posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 09:03 PM
originally posted by: glend
The exercise confirmed that F35 on visual range combat was doubly inferior to Sukhoi.
The F-35 has never taken part in Pacific Vision. The F-35 had nothing to do with the 2008 PACFOR exercise, as the exercise concluded that air power
was sufficient to deter threats through 2016.
I read the actual RAND report, and it was not about specific aircraft, but about logistical scenarios defending Taiwan. It assumed Kadena and RoC
airfields were incapacitated by ballistic missiles, and tried to show how difficult it would be to sustain airpower over Taiwan. It even assumed that
OTH radar completely negated a stealth advantage by F-22 or F-35 aircraft. Only six F-22's were capable of maintaining station, if a goal was
continuous presence over Taiwan. The total number of missiles available to blue force were insufficient to prevent a large number of red forces from
engaging tankers and AWACS aircraft. Fighters other than those two also did not have the endurance/speed to cover long distances to engage forces
threatening the support aircraft.
Even the "double-inferior" comments detractors have latched on to applied only to WVR engagement indicators. The F-35 appeared on a single slide of
the presentation. It listed wing-loading and T/W ratios for various aircraft. I do not recall whether or not the performance charts for various
aircraft listed combat loaded or clean. I do know that only the F-22 and F-15 were listed as on par or superior to potential adversary aircraft like
the Su-30's or Pak-FA. F-16, F-18 and F-35 were all considered inferior by this metric. No other attempt was made to model individual aircraft
It should be noted that while the MiG-17 had half the wing loading of an F-4, the F-4 did just fine against the Fresco. The MiG-21 enjoyed a wing
loading and T/W advantage over the Phantom, and still the F-4 held it's own quite well against the Fishbed.