wrightwingREAD again, i included structural load, that of F-35 was lowered to save weight and in many cases they wouldn’t be able to pull more g because they simply don’t have the LIFT.
And this is based upon what exactly?
wrightwingNO This isn’t. This is Maximum Mach 1.6 and about ~ every green monkey in London Zoo knows that it doesn’t mean >.
Considering an F-35 test aircraft has flown at least M1.67, we know that M1.6 isn’t the maximum speed.
And as for what the current LM page says, just bear in mind that it still lists M1.5 SC for the F-22, when the F-22 has demonstrated SC at M1.8. That page is very generic(i.e. Vanilla).
wrightwingWhat YOU are doing is assuming and twisting datas without even trying to figure them out or read the documentation posted. Granted.
I find it intriguing how everything from your sources is explicit, and taken at face value, but if it is about another aircraft, then all sorts of analyzing and interpretation of what was really meant is necessary.:rolleyes:
You cherry pick the most favorable info for your arguments, and except only the least favorable info for everyone else’s as anything positive must’ve been a case of misstating things.
wrightwingNot necessarily. The F-16 may be slightly more maneuverable, but as I said, that means nothing when he can’t find the F-35 to begin with. The F-35’s vastly superior situational awareness, HOBS weapons, and avionics more than makes up for it’s supposed lack of maneuverability.
It’s not even a sure thing that the F-16 is more manueverable. The F-35 has much greater nose pointing abilities.
wrightwingI’m perfectly aware of that video et all, but it doesn’t mean they are doing it on a regulare base nor that the airframe can handle it on a regulare base and still achieve designed service life. You are making things up here and you haven’t addressed the concerns I raised about that, due the reasons I stated, either.
No pilot is going to sustain 11g turns for extended durations, so it’s a bit disengenuous on his part trying to portray these numbers as routine.
wrightwingA2A configuration for F-16 design is 2 X AIM-9s regardless of the block.
So which is it- clean or in A2A configuration?
That’s because you can’t read Maximum Mach and understand KPP instead. 😀
No. I just understand that the F-35’s maximum mach isn’t M1.6.
They might; but this is what kinetic energy means in flight and superior speed and ceiling are giving the A2A optimised design a clear advantage, very much what makes F-22 so good in the role..
Until the Meteor comes online, AIM-120C7/Ds will enjoy kinematic advantages, especially assuming the launch aircraft has accelerated prior to launch.
wrightwingIt is block 50 we are actually comparing coming from somr F-35 test-pilot saying “almost” the same turn rates…
And that was a clean Block 50. Put some weapons on it, and see how it does.
We all know the Maximum Mach 1.6 to be equivalent to Typhoon/Gripen/Rafale DASH of 2.0.
No. We don’t all know that the maximum mach is M1.6.:rolleyes:
Well actually I HAVE.
Capitaine Cedric Ruet, Rafale Squadron pilot winner of the 2009 RIAT (Both trophies) interview.
The video if available on the Dassault-Aviation website.
When asked which g load he wastaking he replied Here? 10.0, 20.5, 11.0 g, in French:
Preparation du Pilote pour la Demo Rafale Bourget 2009.
20.5gs?:eek: I’m going to have to raise the BS flag on that one.
My Quote:
Perhaps that’s why they use the vertical plan to deny their opponent a clear shoot, and in any case they CAN, F-35 CANT.You are speaking about energy losses due to high g turns, well in the vertical plan there is none when you have an advantage in altitude and uses it to increase you kinetic energy which is one of the Rafale pilots tactic, they also uses moderate g load AAM launching to increase their range following the same principle, this technic is known as LOFTING.
Enjoy the vid.
Altitude can be translated into speed/g and this is what they do.
The F-35 uses lofted profiles too.
wrightwingThe REAL configuration it that the aircraft was designed for with requierements of the time.
Nobody is comparing the F-35A with the YF-16 though.
Nobody cares about this sort of interpretation.
FACTS is F-16 was designed for a different role responding to different requierements and that whithin the correct parameters it still out-performs and out-turns F-35 which requierements are for mainly the A2G role.
DONT try to pass F-35 for a LWF design.
You should care as the more important information is how a platform performs under realistic conditions, not optimal conditions.
Who speaks of A2G?
Rafale does it with two AAMs routinely what makes you so sure it won’t do it with FOUR?
For someone that questions things are are explicitly written, I find it curious how you expect others to simply accept things that have no sources to corroborate the information.
Perhaps that’s why they use the vertical plan to deny their opponent a clear shoot, and in any case they CAN, F-35 CANT.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
wrightwingSo trying to imply higher performances on the basis of external tanks limits is just as inacurate as to say F-35 out-performs and out-turns a F-16 in the A2A configuration, as a matter of fact it doesn’t if the F-16 is in ITS real A2A configuration.
For the sensor/technology race it is yet another debate, and europe is not so behind, it is demonstratively in front in some areas too.
The real A2A configuration is the realistic configuration. No F-16 goes into combat with 2 AIM-9s and 50% fuel. You have to compare apples to apples(i.e. 2 AIM-120s and 2 JDAMs, or 6 AIM-120s, or whatever load out you come up with.). Under these conditions, the F-16 can’t hope to turn like an F-35.
No European fighter is going to pull 11gs w/ A2G ordinance either(or EFTs, or a full load of AAMs). Additionally, if they do manage to pull 11gs, they’re gonna bleed a lot of energy.
wrightwingYou really have to take into consideration the sensors and vastly improved situational awareness when talking about the F-35, and making comparisons against an F-16. WVR AtA combat is not ONLY about turning performance. There are OTHER factors to take into consideration, and with that, the F-35 DOES in fact out-perform the F-16 in AtA combat, BECAUSE of these factors.
