What is the credibility of this piece of news?

Were the EF guns only- ie no missiles? If so a clean EF has an advantage. They would not be running actual missions without being equipped with AA missiles! The F-35 has to carry its bomb bay even if there are no missiles in it!

Actually, in a slow turning fight. I would give the F-35A the advantage vs Typhoon under combat conditions. As the former has excellent HIGH AOA capabilities and very good transonic acceleration!


Yet, without specific details near impossible to draw any serious conclusions.

Typhoon tends to do well against most ACM opposition which is a testament to the value of having great SEP (and low wing loading) as one of your flight characteristics. F-35 SEP isn't bad either once the fuel burns off. Remember that those 'funky' AoA manuevers get a lot more lethal if you are using them to fire AAMs quickly within boresight FOV. Gun fights are about energy maneuvering and tracking your opponent closely so Typhoon and F-16 will always do well however they have much less relevance to air combat these days because if you are down to guns you are on your last options having already used your much more lethal missiles. It was an interesting data point but the F-35 is still the most lethal fighter plane out there regardless. Fighter design is about compromises and F-35 has made the most effective and efficient ones of the whole field.

p.s. painful G and some neutral encounters does not sound like an easy ACM fight, close enough that a better or smarter/luckier pilot could make the difference either way.

Based on this link, is the F-35 losing energy because of high AoA?
https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/119 ... 01792?s=20
JG74 CO says would like aerodynamic strake kit to improve AoA limits on Eurofighter. But says that he recently fought 60deg capable AoA F-35s in visual dogfight "they did funky manoeuvres - but I still gunned them"

We read it the first time; why are you posting this again? Are you trying to learn or are you just another (persistent) troll?

As we have discussed at length on the F-22 v Rafale thread, there are many, many circumstances in training whereby a nominally inferior jet might best another. I’m not going to go thru the list, but as mentioned by others earlier in this thread there are a whole lotta other details necessary to come to any conclusions about ‘whose dog is bigger...’. Provide us some of those and you might get something other than skepticism.

I don’t think there is much credibility. Anyone can get on Twitter and say just about anything. Hell look at what comes out of an account that represents the current US President.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -35-birds/

In the real world, so far, birds or mechanical failures are more of a danger than actual combat. Euro fighters... watch out for pelicans.

We read it the first time; why are you posting this again? Are you trying to learn or are you just another (persistent) troll?

As we have discussed at length on the F-22 v Rafale thread, there are many, many circumstances in training whereby a nominally inferior jet might best another. I’m not going to go thru the list, but as mentioned by others earlier in this thread there are a whole lotta other details necessary to come to any conclusions about ‘whose dog is bigger...’. Provide us some of those and you might get something other than skepticism.

Yep. F-5s have "shot down" F-22s in training.

Is the F-35 losing energy because of high AoA?

All planes lose energy/speed at high AoA because of higher drag and lower lift. Using high AoA as a combat maneuver is a conscious decision made based with that in mind i.e. the pilot thinks the trade-off is worth it at the time due to the different 3D position and axial attitude of his plane achieved compared to his opponent in combat maneuvering.

Is the F-35 losing energy because of high AoA?

All planes lose energy/speed at high AoA because of higher drag and lower lift. Using high AoA as a combat maneuver is a conscious decision made based with that in mind i.e. the pilot thinks the trade-off is worth it at the time due to the different 3D position and axial attitude of his plane achieved compared to his opponent in combat maneuvering.

x2, except ‘...higher drag and higher lift.’ (up to CL max).

JG74 CO says would like aerodynamic strake kit to improve AoA limits on Eurofighter. But says that he recently fought 60deg capable AoA F-35s in visual dogfight "they did funky manoeuvres - but I still gunned them"

'
Angling for ever more expensive improvements on the Typhoon? Why I never!!

Maybe someday they'll finally have those birds where they want...

Typhoon countries are buying F-35s. F-35 countries aren't buying Typhoons,and the typhoon needs yet another upgrade...



Germany: wont buy F-35.

German pilot angling for more gold plating on his tiffie "I beat the F-35! also i need more upgrades!"

Call me a cynic...

One fired Luftwaffe chief later Typhoon eats Raptor, err... Lightning salad again. Good for them.

"See you in Finland"

I would say that the end result of the act when I sit on a toilet has a similar if not better "credibility" than that piece of news...

First, it is a fighter pilot who said it. So immediately, there is a question of the validity of how they remember it. Not to besmirch fighter pilots but one of the reasons that Top Gun uses electronic systems to evaluate and teach people is because memories are very fallible and subject to selective recall that doesn't shatter their fragile egos. For instance, it is great that you think you were able to achieve a firing position, but without an instrumented range, it is hard to tell if you actually did so or, more importantly, if you did it before the other guy (or his wingman) waxed you.

Second, it was completely without context. For instance, is one on one realistic? How did you get to the offensive position in the first place? What was the altitude? What was the configuration of the various aircraft? Without that context, it is hard to evaluate anything. Maybe they were doing guns vs. guns, who knows. For instance, the P-51A (Allison Engine) was often maligned, but the RAF kept several squadrons around until the end of the war because nothing could touch them below 10kft. So if a P-51A fought a Spitfire at 5kft, it won more often that not. Too bad the air battles in the ETO tended to be significantly higher than that. Or as the Luftwaffe Col. famously once said (and I paraphrase) "Our Eurofighters have a good chance to beat an F-22 if we get within visual range, unfortunately we don't have any way to get within visual range in the first place".

Finally, all claims, by anyone anywhere, should always be taken with a healthy grain of salt. Especially on twitter. It is not a forum you would expect for a deep discourse on the various pros or cons of anything. If someone said the sky was blue on twitter, I would still go look outside before believing them.

The typhoon has always been known to have good maneuverability, especially at higher altitudes. The F-35 is reported to also have good maneuverability too. It is entirely possible that a visual range contest in higher altitudes would give the typhoon some good advantages. When you think about it, visual range contests were probably necessary to include in the training environment to permit an A2A contest at all.

They "They wanted to validate stuff" comment sticks out to me. This may have been similar to the CLAW test where the F-35 pilots wanted to see how a particular maneuver worked on an adversary as fierce as the Tiffy, and it didn't work as well as they hoped.

Let 'em lose so they're ready to win when they play for keeps.