F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[jack412]

This isn't the first time they have cut LRIP numbers to put that money back into SDD and I think over-costs.
On another note, I'm amazed at the carry on over the block 1a training report, all the hand wringing about visual because the eo-das isn't running in that block.

 

[gf0012-aust]

On another note, I'm amazed at the carry on over the block 1a training report, all the hand wringing about visual because the eo-das isn't running in that block.

A bit of advice as once given to me

Some of these people have created and presented an image on the internet of complete obstruction from day 1, and they are now in the position that if they change their stance they will lose credibility (they've already lost professional credibility amongst those who count), so they will continue to scream and carry on because they're publicly invested in that approach

JSF is not without criticism, more to the point, the delivery model was one that would be subject to some "lessons learnt" sessions, - that however exists in all programs and is to be expected in one where the delivery and development model was changed completely - Virginias, Osprey, LCS have and or going through the same hostility and frantic commentary

But, and this is a big BUT, those who work with and see the meaningful data on all of these assets recognise the strengths outweigh the initial development negatives. JSF is one of those programs where the long view and the overarching changes to system warfare as opposed to platform focused hysteria makes the usual hysterial doom and gloom look a tad silly and tiresome

as soon as you see people arguing about platform performance churning/turning/burning, etc.... then thats a pretty good alarm point that they just don't get how the conops have changed - everyone is undergoing their own RMA;s because they recognise that those days have gone

eg some of the more vociferous kids may continue to get excited, but everyone on the red teams (as in their Govts and militaries) just inconveniently for them are also changing to very very similar constructs.

you aren't going to get traction in debate with the fundamentalists, they'll be wringing their hands in 20 years. There's no shortage of timewarped and locked wheelers, speys, riccionis and the less "gifted ones" we already know about...

Air Forces, Militaries, Govts don't form and conduct force planning and development based on hysterical internet chatter /grin

 

[arrow canada]

Pentagon: F-35 won't have a chance in real combat

JSF is not without criticism, more to the point, the delivery model was one that would be subject to some "lessons learnt" sessions, - that however exists in all programs and is to be expected in one where the delivery and development model was changed completely - Virginias, Osprey, LCS have and or going through the same hostility and frantic commentary

This was supposed to be a low cost fighter / utility aircraft that could perform multiple roles, essentially the equivalent of F16 / F18, the low part of the airforce (while the F22 was the "high" bit). The program is an utter failure, the aircraft is projected to be far more expensive to fly and maintain than existing aircraft, and worse, has been plagued with one problem after another. It is at the point now, where pilots are dreading being assigned one of these "production" models:

"In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane’s lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft’s fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.

The Pilot Vehicle Interface, or PVI, is also listed as not up to snuff. Documented deficiencies regarding the F-35 pilot’s helmet-mounted display and other aspects of the PVI are named, and the result could mean grave consequences.

“There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely,” the report reads."

At some point even the cheerleaders see a dog for being a dog. Even if the program survives sequester (a big if), it makes more sense to buy cheaper to maintain and fly planes for today's threats - it will be a while before the PAK FA is in the air, and even when it is, the Raptors already in service will be more than sufficient to outmatch it.

 

[the road runner]

The program is an utter failure, the aircraft is projected to be far more expensive to fly and maintain than existing aircraft, and worse, has been plagued with one problem after another. It is at the point now, where pilots are dreading being assigned one of these "production" models:

Mate,sorry to be rude but that is just utter rubbish,try and read this thread and you never know ,you might learn something other than the dribble you read in the paper.

"In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane’s lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft’s fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.

Seems like a silly statement to me...
EODAS is situational awareness on steroids.

At some point even the cheerleaders see a dog for being a dog. Even if the program survives sequester (a big if), it makes more sense to buy cheaper to maintain and fly planes for today's threats - it will be a while before the PAK FA is in the air, and even when it is, the Raptors already in service will be more than sufficient to outmatch it.

