When you say "a -teen jet" do you mean aircraft such as the F-15, F-16, and F-18? As in aircraft that end with a number in the teens?
I want to know this stuff because in the book I'm writing the F-35 will be called upon as a primary CAS platform while the F-22's role will be more air-to-air. However, for the sake of entertainment, one of my characters will be an F-35 pilot and he will engage enemy aircraft that don't exist yet (that's part of where the science-fiction kicks in) in air-to-air combat. In this case, I care more about the specifications of the F-35A&C models more than the B because they will not be used in the book.
Haven't seen the NOTAM yet, so your degree per minute roll rates might have to be bit 'creative'...
However test pilots describe it as having the acceleration and sustained turning ability most like a clean F-16 Block 52 aircraft with the nose authority and slow speed turning ability of an F/A-18C/D aircraft.
Which if this testimony is to be believed (and as they are the design goals and confirmed in testing by professional flight test pilots, there is no legitimate reason NOT to believe it) the F-35 handles very well in typical 'dog-fighting' flight regimes on top of which it has outstanding high alpha flying qualities.
However there is no need to speculate on this. Want to see for yourself? Here you go...
http://youtu.be/aWji8AcOYGA
Not considering any other 'system' then and whilst acknowledging systems play a bigger part in air warfare than any aerodynamic statistics do, the F-35 won't be a slouch in air combat maneuvering and won't be 'clubbed like a seal' by anything in a short ranged fight, all other things being equal. (Which of course they aren't).
However in saying that, there is no doubt that with its low observability, big radar and optimised payload for long range missiles (only AMRAAM and eventually Meteor at this stage, are being integrated as internally carried air to air missiles) it is better suited tactically to long ranged 'sniping' style air combat than it is short ranged engagements.
As for F135 v F110 and F404, you are talking about a new engine versus much older engines.
F135 has roughly the same amount of dry thrust (ie: non-afterburning thrust) as the F110 did in it's initial forms in full mil-power and as a pair of F404 engines do in full mil power...
An F135 in full mil power has more than 11,000lbs more thrust than the latest variants of F110-132 do in full mil and about 6,000lbs more thrust than a pair of F404 engines do in full mil thrust...
It also (reported) has better fuel efficiency, better SFC and better mean time between failure, than any of it's predecessors. It truly is a beast of an engine.
As to the F-35's ceiling, it is being cleared to 50,000 feet, the same as F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet / Super Hornets were initially. All were subsequently tested and cleared to slightly higher altitudes, with the Super Hornet most recently cleared to 55,000 feet. This is mainly a matter of priority in testing though. I have no doubt the F-35 could fly at 55,000 feet if need be. Top speed is also a matter of testing priority. Officially F-35 is required to 'go' to Mach 1.6 just as the Super Hornet was required to go to Mach 1.8.
However the F-35 has been taken in testing to Mach 1.67 and the Super Hornet reached Mach 1.89 in flight evaluations for the Indian MMRCA contest. These 'maximum effort' stats are meaningless however for overall combat performance. They aren't typical environments in which combat aircraft will find themselves operationally and exist for the benefit of the marketeers primarily. I would suggest in 'wartime' settings, both aircraft have a margin well beyond these levels which they have been tested to, which was reflected in the relatively recent clearing of Super Hornet to 55,000 feet.
Did the fact it wasn't cleared for the first 15 years of it's service mean it couldn't fly at 55,000 feet if absolutely necessary? Of course not. Nothing was 'done' to magically make the aircraft capable of flying higher, apart perhaps from some software upgrades. What changed was the priority to open up that envelope, again for marketing purposes in the Indian competition. So it is with many performance measures on combat aircraft. We just don't know the real truth and those who do generally don't tell for good reason. They just smile and nod and agree with the official line...
What I would do, is not focus on paper statistics. They don't tell the real story anyway. The F135's requirement to meet 43,000lbs of thrust is at the END of it's lifecycle, not the beginning. So if a tired, worn out engine meets that standard, what does a shiny new one do, exactly?
Food for thought and an example of why ther other aspects of air combat victories are more important...
Since 1991 it has been something like 90% or more of all air to air shoot downs that occurred at ranges that are officially considered 'beyond visual range' and the principal determining factor in these engagements, identified in studies of all these incidents, has been overwhelming 'who shot first.'
The days of missiles not working, are long past. Modern missile lethality has reached the point that being in a position to fire first, is far more important than the paper differences between the platforms hauling these missiles.
And as I'm sure you can appreciate being less of a target is directly proportional to your chances of being shot...
