http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html

You do know what instantaneous turn rate is, right?

The cap for all current fighters is 9G for pilot reasons. The big difference is the sustained turn rate. If you look at my chart you will see that the F16 “matches” the F15 at around mach 0,65. Thats the dotted line that gets chopped off because of the 9G cap.

But what did the article really say?

Your quote:

Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.

Yes, the 9G instantaneous load is the dotted line. All modern fighters will have the same line if they are rated 9G. If the flight control system allows one can easily pull more, but that might be dangerous for the pilots.

Ironically, the Navy version, which has larger wings but a lower G limit of 7.5G, has the best turning capability of the three F-35 versions Beesley explained.

Do you see this? The F35C with the best turning capability has a cap for instantaneous turns that is the yellow dotted line.

Still congruent with both sources. M Kelly compared the B and C versions to the Hornet (Super Hornet?) and called them almost identical in the maneouverability, now we know that the only thing the F35A does better is instant turn radius where it matches the F16.

Thanks for the update though. Now I have 3 sources that say the same thing.

Or i will specify it.
First source: Clean F16 will be more maneuverable than a F35, with normal combat loading the F35 will be more agile.
Second Source: The F35B (and possibly C) very closely mimics the FA18 flight envelope in handling. Probably this is for the Super Hornet and F35B that have similar wing loadings.
Third source: F35A can pull 9G, just like the F16 and F22. The F35C has the best sustained turn rates (and it should because of the lower wing loading).

All of these statements fit the chart pretty well.

They haven’t been released afaik

I think I found one

no

The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly

I think you are wrong, unless of course you are a pilot that has experience from both the F35B and FA18. If that is the case, please provide some sort of proof, like a picture of you holding a note that says “irtusk” in the F35 cockpit.

To me it looks like you are nothing but a bad troll/fanboy.

@irtusk Give me something new if thats the case.
I don’t know how accurate this one is (but it shows the importance of altitude).

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7048/f16522000fq3.gif

The FA18C/D and FA18E/F numbers are not obsolete so one can use them. And that’s where F35B/C will fit.

Please, try to understand that the F35 is not designed for dogfights. It is designed to kill the enemy way before that, just like archers in medieval times. But history has a funny way of repeating itself and I firmly believe that archery didnt win all battles back then.

There may not be any evidence in the public domain but LM claims it can sustain M1.2 for 150 miles on dry thrust (as badly expressed in Air Force Monthly.)

The VP O’Bryan mentioned it, but not the circumstances.
Air Force Monthly stated that it technically isnt supercruising.
The pilots say it needs a little a/b to stay supersonic.

All of them can be right if one of the following is true.
1 The mach 1,2 figure is an average number. Speed might as an example have varied from mach 1,24 to mach 1,15.
2 It was in a shallow dive, since the F35 only needs a little a/b to stay supersonic (according to the pilots) a shallow dive might be enough to give the same effect.
3 It was with low fuel at the end of a high alt flight profile.

The Gripen C (maybe even the A version, not sure), could on a cold day with wing tip missiles and 50% fuel, stay supersonic (and possibly break sound barrier) without a/b and maintain supersonic speeds until it runs out of fuel (over 300 miles).

This is another example of “not technically supercruising” but staying supersonic without a/b for a period of time. Its first with the NG that it really can supercruise.

Cheers

false, no F-15 flying today can reach M2.5

So the increased thrust/weight ratio while carrying the same amout of fuel had a negative effect? Interesting.

false, most if not all the F-35s currently flying can reach M1.6

It is important to understand where the M1.6 limit comes from. It is NOT power-limited, it is limited by the aerodynamic heating of the various components of the plane. The F-35 has no problem reaching M1.6, they just dare not take it faster or they might suffer serious damage.

So it is a white elephant, just like the MiG 25/31 and the mach 3,3?

And the F35 has an aerodynamic limit that is lower than the others due to higher drag and lower thrust/weight ratio.

So you think Boeing can add conformal weapons bays and fuel tanks plus stealth treatments with zero aerodynamic or weight penalty?

What are they made out of? Magic pixie dust?

The CFTs are already in place on the F15E and K, I dont see why they should weigh more on the F15SE. making the jet stealthier also includes using more composit materials and carbon fibres, materials we know get lighter and stronger every year.

The unknown part is the radar blocker, the coatings can be pretty thin. The surface area on the F15 about 200sqm, with coatings that are about <1mm thick. Thats most likely <200 litres. CFRP weighs in at 1750kg/cubic m, so the added coating weight would be less than 350 kg if they get something like the Russian Taunit. (and it would give it a 400 times RCS reduction at that amount)

And as I said, that chart is obsolete. It is based off the original clean F-15A which has no relationship to the performance of today’s heavily loaded F-15E and even more heavily loaded Stealth Eagle

No, comparing a combat-loaded F-16 with a combat-loaded F-35

Well, if we just redefine “combat loaded” then we are all set. I compare the F35 with the others while carrying the same load, ie 4 AA missiles. Nothing more.

