Tu22mHopsy… I have provided you with sources. Here is another for the transsonic stuff http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123991-F-35-News-amp-Multimedia-thread&p=2066473#post2066473
Now, can you tell me the difference between struggling to keep up and failing to keep up?
If the F35 barely (as in actually failing with a small margin) can keep up with the acceleration on the F16 at subsonic speeds, can that be called struggling to keep up or should I just call it falling?
If we talk about intellectual honesty it is clear that I always pair the F35 in as glossy words as possible.
Btw, my excuse for not posting even more sources is that I only have posted from my cell the past days. What’s you’r excuse for never using sources?
Tu22mWhat source do you have that states the F-35 struggles to keep up with the F-16C at Subsonic Speeds???
Lockheeds own chart where the F16 flies with full tank and the F35 with reduced fuel and the time is still in favor of the F16 (not by much but anyway).
And then we have the DoD report stating the transsonic acceleration which is really really slow.
EDIT. To be clear, we are talking about acceleration here.
Tu22mSo no loadout information, no altitude other than “low.” Not much of a basis for comparison is it?
Same goes for the chart. But we both know that the F35 will never be able to pull that off 8going m0,5-1,1 in 30 sec.
You claimed it was similar to an F-16 with “full tanks” while posting a slide showing it essentially matching an F-16 without tanks. :stupid:
Yes, full tank means full tank. What do you call it when you fill up the gastank in your car?
There were more details than in your Gripen example. :rolleyes: At least the Eurofighter slide gave a speed and an altitude. Also, given that all aircraft were presented together it is reasonable to expect that similar assumptions were made for each. (and given that it was a Eurofighter slide there is no reason to expect bias in favor of the F-16)
There is no dash, ie nothing to be compared with. No range, no time, no nothing.
The facts are the following: the only actual data that has been presented in this thread shows the F-35 to have fairly strong acceleration performance. You don’t like the facts, but that obviously does nothing to change them.
It shows the F35 struggling to keep up with the F16 at subsonic speeds even when the comparison is tilted heavily to favor the F35. I was nice calling thr performance roughly the same but to be factual, 17,9 is less than 17,7. So the F35 is slower than the F16 even at subsonic acceleration and it isnt even at 4th gen performance in transonic (unless you call the F5 a 4th gen fighter).
Still, I am the only one providing sources. Currently a commercial thingie from LM (the chart), fas and an in depth interview with the F16 pilots having the most experience in flying against Gripens. You have provided… let me see… no sources to show anything.
The only thing you have been able to do is to not understand what full tank means in english and make assumptions we both know are factually wrong.
Tu22mYes, but only subsonic. Not really of much interest. Something like Mach 0.8 to 1.2 or 1.5 would be. And we all know about the fuss regarding transsonic acceleration…
Also there aren’t really many facts. F-16C, yes, but which Block? 42 or 52? What exactly does Tactical Mnvr Wt mean? F-16 configuration besides tanks?
Tactical mnwr wt means that the carried fuel matches the F16 when range is concerned. The exact setup is unknown. My assumption is full tank on the F16 and less than half in the F35A but it could be 50% fuel on the F16 and some 20% in the F35. So it is actually a pretty useless chart but it shows one interesting element.
The F35 struggles to keep up with the F16C at subsonic speeds and the DoD report tells us that this is where the F35 is at its best. Unfortunately it struggles to keep ut with the 70s when it comes to flight performance.
Tu22mSo you have no source sufficiently detailed to be useful?
This is from FAS, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/gripen.htm
I have some german data as well but Ill let you google it. The FAS link is more detailed than the chart you hold so dear.
Either way… show me an F35 doing that on an intercept mission.
I see this as something of a benchmark of your intellectual honesty, one you are failing miserably. In this very thread you posted a slide that showed the F-35A to be essentially indistinguishable from a clean F-16C in acceleration. The extent to which the F-35A and clean F-16C exceeded the performance of an F-16C with drop tanks really isn’t relevant.
This is what got you going in the beginning.
F35A with ca 50% fuel is roughly as fast as an F16C with full tanks… And the F16C isnt particularily fast…
I cant see myself using anything that suggest it is drop tanks included. But even with drop tanks on the F16 (yes, plural) the subsonic acceleration is similar.
When looking at the m0,8-1,2 dash the F35 suddenly is a horrible contender. And to get down to the <26ish seconds airforces currently expect is just a dream.
Being true to my manners I always put the F35 in the brightest light possible.
Additionally another contributor has posted a slide showing that the F-16C, contrary to your assertions, is a strong performer in acceleration and lags the Eurocanards only slightly in that metric. (one that was presumably calculated under conditioned intended to show the Eurocanards in a positive light) The F-16C safely exceeded the performance of the Mig-29, Mirage-2000, F-18, and Su-27 in that slide, and by a greater extent than it was itself outperformed by the Eurofighter.
And the details for the comparison? Ah, there wherent any. To bad.
And i think FBW was satisfied with the answer i gave him.
