wrightwingSome people are eager to ignore the related details. All that was done under special circumstances on the bench to verify some margins. Of cause we got not details about the test conditions and the time of some thrust peaks.
As claimed before it is no problem to push AB thrust to its limits, because it is limited to the AB-section at first. It is much more important and critical to generate more thrust from the core-engine alone. 😎
ActuallyP&W has stated that the F-135 was designed to regularly be run at max thrust, due to the requirements for the B model, having plenty of safety/durability margin built in. The issue isn’t how much thrust that the engine can provide, but rather how much the lift fan can. Right now that is the weakest link, with fixes being implemented to the fan clutches, etc…
wrightwingThat’s a nice looking design, but that tail doesn’t look particularly stealthy.
wrightwingvalid reply. 😀
second question is integrally connected to the first question.
if F-35 would dump ordinance anyways, I do not think the extra drag pentalty you allege the “external stores drag” to have matters any more in an a2a scenario. and infact even may cut against F-35.fuel dumping means giving up persistence.
alleged is a key word.
and USAF didn’t choose the smaller winged F-35A for no reason you know?
after all if they have all the thrust they need from F-135 why don’t they just go for for the bigger wing?
they want to hit a higher top speed with A2A load than F-35C.
-i agree that in a strictly A2A loadout the drag penalty/advantage isn’t as big, as with a strike load out, but the F-35 still has the speed advantage, unless the F-16 jettisons its EFTs.
-jettisoning EFTs means giving up persistence too, and jettisoning your bombs means mission kill.
-we shall see soon enough, once the full envelope is validated, and more pilots are flying the aircraft.
-the USAF went for the A model for a variety of reasons- cost(they could get a lot more A’s for the same amount of money, as C’s), performance(though all 3 will reach M1.6 with internal load, and likely faster at lighter weights)- the A does have the quickest acceleration and highest G rating, but the C actually turns better in parts of the envelope.
wrightwingThat still gives no indication of whether it’s a forward looking system, or a spherical coverage system. We shall see as more info becomes available.
wrightwingAs for long range ID, the NCTR abilities of the radar, and backed up be the EOTS, and ESM system, can greatly assist in determing the identity of a target. The Typhoon won’t be taking any BVR shots against the F-35.
If the F-35 has first look, the pilot can accelerate to combat speeds(I.e. M1.6, which by the way is comparable to the combat speed of a Typhoon).
As for handling, I think a better analogy would be a Corvette vs. Porsche.
When you factor that, with more angles which can be used to attack from, I just don’t see the Typhoon having enough raw performance to completely mitigate that F-35 advantage.
wrightwingI think you’re still missing the point, along with overstating the Typhoon’s advantages. By situational awareness, I mean that the F-35 would’ve had the first look, and the ability to start setting up a shot, before the Typhoon was aware( which would mean that the F-35 could have already gotten up to speed). Your assumption is mutual detection, and then both aircraft begin accelerating at the same time. By staying straight, the F-35 can maintain a higher energy state, though the tactics will obviously be situation dependent, and the F-35 pilot will be countering maneuvers that put it at a disadvantage. The Typhoon would already be on the defensive and at a lower energy state, assuming it survived the BVR attack, and not likely in the position to dictate the terms of the merge.
I also think you’re overstating whatever disadvantages the F-35 would have in terms of turn rate/acceleration, while ignoring the greater nose pointing authority, and full spherical engagement coverage vs frontal hemisphere.
wrightwingyou are telling us, that a F-35 combat pilot in a mission would not drop its a2g ordinance? that a F-35 would still achieve all of its maneuvering capability and performance with its a2g ordinance strapped in.
Those are 2 different questions. In answer to the first one, I don’t think that in most situations the F-35 pilot would jettison stores, but obviously it only takes one example of it occurring, to refute that it would never happen. The F-35 is allegedly as agile in that condition as a clean F-16. Another option would be fuel dumping, which the F-35 can do very rapidly, to lose weight, without being mission killed. To answer the second question, obviously an empty F-35 at half fuel would have better performance, than at full weight. The point though is in how it compares to other aircraft carrying combat loads.
wrightwingI am pretty sure that the discussion was limited to total level flight drag F35 vs F-16. so ” as evidence that there must be no trade off,” is bit disingenuous.
Is it true to the fact that you said others are smoking dope when other said F-16 external load may have less drag than F-35 carrying internal load.
while you yourself concede to the very same possibility.anyways. the fact that you understand now that there is a “tradeoff” but not oneway street indicate that this is a beneficial discussion. 😀
That’s where you’re mistaken. I never conceded that an F-16 carrying 2 JDAMS, 2 AMRAAMS, 2 EFTs, Sniper/Litening/Lantirn pods, was less draggy than an F-35 with the same load. I also said that without knowing the specifics about why certain trade offs in other planes were chosen, it would be difficult to do an apples to apples comparison. Some examples might be due to overall cost, landing weight, less complexity, etc..
wrightwingYou mean the Amraam D will do the same? In that case i would give the advantage to the aircraft wih IR HOBS. The Amraam isn’t optimized for such a fight, assuming it can cue a target through DAS. That’s why all manufacturers have in production dedicated HOBS.
I think that if the F35 goes fast in a straight line, it will be worst for the F35. The enemy can start his turn slightly before the merge and will see the non manouvering F35 sooner in his front hemisphere.
The problem is this. A more manouverable enemy will dictate at what distance the merge will occur, not the F35. The F35 would have in its best interest to merge perfectly parallel and as close horizontal separation as possible to the enemy. But if the enemy can out-accelerate and outmanouver the F35, the F35 won’t be able to choose how they will merge. The other will.
