's? Nope. On the other side of the maneuvering spectrum much is made about post-stall maneuvering, cobra maneuvers, and the like but what is the real tactical utility of slow speed maneuvers like this?
During every turn around training cycle we participated in the Fleet Fighter ACM Readiness Program (FFARP) which was about a month strictly focused on air-to-air combat. On the last FFARP I participated in the sections and divisions I led scored an 18 to 1 kill ratio and that was because
I never let any of my guys drop anchor to turn with an adversary. We detected, sorted, and fired missiles in the face and then blew through to the next group leaving any survivors wondering what happened. Our best single sortie kill ratio was a strike escort as a 2-plane. My wingman and I killed all eight bandits. We never turned more than 45 degrees to engage an enemy so, who cares that the F-16N's we were fighting could out turn us? I lost one wingman the entire FFARP. My normal wingman was sick so I had a guy from another division with me and, surprise surprise, he dropped anchor at the very first merge and was nailed before I could turn around to help. So, personally, I think that post-stall maneuvering is a bunch of hooey. I've always said let some adversary slow down enough to do one of his fancy post-stall maneuvers and I'd just pop him with an AIM-9 and move on. Remember that scene out of Indiana Jones where the bad guy whips out a sword and does about 10 seconds of really really scary moves with it and Indiana just pulls out a pistol and shoots him? That's what I'm talking about.
So, those guys that think that the F-35 is overly compromised because it doesn't have twice the F-16's turn rate or thrust vectoring may want to rethink that. I don't know if they've achieved the right balance between aircraft vs weapon system capability but then none of us have access to the plane's true weapon system capabilities. There are reasons such things are classified.
But, to answer your question, "would I buy the F-35 or another plane?" If there were a similar airplane that had two engines I'd go with the two engines but there isn't. I know that this plane competed with Boeing's plane and this one won so it's not like the military put all of its marbles in one sock from the start. I have to admit I'm darned glad that Boeing didn't win, its plane was hidious and everyone knows, a good looking airplane is a better airplane (same theory applies to a newly washed car, it always drives better when clean). Would I want a plane that's faster? Turns better? Carries more? Goes farther? Is invisible? Sure I'd want that AND dozens of missiles that can kill anything within a 10 miles radius of me but somewhere reality has to be considered. Actually, my biggest concern about the plane is its speed and acceleration. "Speed is life" has always been a fighter maxim and it concerns me that the plane appears to be slower with less acceleration than originally intended. On the other hand, engine improvements are always happening and the airplane can be easily re-engined with more capable engines in the future so that's not a killer for me. Overall, from what I know about the F-35 and accepting that none of us know the true capabilities of the weapon system I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say yes, I think I'd be comfortable with it.
