hopsalotNo hopsalot. Its not that.
The F-18 and Superbug is a Navy jet. It was created out of the US Navy’s requirements, its really that simple. So who cares if it has a weird wing profile..
The important point is its navybirds, and thus can’t be compaired to non navybirds.Its not the USNavy’s fault, that the F-18 and SH was designed the way they was.. blame someone else.. like the Manufactors and Pentagon for not beeing up for the task to design and fund better wings on on their birds.
And like hopsalot state, there is nothing wrong With the SH, it has a great service record, and has even migated into the Growler design.. not bad.
My My, nice back-handed complimenting there… :applause:
Perhaps you have forgotten that the Hornet has also seen a great deal of service in purely land based roles. I suppose all of those operators must just be a bunch of clowns for not realizing what internet enthusiasts looking at pictures were able to figure out… :very_drunk:
Yeah, now that you mention it the Canadians, Finns, Australians, Swiss, Kuwaitis, Malaysians, and the Spanish are all fools for not demanding an aircraft with a more acceptable wing sweep. If only they knew what you did…
Seriously, of all of the dumb criticisms I have seen of aircraft on this message-board this is one of the worst. Yes, the Hornet was designed as a naval aircraft and its wing had a lot to do with that, but that design was not selected due to some supposed ignorance of alternatives or inability to come up with something better as you suggest. The F-18 turned out to be an exceptionally maneuverable fighter and a hugely successful design for its operators. Its AoA and slow speed handling are still among the best in the world. (and its AoA capabilities formed the basis of the F-35’s AoA requirement, indicating the value the Pentagon saw in that capability)
There is more than one way to get the job done and no purely “better” or “worse” approach to wings. (if there were anything so obvious all fighters would look the same, and yet they don’t… )
hopsalotDare I say we have one more more abomination?
It looks a bit like 26,5 degrees… ish
Oh yes, just horrible, horrible I tell you!
So awful you could almost forget that that design and the later Super Hornet have proven extremely effective in service for numerous forces… :stupid:
hopsalotTransonic regime differ greatly from design to design, pending on wing sweep, aspect ratio, twist, thickness to cord ratio, and area
all of these favor deltas
F-16 have a wingsweep of 40*
F-22 42*
Rafale 48*
YF-22 48*
Typhoon 53*
Mirage 2000 58*
Su-27 42*
MiG-29 40*
F-35 is 33*
Gripen is 43*
F-15 is 45*As we can see, all fighters has a wingsweep of 40* or more…but wait, there is an abomination,
we find that one has a wingsweep closer to 30, 33 to be precise.
Much like its predecessor F-117, it has the designation F, but it is not a fighter,
it is an evolutionary subsonic bomber but with much better self defense aid, even able to go supersonic if given enough time.http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt5.htm transonic
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt6.htm supersonic
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224050[/ATTACH]
And here we were having a nice productive discussion… but then this is the internet afterall so expectations must be adjusted accordingly…
hopsalotI would not exclude the possibility. The patent covering its inlet design says the configuration is good out to Mach 3.0, and while I don’t expect the T-50 to be THAT fast (other aspects are probably the long pole in the tent) there is still a lot of territory between this upper boundary and the Su-27. It might turn out to be the fastest thing in 40 years (i.e. since the MiG-31)!
I suppose it isn’t impossible, but I am much more inclined to believe its top speed is around M2 as most sources have stated. Time will tell…
Nope, they’re not exceptions. Both these fighters can supercruise to a certain extent, so they’re conforming to the trend.
I am not convinced either the Gripen or the Rafale have a useful supercruise capability. Obviously this is something both manufacturers have claimed and I don’t doubt it is true in at least a strictly factual sense, but if your supercruise capability can only be achieved at or very near an optimal altitude, and you can’t perform any real maneuvers without kicking in the burners… then you really aren’t talking about the same sort of capability the F-22 or PAK FA offer. (that being the ability to not only maintain supersonic speed without burners, but to fight at supersonic speeds without needing burners) The key thing here is that at M1.2 in military power an F-22 has substantial excess power. It can turn, climb, etc, all while maintaining supersonic flight or even accelerating.
