Funny, on how some just look at the F-35 and make big assumptions about speed, drag, and aerodynamics???? Which, is laughable……….If, I am not mistaken both the F-104 Starfighter and F-4 Phantom II had a similar top speed of Mach 2.2! The Starfighter was a small almost Rocket Shaped Fighter. While, the F-4 was well a TRUCK! 😉

F-4 as well as F-104 had excellent aerodynamics, apart of course that they lacked wings….

The question I had posed to the other poster was whether they could provide the figures for how much drag a clean F-35 had vs. another aircraft, or whether they were making a subjective claim based on looking at a picture.
Additionally how much drag the other aircraft had when carrying external stores.

You might get surprised to know how many good conclusions have been drawn by a careful optical observation of a subject.

BTW you seem to have an obsession with external stores.
Ever asked yourself if internal carriage of extra fuel and weapons gave ANY advantage to a fighter, why not incorporated in earlier fighters?????????:D

I’m not talking about a HARM. A site like that could be targeted with a T-LAM, SLAM-ER, JSOW, SDB, etc…. That was my point, it’s not highly mobile, which means it’s not gonna be able to pick up and go on short notice. It’s also big, which means, it’s not gonna be terribly difficult to spot.

As for the HARMs in Serbia, if the radar has to shut down, then the HARM has done its job. You can’t base its effectiveness solely on destruction, but on its ability to protect air packages from being targeted.

I wasn t talking about the HARM either!
Nobody expects in 2020 to use the same weapons as 1999.

But there was a lesson there to whomever it may concerns…
Dont underestimate your opponent, no matter how weak he seams.

feel free to demonstrate any time you feel like

Oh please, you first.
After all, it was you that first quoted that M5 missiles destroy anything that flies.

How much drag do conventional fighters have when they have missiles, bombs, tanks, pods externally mounted vs. clean F-35?

Lemons with lemons and oranges with oranges.

Conventional fighters carrying 2 AMRAAMs and 2 small bombs….. Less drag then the F-35.

Yes, even if you count drop tanks, because can be dropped after 1/4 of the journey.

irrelevant, you can’t dodge something that fast. PERIOD

even if you know the second it is launched and exactly where it was launched from and what it’s current track is, all that tells you is it’s time to eject

any move you make will EASILY be countered by the missile

it only has to make small adjustments to counter your large adjustments

even if you make an instantaneous 90 degree turn while maintaining full speed (impossible), the missile only has to correct course a couple degrees

I Know what you mean, but your calculations (if any) are wrong.

1. it’s not. sure it might be ‘based’ on it, but practically every engine is based on a predecessor all the way back to whittle and company
2. um, who cares? what was your point about it being the raptor engine anyways?

The point is that everything aboard the F-35 SHOUTS keep away from the SS region.

is that a clean F-16 or an F-16 with missiles, bombs, targeting pod and conformal tanks?

Clean. F-16s even clean cannot supercruise.

patience for what?

are you actually going to post the coefficient of drag for the F-35 vs the Su-35?

Patience for time.
Performance of both aircraft, will be revealed sooner or later.

:rolleyes:

funny, most seem intent on adding conformal tanks (that cannot be dropped) all over the place

so they seemingly don’t subscribe to your theory

For a2g? I thought we are talking about a2a.
I don not dough the 35 as a bomb carrier.

This is relevant how exactly?

Yes. Its means drag. Tones of it.

The F-35 uses the Pratt & Whitney F135 and/or the GE F136. The F-22 uses the Pratt & Whitney F119.

Actually is is almost the same engine.
The big difference is the bypass ratio. The F-119 has a B/R of 0.2 for SS speeds, three times less tan the F135s. Bypass is actually an airbrake in SS speeds. More drag

Do you have any proof that it can’t? It certainly wouldn’t be for a lack of thrust. It has been mentioned already, but the F-35 has roughly the same thrust in military power, as an F-16 has in full afterburner(and with no external stores creating drag). No one here knows with 100 percent certainty whether it can or can’t.

Drag again.
Take a look at the wing. With a thickness of 0.6% it is thicker ever than the F-16s wing!!! (0.4%). The sweep angle is only 35d (F-22: 45, EF:53)yet more drag.
Wetted area is almost twice,than the F-16s.
Drag. Is such a bitch.

That rule is due the amount the other fighters can carry internally. The advantage the F-35 has is in persistence in afterburner use. Other fighters will drop their tanks to fight, and be stuck with a smaller internal fuel capacity, limiting their afterburner usage. When the F-35 is at 50 percent fuel it’s T/W is A: 1.12; B: 1.10; C: 1.01, and without the necessity to overcome extra drag from its weapons.

Actually that is a disadvantage
Other fighters will BURN all fuel inside drop tanks while taking off and getting height, and drop their tanks when they are completely useless.
Stealth fighters however, must still carry all structure and skin needed for this extra fuel, all the time:cool:

So you’re willing to assume that the Su(which is still undergoing flight testing) can supercruise at M1.3-1.5 with 6 external missiles, but believe that the F-35(which is still undergoing flight testing) can only reach M 0.8, while flying clean? Frankly I’d be very surprised if the F-35 couldn’t supercruise clean with 40,000+ lbs of thrust.

Well you must understand that there is a thing (actually a discipline) called aerodynamics.

It involves things like thrust, drag, lift, and weight amongst others.

Anyway show some patience.