So you buy cheaper but you agree the Raptor is the plane for the job?
You should read this whole thread ,people get pretty sick of new comers ,preaching to defence professionals ,i am sure gf will be around to set you straight,after all he dose this stuff as his profession.

 

[Todjaeger]

This was supposed to be a low cost fighter / utility aircraft that could perform multiple roles, essentially the equivalent of F16 / F18, the low part of the airforce (while the F22 was the "high" bit). The program is an utter failure, the aircraft is projected to be far more expensive to fly and maintain than existing aircraft, and worse, has been plagued with one problem after another. It is at the point now, where pilots are dreading being assigned one of these "production" models:

"In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane’s lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft’s fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.

The Pilot Vehicle Interface, or PVI, is also listed as not up to snuff. Documented deficiencies regarding the F-35 pilot’s helmet-mounted display and other aspects of the PVI are named, and the result could mean grave consequences.

“There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely,” the report reads."

At some point even the cheerleaders see a dog for being a dog. Even if the program survives sequester (a big if), it makes more sense to buy cheaper to maintain and fly planes for today's threats - it will be a while before the PAK FA is in the air, and even when it is, the Raptors already in service will be more than sufficient to outmatch it.

Did a quick search for the post title. So far, came across a number of different websites talking about that headline, from a supposedly leaked Pentagon report. Not seeing anything yet from the Pentagon, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, or any of the main US new sources or any of the main defence news sources. At this point, it almost seems like different sites are quoting each other, or from a few Russian news outlets.

Keep in mine the old phrase caveat emptor, though in this case it should be "let the reader beware..."

I would wait and see if something like the Washington Post, NY Times, DID, AW&ST, Janes or similar picks up the story. At present, since none of them have, it seems either none of their reporters have seen the 'leaked memo' or been able to verify the authenticity of the contents, or the memo itself might not be legitimate.

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

This was supposed to be a low cost fighter / utility aircraft that could perform multiple roles, essentially the equivalent of F16 / F18, the low part of the airforce (while the F22 was the "high" bit). The program is an utter failure, the aircraft is projected to be far more expensive to fly and maintain than existing aircraft, and worse, has been plagued with one problem after another. It is at the point now, where pilots are dreading being assigned one of these "production" models:

"In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane’s lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft’s fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.

The Pilot Vehicle Interface, or PVI, is also listed as not up to snuff. Documented deficiencies regarding the F-35 pilot’s helmet-mounted display and other aspects of the PVI are named, and the result could mean grave consequences.

“There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely,” the report reads."

At some point even the cheerleaders see a dog for being a dog. Even if the program survives sequester (a big if), it makes more sense to buy cheaper to maintain and fly planes for today's threats - it will be a while before the PAK FA is in the air, and even when it is, the Raptors already in service will be more than sufficient to outmatch it.

Hello Arrow, just out of curiosity, have you read any of the previous posts, including the one you quoted?

If so, may I ask how you can describe this program as a failure and somehow determine that it is a dog. You seem to have completely missed the point that it is not about platform vs platform but rather system of systems vs systems of systems. i.e. the F-35 can survive and achieve its mission where even the most advanced and upgraded existing 4th and 4.5 generation air combat aircraft will fail.

New build 4th gen fighters are not cheap, enablers that permit the formation of (maybe survivable) strike packages are not cheap, combat losses are not cheap. Why would you invest the same or more treasure in yesterdays superseded tech when todays is available?

Why would you spend as much or more on a capability that will need to be replaced within two decades when something that is designed to be upgradable and viable for more than twice as long for similar cost is available?

Let me put it this way, Australia and Canada selected the advanced multi role F/A-18 in the early 80's and it is still (in upgraded form) in service three decades later with advanced versions being offered / available as a supplement / replacement. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent of the RAAF going for new build Mirage 3NG and Canada going for the F-104S-ASA instead of the F/A-18A/B back in the 80's. This would have cost almost as much up front and more over the long term, delivered less capability initially and through life, been more difficult and expensive to upgrade while delivering less improvement in capability for those upgrades and heres the clincher, there is no way on the face of the planet either would still be in service.

