Definately has changed a lot since then !! Although I have not seen him on for a bit, Spudman WP is all over this stuff, particulary the block upgrades for weapons and software, Im sure he will update you when he comes by
Spud, you there ?![]()
I don't need to read nothin
For one thing it is a 9G capable aircraft, so the MiG-29 is not "more" maneuverable than the F-35A.
For another, a fighter aircraft armed with AMRAAM and Sidewinder air to air missiles is FAR more than "barely able to defend itself" as all the Yugoslavian and Iraqi MiG-29 pilots who have been splashed by AMRAAM and Sidewinder in REAL air combat between VERY competent and reasonably competent air forces, can attest...
Any aircraft that is capable of turning at 9G is "super-maneuverable" however given you seem to think we are in 1916 judging by your handle and your apparent understanding of what matters in air combat ie: "super-maneuverability" it will undoubtedly be a waste of time pointing out to you that historically the most successful fighter aircraft are those that facilitate the opportunity for a pilot to engage his enemy first.
Once that was done by physically hauling your aircraft around to get into a firing position and the aircraft that could do that quickest or could fire first without having to maneuvre invariably won the engagement.
However technology in the form of sensors, helmet mounted cueing systems and high off-boresite launch capable weapons have been invented and these primarily have resulted in the situation that physical agility is not the be-all of air combat that it once was.
If I can look at you and engage you with a weapon without having to turn at all, what difference does our relative agility make?
Here is a real world demonstration of what I'm talking about. This is what the AIM-9x Sidewinder Block I could do in 2000, 12 years ago when launched from an F/A-18C Hornet, a contemporary of your MIG-29.
AIM-9x SIDEWINDER Trial - YouTube
Your "Super Flanker" doesn't have to be more manueverable than me to win in combat. It has to be more more maneuverable than my missile if I get the first shot away, otherwise you and your Super Flanker will die and everything that is built into the F-35 is designed for exactly that reason.
Low observability, high off-boresite weapons, 360 degree sensor and auto-tracking capability means any agility advantage you possess is irrelevant because your agility and performance doesn't mean squat if you can't evade my missiles.
Fighting an LO aircraft is akin to putting you in a ground environment and asking to you to fight a well trained, well equipped sniper, when he is set up in a hide, ready to take his shot whenever he desires and you are blindfolded, deaf and dumb and have no reliable way to determine if there even is a sniper present, let alone a reliable way to target and engage said sniper before he can reliably engage you.
I don't need to read nothin.
Great video, thanks for posting.
How does ASRAAM compare?
The common consensus seems to be that ASRAAM is a faster missile (faster firing off the rail and higher speed in flight) with a longer range and good sensor and off-boresite capability.
AIM-9X seems to be the more agile missile with a higher off-boresite capability and better sensors, though slower and shorter ranged (as a result of the use of the legacy missile body).
Thanks. The new generation of IR Missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9X, I get the impression from various sources that their range has been extended significantly to "beyond WVR" distances. If true, this makes a VLO platform even more lethal. Probably one of the reasons for the 2-way data link on the Blk 2 Sidewinder?Correct, ASRAAM does not have data links or TVR and must have an idea where to look prior to launch..
Thanks. The new generation of IR Missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9X, I get the impression from various sources that their range has been extended significantly to "beyond WVR" distances. If true, this makes a VLO platform even more lethal. Probably one of the reasons for the 2-way data link on the Blk 2 Sidewinder?
Found a quote from some fast jet pilots that I found interesting:
Grune says that the Raptor's advantage lies in its stealth and ability to dominate air-to-air fights from beyond visual range. That is not disputed by USAF sources.
"Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat," Pfeiffer says. "But once you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in all aspects."
There is the usual willy waving from both sides obviously, and it did not involve the F-35 for obvious reasons, however it did bring home that the way the VLO F-22 is going to be operated, they believe that the traditional fighter furball is going to represent a only very small part of future air to air engagements. Kinda proves what AD, GF, AD, Spudman et al have been saying all along - it's not about instantaneous turn rates and thrust vectoring and zipping along at Mach 2+. It's about exploiting the LO properties of your airframe and the combat system you are connected to to plug the bad guys before they even see you - let alone get to engage you in a dogfight. That's not to say the F-35 will be a total lame duck, just to point out that the concept of how fighter engagements are fought has changed.
3 Aim120 per bay would be really nice. Or 2 Aim120 and an Aim9X B2.
I understand that it will get 6 (from ~2020) however for the fighter with larger internal bays than the F-22 that is going to be many nations only choice it probably should have been planned with a greater loadout from day one..