gregNo obsession, just a good enough understanding that ‘clean’ is MUCH better than ‘dirty’.
No it is not, NEVER is ‘dirty’ more efficient than ‘clean’.
If that is the case, than you can probably answer why all these years fighters had external stores, and not internal as in WWII bombers.:rolleyes:
Well now we all know just how ignorant you REALLY are.
I ll have to return the insult.
You are forgetting 2-3 external tanks…and 2,000 lb JDAM are not small bombs.
The ‘extra’ structure, skin and opening panels is NOT EXTRA, it is what is needed to pack all that stuff inside & does not pose anywhere near the drag of external stores.
True but only carried a portion of the trip, while the extra structure skin and panels are riveted all the way.
Stealth is NOT the only advantage the F-35 has over 4th generation fighters & it DOES function (& in such as way that it changes the game).
Currently yes, it does function and does changes the game.
But how about 6 years from today?
Even WITHOUT stealth the F-35 will be a very good BVR & WVR fighter.
In the class of the F-15/F-16. Without stealth it is going backwards.
gregRadars will keep improving(and so will stealth against an even wider spectral threat). That doesn’t mean that stealth will be cancelled. There’s a big difference between detection, tracking, and targeting. The kinds of frequencies that can detect stealth, aren’t accurate enough to track/target it for fire control, nor are they small enough to fit on board a fighter. If they’re emitting, the Raptor/Lightning is gonna know that they’re there, before being detected. That’s what’s the important take away from stealth(and the avionics on board the Raptor/Lightning). It allows the stealthy aircraft to decide when and where to engage, to maximize its strengths.
Most probably there will be a combination of techniques.
Low frequency ground radars for early warning, detection, and fighter guidance…
and airborne AESA radars working on heavy DSP, for tracking and targeting.
Technology works both ways.
gregIf, that was true the F-22 would be a turkey! As it is larger and bulkier than the F-35. Here we go again??? Some are judging an aircrafts performance on appearance………..
What do you propose?
Close our eyes and pretend we cant see?
Marcel Dassault used to say “if it looks beautiful, it flies beautiful”.
That was Marcel Dassault!
On the other hand, we still have hard data.
Wing thickness, sweep angle, bypass ratio all make for an excellent subsonic aircraft but act as huge airbrakes in the SS region.
gregExternal tanks are expensive and in short supply. So, I doubt you will see them dropped except for an emergency. These same tanks cause considerable increases in drag and RCS. Which, inturn just make it easier to target and engage them. (i.e. first look, first shot, first kill)
In actual operations drop tanks are very often ejected.
Try the “opera” raid at 1982. Or the Serbia campaign in 1999
Drop tanks are expensive and limited assets but so do bombs and missiles!
🙂
gregwhat would it mean for any of its competitors if no effective counter to stealth has been developed 30 years from now?
if stealth is still a huge advantage and they don’t have it, what then?
Ok, ill give you that.
If no counter-stealth is achieved VLO fighters will become the dominants of the skies.
Are you now going to answer my question?
What will happen if by 2015 both ground based and airborne radars detect stealth aircraft?
gregThey most likely were carrying more than 2 bombs and 2 AAMs, and used AB takeoff.
The F-35’s internal carriage is a first day of war option, not a necessity at a later date. That’s also if it’s carrying 500-2000lb bombs. It can carry more SDBs.
My point is that aerodynamically it is more efficient to carry 2 bombs (or even 4 SDB) plus 2 drop tanks externally than internally. I am comparing apples with apples, here.
What is yours?
But that F-16 is never gonna have the RCS of an F-35, no matter what level of avionics it’s fitted with. It’ll have to depend on having longer range AAMs than it’s opponent, to remain competitive. The F-35 has more flexibility with regards to engaging and disengaging, on its own terms.
Of course it wont. Never said so.
I consider the F-35 an excellent strike aircraft plus a VERY potential BVR fighter. Because of stealth, just that, and only that!
The avionics suit is very impressive but as I wrote avionics can be incorporated in almost any fighter.
What I am trying to tell is that by the date this aircraft is going to see service, stealth features might (and most probably will) be canceled by radar innovations and new technologies.
