13 
Time for some airplane porn: Lockheed Martin has completed high angle of attack testing for the F-35A Lightning II. The aircraft was able to get to its 50 degree limit with ease:
F-35A test aircraft are limited to AOAs of 20 degrees until their controllability is proven at a higher AOA limit of 50 degrees. The ability to rapidly progress to the maximum AOA indicates a sound aerodynamic and flight control system design. High AOA testing will continue on the F-35A for several months testing the capabilities of all design loadings and the flight control system.
Being able to fly at a high angle of attack increases the airplane’s maneuvering abilities, which is crucial for dog fighting. One extreme example is the cobra maneuver (also known as Pugachev’s Cobra), in which the plane suddenly lifts its nose up while maintaining altitude. This reduces its speed considerably, which could make a pursuing enemy to overshoot, giving the pilot a window of opportunity to fire at it.
What the fuck was with that music?!
And you can hardly see bugger all about the AoA cos the camera was all over the shop.
Very simple reason you can’t see anything: 1. it looks cooler this way and 2. they don’t want anyone to have a chance to recover performance data from the video.
I’m still trying to work out who they will be dogfighting against exactly? The Taliban Air Force is pretty thin on the ground – maybe a few paper airplanes right now.
Because the F-35 has already been in development for 15 years, and is planned to remain in service until 2040. These aren’t Second World War planes that could go from drawing board to front lines in 3 months. Modern aircraft programmes are huge long-term projects.
Unless you can predict who the enemy will be in 20 years, your point is moot.
Aren’t most “dog fights” these days fought over a distance of about 20 miles?
Using missiles, yes. However the rate of improvement in missile accuracy and technology is increasing slower than the rate of improvement for anti-missile technology such as flares and maneuverability etc. Eventually your missiles will miss each other, and you’ll both have to switch to guns. Thats when the more maneuverable plane wins
Yes. You’re suggesting a shift in air defence doctrine that would remove the need for manoeuvrable fighters. Fair enough, that possibility is currently being developed, but the drone technology isn’t there yet and to lose all dogfighting capability entirely would be risky. A scenario like craigfjay’s might emerge, and you’re left without a dogfighter in your arsenal. This inability to predict engagement scenarios has emerged repeatedly throughout history in warfare, so the military planners prefer to cover all bases where possible.
Also, the F-35 is a multirole fighter. It doesn’t just shoot down other aircraft, it also drops bombs on ground targets (using both smart and dumb munitions), destroys enemy SAM sites, provides air support to ground troops and performs reconnaissance.
That was the thinking behind the Vietnam era F4 Phantom.
They didn’t put guns on it cos they didn’t think they were old fashioned and then took a wammering when the missiles missed.
Haven’t you even seen Topgun?! Outrageous.
Yes, this is one of the scenarios I was referring to. As a result of this short-sightedness, even modern fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 still have guns.
UCAVs, Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles. High performance UAVs without a squishy pilot putting any performance limitations on them.
Yep, that could be the future, but it’s not here yet and it won’t be for some time.
That man has a neck like a tree… a big tree…
Well spotted. He looks a bit like Shrek