Amiga500About the LWF/F-16 they had something in mind similar in size to the MiG-21 and still better than the MiG-23 in WVR combat.
C’mon Sens. You can do better than that.
The MiG-23 was getting towards 10 years old before the F-16 first flew. The LWF was aimed to be significantly better than anything in the air at the time.
Amiga500The interception ability of a Mig-21 or the Lightning is far superior to the F-16, especially the newer heavier versions of the Viper. Time to Altitude of either of those airframes is excellent.
I don’t believe time-to-altitude is something the F-16 is very poor at. [For a similar 2 missile loadout, it’d be plenty quick.]
But the F-16 offers so much more in so many other arenas that I know which one I’d pick. Heres an easier one, the original F-16 could climb better, turn better and was cheaper to operate and maintain. How do you think 50 F-16A Block 15s would fare against even 30-40 Block 52/60s?
The block 15 was built in ~ 1980.
The block 50 was built in ~ 2005.
So are you shocked that an aircraft built 25 years later is better? Even if it is marginally worse in flight performance due to weight growth.
All of the advantages that the Block 52s would have in that scenario are vastly improved in the F-35 but people seem to think that isnt enough when they’re more than happy to see the sense in it when looking at the F-16 or Su-27/30 family?
You aren’t comparing an F-35 to a MiG-29M. Well… you might if you want to.
Is the F-35 built to take on its contemporaries or is it not? In all manner of kinematic performance, it compares very poorly to the PAK-FA. The J-20 is too much of an unknown to make a reasonable comparison.
Amiga500Actually if you look at the discussion, it started when someone compared performance of the F-35 vis-a-vis supercruise to 4.5 generation.
An example of where the F-35 doesn’t improve on aircraft that is 10-15 years older. [Decelerating is not cruising. Nor is diving.]
The F-35 is a Multi role strike fighter,
Its a modern day Thunderchief. Only the Thud can get outta dodge qucker.
The F-35 is a low end of the F-22/F-35 High – Low set up
Replace high-low with any of:
good – sh!t
effective – dangerously ineffective
I wish we’d got more of these – if ever there was a case of bean counters making bad decisions…
You feeling lucky punk? – oh crap
At least Navair recognise it for what it is. And that from the bunch that brought you the superhornet.
Amiga500And as mentioned, the information being sighted by me is not from LOCKHEED MARTIN…Its from the USAF and its auditors.
I am not doing this here. As far as RCS is concerned, there is NO INFORMATION out there to GRASP in the first place. Only thing known is whether the requirement was met or not , thats it…So even if Lockheed martin wanted to they have no released information to have their marketing department manipulate
Decision makers in the USAF-Lockheed Martin-Boeing-Electric Boat-General Dynamics (etc). Unfortunately for the folks at the sharp-end they are essentially the same thing.
Its a single number with no surrounding context.
While you are right to say that the F-22 meets ATF requirements, those requirements are now… 30?… give-or-take years old. Whether those requirements were stringent enough to make the F-22 relevant in a 2020 environment is really the issue.
Amiga500No the point was that you CLAIMED that the SUPERCRUISE figures published were from a LOCKHEED MARTIN POWER POINT presentation..WHEN they are clearly NOT. that was MY POINT !
No. No. no no no no no.
My point is very simple. LM will always present the bit of information that makes their product look the best, regardless of how out of context that is. Others do it too – unfortunately far too many fanbois (on both sides), see a number, grasp it and treat it as gospel, even if that number is only representative of 0.01% of scenarios. Like RCS values for instance.
I do not know from where you get this information from. Range @ SC (let alone @ Mach 1.7) is UNKNOWN, in fact even the ATF Requirements had to do with COMBAT RADIUS and that was for a MODEL mission with 260+100nm breakdown. This is RADIUS not range..and just one mission
True, I mis-spoke. It’s about 450m supercruise range.
Whats the PAKFA Range @ Mach 2.3 🙂 ?
Given what the Russians will want it to do – I would well imagine it will go far beyond 600 miles at M1.7-1.8. But I don’t believe it will cruise beyond M2.
Amiga500The F-22 Supercruise released figures have NOTHING to do with Lockheed Martin or their Power point projections, they are a product of modeling and flight testing which occured pre IOC.
Way to COMPLETELY miss the point batman.
The F-22 can supercruise @ ~M1.7 for ~150-200 miles.
The MiG-31 can run @ ~M2.3 for ~600 miles.
But, because the MiG is using afterburners, Lockheed would have you believe as far as covering long distances quickly goes, that the F-22 is better. The same will apply to comparisons in other areas to other aircraft. Headline numbers aren’t everything, what those numbers allow you to do when you need to are what is important.
Amiga500What are you implying ? I was comparing 4.5 vs 5th gen fighters because that was where the discussion is headed.
The discussion always heads this way. For a good reason.
The F-35 is not capable of running with its contemporaries, so supporters of the aircraft seek to draw performance comparison with 10-15 year old aircraft. Even then, the performance comparisons often come out against the F-35.
Imagine if we were comparing the F-16 to, say the EE Lightning or the MiG-21. How many areas would the Lightning or Fishbed beat the Viper?
