I agree with Gsholz. Everything I've read hear is wrong compared to what good friends of mine have told me. People who actually fly fighters for a living. One of my best friends growing up is now a 2500 hour Hornet pilot, has graduated from Empire test pilot school, flown the F18, F15E, F16B, the Grippen, as well as a few hours in the Typhoon while at Empire in the UK. He's also flown against the F22, SU27, SU30MKI, and many others in exercises all over the world. I've met other pilots as well, one of whom was a test pilot for the Typhoon, and is now a test pilot on the F35. He has over 4000 hours, much of it in fighters, and a lot of it in combat. Maj. Jason "Fudge" Paquin who I went to school with will be Canada's F35 test pilot, should we end up buying it.
I won't comment on the F35 stuff said here, but the stuff about the Aim120 vs the Flanker variants is right out to lunch from what I've been told firsthand and everything I've read. Ask the pilots who have fired the Aim120 what its PK is - they didn't start calling it the deathstick for no reason.
The Aim120 reaches high velocity in seconds, where as a Flanker variant fighter will usually be under mach 1, and even if it was to "turn away" when it first detects a launch - well, figure on at least 6 or 7 seconds at max G to turn 180 degrees, which will burn a ton of speed, then pushing into burner to accelerate, which even to get to Mach 1.5 ish, which would be pushing it for a Flanker with fuel and weapons stores aboard, will take minutes, not seconds. All the while the Aim120 has been closing at near Mach 4 (or higher, it's classified) speeds. Do the math, the no escape zone is what it is for the Aim120, no flippidy do maneuver will change that. Countermeasures - who knows, most of that stuff is classified. I've sent Gsholz a pic I have from when such countermeasures saved a number of us from my former company when shot at by a Manpads system - whatever the US uses on their helos works. Who knows if what the Russians have on their Flankers and other aircraft will work vs the Aim120. But countermeasures aside, a nose on shot from any missile is pretty bad news from ranges 15nm and closer in terms of being able to escape it through flight maneuvers only. Also, remember that the new Aim120D variant is coming online now, and it has 50% more range than the already extended range Aim120C. The new Amraam will be even more lethal than what's currently out there, which is plenty lethal enough now.
Eagl and Mace often show up in these threads - I'll be interested to hear their responses to some of the things said here, not about the F35, as I can link what both have said about it, and I agree with them, but the stuff about the Amraam - survey says..."EEEEEH".
Even comparing the F35 vs the Flanker - it was never designed to be an air superiority fighter to take on Flanker variants. That's not its job, even though with the still unknown to the public capabilities it may have, it will certainly be able to defend itself in many circumstances. Also, comments about the payload and range etc of the F35 - Gcholz, back me up here with some of the links/etc you've posted before, but from what I've been told and read, the F35 has greater payload and range than the F16 block 52, and when it is combat loaded the same as the F16, it can outperform it in many flight categories and regimes. So, if the F35 is "junk", what does that make the F16? The guys I've talked to who fly the F16 would tell you take anything you like, and I'll whip you in it.
Copied from another thread:
You see, in the real world the F-35A has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than an F-16 carrying a war load. A clean F-16 in "air show mode" has a maximum sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second. The F-35A carrying an A2A war load and full fuel has a sustained turn rate of 17 degrees per second. The F-35 has better acceleration and top speed than the F-16 carrying a war load, and that's with the F-35 carrying 3.5 times more internal fuel than the F-16. The F-16 is actually structurally limited to 4G's if carrying external fuel or bombs.
As for payload the F-35A can carry a total of 18,000 lbs on four internal and six external hardpoints. The F-16 can carry up to 17,000 lbs on nine external hardpoints.
IMO sensor and weapon performance and tech make the capability of a fighter to win a close range gun fight less and less important. The F35 vs a Flanker variant in a gun fight - probably not the best scenario for the F35, but the whole point is avoiding ever getting into such a thing, and let your sensors and weapons do the fighting and turning for you as much as possible now. This just seems the way things are going in terms of capabilities, but don't get me wrong, having an F22 which can do it all, stealth, maneuver, sensors - I believe that is a better way to go, and I still wish the USAF and USA had allowed other allied nations to purchase IT instead of the F35. Countries like mine (Canada) with huge massive airspace to patrol would be far, far better served by the F22 than the F35 which we're stuck with buying.