Long story short, they would have had to be replaced with 4th gen type, most likely during the 90s or 2000s that would deliver little more capability than the upgraded F/A-18s they are currently looking to replace with F-35s, or more than twice the money to deliver less capability and ,over the period, requiring the acquisition of two generations of aircraft to do what one buy of 4th generation fighters could have done.

 

[jack412]

Did a quick search for the post title. So far, came across a number of different websites talking about that headline, from a supposedly leaked Pentagon report.
-Cheers

They have cheery picked and taken out of context from the block 1 training report
http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

personally, I would have gone for the COTS Volt Battery Charger Control Unit (BCCU) that isn't mil spec yet in LRIP and how that is progressing, but that doesn't make a good headline

 

[gf0012-aust]

This was supposed to be a low cost fighter / utility aircraft that could perform multiple roles, essentially the equivalent of F16 / F18, the low part of the airforce (while the F22 was the "high" bit). The program is an utter failure, the aircraft is projected to be far more expensive to fly and maintain than existing aircraft, and worse, has been plagued with one problem after another. It is at the point now, where pilots are dreading being assigned one of these "production" models:

what absolute rot - they have no problems with pilots wanting to transfer into JSF test regimes (count the number of aircraft that are up as well) - on the other hand the F-22 has had pilots refuse to fly it en masse due to the earlier oxygen management issues,

you're misunderstanding the hi-lo concept as well when you type "low" - that seems to indicate to me that you're scraping info from other sources and haven't actually understood the terminology at all - a question mark starts to form up for me whether you actually know much about the platform beyond what you have scraped up from others. When people get terms out of context and then preach to others, their credibility goes south

"In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane’s lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft’s fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.

Source? Or are you talking about the problems with the F-22 cockpit which had a design flaw and required special equipment to cut out the pilot and took over 6 hours to do? Good thing he was on the tarmac at the time and not over the blue. And thats been fixed (funnily enough by using JSF design models)

The Pilot Vehicle Interface, or PVI, is also listed as not up to snuff. Documented deficiencies regarding the F-35 pilot’s helmet-mounted display and other aspects of the PVI are named, and the result could mean grave consequences.

“There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely,” the report reads."

LIke all the other hysterical comments to date when the source is reviewed against actual milestones and developments (and this is a parallel development project) its doing pretty well - in fact the majority of those technical issues have been addressed.

At some point even the cheerleaders see a dog for being a dog. Even if the program survives sequester (a big if), it makes more sense to buy cheaper to maintain and fly planes for today's threats - it will be a while before the PAK FA is in the air, and even when it is, the Raptors already in service will be more than sufficient to outmatch it.

Its not about cheer leading, its about trying to have a sensible debate against people who have no idea, are not combat pilots, have no relevant background in weapons assessments, platform assessments, don't have a clue about the evaluation criteria and then profess to be more experienced and knowledgeable than the force planners and weapons systems evaluators - and some of those are combat fighter pilot trainers - and any number with 5000+ hours on various and mixed types..

and I make no apology for dismissing those wannabes quite quickly.

on the other hand, if people want to criticise the program and engage in rational debate rather than regurgitate claims that have already been dealt with and explained in a dispassionate manner, then they'll get engaged in calm rational debate

There are any number of forums available if you want to engage in hysterical debate and make silly claims presented as expert commentary.

Journalists, photographers, and people who were last cleared to see privileged material 10+ years ago just don't cut it for me.

Its 2013. We're no longer preparing to fight a 1989 air or joint war.

 

[ADMk2]

This was supposed to be a low cost fighter / utility aircraft that could perform multiple roles, essentially the equivalent of F16 / F18, the low part of the airforce (while the F22 was the "high" bit). The program is an utter failure, the aircraft is projected to be far more expensive to fly and maintain than existing aircraft, and worse, has been plagued with one problem after another. It is at the point now, where pilots are dreading being assigned one of these "production" models:

"In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane’s lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft’s fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.

