wrightwingIn a high thread enviroment both are limited to a single path against a single target in general. The F-117A showed the optimum possible already.
Another story was the “tank-blinking” against Iraki tanks without a credible AD left and in safe distance to the friendlies. Under such special conditions multiple runs against several targets are possible.
The F-15E can hit as many targets as it has SDBs in 1 pass, or it can hit multiple targets in multiple passes as well.
wrightwing@ww, in my book fair doesn’t include claiming projected or assumed capabilites as fact in an attempt to counter perceived “negative” comments.
The fact that virtually every time something that is not totally positive about the F35 is posted you feel the need to “counter” it makes your opinion difficult to accept as fair.
If the negative comments had some proof, then your criticism might be less disengenuous. The fact of the matter is that aside from being behind schedule, there hasn’t been one shred of evidence that the plane hasn’t performed as well or better than expected. As it stands now the cost looks to be $60 million for F-35As, with B/Cs costing more.
wrightwingbesides being such a nice guy, your not thinking, i mean, thinking out side the boxes.
why upgrade to “5 gen” when you can have the same systems to a fraction of the cost in a your 4.5 gen fighter?
standoff weapons and cruise missiles can also make those high threat scenarios..UCAV is on the doorstep whether you like it or not. they are much better complement to a 4.5 gen than a 5 gen is to a AF.
What im saying, if you have a 4 gen fighter, theres no need for 5 gen fighters. you can upgrade youre 4 gen fighter with new avionics cheap. and then go for UCAVS.
UCAV in the sense that you’re thinking of won’t be a practical reality till the 2020s. The systems just aren’t mature enough yet, and you still need a man in the loop for many things. These 4th Gen fighters will still have to face 5th Gen fighters, and at great disadvantage. It’s like arguing that piston engine aircraft are much cheaper to keep using than going to jets.
wrightwingAll of the systems are in operation, and have been in testing for years. It’s the software blocks that are in development, to open up greater capabilities.
As for quoting from another forum- that quote was originally from a LM presentation that was in Janes. Your position goes far beyond “we don’t know yet” to a willful disbelief and pathological skepticism of anything remotely positive about the F-35.
wrightwingWe’re discussing a scenario in which F-35Bs are taking off from STOVL-only carriers. There are no dedicated tankers. They can’t fly off the carrier. If it was within range of a land base where we could base tankers, we’d use them – but we might not send the carrier, & just send land-based fighters along with the tankers.
Long-range missiles may not be suitable. If you’re doing CAS, you don’t want to use TLAMs or the like.
Well then presumably you’d secure an area inland as a base of operations, after the initial defenses were attrited. Then you wouldn’t have to operate solely from the carrier. That’s what the USMC plan is.
wrightwingww, it’s not that it’s implausible, it’s just that these plausible, potential abilites are all too often presented by such as yourself as undoubted fact…prior to that actually being the case.
By doing so you and your chums actually undermine the credability of the program.
When challenged you at least do eventually admit that it is a projection and suppostion, many of the more pro JSF camp don’t / won’t.
An intended or projected capability doesn’t count when comparing to capabilities that exist today, unless you are prepared to accept that other platfroms should also be measured based on future capabilities.
But i’m sure you’ll dismiss this as “naysaying.”
I try to be realistic, and fair, which is more than I can say about some posters. The F-35 program has had some issues, but they haven’t been performance shortcomings, unless we’re to believe there’s a huge conspiracy amongst all of the test pilots.
wrightwing“better performance, greater weapons payload, greater range, much better avionics, much lower RCS ”
Better performance? Really? Proven when? Define performance!
Greater weapons payload? Really? Proven when?
Greater range? Really? Proven when?
Much better avionics? Really? Proven when? (How the heck would you or i know that? :rolleyes:)
At what point would you consider these matters settled? LM knows what the performance of the aircraft it will be replacing is, and they have a very good idea based upon actual flights as well as accurate simulations, how the aircraft performs. As far as defining performance- STR, ITR, Acceleration, Range, AoA/carefree handling.
Weapons payload
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35A-ctol-variant.html
the F-35A external pylons are loaded with ordnance, giving the aircraft a weapons payload of more than 18,000 pounds.
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/eurofighter_ef2000.htm
It has a high load Capacity with flexible missile configurations. It has thirteen carriage points, three of which are capable of holding external fuel tanks. The maximum fuel or weapons payload is 6,500 kg (14,330 lb.).
http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/Rafale-M_a000479001.aspx
Payload 8,000 kg (17,637 lb)
Range-
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14154-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-15.html
As for radius the CTOL will do about 750nm on a max range air-to-air combat profile on internal. LM did a comparison some time ago (printed in JanesDW), all except Flanker with three droptanks:
* F-35A 751nm
* Super Hornet 816nm
* GripenC 502nm
* Eurofighter 747nm
* Rafale 896nm
* Su-30MKI 728nmBear in mind that these were estimates. Also consider that all performance metrics on the F-35 is based on combat weight, and end-of-life engine performance with 5 percent degradation in fuel economy and 2 percent in thrust.