But we have F16 pilots testifying to the fact that the F16 is too slow for the Gripen A/C along with some benchmarks (even though the benchmarks arent as precise as I could wish for).
I really do see this as an opportunity for you to demonstrate some maturity and accept the facts that have been presented here.
The facts are the following.
1 you make straw man arguments and try to pin that on me (as has been pointed out in several threads not only by me)
2 you dont read what you are replying to (as has been pointed out in several threads not only by me)
3 when I, as I always do, give a source you move the goalposts as expected (as has been pointed out in several threads not only by me)
But please, lecture me on how to constantly be as biased as you are. That is something i will never learn.
Tu22mNot too sure I would use the Gripen as an example
Here’s a quote from Saab paper about future developments of the Gripen:
“The requirements on the future Export Gripen are determined by competition with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). It will not be possible to fully match the performance and capabilities of JSF. Our ambition is to offer the customer an aircraft that provide performance and capabilities that are not too far away from JSF to a significantly lower cost”
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2002/PAPERS/164.PDF
As much as I want to agree and not pick on details I just have to on this one.
First of all the paper is from 2002, when the JSF was still expected to have good kinematic performance and before Gripen DK (Denmark option which preceded the NG).
Second of all the conclusion is correct. There are capabilities and performance Points that the Gripen will never be able to match because of physics. For instance, stealth ingress at alt, STOVL, stealthy CAP etc aren’t possible in a platform designed for something else. Same goes for weapon load. Gripen will never carry the same amount of bombs and fuel.
Likewise the F35 will never be as good as an interceptor, nor as cheap to operate as the Gripen. And the F35 will never be as flexible as the Gripen E because of the avionics design.
So the conclusion may be correct, but I just want to be cleat about the details.
Tu22mwith regard to official charts:[ATTACH=CONFIG]223607[/ATTACH]
The problem persists that naysayers use any official LM as “Powerpoint Aircraft” or propaganda. Those who scream for hard facts dismiss anything from LM outright, so unless they can be used to point out the negative aspects of the aircraft they are worthless to post, so it would seem (not a swipe at you personally TU22m). As far as the f-16c being a poor performer as far as acceleration, that goes against many comments made by USAF pilots who’ve used it as a benchmark when comparing F-22 or F-35 acceleration. Then there’s those Eurofighter charts:[ATTACH=CONFIG]223608[/ATTACH]
They too used it as a benchmark
No offence taken. I enjoy your posts.
I gave one example on two airforces that frequently put F16A (with MLU) against Gripen A and C. Their point of view is pretty clear. And having a difference in that chart of only 1.3 seconds just isn’t that much. Just look at the spread in the normal m0.8-1.2 test..
Tu22mWho made such a claim?
Refer to the chart posted above if you want to see how the F-16C compares to other 4th generation aircraft in acceleration, it is among the best.
I compare it to the Eurocanards and it is inferior, ie slower.
Being within 1.3 sec in a 18-19 sec dash is pretty close. With full tanks on the F35 it would look different.
At what altitude? What load? In level flight? Oh, and sourced please. 😉
In level flight, fas refer to it as low alt and so do Walter Boyne.
Those are the aircraft the F-35 is slated to replace. It makes sense to compare them on that basis. You are right though, they are also well known benchmarks, and as shown above, the F-16 remains among the quicker 4th generation fighters. If the F-35 is .2 seconds behind then it is doing just fine.
Well it depends on how ancient 4th gen fighters you compare with. Compared to the Eurocanards it is not fast. The F16 is the Volvo among the 4th gen. Its ok but nothing more. The Eurocanards otoh are the gold standard. Possibly accompanied by the Flankers if they don’t have full Internal fuel.
My my, lots of abuse huh? Is this what I get for reading the chart correctly? :stupid:
Seems like you could at least acknowledge that the chart showed the F-35 .2 seconds behind the clean F-16, not equivalent to the one with tanks as you claimed. 😎
You are welcome btw.
difference is pretty small. The F16 is just 7% slower… With two drop tanks… when the F35 doesn’t even have full Internal fuel. Sure there is a difference but its 1.3 seconds.
The F16 isn’t hopelessly sub par but it isn’t fast in comparison to the Eurocanards. And that is compared to the slowest Eurocanard in the lot.
Tu22mThe Norwegians don’t have F-16C. They have F-16A with uprated avionics. Their aircraft have better T/W ratio than F-16C, & are more nimble. But they still say that Gripen is more agile. 😀
That’s sort of my point. And the Gripen E will have another 20% thrust added, Taffie and Raffie should be quite a bit faster than Gripen C.
But maybe we should let hopsalot think that the F16 had the best performance of all operational jets (save the F22).
Tu22mPerhaps I am reading the chart wrong, but it appears to me that the F-35A is .2 seconds behind the F-16 without tanks and 1.3 seconds ahead of the F-16 with tanks, putting it quite a bit closer to the F-16 without tanks than an F-16 with tanks. (.2 seconds is really indistinguishable in the real world…)
Additionally, you are wrong about the F-16C not being particularly fast. Whatever else one might say about the F-16 it accelerates well, particularly the C variant.
