But Top Gun still exists for a reason, right? And I've read comments on pro-US websites like f-16.net that F-35 will have very good kinematic performance.
Bayonet training is to improve aggression and may never be applied by the soldier who does the training. What it does teach him however is worth more than being able to defend himself in close quarters.
the F-35 is gaining weight and has OK kinematic performance... but without thrust vectoring in flight engines (note two engines) which it can never have... like the F-16... even if it did have TVC engines it would not gain the same benefit as an aircraft like a Mig-29/35 or Su-27/35.
the ability to point your main sensor (and stealthiest aspect) and all your main weapons at a target no matter where that target appears could be critical in the near future.
With DIRCMS able to defeat optically guided missiles and the Flankers ability to turn in any direction immediately and point an enormous AESA radar that would overwhelm the tiny radar in an air to air missile like AMRAAM that really just leaves guns... and the ability to turn and point your gun directly at the enemy and shoot straight away without the fear of stalling or going in to a spin makes it a very one sided dogfight.
But will it be able to outmanoeuvre a TVC equipped Flanker, that's the real question?
No. It wont.
Those so called experts on f-16.net don't agree with ya(step down from F-16s)...
Without TVC engines it turns as fast and as far as lift allows but it only has about 6 shots with missiles and then it becomes a gun fight. The F-16 on the other hand has the ability to carry rather more missiles so it can start firing sooner and fire rather more and it has some chance of leaving the area if it needs to...
For the price of one F-35 you get probably about 6 to 8 F-16s... in recent combat experience which would be more value?
After the Crimea incident, US may sell F-35s to Ukraine, and in future a non US F-35 may square off against either Russian or Indian T-50s or advance flankers. So you never know!
Ukraine can't afford tanks let alone 250 million dollar fighters... they would have to be gifts and all the support and weapons would have to be included too. As soon as they got airborne they would be shot down by S-400...
But in future a US ally who operates F-35 may square off against Russian/Indian/ASEAN/Arabian Sukhois. So, who would prevail then, is the real question(especially in BVR)?
Our Australian friend has seen the simulations of Taiwanese F-35s and Japanese F-35s and Chinese Su-35s and that was pretty one sided in favour of the Chinese... within the parameters of the simulation.
Needless to say reality might not be so favourable, but Russia or India also have options China does not too.
On that note, did India made a bad choice by not buying Mig-35? Also why the Russian AF is so reluctant in ordering it?
Depends when they get their Rafales and how much they cost... if it takes another 5-10 years to start production or more then the Migs make rather more sense.
The Russian AF wants the Mig-35s now but their requirements (which are different from the Indian requirements) mean they wont be ready till 2015-2016 before production can start. In the mean time the RuAF are getting other model Migs.
hey should have either waited for the Mig-35, or used that money for the FGFA program, or used some of that money to sponsor the Mikoyan LMFS program.
An immediate purchase of 150 Mig-29M2s probably would have cost less than half the 10 billion the were talking about, plus an upgrade of existing model Mig-29s to M2 standard and they would have a force of 200 multirole planes that would probably be in service within 4 years of signing.
A Mig-29M2 in service is better than the paper performance of a Rafale.