I know you are sure that these will never happen, and if it does the effect will be minimal, I ve heard this argument a million times…
but …
just for a second, just for the argument’s sake try to imagine.
What would that mean for the lightning II?
greg– Drop tanks are gonna be carried a lot further than 10-15 minutes
I can still remember some Italian fishermen back at 1999 claiming that NATO F-16s from Aviano airbase were dropping “huge bombs” into the Adriatic sea but still continuing their mission to Serbia.;)
– How many strike aircraft load out with 2 bombs and 2 AAMs, in an external configuration?
The configuration was meant to be a comparison with the F-35s internal ordinance.
– All that extra skin and structure is worth it, if you didn’t get shot down.
True.
– The F-35 has a lot more going for it other than just stealth. It’s avionics alone are a significant feature, and it’s test pilots seem impressed with its flight performance.
Also true, but avionics can be incorparated into almost any aircraft, f.e. an F-16 block70 or block80.
gregWhat data?
If fact the present data at hand indicates that while not likely having the supersonic flight performance of a F-22 or Typhoon that it will have AT LEAST as good (& most likely better) subsonic & TRANSONIC flight performance as a F-16 & given that it will FIGHT in a CLEAN configuration should be a major concern for any 4th generation fighter WVR.
You have an obsession with this “clean” configuration concept.
But however odd it seems, the “dirty” configuration is in fact, and in most of the cases, more efficient.
That ‘s because drop tanks, after the first 10-15 minutes of the flight, are ejected or drop t, hence the phrase “drop tanks”.
And in most 3rd or 4rth generation fighters 2 small bombs and 2 A2A missiles do not pose all that drag, and are carried only half the flight time.
On the contrary a stealth aircraft must carry extra structure, skin and opening panels all the way back…;)
Add to that all the other 5th generation advantages the F-35 has & 4th generatoin fighters have MUCH more to fear from the F-35 than the F-35 has to fear from them.
True, but only because of stealth, and as long as it functions.
BS. Case in point -> F-22. And contrary to the naysayers, the F-35 is much more F-15 & F-16 than A-7…and much more F-22 than F-117.
Also true. but doesn’t this sound an regression?
gregBetter warn LM then, they were quoting 13 ton´s a few days ago in a presentation for the Portuguese Air Force…
pfcem knows better than LM!
He’s got ….. …PDFs
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
gregNow everybody knows how UNINFORMED you are. The main reason why there has been delayes & cost increases is because of a 2 year weight reduction program!
Like I said, most are STILL using OLD data…
As I wrote, amongst the “most” who STILL using OLD data happens to be the very ones who are building the aircraft:diablo:
And as wrightwing correctly quoted: We are still 4-5 years prior to the introduction of the type, so it is not safe to stick to a number.
As for all the rest, other posters covered me.
gregNot it could not, it was still in need of minimum AB. 😉
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbab.html
Paragraph 5
gregI’m pretty sure the pilots aren’t in a hurry to die, or lose a $80-100m dollar aircraft either. The point of the matter is that fixed sites are gonna die fast, opening up large gaps in coverage. Mobile sites will take longer, but….with VLO aircraft/UCAVs loitering in the area waiting for somebody to emit, that will certainly give the SAM operator pause, prior to radiating. When combined with far more effective weapons(i.e. accuracy, stand off, lethality), it’ll be much more difficult for an effective IADS to remain operational.
Ok I agree with all these, but you also must understand that every action has a re-action.
Simple as that.
gregThose HARMs are not the same HARMs we use today. HARMs back then did have the notorious ability to go retarded if the radar signal was cut off. Seeker modifications and GPS additions have given the current model HARMs the ability to accurately home onto the position of a deactivated radar emitter and still kill it.
Hence the difference between SEAD and DEAD…SEAD being Suppression and DEAD being Destruction. Of Enemy Air Defenses, of course.
I know SOC but I wasn’t referring to the HARMs.
I was trying to say that ground radars are operated by men, not willing to die.
Not a good thing to underestimate them, or consider them put, to get a bomb in the face.
gregBS, you can not NO WAY NO HOW supercruise without thrust. Yes it does depend on many, many factors but thrust is a VERY SIGNIFICANT factor.