Well. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the F16C is faster or more nimble than the Eurocanards? This is what Norwegian F16 pilots have to say http://klikk.no/produkthjemmesider/vimenn/article610205.ece
And then the also have the fact that a Gripen A (not even the fastest Eurocanard) goes m0.5-1.1 in 30 sec with a light AA/intercept load.
But comparing the F35 to the most popular jets like the F16, FA18 etc makes sense because thats what most customers can relate to. The fact that the F16/FA18 etc aren’t that impressive anymore doesn’t matter. They are benchmarks, just like the Volvo or IKEA furniture is in Sweden. They are not the most impressive products on the market but everyone can relate to them.
Funny? You have a strange sense of humor. High angle of attack maneuverability is useful, it isn’t something you would expect to use frequently, but better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it… (really the same thing could be said for the various thrust vectoring air show maneuvers that have been demonstrated by the F-22 and Su-35)
So as expected you don’t get it. All one needs to satisfy you is having your fav jet having a controlled descent accompanied by some metal music.
Showing actual usefulness isn’t needed because what ever cool number cam be pulled out from it will end up as an argument for something completely irrelevant by you.
Tu22mHave we already forgotten the official charts?
F35A with ca 50% fuel is roughly as fast as an F16C with full tanks… And the F16C isnt particularily fast…
Btw, one of the funniest videos online is the F35 high AoA testing. The video makes an excellent argument why the 50 deg AoA is useless unless the T/W ratio is on F22 level.
Tu22mNo, no no; An electric engine that’s what they need. i hve no doubt that after looking at what GE do,j they would be able to make the same (and claiming that they invented it themselves- I know my my Swede well 😉 ).
I still haven’t seen any small 1MW powerplant. But in time they’ll make one that fits in a fighter. Carrying enough energy isn’t the problem. The problem is power generation, cooling etc.
That math is a bit wrong. jdam based on 2000 lbs mk84 has diameter of some 0.45 m. its wingspan doesnt go over 0.65 m which, when turned 45 degrees to use up as little space as possible, gives us again some 0.45 meter wide box. So basically the space for the bomb will not be over 0.5 meters wide?
0.5 times 0.5 is 0.25 m2 cross section. Internal bay on f35 is, luckily, is a bit over 4 meters long. So the space for that one bomb is going to give roughly one cubic meter of room. Additional amraam space is going to give a bit more still, around 0.13 m2 cross section, times a bit less than four meters. Overall, the whole weapons bay (one oout of total of two) in f35 gives around 1.5 cubic meters of space. Perhaps a bit more, but certainly less than 2 cubic meters.
when you’re right you’re right… i just added some wiggle room on the side of the fins.
Either way… the power needed is substantial.
Tu22mI think comparing lines of code is a horrible way of assuming anything. For instance the EODAS system eats huge amounts of code, same with the GUIs. Just compare the features in the Kernels of popular systems with the lines of code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_operating_system_kernels
What’s interesting is the algorithms, filtering and data-link integration. Stuff that just happens to take up the smallest amount of code…
We can take this forum as an example. The lines of code needed to structure the data in the presentation is typically just a few lines while presentation (templates, images, JavaScript and CSS) are each hundreds of times larger.
So the amount of code says nothing on features, especially when considering the bloated GUI (both in cockpit and TV-helmet).
It might be worth thinking about. If we where to consider architecture and software design as well the difference gets even greater.
What’s actually quantifiable is hardware. Ie how many pixels in a how narrow FOV can be accomplished with what update frequency? What output in KW does the radar have with what size on the dish along with Pe tolerance and how narrow can the beam be made?
That’s quantifiable data.
Tu22mSpeaking of power generation… the compressor in Viggen was rated at ca 80KW. And that’s just for pumping fuel typ a single engine that was rated at 125KN.
Radar output is 15KW peak (+cooling/heat) + flight controls and other avionics (?KW).
And on top of that we need to power a laser with 50KW output at 20% efficiency –》1000KW psu.
So modern fighters, if carrying DEWs, will need a psu for at least 1200KW (if we use more positive numbers than lukos). And with a future psu of 5kg/KW we are looking at 6000kg dedicated for producing energy.
I think those kind of lasers are for the 6th gen even if the current gen may carry some sort of basic DEW.
Tu22mIt means simply that SPEED is the new way of ACHIEVING stealth. After decades of heavy emphasis on shaping, material and EM, speed is the new component of stealth.
But why SPEED? And why Mach 6(and not 5, 10 or 15)? Speed = alt. Fly fast and high you go.
Speed may be a part in increasing survivability, or shortening enemy reaction time. Perhaps the expression is closer to the “its the new black” when talking about fashion?
The Rq180 seems to be built around actual stealth, and as long as the SA is good enough it can avoid most threats.
Sign In