Another takeaway is that the F-35 turns like an F-16, and points its nose better than an F-18, and has plenty of thrust to keep its energy levels up.
Add in superior situational awareness, and HOBS weapons too.
wrightwingRCS is not the issue here, performances are. Point 1.
RCS is an issue if you hope to survive against double digit SAMs, and late model Flanker/Fulcrum/PAK FA/etc…
On an air-to-air mission with a radius of 200 n miles, no external fuel tanks but the same missile load and a requirement to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8 at 30,000 ft,the F-35 was shown coming second last.
Questions:
1) Where does it say NO external fuel tanks in the case of the other fighters?
The other fighters needed external tanks to achieve the ranges.
2) Where does it SAY F-35 reached M 1.8?
It said accelerate from M.8 to M1.8- how can you interpret that to mean anything other than what it says?
All what was said is: the F-35 was shown coming second last.
Meaning that all the other planes on that mission profile but 1 accelerated to M1.8 faster. It didn’t say the F-35 failed to reach M1.8.
In particular when one knows the performances of the other aircrafts in A2A configuration and what it implies:
F-35 wouldn’t out-drag F/A-18 by much (if at all) without the Super Hornet carrying at least one external tank and only 4 AAMs.
An F-35 would definitely out drag an F-18 carrying external loads. F-16 Blk 50s have to use afterburners to keep up with the F-35 in military power(and the F-35 was climbing)
wrightwingSupercruising with Air Combat Loads and external tanks make sure these does it faster, do you desagree on this?
It will get you there faster, but with a higher RCS, requiring greater EW support and stand off weapons, to accomplish the same task.
As we have seen on the other thread again you are interpreting what was said.
Nowhere was it said F-35 could reach this Mach!
What was said is quiet the opposite; F-35 finished second last in a drag race from Mach > 0.9 to M 1.8 vs aircrafts carrying external tanks, it was never said it did reach the Mach, only that it finished second last in terms of performances.
Here is what was said- you’re the one interpreting.
On an air-to-air mission with a radius of 200 n miles, no external fuel tanks but the same missile load and a requirement to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8 at 30,000 ft,the F-35 was shown coming second last. With a requirement involving the same acceleration and the aircraft tasked for a 600 n mile ‘out and back’ mission, Mazanowski said the F-35 was “nothing stellar but certainly not an underperformer in this category”.
The F-35 is required to accelerate from M.8 to M1.8 at 30,000 ft in both the 200nm and 600nm scenarios. There is no other way of interpreting this, as it is written fairly explicitly.
One of these other fighters had also a maximum Mach of 1.8 and wouldn’t do Mach 1.6 in this configuration.
That statement wasn’t even in the above paragraph.
NOT in the A2A role NO, and as a matter of FACT it doesn’t out-perform or out-turn a F-16 Block 50 in its original (50% internal/ 2 X AIM-9s) Air Combat configuration.
I am not the one making up figures; those who falsly interpret staments, comments, requierements, Maximum Machs, KPPs and configuration are.
The USAF/LM claim that the F-35’s A2A performance will only be exceeded by the F-22. You have to look at kinematics, sensors/networking/situational awareness, and weapons as a whole package.
wrightwingYou are mystaking Combat performances and combat persistance, again these aircraft are not designed to enter combat in A2A with their tanks attached and they would not.
You have to get to the fight first and foremost.
Operational speed of 1.8 is a combat performance in A2A configuration for these fighters.
Their DASH as given in the case of F-35 Maximum Mach of 1.6, is 2.0 and this also involves carrying some AAMs depending on pylons load limits.
You’re as hung up with the M1.6 max for the F-35 as you are on the M2.42 on the F-22. As was seen in the other thread, a senior LM spokesman clearly said that the F-35 could do M1.8.
F-35 is OPTIMISED for the A2G role, engine, inlets, aerodynamics.
The F-35 was designed to meet/exceed A2A and A2G performance of the aircraft it was replacing. It’s not a stealthy A-7 with AMRAAMs.
wrightwingBut they do not need them in Combat configuration as opposed to the common belief, it is not how they were designed, nor did the F-16, they only need them to reach the combat zone and patrol/loiter.
So for practical purposes they need to carry EFTs. Getting to the fight, and having combat persistence is all part of the equation.
As for their respective Maximum Machs and g Loads in their actual A2A configurations they still are higher than what the F-35 have to offer, although difficult to estimate, acceleration of 45*+ sweept wings in transonic and supersonic, including A2A combat load is realisticaly also higher.
We shall see.
Yes they do, only perhaps you do not know it and no one pretends their crusing speed to be M 1.6, (forgive my English if i mislead you to think i was), one doesn’t clear external tanks for M 1.6 for the stake of spending money but operational needs.
RAF pilots wrote in Pprune that they trained to merge at M 1.6 which is not very surprising considering that the aircraft is designed for being used at much higher Machs.
Attaining a speed for a brief period vs. operating at a speed is a big distinction though.
There is really NO point trying to pass F-35 for something which is designed for higher Machs and ceilings that it really is and then pretend that performances for which other aircrafts are designed and cleared to reach are not used in combat.
The F-35 was designed for A2A(and to be second only to the F-22 in overall system capability) as well as A2G.
wrightwingReally?
What was the original post that started this controversy (#174) again?
So you’re telling us that you added the Mach 2.42 part, deliberatley manipulating data?
No. That number was the journalist’s number. 1600mph was Metz’s number.
Sign In