The F-35 is not an F/A-18E/F. The F-35 has the thrust of the F/A-18E/F but is closer in size to the Rafale (just look at the pictures of F-35 AA-1 with the F-16 chase plane)…
Seriously pfcem you need to get more polite.
Do you know that the CONCORDE could supercruise at M2.0 since 1970??
Do you know the installed thrust, weight and size of the aircraft?
gregOPERATIONAL EMPTY for production aircraft
(I bet most incorrectly still use the pre-weight reduction number)
F-35A: 26,600 lbs ……
What? The F35 went to weight-watchers? LOL
According to the official LM site the aircraft still weights 29,300 lbs.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html
And you know what the trouble is? We are still 4 years from the introduction of the type from LPIR lines. Most probable, it is going higher.
Note that just because the F-35A can carry 18,300 lbs of fuel INTERNALLY (all 4th generation light/middle-weight fighters NEED three external tanks to even come close to that) DOES NOT mean that it has to. In an air-to-air configuration of say, 12,000 lbs of fuel (2/3 max but still more than any of the above except for the F-16C & F/A-18E/F) with 4 internal AMRAAM & 2 external Sidewinder puts the take-off weight of the F-35A at ~40,000 lbs.
Your argument is obvious. No need to write it more the 4 times.
But even if it does take off with less than maximum internal fuel (which cannot happen often of course) the 35 still must bear all the extra structure (weight) and skin (friction) of its empty tanks all the way.
Is it really? Better check your arithmetic…
Ever learn that aerodynamics & drag are A LOT more complicated than fuselage width? I didn’t think so.
Ok if fuselage size and shape are of lessen importance to you, how about the other numbers I posted?
What about the wings thickness (0,6%!!!!)?
What about bypass ratio (0,6)?
What about the sweep angle (35 degrees)?
What about all the extra surface that CANNOT be dropped away when tanks are empty?
Please don not misunderstand me. I dont consider the aircraft a bad design.
Not at all! Is is OK. (maybe a bad concept)
At some points it is brilliand as long as it goes SLOOOOOWWWWW. (< M0,8 or something close to that)
No, because I have ALWAYS known that the F-35 had a different engine than the F-22. However, it is essentially the same core engine but the F135 (F-35 engine) has a larger diameter fan. The F-22 was DESIGNED to SUPERCRUISE (note that when the US uses the term supercruise in the context of the F-22 it means >Mach 1.5 rather than Mach >1.0) at ~Mach 1.6 at 50,000′ – Just becasue the F-35 has no requirement (& thus not designed) to do so does not mean that it cand do say Mach 1.2 at 35,000’… The F-15C & F-16C weren’t designed to supercruise (as in the “traditional >Mach 1.0) but CAN in a clean configuration. If you notice from above the F-35 has about the same amount of dry thrust as the F-15C & I guarantee that the F-35 is less ‘draggy’ than even a clean F-15C.
I seriously dough M1,2 supercruise. Try 0,8… 0,81:diablo:
The hell it ain’t.
And you never will:dev2:
Dry thrust similar to the F-15C & Typhoon but more aerodynamic than a clean F-15C or a combat-configured Typhoon…
F-35 being less draggy that the F-15??? In what speeds M0,3???:confused:
Mind you a a combat-configured Typhoon does NOT contain drop tanks! Not during combat at least!
You are the fool here not me.
LOL
Fuel is the life blood of a fighter, without it…it is DEAD. HUGE advantage for the F-35 is that it can carry more fuel INTERNALLY (thus not suffering the major drag penealty of external tanks) than 4th generation light/middle-weight fighters can WITH THREE EXTERNAL TANKS. And as I said before, just because the F-35A can carry 18,300 lbs of fuel does not mean that it has to…
As I asked wrightwing, did you ever wondered if internal carriage of extra fuel and weapons gave ANY advantage to a fighter, why not incorporated in earlier fighters?????? Like F-15s or F-16s.
Could it be that the overall advantages are less than the overall shortcomings? Sleep on that.
Sign In