The Pilot Vehicle Interface, or PVI, is also listed as not up to snuff. Documented deficiencies regarding the F-35 pilot’s helmet-mounted display and other aspects of the PVI are named, and the result could mean grave consequences.

“There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely,” the report reads."

At some point even the cheerleaders see a dog for being a dog. Even if the program survives sequester (a big if), it makes more sense to buy cheaper to maintain and fly planes for today's threats - it will be a while before the PAK FA is in the air, and even when it is, the Raptors already in service will be more than sufficient to outmatch it.

Ha, thanks for the joke mate! That was awesome.

Before you embarrass yourself further however, you do understand that JSF hasn't finished it's development, don't you?

I think it's 2018 or so now that the JSF program is intended to deliver a Block 3i level of capability to it's users?

I admit I don't have enough fingers to count how many years we are away from the birth of Christ, but someone told me recently it's 2013 at the moment, so for the sake of simplicity I'm going to go with that number.

Now luckily I DO have enough fingers to count the difference between the year 2013 and 2018. That seems to equal 5 years, according to the digits on only my left hand. A mere 1825 days (not counting any leap years between now and then).

That seems like quite a lot of time to me, so as long as Lockheed Martin continue to work on this project, I imagine the maturity of this aircraft, will look rather different at that time than it does today...

Tell you what. Let's meet back here on the 10th of March 2018 and compare notes on how the aircraft looks at that time, shall we? Then we can work out whether the aircraft or it's critics have "failed"...

 

[ngatimozart]

This was supposed to be a low cost fighter / utility aircraft that could perform multiple roles, essentially the equivalent of F16 / F18, the low part of the airforce (while the F22 was the "high" bit). The program is an utter failure, the aircraft is projected to be far more expensive to fly and maintain than existing aircraft, and worse, has been plagued with one problem after another. It is at the point now, where pilots are dreading being assigned one of these "production" models:

"In one chart included in the report, the Pentagon says there are eight crucial flaws with the aircraft that have raises serious red flags within the Department of Defense. The plane’s lack of maturity, reduced pilot situational awareness during an emergency and the risk of the aircraft’s fuel barriers catching fire are also cited, as is the likelihood of a pilot in distress becoming unable to escape his aircraft during an emergency — or perhaps drowning in event of an evacuation over water.

The Pilot Vehicle Interface, or PVI, is also listed as not up to snuff. Documented deficiencies regarding the F-35 pilot’s helmet-mounted display and other aspects of the PVI are named, and the result could mean grave consequences.

“There is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely,” the report reads."

At some point even the cheerleaders see a dog for being a dog. Even if the program survives sequester (a big if), it makes more sense to buy cheaper to maintain and fly planes for today's threats - it will be a while before the PAK FA is in the air, and even when it is, the Raptors already in service will be more than sufficient to outmatch it.

Sources cobber, sources. That "leaked - document" hasn't turned up anywhere reputable at the moment and I even had a look in the local rag "The Peoples Voice" (Kiwi communist party rag that used too be around) and it didn't feature. So then I went to the New Zealand Green Party website because they would surely have it there and horror of horrors they didn't. As intimated by others here, you need to do a lot of reading, especially of this thread, in order to inform yourself about where it is at. You'll find analyses here that you won't find in the media. You aren't the Canadian branch of Air Power Australia are you?

 

[jack412]

you missed my link above, it was cherry picked from a report, but they over looked the simple stuff. AFAIK the JSF office wanted a concurrent report so they could start. the report found problems as would be expected, but nothing to stop the initial training programme

"Joint Program Office DOT&E OUE Response
(Source: F-35 Joint Program Office; issued March 6, 2013)

The U.S. Air Force conducted the Operational Utility Evaluation for its F-35As and determined its training systems were ready-for-training. F-35 operational and maintenance procedures will continue to mature as the training tempo accelerates.

