Sustained g’s in a turn isn’t the only measure of turning maneuverability. A higher sustained g-rating in a turn doesn’t mean a tighter turning radius. An F-16 pulling a sustained 5.5g turn at 0.8 Mach will still pull a tighter turn than the F-4E because of superior aerodynamics afforded by it’s leading edge flaps, leading edge extensions, lower weight, among other design factors. And then there’s the issue of energy preservation (airspeed); the F-4E would lose a lot more airspeed pulling that kind of turn compared to an F-16 or F-35. Energy preservation is an important aspect of air combat, which is why pilots aren’t always performing max-turn maneuvers.

And there’s no point in comparing top speeds listed in magazines/books/articles. An aircraft’s flight envelope is dynamic (you even pointed out that the F-4 pulled that turning number at 40 percent fuel, yet didn’t make any mention of the F-35’s fuel load in comparison). Even though the F-4’s max speed is listed as Mach 2.23, that speed was achieved in a slick configuration (no external stores). With a useful combat load, the acceleration and top speed becomes limited.… rating at or less than an F-35A. Besides, fighters don’t spend much time at or near configured top speeds… it eats up too much fuel. What matters more is cruise speed, which the F-35A has a higher cruise speed in a combat configuration. An F-35A configured for air-to-air combat has the benefit of internal weapons carriage, which affords it an aerodynamic advantage. The F-35 also has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio in a combat configuration compared to the F-4.

So yes, when put in practical real-world terms, the F-35A is in fact superior to the F-4 in terms of maneuverability, acceleration, cruise speed, and at least on par in potential top speed.

Basically, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The F-35 has already been neutralized and negated by the Su-35–1/35BM and will be substantively over-matched by the T-50/PAK-FA. We need to think long, hard and fast about the PAK-FA, as the current and retrograde “F-35 based” future fighter fleet model guarantees defeat in future combat. The PAK-FA is flying now without all of the bickering and bullshit that goes on here in millionaire scumbag committees parading as government. They just come down with a fist and make it happen or else..

The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet. The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D. So the F-35A’s aerodynamic performance is ‘retrograde’ when compared with 1960s legacy fighters. Aka, its a POS hype machine.

The whole thing is senators pandering for jobs to seem like they care about the people who put them in office.

We would be heroes if we could figure that out, and lobby our congressmen!! I plan to vote all the bums out this election cycle! In fact, I already have voted in advance.

I guarantee, it is a butt load!! It is expensive, just to maintain the pits in those warheads, let alone the rest of the total strategic nuclear forces! The spending we are doing on fancy planes is well worth it, and we will need it if we expect to come up against every tin horn dictator with a nuke in his back pocket. Not to mention the fact that no matter who our friends are today, that can change so fast, your head will spin. I predict chaos will rule in the near future.

And if you are so foolish as to dismiss Russia and China as legitimate threats then you should really stop posting while you’re somewhat ahead.

Bottom line, this solution is very doable. It’s simply a matter of the AF bucking up and telling GE and P&W that this is the way it’s gonna be. If the Navy can do it, why can’t the Air Force? This is a case of the contractors having AF procurement by the balls when it should be the other way around.

It is really beyond me why nobody is pushing this ‘have your cake and eat it too’ approach to the JSF.

Honestly, I’d rather have GE as the primary contractor. I think the initial bidding process was flawed. Nonetheless, we now have a proven engine design from P&W and there is no compelling reason to develop a second one. I would full-heartedly agree with making GE a second manufacturing contractor just to introduce a little competition. But the whole F136 concept is and always was a massive turd sandwich.

He is also right when he says, “today’s program dynamics in no way replicate the so-called competitive conditions of the old days.”

The F136 is a turd of an idea, kept alive by people who are adamant about ramming a square peg into a round hole because something only vaguely similar worked on a problem over 20 years ago.