– the AIM-120D had HOBS capabilities(and a much greater range than a SRAAM)
-your assumption is that the foe would be merging with equal situational awareness, and it’s by no means a given, that that will be the case. Agility isn’t useful till you know that you need to maneuver.
-how does one begin their turn before the merge? That would result in them presenting their side or rear to the F-35, which is certainly not the most advantageous attitude to be in.
wrightwingThat’s a definite possibility, but they’ve already begun implementing the fix to the software, so I suspect it won’t be long before test points M1.4, M1.5, M1.6, etc… occur.
wrightwing[QUOTE=Amiga500;1691101]I am only using top speed to highlight the fact the F-16 has a much lower drag polar than the F-35.
Unsurprisingly, you fail to realise the implications of that with respect acceleration.
You will now probably continue to waffle on about the military thrust advantage of the F-35, again not realising the F-16 is actually faster (both in acceleration and v-max) when it counts.
When it counts, an F-16 can and will out-accelerate an F-35.
An F-16 with 4 AAMs will have a better T/D an F-35. An F-16 with 6 AAMs may have a better T/D an F-35.
An F-16 with drop tanks will not out accelerate an F-35. An F-16 will always jettison their drop tanks when dogfighting.
Do you not see the fallacy of your argument?
Do you understand the implications of higher T/D ratios?
The F-15s would also have very limited elevator authority at such supersonic speeds.
Don’t equate “max speed” with combat speeds.
The two are nothing alike, and it would be ignorant to suggest such.
/QUOTE]
-You may want to refer back to post 173, from LMRaptor, with regards to your drag/acceleration claims.
-sure, the F-16 can jettison fuel, and bombs to get ready for WVR combat, but…that results in A- a mission kill and B-losing persistence.
-all of your speed comparisons between the 2 aircraft involve the F-16 jettisoning stores. The point of the F-35 was to be able to fly at M1.6 with a full internal load of fuel and weapons. No F-16 can reach that speed with 2 JDAMs, 2 AMRAAMs, Targeting pods, and external fuel tanks.
-you missed the point entirely about the F-15 in combat. They didn’t limit themselves to M1.4 due to control authority issues. It was due to the time needed to accelerate, and fuel consumption. With the exception of the Mig 31, it wasn’t until the F-22 that prolonged supersonic flight was feasible. The takeaway here is that M1.6 combat speeds are higher than historically demonstrated, and compare favorably with other current/projected aircraft.
-as for max speed/combat speed, the F-35 is better able to make use of its speed under combat conditions, than is the F-16, though point taken on the semantics/terminology.
Unloaded, and at 50% fuel, I strongly suspect the F-35’s theoretical top speed would be even higher than its max combat speed.
-way to stay classy with the Ad Hominem
wrightwingNow you got my attention WW.:)
If indeed its beeing fitted with something better than the OLS-35.
What kind of system improvments do you expect the serial prod Pak-Fa?
Hard to say for sure, but likely an evolved design of the OLS-35, much like the US using evolved designs based off the AAS-42. As for what improvements might be implemented, that’s another open ended question, but it’s doubtful that it would be significantly different.
wrightwingI have my doubts too and it will also need to either carry AIM9X externally (goodbye stealth) or later get an internal AIM9x version (reducing the internal payload), but i think it’s a good concept, if it works.
I found this:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/61051-f-35-jsf-maneuvering-irrelevant.html
And then also this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-CeuO1R4WE
The second one, made me think about the “manouverability is irrelevant”. It may be for the F35, but won’t guarantee that it will save it. A more manouverable enemy that is merging, will probably put quickly the F35 in it’s frontal hemisphere and shoot the AIM9x just like in the video the pilot does against the F4 drone. So what you can do in your rear hemisphere won’t matter probably, it will all be finished before that. It could be a mutual kill though. I mean, in the LM DAS video, the enemy has to “turn” and take the 6 oclock of the F35. Well, apparently not… if the enemy has HOBS. All he needs is to turn a bit tighter during the 1st pass and he can launch.
I don’t know… It’s sure good against enemy without HOBS, that HAS to take your tail.
Modifying the missile to be able to turn backwards i think won’t be a problem. I remember the news about Rafale shooting MICA backwards using the link from another Rafale. The missile will probably take more time to make a full turn at high speed, but it can be done. The question is, what will your opponent be doing during that time. If he has HOBS probably he won’t bother to take your exact 6 o’clock.
At the end, IMHO, in the merge, the one with most kills, will be the one that will be able to fire more HOBS missiles quicker… So it will come down to numbers of missiles and aircrafts.
Just a few points here- the -9X isn’t the only HOBS weapon that the F-35 carries, so carrying external weapons, or modifying the bays to use Sidewinders, isn’t the key to success. Secondly, if the F-35 is going fast in a straight line, even a more maneuverable foe, will take time to get turned into a firing position, and…the range of a HOBS shot vs a receding target will be much lower.
wrightwingNo need to. If it can fly M1.6, then it can and the topic is over.
Until that happens, it can fly M1.3.. 🙂
I think you’d find folks taking you more seriously, if you’d say it has flown M1.3, rather than it can fly M1.3.
wrightwingIf it only handles like a late F-16 with this monster engine, then it must have numerous disadvantages in terms of aerodynamics.
Now count in that utterly ridiculous M1.3 max speed figure and up to now pretty questionable LO characteristics.. :confused: BTW, where are those Beesley’s “almost a Raptor” claims now? 😉
The claim is as well or better than a clean F-16(or F-18 for that matter) which is an important distinction. Being able to turn like an F-16, and point its nose like an F-18, will make it a worthy opponent in WVR, even before adding in the other capabilities.
What is utterly ridiculous, is your insistence that M1.3 is the max speed, and I’d love to see a source on the questionable LO characteristics.
Sign In