The DOT&E report is based upon the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Test Team report which found no effectiveness, suitability or safety response that would prohibit continuation of transitioning experienced pilots in the F-35A Block 1A.1 transition and instructor pilot syllabus.

There are no issues identified in the DOT&E report that the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office didn't already know about, and are working to resolve.

There is a deliberate process in place to validate the training system's effectiveness through advancing training blocks as they are made available to the warfighter.
"

 

[John Newman]

Sources cobber, sources. That "leaked - document" hasn't turned up anywhere reputable at the moment and I even had a look in the local rag "The Peoples Voice" (Kiwi communist party rag that used too be around) and it didn't feature. So then I went to the New Zealand Green Party website because they would surely have it there and horror of horrors they didn't. As intimated by others here, you need to do a lot of reading, especially of this thread, in order to inform yourself about where it is at. You'll find analyses here that you won't find in the media. You aren't the Canadian branch of Air Power Australia are you?

Funny that you should bring up the question, is there a Canadian branch of APA?

I came across this one the other day when I was reading some articles about the F35 debate in Canada:

Gripen for Canada

Started reading it and thought, hang on, this sound like the usual APA garbage.

And then I scrolled down a bit and under a heading called "Interesting Links", guess what is the very first link?

Yes, you guessed it! It's a link to the APA web site!

So yes, there is a Canuck Clown Club!!

Cheers,

John

 

[kiwi in exile]

Arrow canada's report seems to be from a Russia Today article
Pentagon: F-35 won't have a chance in real combat — RT USA
RT runs heaps of propaganda agianst the f35 and other US military programs.
Anyone who takes Russia Today as a legitimate source is questionable.

 

[Haavarla]

Let me continue on a slightly different track then.

Is the F-35A able/designed to perform prolonged 9G manuveres with full internal fuel?
This is connected to wing loading i guess, but i've seen different figures..
How much fuel can be stored in the wing tanks?

 

[ADMk2]

Let me continue on a slightly different track then.

Is the F-35A able/designed to perform prolonged 9G manuveres with full internal fuel?
This is connected to wing loading i guess, but i've seen different figures..
How much fuel can be stored in the wing tanks?

No, because jet fighters normally burn fuel when their engines are running and when they takeoff and climb to altitude, so I imagine most fighter jets don't fly often with full internal fuel nor do much ACM in that state...

 

[Air Force Brat]

Let me continue on a slightly different track then.

Is the F-35A able/designed to perform prolonged 9G manuveres with full internal fuel?
This is connected to wing loading i guess, but i've seen different figures..
How much fuel can be stored in the wing tanks?

No, the F-22 will maintain 6 Gs at 50,000 ft, so we may extrapolate, [always dangerous], that down in the teens where such things have been determined, that it may well maintain 9, and to be honest I have heard 9.5 but to be honest when I attempted to confirm that, I came up empty.
This is the one area that those of us who are proponents of the F-35, were recently dissapointed, as those numbers and expectations for the F-35 where recently "slightly downgraded", the numbers for all three versions "hover" in the 5 G range, which is where most fighter aircraft honestly live every day. Of more concern are the acceleration rates, which you will likely notice that the F-35 may be a little "doggy".
Now in actuallity the F-35 has a very good intitial turn in, the A model having pulled 9.9 Gs in testing, and that is a very, very, respectable number, and as you have alluded to, that was in the clean configuration, and at a lighter test weight. In the reality of day to day mission configuration I would imagine that in the A2A role the F-35 will be light, and it will be clean, and it will do much better than the paper numbers imply, and IMHO opinion as gf often reminds us, the F-35 is very stealthy at the ranges where it will be engaging in BVR, it also is equipped with an outstanding, far surpassing the F-22 electronics suite, and will be able to network "silently", operating in a "passive mode", without having to reveal its own presence until weapons release, and after release will once again clean up and go passive.
In real life, this will make it very difficult to defeat, one of the reasons I am excited to see how it fares against the F-22, it won't surprise me, to see the F-35 come out on top of these real world scenarios??? As we see the first two F-35As at Nellis, with two more soon to follow, the smart folks will be finding ways to employ the F-35 against all threats, including the F-22, and as gf has alluded to frequently, they will win, they really are very good at what they are designed to do. I imagine we will hear some of this positive news coming out of these engagement as it will be very reassuring to partners.
On a newsy note Flight Global has announced the roll-out of the second Dutch F-35A at Fort Worth- 002, which will also be flown to Eglin AFB sometime this year to be used training pilots and maintainers.

