kilcoo3161. it is expected to be as manoueverable or better than an F-16 (aerodynamics have advanced in the last 30 years)
Which is how many years old?!?!
Achieving parity with a 30 year old design is not exactly what I call an advance!!!
In terms of manouverability, the Rafale, EF-T, MiG-35 etc would have it for breakfast.
2. it will be better than the SH in every regard so it is an undeniable upgrade for the navy
A paper aeroplane I can make in 5 seconds would represent parity with the SH – not really much of a baseline for comparison :diablo: 😀
4. there is more to being an effective multi-role fighter than simply kinematics. stuff like range, loiter ability, stealth, sensors, network capability, helmet cuing . . .
And compared to the F-22 the F-35 has advantages in……
and its range and its sensors and its situational awareness
electronics (except range)
not as well as the F-35
it doesn’t have the range or the sensors (which are sort of important in a) finding a target and b) making sure it is the right target)
Which it is due to get in software upgrades (apart from range)
so we should cripple our strategic ability to get back at a few admirals?
The navy continually **** up procurement, until they look like they can do a good job of it let them wallow in their own ****e.
except that the F-35 will carry more further faster more reliably safer cheaper than the Harrier while being less vulnerable to SAMs
CHEAPER?!?!
i also don’t get where you think that CAS doesn’t need LO. It is VERY easy to conceive of a situation where soldiers are fighting near hostile SAM sites. Just because they aren’t in iraq/afghanistan doesn’t mean they won’t
OK – lets say they are fighting an advanced enemy. That means S-400s, that means any flight close to the SAM site is nap-of-the-earth anyway.
you are wrong
aerial combat is more often determined by who spots who first than any particular kinematics
being networked to other planes allows all planes to know where the enemy is as soon as one of them does
Which the F-22 will have before the F-35 reaches IOC.
being able to look THROUGH your plane greatly improves the pilot’s ability to spot and track enemy planes
Yeah… and doing that at 8 g will be soooo easy :rolleyes:
being able to cue your HOBS missile with your helmet allows you to fire earlier than your opponent who must wait till you enter the traditional engagement zone
The F-22 is getting the JHMCS
the F-35 will be a better A2A fighter than ANY legacy fighter (and by that I include F-15, F-16, F-18, SU-30, Eurofighter and Rafale) and it won’t give up as much to the Raptor as you might expect.
I disagree. Network any of those planes mentioned and they will be more or less on the same level.
You know how the Raptor achieved those gaudy kill ratios at Red Flag? That had more to do with its stealth and sensors than its raw power. I expect the F-35 to put up similar numbers against the legacies.
Do you think any guy in an F-15 will be unable to lock a radar missile onto the JSF if he sees it out the window?
I thought you said that CAS didn’t need LO?
If something can shoot the F-35 down, it can shoot the F-16, A-10, whatever down that much easier
End result will be a destroyed frame. Better to have 2 more aircraft sitting on the boat to drop bombs tomorrow.
not much trashfire at 30 thousand feet
Maybe thats why the US are notoriously bad at CAS…
those new upgrades to the A-10? yeah, they were (partially) to allow it to attack from higher altitude
CAS is no longer about being down in the dirt, it is about being up high and plinking targets relayed via gps or laser designator
I believe the proliferation of next-gen SAM systems will reverse that.
there are emergencies that pop up all the time, who knows when some target of opportunity arrises or some crisis demanding immediate attention presents itself
Yes…. and if you want to get into some obscure possibilities, what about little green men from mars invading?
How many times in recent history has the marines invaded/raided somewhere without USN top cover?
kilcoo316Are you saying the Rafale is a crappy plane because? 😀
The AN uses much greater landing speeds, reducing the design compromise made for carrier operations.
The Rafale also has a canard layout – meaning all surfaces are producing LIFT on rotation and climb-out.
kilcoo316More range also means more payload for smaller range.
It also means a overly big airframe for short missions.
It also means an overly heavy airframe for maneuvering (a drop tank is not going to weigh an F-16 down once jettisoned).
I think that was one of the main points of comparison between a Flanker and Fulcrum. For any war in europe, the Fulcrum was actually the better platform.
kilcoo316FThe thrust figure is higher (181,120).
OK. Thanks 🙂
Anyway, why are you so sure that the f 35 will be draggy? It might have a lower aspect ratio than a pure fighter, but don’t forget that it’s a sleek plane, since it doesn’t have any external store. Also, the lower aspect ratio won’t add to much dragg, unless the plane go supersonic (which the F 35 won’t do more frequently than present planes).
Aspect ratio is pretty fundamental in drag calculations. No matter what they do with the F-35’s wing, the improvement they get in efficiency over the F-16s wing will be marginal at best 5% – with the aspect ratio difference a clean F-16 will always have a lower Cd than a clean F-35.
I accept your point regarding external stores, which will go someway towards evening that up.
BTW, the F 35 carry more fuel in order to achieve a combat radius of 600 Nmiles on internal fuel (twice the combat radius of the F 16 without external fuel tanks)
Is that useful or not though?
kilcoo316Actually its TWR and wl is better thatn the F 16A–and these were like sportcars, compared with later F 16s.
Its really not (according to the numbers I have anyway).
F-16(C):
empty: 8,380 kg
“laden”: 12,000 kg
MTOW: 16,875 kg
Thrust: 128,900 N
Wing: 27.87 m^2
F-35:
empty: 12,000 kg
“laden”: 20,100 kg
MTOW: 27,200 kg
Thrust: 178,000 N
Wing: 42.7 m^2
So:
F-16:
T/W empty: 1.57 W/S: 300.7 kg/m^2
T/W “laden”: 1.09 W/S: 430.6 kg/m^2
T/W MTOW: 0.78 W/S: 605.4 kg/m^2
F-35:
T/W empty: 1.51 W/S: 281.0 kg/m^2
T/W “laden”: 0.90 W/S: 470.7 kg/m^2
T/W MTOW: 0.67 W/S: 637.0 kg/m^2
Yes, the JSF does carry more fuel and ordnance compared to the F-16, but it needs to carry more fuel as it has a lower aspect ratio wing and is a heavier aircraft (more drag).
kilcoo316do you remember the comment from that Australian at Red Flag?
As far as I was aware, foreign airforces are never allowed to fly AGAINST the F-22, only with it.
So, no, I don’t recall the comment.
however many raptors it will buy, it will buy more F-35s. There is no way to get the F-22 unit price as cheap as you can get the F-35 unit price.
Again, I go back to the Pentagon program cost…
There’s also geopolitical considerations here. The US needs a cheap fighter that it can export to all its friends to replace the F-16. The F-22 will never be cheap.
By the looks of things, that market may have disappeared.
And again, the raptor will never operate off a carrier, and to me this is very, very important. Often it is the carrier aircraft that will be the first-line of attack, and to have no stealth planes available is very troubling
Also the UK and Italy and possibly India in the future and others will need something to operate off their carriers and I don’t think we want to give that market to rafale and mig-29k
If the rumour I have heard is correct (the RN visiting Landivisiau), the UK may already be seriously considering rafale.
and frankly, the F-35 is more advanced than the raptor ever will be. It might not have the raw power but it’s avionics and data-linking and helmet display will never be matched by the raptor.
Which will make bog all difference.
It is a superior ground attack plane and is cheaper to maintain and thus for the majority of missions is the better choice
Is it? Superior because it can hold a bigger bomb?
If its shot down its not going to be cheaper to maintain.
marines will never fight in the vicinity of a hostile SAM site? that’s a pretty remarkable claim
For CAS they are going to be in a world of trashfire anyway – pretty stupid to expose a silver bullet to that IMO.
um, LHAs and LHDs deploy independently of carriers all the time
And invade other countries independently all the time? I’m sure you can give a few examples 🙂
why not fly from a carrier? because one might not be in the area?
You really think the US are gonna invade somewhere without their primary force project assets in the area.
kilcoo316How will they save anything? They still need to replace the Aging F-16’s , F-15’s , F-18’s and harriers . The F-35 is 40 billion to develop in 3 versions ie . standard AF version , STOVL version and Carrier version.
(re 40 billion development) How come the program cost is near 300 billion then? (as cited from the pentagon in this thread)
Does it cost the 260 billion to build 2,500 aircraft? Thats over 100 million an aircraft. The sums aren’t adding up well.
The F-22 fleet was originally supposed to be 768 aircraft IIRC, which was scaled back to under 500, then 396, then eventually pared down to 183. The Navy were supposed to buy into the NATF – but being the naval admirals (read – stupid) they decided to develop the hornet airframe instead.
Which do you think is more productive? And we are not factoring in here owner ship costs , where the basic requirement was that the F-35 still be cheap (relatively) to maintain and operate (like the F-16) whereas the twin engined NO HOLDS BARRED F-22 is not as cheap .
F-22 is not as cheap – but one of the main goals of the ATF project was a vastly reduced logistics chain compared to the F-15. Assuming they have succeeded, the gap between F-16/F-35 and F-22 will not be as big as F-16/F-35 to F-15.
Please highlight the capabilities that you think make this an AVERAGE aircraft?
Its kinematics are not good – thrust to weight ratio and wing loading compare poorly to the F-16. The F-16 being designed in the 60s.
I don’t know how you’d class that as anything but average. Unlike the F-22, the JSF is hanging everything on its low observables.
How is the F-35 Not high tech?
Oh, its electronics are top notch. But see above.
Add the cost of making the line bigger and more tooling ( thats about 2-3 billion for ramp up to those no.s as it has to trickle down to all vendors) moreover the F_22 is only more capable A2A , it is not as flexible as the F_35 for A2G.
re. tooling: What is the current F-22 production rate? I reckon you estimate of billions in tooling is a bit high.
re. A2G: I thought that was merely an issue of software (SDBs are designed to do everything a bigger bomb will).
Factor in inflation , the process of making the Raptor isnt LEAN like the F-35 (my team designed both of them (partly) ) , the F-35 manufactering will become much more cheaper (built in feature of its manufactering ) whereas such savings (of the same proportion) will not be realized by the Raptor .
Again, why is the program cost standing at near 300 billion if only 40(ish) has been spent on R&D and they are cheap to make? :confused:
Moreover what are you gonna do with 2000 Air superiority fighters? What about A2G fighters? And multi role fighters?
The F-22 can do A2G, that makes it multi-role.
what about the Navy? Do they start a new program to replace F-18’s?
No, let the navy sit on the E/Fs and make their admirals realise stupidity comes at a cost.
and what about the marines?
They don’t need a LO platform IMO, CAS is all they need, and Harriers do that fine.
kilcoo316Why has nobody mentioned plasma technology ffor the SU-35 – its apparently transferable to ANY aircraft- and is set to make RCS irrelevant!!
From what I believe, they are only using a plasma shield in front of the radar dish itself to remove that aspect from frontal radar returns. The system is similar to a plasma tv mounted in front of the radar.
Its not that easy to apply it to external surfaces – but I suppose, they could apply it to the wing spars and key structural components (and make the aerodynamic surface from a material transparent to radar waves).
kilcoo316Err – you mean like Asraam & Mica-IR? 😀
Aye 😀
Only they work over longer ranges, and are cued from a much more inaccurate radar set (but capable of picking out VLO targets).
kilcoo316They havent spent 150 billion 🙂 , about 20-30 billion so far (dev is 40 billion ) , the point is my freind that the USAF needs something like the F-35 , which can carry bigger bombs and is a capable A2G assett , the maintaince and basing cost of the F-35 is also much less then the super F-22 (by design) , it is afterall the LOW end for the service (i would rather have it as a High – Medium high mix rather then a high-low mix) . And what becomes of the marines? And the USN which wants a manned LO platform ?
So they can save much more by scrapping the program right now?
The USAF doesn’t need the F-35. SDBs in the F-22 will more than do the job. Saving money on the F-35 now will allow them to properly field the 2015 bomber (which is what is really needed right now).