If we are to hand out penalties to compensate for performance then the F35 would need 2 drop tanks and the F15SE would have <84% fuel. Do you see how this gets sqewed? (Or even worse, a Su35S/Su30MK with <70% fuel)

Its just as good to realise the facts, the F35 is a superior standoff platform but it is toast when its out of missiles if it cant get away. And that is one of the points the Australian inquiry. It is not built to get WVR, the F22 is supposed to take care of that. My personal belief is that airforces that can afford to have both the F35 and fighters that are designed for WVR should get a mix. Thats how one can play to the strengths of the systems.

I read what Dozer (the F-22 pilot) wrote about the F-15’s actual performance before he went back and scrubbed it all

M2.5 was done by the specially stripped-down ‘Streak Eagle’ flying a special profile to set a record that has never been matched since.

Not matched by the F15 you mean?

Still, thats what its capable of. Just like the mach 1,65 is a white elephant for the F35.

Any theoretical Stealth Eagle variant is going to be even more heavily loaded down and less aerodynamic, so good luck getting even that fast.

Nice speculations, the F15SE however is having very similar specs to the Strike Eagle.

Are you serious about comparing the F35 to the F15 in WVR, speed and handling? Did you see the chart i posted and did you see what your own source said? The F15, as I and your sources said, is faster and more agile than the F35.

The F-16 is also theoretically a M2.0 aircraft, but there are plenty of reports about how an F-16 requires afterburner to keep up with a non-afterburning F-35.

Whatever theoretical top-end speed these planes can reach in special circumstances, the F-35 has more USEFUL speed.

Well, if you are comparing a fully loaded F16 to a clean F35 then of course the F35 should have better handling, speed, climb etc.

But if both have 4 AA missiles then its a different story. With two the F16 can get above mach 2.[/QUOTE]

But the main point is real world maneuverability (that is what we care about, right? The real-world?) and neither the F-15 nor the F-16 will ever fight clean.

Yup, because only the F35 is allowed to fly carrying 4 missiles and nothing more. That will be the ROE in any future conflict.

I can see the aussies calling china and say that they have to put external loads on their J20 and J21, three droptanks at least. Otherise they wont fight them. Sounds legit. 😉

Of course it’s not like the F-22 because the F-22 can SC at m1.8 while the F-35 can only do m1.2

Nobody officially, except for some fanboys, claim that is the case.

Yes it is, no arguements from me, I have a very high opinion of the F-15, not sure on the M 2.5 though ?

My points are more on Rii putting it forward and how he thinks it would work and how we could do it ? I was just trying to highlight that it is not as easy as saying “That’s a top plane, lets change our mind and get that instead”

The mach 2,5 figure, as well as the top speeds for others is probably the ideal performance. I mean, how often can a MiG 31 hit mach 3,3?

If costs are a big issue then there are plenty fighters that will be good enough for the next 15 years if they are complemented by stealth drones. As long as the carrier of te pilot doesnt have to be in a 0,0015 sqm class jet there are plenty of options on the table.

Yes it is, and your point ?

Do you have a reference for the RCS figure ? Guessing you are talking about the single Silent Eagle that has been built that has a frontal RCS sorta like a 5th Gen ? Well according to Boeing anyway

Point is that the F15 is a very versitile platform that works well even when you need to get closer engagements.

The RCS figure is a Boeing claim.

F15SE gives great range, versatility, agility + speed that the F35 can’t keep up with (mach 2,5 vs mach 1,6).

F35 brings better stealth capabilities with all perks that come with it.

I think both are great platforms for what they are intended to do but the F15SE gives higher flexibility. Oh, and its cheaper.

Found one specification of parts from a 90s system. Putting djrosses example up for comparison to legacy systems.

Radar
Air:
Several tracking and combat/navigation modes
Multiple TWS
Look-up/down PTT, STT, ACM etc (whatever that is)

Ground:
Air to ground ranging
GMTI/GMTT (groundmovingtarget indication/ tracking)
Real beam mapping
DBM
SAR

Extras:
Signal sampling (for on board and later analyisis), anti jamming features

EWS (90s era)
Radar bands:
Ka
K
Ku
X
C
S
L (not certain on UHF and VHF),
Amplitude comparison multichannel monopulse antennas and/or inteferometers
LPI intercept antennas and modes

Other: MAWS (IR/UV)

IRST
IR/UV/Visual

And thats most of the stuff thats unclassified on a 4,5 gen fighter (AFAIK) that doesnt have an AESA.

But still, these are all covering the basics. This particular system is very complete when it comes to point 1, target emissions.

The most important thing is to detect the enemy at range to get a lock on them, later discrimination will get more interesting (this is where the parameters get interesting) unless the IFF or the situation map gives enough intel. But as demonstrated in the past you can engage a target even if you dont know whether its a MiG 23 or a 35, as long as you know its a target that is A, a foe, 2 within range.

The F35 is supposed to be able to get so close to the enemy so it can make use of this.