wooster wrote:1. Maneuvering fighters are not relevant for several years now. Unless you are talking about avoiding another missile. In which case its better to be stealthier to avoid being sighted in the first place.
Are you basing this on combat simulations or actual combat, because you're wrong either way.
Actual CombatIf you listen to Dozer's retelling of his engagements over Bosnia, you'll notice that he did not fly straight and level, there was maneuvering involved even if he was still at BVR ranges. A common misconception is that agility is only needed in WVR, its very important in BVR as well.
Combat simulations (Relatively modern Su-30 vs 3 F-16Cs)
one Su-30 vs three F-16 in a BVR scenario. Again, we pushed the envelope, manoeuvred between 3000 ft to 32000 ft, pulling up to 8 g, turning, tumbling, firing and escaping missiles in a simulated engagement. The crew co-ord between us in the cockpit and the fighter controller on the ground was the best that I have ever seen! The results in a mock combat are always contentious but with ACMI, they are more reliable. End score one F-16 claimed without loss. When we got out of the cockpit we were thoroughly drenched in sweat and tired from the continuous high G manoeuvring but all smiles for the ecstasy that we had just experienced.”Lastly, F-35 test pilot Tom Morganfeld can be quoted by saying
"Even with HOBS and LOAL, Maneuverability will "Always" be relevant in a fighter"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sTsjQ_ud8Ewooster wrote:2. The aircraft cannot hit or maintain even marginal supersonic speed in level flight and clean without AB. Even most business jets today can hit supersonic speed in shallow dives.
-But it's subsonic acceleration is like a clean F-16C even with weapons carried internally, that means its better than a
practically almost every other plane barring the F-22, so thats better than a Flanker, better a fulcrum.
wooster wrote:3. The USAF had to relax the acceleration requirements when the 35A could not achieve the requirement
Isn't this the 2012 report, if you read it, it says the DoD "expressed the desire to reduce sustained G and acceleration goals due to accelerated degradation on the Stealth coatings on tail"
1. They only expressed the desire, it was never implemented IIRC
2. the issue was never the result of drag or power at all, it was the stealth coatings that were not holding up, newer stealth coatings should completely mitigate that. In fact the blistering in the stealth coatings in the tail seem to happen when the B and C versions fly beyond Mach 1.3 at extreme altitudes also. But they have mitigated the problem.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... h-coating/News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating