Levshaif the capability indeed existed, moreover was specifically engineered into the aircraft from the start, why have we heard almost nothing about it in the reputable press? Not even from LM themselves, who are hardly shy about advertising the virtues of their product? Especially with so many questioning the ability of the F-35 to do it, they must have been asked this question countless times by defence journalists.
Probably for the same reason that LM are not allowed to talk about the F-35’s RCS figures or the performance of its EW suite. These are the key indicators which define the JSF’s abilities and flight performance, the things which make it so “different” as Snafu352 might say.
LevshaIf the F-35 could hit Mach 1.02 downhill with empty bays and 20% fuel LockMart would be crowing it from the rooftops.
Not if it were classified information they wouldn’t.
LevshaT However, the F-35 will probably not supercruise either, so where’s the advantage supposed to be in terms of cruise (which will be in the Mach 0.7 to 0.9 ballpark for all of them)?
You don’t know that, but one could certainly believe that it could do a slow supercruise M1.2-M1.3 with full internal bombload.
LevshaYou are missing the point.
I’m not sure whether that is deliberate or not on your part.Once again: The program was promoted (sold) as being different, with key aspects of the overall package relying on that “difference” to deliver value as claimed.
In reality that “difference” has proven to be false. This has had a negative impact on the overall value of the package.
It is a different aircraft, certainly a different aircraft from a eurocanard in design philosophy. Has this design difference been lost somehow, due to the delays and budget overruns?To then justify that failure by stating that all past programs had the same issues is not acceptable, it is in fact dishonest and exposes a dis-honesty at the core of the program.
If you’re a god fearing American you might find the performance of the F-35 programme reprehensible, other people from around the world might just regard it as a fact of life, comparable with their own problematic military programmes.So what, you may say? As mentioned above the failure of the key element of difference impacts the overall value of the program in terms of delays and costs which eventually goes to the effectiveness of capabilities when eventually delivered.
I don’t understand this sentence that well. Do you mean that delays and cost overruns in weapons programmes negatively effect a country’s to rearm and modernise its military – where did I say otherwise?If you cannot appreciate these simple truths there is little point continuing the discussion.
Your truths perhaps?
Your truths perhaps?
Doesn’t matter, the Typhoon just has to kill the F35 , not outperform it as a striker.
The above is the classic lets compare two differing elements to show that my favourite is better.
This isn’t top trumps.
It wasn’t me who ran the comparison between the Typhoon and the f-35 in the strike role, it was Trident. But the comparison still stands, it could be argued that the F-35 may be faster in cruise than the Typhoon in the strike role and therefore more survivable – the “difference” you mentioned, no doubt.
LevshaYou want a huge fuel fraction in a slippery airframe which is not a one trick pony? Su-35S 🙂
there’s a project that is behind in schedule and suffering budget overruns as well…?:confused::rolleyes:
In terms of cruising speed it is already wholly unremarkable, most 4.5 generation fighters other than the Super Hornet can match or exceed its capabilities today, not to mention future competitors like the T-50 and J-20. Between the arrival of the latter and the substantial delays to the F-35 which are narrowing the gap in service entry dates, the LO qualities and avionics will have lost some of their shine as well.
Are you sure? What is the cruising speed of Eurofighter compared to F-35 with a similar internal payload? More crucially what would be the range
Levsha1) With respect so what? The F35 was specifically marketed as not being the same as all other programs with regard to design and testing.
That was one of the reasons for the affordability referenced in 2).
When discussion on the F35 commenced many years ago one of the main points of the F35 fan club was “it will be different,” to now use “it’s the same as everything else” as justification for the delays is not acceptable.
The point about the delay is the opportunity this gives to opposing systems to catch up and surpass. This relates to point 3).
You are not answering my point. All new aircraft and weapons systems projects are launched, around the world, to a fanfare and chorus with assurances and promises that they will be completed within budget and schedule, and in nearly all cases these projects fail in their budget and timeline promises. The F-35 is no different in this respect. Why should the American aerospace industry be criticised any more for this sin, compared to others? In the end the real criticism is against the people who make promises which they have no reason for believing that they could meet.
Perhaps Americans are more guilty of this sin than other nationalities?
LevshaTo answer:
1) The F35 is late and getting later.
Nearly all combat aircraft and airliner projects of the the last 2 decades or so, were late except perhaps the F/A-18E.2) The F35 is expensive and getting more so, for a program sold on it’s affordability this is criminal.
The same as for point 1.3) The capabilities of the F35 may well be unremarkable by the time it eventually reaches service.
I don’t think so, regarding cruising speed, LO qualities and what not. certainly the Eurocanards were not much of an improvement on each other, or even on the latest versions of F-15/F-16, or basic Su-27 airframe.4) The cost of the program takes funds from other programs.
These are choice all people making budgets have to make. The more you pay Peter the less you have to pay Paul.5) How are any of 1 to 4 positives for the armed forces?
these are “positives” all armed forces have to suffer, do they not?
