wrightwingDo you have a source for this?
Cheers
You might want to check out slide #12, to get info on the relative raw fighter performance of the F-35 vs. F-16/F-18s.
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf
You’ll note that all 3 models exceed the instantaneous, and sustained turn rates of either the F-16/F-18, as well as having greater acceleration. The F-35 also has better post stall handling characteristics.
wrightwingSo far, there is no indication of that, whatsoever.
BTW, I don’t know where you get that M1.5 BS from, supercruise is cruise @ >Mach 1 without afterburner.
Once again for purposes of memory refreshment- LM uses M1.5 as the threshold for defining supercruise. Not everyone else uses this same definition. If LM says that the F-35 doesn’t supercruise, what they are saying is that is doesn’t cruise at M1.5 or greater, nothing more, nothing less.
I see loads of wishful thinking and no data
Would you be so kind as to inform us of what other fighters you had in mind then?
wrightwingA marble or a golf ball is not a 2D object.
I’m aware that a marble and a golf ball aren’t 2D objects. They do have 2D diameters though. You’ll notice how the comparisons made with them weren’t the F-22’s RCS is = to the surface area of a metal marble/the F-35’s RCS is = the surface area of a metal golf ball.
wrightwingWhat mean that for scattering stealth, used at F-22 and F-35?
The have a greater bistatic RCS. :rolleyes:
What’s the likelihood that a missile could be guided by a bistatic radar return though- 0%. Stealth doesn’t have to make you invisible to be very effective at getting inside the enemy’s decision cycle, and adversely impacting their kill chain.
The fat stealth fuel-guzzler are a perfect target for a QWIP IRST.
As opposed to [fill in the aircraft that you prefer, and that is more survivable]?
wrightwingThis values are wide interpretable.
The stated metall golf ball is not only so great as a real golf ball.
This is a bad example for me. Why? This corresponds to a RCS like a physical dimensions value like a strandball at some frequencies.
Marbeles are interpretable two, the standard marble has a 600% greater RCS as the physical dimensions.In fact this RCS claims are useless!
The values are representing a 2D object of those diameters though, not the entire spherical surface area.
wrightwingThe F-111 could have been given slep’s with F110’s like the F-14D. With the Navy giving up the F-14D they could have taken the APG71’s and migrated them to the F-111 fleet for strike purposes. Not so sure that a pair of AMRAAM weren’t warranted for self defense, considering they already had a Sidewinder-compatible forward-bay design and all of the models since the inception retained wiring there to use the Sidewinder. If you couldn’t have fit the AMRAAMs internally then put it under the chin kind of like the F-8 carried its Sidewinders or the EE Lightning carried its Red Tops. Even with the bomb-bay filled by electronics it still had adequate power AND space under its wings for a pair of GPU28 or GBU15 and four smaller complementary weapons.
I’m pretty sure their team proposed the X-32 to be more X-35 like if it won. They stuck with their original design through the competition, but it would have changed in production. It had great potential as a stealth, with its fewer moving surface. It lost more because of the VTOL competition than any other factor. VTOL decided the competition, which is stupid.
I personally felt the competition should not have included a VTOL design, because quite frankly they are not worth the effort. The program costs of a VTOL can quickly exceed that of the heavier twin engine jets. And the operating costs aren’t very cheap. It’s a luxury they could have passed upon and moved the money to support keeping the F-111’s alive, especially moving all the surviving airframes to the Raven role. Makes more sense than giving wings to the Marines.
The price it’d take to update F-111s would be in the ballpark of buying a new fighter, and you’d still have a 40yr old airframe.
wrightwingExhausts on the other hand, are a different matter, and a gaping hole with visibe turbines will always give a good radar return, but so will 1700 degrees to an IR seeker. The difference is a chasing missile will always be in a lower energy position than a head-on missile and so provides the target some extra options which a designer may be able to live with.
First off, it’s 1500 degrees, but that’s not really the point. It’d be a little less disengenuous if you mentioned that this temperature is when in full afterburner. Secondly, I wonder if you’d provide the non-afterburning temps for the F-35 vs. competitors, and afterburning temps of its competitors.
wrightwingDon’t you need more than a pair of EF-18G to realistically replace the capability of one EA-6B? One limitation people don’t seem to grasp with the EA-6B role is it’s not just the number of jammers, its also the number of technicians in the seats that matter. It would have been more cost-effective to overhaul the EA-6B to fly another 6,000 hours! That’s not even dealing with the overhead cost of keeping them on station at the distances a strike package operates! They really needed to get a bigger airframe than the Super Hornet for the role.
Not at all. The EF-111A had a 2 man crew as well. A lot of the tasks have been automated, to reduce the workload. The EA-6B did have an excellent persistence though.
wrightwingForget the definitions they are unimportant – concentrate on the physics.
If A goes faster than B in Military power and B wants to close the gap to engage A, or If B wants to disengage from A?
B’s only means of equalling or exceeding A’s speed is to use Reheat.
If the attacker is approaching the F-35, why would the F-35 need to use A/B to catch it? Unless the F-35 was chasing a faster aircraft, then the necessity is much less. You’re also assuming that the F-35s aren’t already on intercept vectors, unbeknownst to the attackers, as anyone flying within 3000km+ of Australia is going to be watched(especially unidentified aircraft).
Is this TRUE or FALSE for the majority of air intercept cases?
If the F-35 has to be scrambled, and the attacker is flying on an azimuth, attempting to circumvent airbases, then the F-35 could forseeably require A/B.
So in your scenario the JSF detects the opposition, gets within range to use its AMRAAM’s without using supersonic dash (i.e reheat) or even the opposition detecting them – presumably because the opposition is keeping a straight and level course and isn’t using Supercruise as its unsporting.
Finally after a slow chase the JSF manages to fire a couple off and pootles off slowly before the retaliatory shots and all still without using Reheat?Preferably the opposition must not have a wingman or ECM, or decoys or Jamming, or a JORN or AWAC’s as all these sort of mess with the story.
and only come in waves of 4 so as not to overwhelm the limited number of BVRAAM the JSF carries.Ok I think I see where your coming from…..;)
A-What attacker is going to use supercruise the entire duration of the attack?
B-What attacker is going to get anywhere near Australia with the element of surprise?
C-The F-35 carries more than 2 AAMs- by the time the RAAF’s F-35s are FOC, they should be carrying 6 AIM-120Ds each, which by the way can be fired from a long range.
D-The F-35s will have wingmen too.
E-The F-35s will be in a better fuel state, than their attackers.
F-I suppose the attackers AWACS and Tankers are also supercruising to keep up?
G-If the attacker(s) is/are flying around with jammers emitting, they’ve already lost the element of surprise.
H-If the attackers haven’t detected the F-35 prior it launching, then there’s no certainty that they’ll have their jammers on.
I-Waves of attackers would work out to how many attackers exactly?
I think I see where you’re coming from though.:eek:
wrightwinglol, that’s a good one… 😀
we both answered for 1991 iraq which got slaugtered with its old SAMs
so, what you say is that after over 10 years of almost total embargo, iraq passed from a totally ruined country (in a military sense) into a first rate equipped nation?
wake up… GWB’s propaganda is history, mate
1991 predates GWB’s “propaganda.”
wrightwingIts all about the HOWS
How the JSF will match/exceed the speed of a Supercruiser without lighting up like a Christmas tree.
Again, you’re assuming that the speed disrepancy is large based upon 2 different definitions of a single term.
How does the JSF know there is a bogey inbound?, you could say AWACS, but a few Awacs killing AtoA missiles will flush the JSF out, either they fire their limited AtoA weapons on destroying the inbounds or they lose the tanker either through it being destroyed or moving back to safety.
Umm, maybe info from another F-35, F-18F, AWACS, JORN, etc…
You could say LPI radar but once detected the distance between JSF and target must be closed to less ~50km this is where a Supersonic dash is required, but the JSF will require afterburner thus negating its stealth advantage.
A- you’re assuming that the F-35 isn’t already within 50km of the attacker
B- you’re assuming that the F-35 can’t engage the attacker from further than 50km away.
OK whats the target?, if its fixed then a cruise missile does the job far better than a JSF who’s carrying a potential hostage if it all goes tlts up.
What do you think would provide the greatest element of surprise. A stealthy cruise missile launched from a stealthy aircraft, that can get closer to the target undetected, OR…. a launch from a conventional aircraft, from much further out?
If its mobile then a JSF wandering around looking for targets of oppertunity in a double digit SAM envelope is sheer madness.
The envelope of double digit SAMs against an F-35 is much smaller than against a legacy fighter. The SAM radar would have to not be emitting, to not tip its hand to the F-35. If it does emit, the F-35s can use EA against the fire control radar, while engaging it kinetically. Additionally, F-35s are already wired for the NGJ, so in the timeframe we’re discussing, it wouldn’t be an outrageous assertion to say that they’d be thusly equipped. You’d also have stand off jammers, as well as potential armed UAVs in support as well.
wrightwingThat’s funny it described as the U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22 on the JSF website.
You have to admit it would be called the JFS if it was a fighter first!!
I suppose you can call the JSF a fighter in much in the same way a Tornado GR.1 is a fighter, it has a cannon and carries AtoA weapons, if your generous is could be on par with the Tornado F.3 😉 Which is a pure fighter optimised design. I think you know what I getting at.
You’re absolutely correct that the A-10 and AV-8B are aircraft to be replaced, but the F-35 is every bit as much a fighter as the F-16 and F-18 are(which by the way are multirole aircraft, as are the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen for that matter).
Yes because of supercruise -the Typhoon and others can supercruise which means the JSF having to engage burners if it want to merge unless the Typhoons mission planners actually want to come right down the throat of the opposition for some obscure reason only known to the JSF combat modelling simulations.
The chances of coming right down the throat of a JSF is quite remote that’s why we don’t have tethered fighter balloons ( i.e. armed to the teeth but slow movers.)
First of all, none of us here are privy to the maximum speed that the F-35 can fly at in dry thrust, so it might be premature to make this argument.
Seeing as how Typhoon and Rafale aren’t using the same definition of supercruise that LM does, means that the F-35 may just be much closer than you think(especially considering that the F-16 and F-18 can exceed M1 in dry thrust too).
wrightwingOf course not 😎
a plane like the jsf that is unable to carry any weapons to avoid compromising its stealth capacity will be a lot better :diablo:
All this talk on the importance of stealth is very nice but unless these planes can fly on vapour they will need external drop tanks at some point, and unless they intend to destroy enemy facilities using mysterious schockwaves they will have to carry bombs
and I just don’t see these things carry all that in the internal stores :confused:
Well let’s see, internally they can carry 2 2000lb JDAMs and 2 AAMs, or 6-8 SDBs and 2 AAMs or 2 JSM and 2 AAMs, or 2 JSOWs and 2 AAMs, or 4-6AAMs.
As for fuel, on internal fuel, they can fly as far as their competitors which are carrying EFTs.
wrightwingLike IRST/LRF guidance and missiles like Mica IR or any IR for that matter dont exist..:D
there are a number of ways to even guide a RF missile close enough from a long distance.
Stealth main advantage is always surprise attack, when detected it can still be hairy.
Again, any weapon system that you’d use against a stealthy fighter is only as effective as your ability to detect, and more importantly track it. Once you’ve gotten that close, the likelihood of you surprising the stealth aircraft is much lower, than it surprising you from outside your detection range.
wrightwingThe F-16 vs Mig 25 is a bit unfair having a couple of singletons launching blind into a fully network swarm is not a fair comparison, For example would having a single blind JSF shot down after being launched into a similar Typhoon rich networked environment prove the JSF is bad??
The JSF is a jack of all trades, it isn’t primarily designed as a fighter so has to suffer the engineering consequences of being dual purpose (its actually much worse than this in reality as its three aircraft types trying to be dual use.)
All design has to be a compromise its hard enough with a single use aircraft balancing competing requirements, let alone what the JSF is being asked to do.Ok the AtoA issue really is the speed x distance, a supercruiser gives shorter time to react and an even smaller time to intercept, the game for the attacker is to use supercruise to bypass the JSF, the JSF will be forced to use reheat to play catch up ( or to get into a firing solution) exposing it to IR detection, or to not use reheat and fail to intercept the target.
If the JSF is forced to use reheat, the fuel issue becomes a problem, is probably a moot point with the JSF now as I see it’s time is nearly over see JSF’s Replacement
The writing is on the wall.:)
Cheers
The supercruiser needs to be aware of the F-35’s whereabouts to use that tactic for one. It better have a tanker nearby if it plans on staying at those speeds for long distances, when it’s already a ways from home. If the supercruiser is heading towards the F-35, then there’s no catch up required.
None of this was the point I was making though. I was merely pointing out that merely being in the faster aircraft, doesn’t mean that you’re in no danger. The Mig 25 is considerably faster than an F-16, but the F-16 had no difficulty intercepting it.
Sign In