Avionics-
If you’re going to compare what will be available by F-35 IOC on any competitor, then which one has had more work put into sensor fusion, or as wide a variety of capabilities(and all internally carried)? I’d say it’s a fair guess that LM, the DOD, the partner nations(especially those that also have Typhoons), have a pretty good idea of the relative merits.
AESA/EOTS/EODAS/MADL along with very extensive ESM/ECM right off the bat, with EA/NGJ/DIRCM following shortly, etc…
It’d be Tranche 5 or 6 before the Rafale/Typhoon offer similar capabilities, and they’d still not have VLO airframes.
Much lower RCS? Yep it is certainly designed in terms of shaping to have low RCS.
The last i actually see as a limiting factor, my bet is that in the next twenty years electronic methods will once again become the preminant “stealth” tech…leaving the likes of the F35 trailling becasue it simply isn’t possible to upgrade the airframe without a major re-design due to the “stealth” shaping.
Great call that if you’re putting your future air power all in the F35 basket. 😮
So you’d rather put all of you eggs in one basket with an airframe that has higher reliance on ECM to survive, rather than using a VLO airframe + ECM?
It seems like your basket is much smaller.:cool:
60mill for the F35A, do you really believe that? Oh dear. How many sold is that price coming in at? How long down the line is that? Does it include the engine?? :p
Yes, it includes the engine. Read some articles by other authors that Kopp/Sweetman sometime.
wrightwingSo far LM has been coming in under costs, so unless something goes wrong that has yet to be identified, it would be unusual for the price to fluctuate greatly.
wrightwingCost. You cannot lead a lenghty war campaign based on solely PGM use. The stocks would not last long with most air forces.
Presumably we’re talking about the USAF and the RuAF though.
If you look at it closely, F-15E with its low risk mission profile, high maintanence standards, PGMs and long service life span of both airframe and engines and high cost is a typical peacetime tool for deterrence and occassional short bombing campaign.
The important numbers are mission availability rates. The F-15E is hardly a dainty aircraft.
wrightwingIt may be a bit optimistic to plan for 100% effectiveness under wartime conditions, especially considering the tests didn’t involve heavy ECM, and multiple inbound targets from different azimuths. It also didn’t take into consideration that systems will require much higher maintenance(which in a dynamic situation, might not always be possible due to time/spare part constraints) in the field, than on a test range.
wrightwingThere is an effect. You have to subtract the number of F-35s being used as buddy tankers from the available number of strikers. You’d be better off using dedicated tankers, or longer range weapons.
wrightwingNo, what I did was show you that a heavier aircraft exceeded the threshold many of the naysayers are trying to claim as VMax, when the LM, etc… sites clearly say that the F-35 is designed to reach M1.6 with a full internal combat load(which is >3000lbs- 5500 to be exact). I then asked if it was implausible that a production model could reach M1.67 with a full combat load(especially considering the weight offset). I conceded that the article about the 240-3 didn’t explicitly say 2 JDAMS as well as 2 AMRAAMs. What’s amazing is the complete unwillingness to even conceive such a feat being realistic, and the apparent goldfish memory with regards to links on systems that aren’t one’s precious.
wrightwingThere are no bolters, no fouled decks, and much lower visibility limits on a STOVL carrier, so buddy refueling isn’t as critical safety-wise compared to on a CTOL carrier.
As Grim said, it’s a “nice to have”, because it gives you some tactical flexibility for long range missions, which would be very useful in high intensity ops against a well defended opponent.
Unless they could do it without adversely affect the RCS, then it’d be a liability.
wrightwingWW, you’re kidding, right?
So again, where does any source claim that F35 does M1.67 with 2xMRMs and 2xJDAMs??
Lemme get this straight. A plane that’s already 3000lbs heavier than the production model, exceeds the M1.6 figure(which all 3 variants are designed to reach with full internal load), BUT….M1.67 with internal weapons in a lighter aircraft is science fiction? I’ll give you this- the article doesn’t explicitly say that, so I’m going WAY out on a limb.:rolleyes:
wrightwingLighter weight might generally allow you to fly higher, but it doesn’t always let you fly faster.
True, but with less weight, there’ll be less drag to overcome as well.
Sign In