LevshaWell, I pointed out the fact that if they get into contact they’ll have to dump their unnecessary loads. You won’t ever have a pilot going to fight his way out with unnecessary weight onboard, unless he wants to die. Simple matter of physics, you need to get all the performance out of your aircraft. You talk about the Mig29, but, by the time the F-35 reaches anything resembling useful operational service,; we’ll probably be around 2025, and by that time, you won’t find many Mig29’s around, or they’ll all be upgraded with increased fuel capacity, giving them a much better range. They’ll most certainly also have improved IR and radar systems, all accounting for better detection capabilities, so “getting in contact” will probably mean being less than 100km away from the threat. You can also imagine that some nice guys buy, say the Typhoon or the rafale, and then turn “not so nice”.. if the F-35 gets into a war against these guys, what wil it do against a, say, rafale, armed for interception, able to go supersonnic for some time, pull 10G (rafale’s software limiter) in A2A configuration and, overall, is able to run circles around the F-35?
Not to speak of guys like the PAK-FA or the J-20 that you might encounter as well around 2025-2030.
You still haven’t answered my point, an attacker entering the defended zone at M1.2 (and with a low RCS) is going to have a better chance of surviving and completing its mission, regardless as to whether it has to face Rafales, MiG-29s PAKFAs or J-20s, true?
And btw, what has pulling 10g got to do with intercepting attackers?
Strictly speaking there is nothing in there to suggest that the aircraft can be throttled back all the way into dry thrust – the comment quite clearly states that minimum afterburner is maintained. Thus far, the *only* plausible source I have found which credits the F-35 with a supercruise capability is David Fulghum in the following AvWeek blog entry:
Trident, you may right, the F-35 may need partial afterburner to cruise at M1.3, but all that extra fuel the flying pig carries, should help compensate… It’s often said that the MiG-31 has better ‘supercruise’ qualities than the F-22, both aircraft just go about achieving supercruise in different ways.
LevshaYou see, let’s imagine they come into contact. be it the F-35, or the F-16, they’ll both drop their A2G ordnance in order to get lighter and be able to defend themselves, but as the F*16 can drop its external stores, including drop tanks, and get out of there at its top speed (around M2) allowing it to escape, the F-35 will have to make do with a poor top speed which won’t allow it to escape as easily, if at all.
But now you make it sound as if the main priority in strike aircraft design is to make the aircraft as survivable as possible, even if 99% of combat sorties end with prematurely dumped warloads (the plane has been mission killed), when in fact the main priority is to successfully complete its strike mission.
A strike plane entering the heavily defended target area at M1.2 is always going to have a greater chance of completing its mission than a striker entering the danger zone at M0.85. True?
An aircraft flying at M1.2 and 40,000 feet presents a very difficult target for a MiG-29. Can you tell what the combat radius of a MiG-29 is, flying at mach 2? I think it would be measured in only tens of miles?
Levshawho cares about achieving “the same speed”? both will fly at economical speed unless operational necessities require to do otherwise – meaning, both will fly at their best efficiency speed for as long as they don’t HAVE to go faster for any reason they might have.
I don’t deny that, M0.85 is probably the optimum cruising speed for the F-35,
But once any strike aircraft gets within reach of the enemy’s fighters: ‘speed is life’.
LevshaGiven its paper-thin weight margins, there is no operational test of a finalized go-to-war jet state that it has the fuel and fuel consumption to engage in such an activity in a combat relevant scenario. Fatigue testing still has to be completed. There was damage to the airframe after doing a M1.6 run.
There is no super-cruise requirement in the F-35 JORD.
So most certainly the internal bay is only, and only for the purpose of low RCS, not for high speed cruising?
But it can be agreed that at any particular high speed, be it mach 0.85 or M1.3, the F-35 should have a greater range than the competition?
LevshaThat is the minimum requirement for its top speed, flat out in full afterburner.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear in my statement. M1.6 is the proper maximum non-afterburning supercruise speed for any aircraft that wants to call itself a “supercruiser” (well, according to Lockheed).
Few of them can sustain it for a tactically useful length of time, as punching through Mach 1.0 might cost them a lot of fuel and drag can be such that “drydash” would be a more apt description than “supercruise”.
Explain! any examples, figures?
Perhaps it would, it was not in fact specified however.
what was specified?
Levshafor a simple reason that going at M1.2 would burn its fuel at a rate that’s impossible to stand for a long time. even the F-22, for which it was touted all around the place how it could supercruise for long time doesn’t do it unless he’s already in a combat zone, and for a limited time (as the engagement already started). The rest of time he’ll stay subsonic to save fuel.
The F-35 even more so
Fuel efficiency may be somewhat reduced at M1.2, compared to M1.0 or less – but fuel consumption will be like nothing compared to using afterburner on a warloaded F-16 to achieve the same speed.
LevshaSpudman already reported on that,
it was something like
‘ hinting at supercruise, F-35 could fly M1.03 with minimal / just a little afterburner ‘
A source for that? The F-35 should be ingressing into the defended area at a little higher altitude. Not as high as the F-22, but higher than the F-16C.
LevshaA minimum of mach 1.6 is probably what we can agree is a real supercruise speed. Mach 1.2 is a speed many combat jets can do in dry thrust and clean configuration perhaps (ok, at the very most). Dry thrust on an F-35 could be greater than full afterburner power on an F-16C. So wouldn’t surprise me, M1.2 supercruise on the F-35 with internal fuel and warload only. It would make sense as a design specification from the beginning, wouldn’t it?
Sign In