All of this info is taken from Flight Global, the Air Force Magazine, or public release of the revised performance expectations, with the exception of the Raptor numbers at high altitude, which were shared by General Norton Schwartz, as he was preparing to leave his position as the Air Force Chief of Staff, Cheers Brat.

sorry adm, I didn't see your post which is much more succinct, but at least we are on the same page.

 

[StobieWan]

Let me continue on a slightly different track then.

Is the F-35A able/designed to perform prolonged 9G manuveres with full internal fuel?
This is connected to wing loading i guess, but i've seen different figures..
How much fuel can be stored in the wing tanks?

I'd probably add "if the aircraft is, the pilot certainly isn't" - there was a chat about sustained high G combat on F-16.net and the consensus of anyone with stick time in fast jets was that repeated four or five G exposure wasn't something most folk could cope with for very long so taking that up to 9 G for much more than brief instances would bend the wetware a lot sooner than the hardware.

 

[Whitehead]

I honestly cannot see the F-35 taking on the F-22 and winning. The F-22 is stealthier and more maneuverable than the 35. With recent tests of the 22 facing off against eurofighters and winning before they had a chance to even engage. I think that the 35 will stand a better.chance but ultimately it will come up short against the 22.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I honestly cannot see the F-35 taking on the F-22 and winning. The F-22 is stealthier and more maneuverable than the 35. With recent tests of the 22 facing off against eurofighters and winning before they had a chance to even engage. I think that the 35 will stand a better.chance but ultimately it will come up short against the 22.

It also has no relevance

In a US context they're design for different missions - and aren't "competitors"
they have different capabilities to meet different conops requirements - and in fact JSF in specific scenarios is a superior asset, ditto vice versa

there is an inherent danger when people get seduced by convenient but ultimately irrelevant platform comparisons.

Warfighting at this point in time is a systems event


all of these things need to be considered against battlefield and battlespace context, and that includes companion assets, the sensor, sigint, commint, elint issues and how they can feed the warfighters. Some assets will be able to fight far more efficiently than prev generations of platforms occupying the same space or thrown into a like minded role because they have inherent advantages

if you can see first, see more, then your decision options are greater

lets avoid the platform vs platform discussions otherwise we will trod the weary but often ill informed debating path that reigns supreme elsewhere.

 

[alexsa]

No, the F-22 will maintain 6 Gs at 50,000 ft, so we may extrapolate, [always dangerous], that down in the teens where such things have been determined, that it may well maintain 9, and to be honest I have heard 9.5 but to be honest when I attempted to confirm that, I came up empty.
This is the one area that those of us who are proponents of the F-35, were recently dissapointed, as those numbers and expectations for the F-35 where recently "slightly downgraded", the numbers for all three versions "hover" in the 5 G range, which is where most fighter aircraft honestly live every day. Of more concern are the acceleration rates, which you will likely notice that the F-35 may be a little "doggy".
Now in actuallity the F-35 has a very good intitial turn in, the A model having pulled 9.9 Gs in testing, and that is a very, very, respectable number, and as you have alluded to, that was in the clean configuration, and at a lighter test weight. In the reality of day ...........

All of this info is taken from Flight Global, the Air Force Magazine, or public release of the revised performance expectations, with the exception of the Raptor numbers at high altitude, which were shared by General Norton Schwartz, as he was preparing to leave his position as the Air Force Chief of Staff, Cheers Brat.

.

Seriously mate, I have stopped reading your posts ............ You attempt to sound like an expert with inside knowledge and manage to slag others off in the process. The last paragraph really says it all.