[Red6]

“Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter. ? At that weight and with just 460 sq ft (43 m2) of wing area for the air force and Marine Corps variants, it will have a ?wing-loading? of 108 lb per square foot. “

Does that take all the extra weight into account from more internal fuel than other planes like the F16 which has too short a legs?

Does the wing loading take into account the center fuselage itself which on planes like an F22/35 plays a major role?

The F35 performs incredibly mediocre when you look at things that don't matter, like some top speed over Mach 2, service ceiling over 60,000 feet, which like jumping tank pictures impresses the kids. But..... where it matters, acceleration, sustained turns, endurance, RCS, AESA, avionics/communication, warning and ECM capabilities, sensor fusion/integration.... the plane does very very well. -IMHO

[uncommonsense]

This does seem like a bipolar review of the F35 (too fast, to slow). I thought with vectored thrust and the current power, it is more then capable as a dog fighter - putting out more stress than a pilot can handle?

It also seem that this will be the last fighter of this type due to cost - so it will reign superior as a manned jet. Resources will be shifted to cheaper, specialized units - leaving the F35 as king.