Amiga500The F-35 and the 4.5 gen fighter would not fly straight towards each other…Or get into a turning fight (BVR) once the F-35 detects the 4.5 gen fighter…Unless the 4.5 gen fighter acquires SA that is way more capable then that with the F-35 the Latter would always have a detection advantage allowing it FREEDOM to manuever and try to get away from the 4.5 gen fighters sweet spot as far as his targeting and detection suite is concerned. Air combat is not a JOUSTING match where two fighters go head to head in a straight line.
I think this is indicative of the complete miscommunication in many of these threads.
When the US started the LWF (and the F-X) programs… did they aim at merely beating the MiG-21? Or did they aim to beat whatever would succeed the MiG-21?
Comparisons keep being drawn between the F-35, which has yet to enter service, and aircraft which have been in service for ~10+ years now.
I don’t know about you, but if I sunk over $100 billion into a fighter program, I would like to think I would do better than achieve questionable victories over equipment which has been around front-lines for near 15 years prior to the new fighter’s IOC (given IOC estimates of 2015 at best are running around).
Amiga500[ATTACH=CONFIG]216909[/ATTACH]
Thank you.
What missiles are depicted in the top/bottom drawings? (I could prob start rummaging around for dimensions, but you’d know straight away anyway! :))
Next thing – looking at the top drawing – I’m pretty sure, with folding fins* I could design a 2-deep launch rail, giving 2×3 missiles per bay = 12 missiles on the centreline bays, 14 on the aircraft including the two pods. edit: That is much more in-line with the kind of numbers I would expect based on Russian doctrine.
*Folding fins will be needed on the two missiles in the wee pods, there isn’t sufficient clearance there to fit in the front spar. For a 9g fighter, you need a hefty front spar. :eagerness:
(I would expect the missile to actually encroach very little into the wing section above the pod, i.e. it would mostly be contained within the pod itself.)
Amiga500That strikes me as very low combat persistence for the bunch that bought us 12 hardpoints on a Su-35…
edit: What is the estimated distance between the nacelles? and the estimated depth of the “fuselage” in that region?
Amiga500When did the RAF want to buy the F-14?…
As far as I understand it (which is probably based on rumours flying around as much as anything):
The original plan was TSR2. This was cancelled in favour of “cheaper” F-111s, which were subsequently cancelled over cost.
After which, I believe the US made a sales pitch for the F-14 as a cheaper alternative to the F-111 and also as a replacement for the RAF Phantoms and Lightnings.
The RAF didn’t go for it, and went with Tornado instead. But all of that occurred late 60s early 70s. [yes, I know… phantoms had only arrived at that stage]
Amiga500VLO, Sensors plus INTEGRATED NET-CENTRIC Warfighting…
Wow… capital letters and a coupe of buzzwords. Your really rolling out the big-guns now. :highly_amused:
Last time I looked, the sharing of information was predicated on actually having accumulated the information.
Which is REQUIRED beacuse the PAKFA is designed to be the best of the best Air superiority fighter , a role similar to that of the F-22. The PAKFA is an F-22 LIKE solution…the F-35 is something totally different, it is not a replacement for the F-22 but something for the multi role strike F-16Blk 50’s..
It most definitely is not a replacement for the F-22.
Assuming that the Russians and Chinese acquire several hundred of each (and assuming I am wrong on the J-20 being an interdictor), then the F-22s are outnumbered – and that “force multiplier” sh!te that Dave came out with goes out the window. It means the F-35 would have to fight its corner… something which I am very unconvinced it is capable of doing.
Our (yours and mine) point of view does not matter….What matters is the OVERALL CAPABILITY that one wishes to field against perceived threats in a timeframe where such a weapons system is going to be operating…So F-22, F-35 and Pakfa are 3 solutions designed for differnt users for different needs and ALL THREE MAY BE CORRECT.
To be honest – given what the threats are likely to actually be, a Saab Gripen with stand-offs is probably overkill.
Amiga500Because post cold war the 183 F-22’s were deemed Sufficient (Debatable i agree) when coupled with the OVERALL capability of the US to seek Air superiority over potential short-mid term conflicts.
It is actually SMART to go in for the F-35 (although i would have prefered the Raptor fleet to be around 250) since ALL Current and mid term threats (Outside an all out WAR with CHINA or RUSSIA breaks out where tactical fighters would probably be insignificant) actually have Air superiority advantage considerably on the USAF/USN”s side..
So your basically admitting the USAF have had to cut their cloth to a point where they have to hope to avoid having to take on the Russians or Chinese this side of 2030 as their mainstay fighters are designed to effectively fight 3rd rate enemies…?
Amiga500183 airframes is a lot especially when you consider the force multiplying effect they have.
Oh get away with that bullsh!t. I’m not even going to read the rest of your post after that purepish lifted straight from a lockheed powerpoint.
Amiga500You misunderstood the point. They have followed the US route in that they have opted for a stealthy airframe with internally housed weapons. In short they’ll be using the USAF’s own tactics an style of weapons system (stealth fighter) against them.
I think you miss my point.
The USAF are tying themselves to a solution strongly emphasising VLO and sensors.
The others are considering LO, sensors and, at least for the Russians, placing very high emphasis on kinematic performance.
Which route is right depends greatly on your point of view.
Sign In