The marine corps have no need for a LO platform, they never did – they seen the bright lights, shiny paint, fancy wheels and thought “I must get me one of those”. The marines should concentrate on CAS, no more, no less. A modified A10 with improved field lengths, or Cobra gunships is what they need, not an F-35.
A marine unit will never deploy without accompanying USAF or USN assets. Whats the point flying off dinky little assault carriers with a quarter load of munitions when the USN could do it off a pukka deck and have 4+ times the warload?
The USN needs a dedicated aircraft, not an afterthought. The YF-17 was a second thought, it was ****. The E/F is an expansion on that frame, it was **** too. The F-35 is primarily for the USAF, naval version is the scraps left over. You cannot design 1 airframe for the USAF and the USN, the requirements are too different, the end result is an average plane for both forces.
With the US reliance on technology over numbers, average is not good enough.
And regarding costs those are all estimates at this time , because the R and D cost has gone up and the program streched the cost has been adjusted to the 120 million per mark , however that is a start , remember the estimates back in 96-97 when the f-22 was being critisized , some called it 350 million plus . regarding combined costs for the F-22 lets not forget that the 80 billion spent on the raptor is spread out over 183 odd jets…..you do the math 😀
Yeap, 80 billion over 183 equals 440 odd a pop. But if the JSF orders were converted, and 2000 F-22s bought, that would be a program cost of 130 million a plane (at 100 build cost) for an aircraft so much more capable than the F-35.
kilcoo316the end of production run (very cheap) raptors are about the same as the lrip (very expensive) lightnings
the first raptor cost almost $300 million, the last raptor cost about $100 million
the first lightning cost about $100 million, the last lightning is going to cost substantially less (in constant year dollars)
the raptor isn’t going to get any cheaper, the lightning will get substantially cheaper as production ramps up
Maybe I read the Pentagon’s statement wrong, but wasn’t the unit cost for each of the first 2,000 odd F-35s at over 120 million?
Obviously that includes R&D – and if they stopped the program cold now, they’d lose that. The best solution would have been to never begin the program, but obviously, too late for that now. How much of the 300 billion fund do you reckon has been committed? 150? 200?
That leaves 150/100 billion or so over – which would buy 1500/1000 Raptors.
See what I’m getting at now?
kilcoo316That is no production ramp-up for the future standard fighterbomber!
The first seven years of production
F-15: 450 from 1973 to 1980
F-16: 790 from 1978 to 1985
F-18: 380 from 1980 to 1987
F-35: 225 from 2007 to 2014
Considering the purchase numbers involved with the JSF, the F-16 is the only really relevant comparison there too.
The JSF compares extremely poorly.
kilcoo3161. the F-22 and F-35 are built with IR stealth in mind so they will still perform better than any legacy fighter
The IR signature of fighters is still **** poor in the grand scheme of things.
2. IR doesn’t work in all weather conditions (clouds for instance)
We aren’t talking IRST here, I’m talking sidewinder type seekers. They only need a small range.
3. this would be a very complicated (and expensive) system that won’t be available for years and then only to very select states
Not really IMO. Its more likely that the radar will not be incorporated into the missile at all, and it will be a SARH job until the missile is approaching the distance from the target where the long wavelength guidance radar loses resolution, then the IR seeker takes over. Heck, you wouldn’t even need a radar on board, just a remote guidance system (a la mid-course update on AMRAAMS).
the point is, whatever system they come up with, the F-22 and F-35 will be better equipped to deal with it than any legacy fighter
True.
kilcoo316Very nice post… but… go nice and slowly… 😉
Now, that AUSPOWER graphic his a very fine thing for a 630 kilo, 1m2plus diameter radar, BUT… Can someone tell me what his the “lock” range of a radar that weight´s a few pounds and has an antena with a few cm2 on something like the frontal aspect of a SH/Phoon/Rafie?
That “lock” range would be a VERY small thing, wouldn´t it?
The SH/Phoon/Rafie will be manouvering (they have to or else they are flying down the missiles throat) and their radar cross section rises dramatically away from front and centre.
[same for the F-22 and F-35, but not quite to the same degree]
kilcoo316And so, I’m a clown ? 🙂
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
Well… I didn’t want to say… 😀
Sign In
