This:
"The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with effective beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”
And it sounds like the "Chick" standards were applied to make it look better:
"The second issue that deserves especial mention is that key aerial combat standards have been lowered, following initial tests. All F-35s will sit at 5.0g or less sustained turn performance – a figure that places them in a class with 1960s era planes like the F-5 or F-4 Phantom, instead of modern designs like the F-16. Acceleration is also poorer, compared to a reference F-16C Block 50 with AMRAAM missiles on its wingtips zooming from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2.
The USAF’s F-35A dropped the most, from an expected 5.3g – 4.6g in sustained turns. Acceleration will take 8 seconds longer than the F-16."
I must be psychic... or a woman; I foretold this HERE years ago. The plane is a pig and like Rocky says "waiting to be roasted"...
In the Phantom, our best sustained turn rate was at around 430-450 kts at 6.5 "G's" depending on the model and at low altitude you could hold that "G" and climb. We shot for the same "G" in the Tomcat but closer to around 350 kts IIRC.
But sustained "G" isn't the only factor..the biggest are sustained turn rate and radius and instantaneous turn rate and radius.The Phantom's turn rate and radius weren't so hot so we used tactics to try to stay out of a turning fight. We used those big J-79's to use the vertical and/or extend away so we'd have room get turned around and shoot the bogey in the face with a Sparrow or, later with AIM 9 L or M.
Against a better turner with forward quarter capability (F-16 with AIM-9 L or M), by the time you got turned around HE could be already turned around and have a missile headed your way.
The A version of the Tomcat that I flew was much better but still not in the same league as the later generations.
The Israelis used the gun a lot because the adversaries they were going against didn't have much ACM training, weren't maneuvering really hard and were essentially "grapes" PLUS the Israelis didn't want to waste a 'Winder (1/4 million bucks at the time) or Sparrow (1/2 millon) on easy targets. IF, and it's a big IF, an adversary knows you're there AND he knows what he's doing, it's hard to get bullets on him. Heck, I've seen guys try to shoot a non-maneuvering banner and get no hits.
Be that as it may, I think performance wise, we're taking a big step backwards. Technology is great but it's not everything. When one or two bogeys make it past the initial barage of missiles it could easily get into a turning fight and get ugly pretty quickly.