If the Super Hornet receives the new engines GE has been offering I expect it would be able to supercruise to a similar limited extent as well, though again whether or not that would really be useful is a question.
While we are at it there was the one much debated report about the F-35 supercruising…
The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to “throw” such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
People here have tried to interpret this any of a number of ways…especially because of the word “technically.” Some have tried to claim that the F-35 must have been in a descent, or that the guy was just lying, or “without using fuel gulping afterburners” meant “using afterburners just a little bit” etc.
Of course it is also possible that when he said the F-35 was not “technically” a supercruising aircraft he was referring to the USAF definition, which called for sustained speeds of M1.5 or greater. (which was what they believed was necessary for supercruise to be truly useful for the reasons I outlined above)
Time will tell, but in any case more powerful engines are already in the works for the F-35 and I wouldn’t rule some limited supercruise capability out.
hopsalotStrictly speaking the USAF replaced the M2.2 Phantom with the M2.5 F-15, but that’s beside the point.
That is not accurate. The USAF replaced some F-4s with F-15s, but many were replaced with F-16s.
What this superficial comparison does not tell you is that despite the reduction in top speed, each of these replacements improved performance at speeds where air combat was expected to actually occur (the specifics of this varied slightly between designs).
The comparison was superficial, but as I stated in that post:
Requirements are based on what is necessary to accomplish the mission, not simply on exceeding those of the platform to be replaced. This is especially true when usable real world performance increases even as theoretical peak performance decreases. (as is the case in most of the examples above and is true of the F-35 when compared to its predecessors.)
I never said that performance hadn’t improved, only that it is not necessarily the case that that improved performance will manifest in theoretical peak performance metrics. The performance that matters is the performance in the parts of the envelope you actually use. After operating M2+ fighters for 40+ years we have learned that real world combat occurs well below M2, typically at transonic speeds.
Originally, the Century Fighter generation WAS supposed to fight going flat out, namely make a single supersonic intercept pass on approaching Soviet nuclear bombers, but then Vietnam provided real-world experience of fighter versus fighter combat. In recent years though the expected speed envelope has started to move UPWARDS again due to the increased emphasis on BVR and the advantage of launching high & fast – hence the importance of supercruise and supersonic maneuverability in most fighters flown since 1990 (possibly culminating in the T-50 having a top speed comfortably in excess of Mach 2.0 again).
True enough in general terms, but again we are talking about moving from combat typically taking place at subsonic or transonic speeds to increased use of supersonic speeds but there is really no evidence that we are seeing any dramatically increased need for speed. Even using the PAK FA as an example, it won’t be appreciably faster than an Su-27. (quicker certainly, but faster?)
Tellingly, the most prominent exceptions are the Super Hornet and precisely the F-35.
…and the Rafale(M1.8), and the Gripen NG(M2.0). Of these the F-35 has the lowest top speed, but unlike the others its top speed is achievable with a substantial load making a direct comparison difficult. We know for instance that the Super Hornet is drag limited and tops out around M1.6 with four missiles while the F-18C is a bit faster and can almost touch M1.8 with four missiles.(maybe M1.75) (see chart below)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224035[/ATTACH]
How would the F-35 compare here? All three variants have the same engine, and all three of them have the same maximum speed (M1.6), despite the substantial differences in their weight and drag. (with the F-35C being the heaviest and draggiest) This by itself tells us that the quickest of the variants, the F-35A, is not drag limited and likely hits M1.6 comfortably at a fairly wide range of altitudes.
That means that if compared with 60% fuel and four air to air missiles (the load in the above diagram) the F-35A would be slightly slower than the F-18C in a dead sprint right at 36k ft, but would broadly match its performance, and while carrying far more fuel. The F-35A would comfortably beat the Super Hornet in this comparison.
If the aircraft were carrying six missiles, as is planned internally for the F-35, or if the Super Hornet or F-18C were carrying even a single tank or pod then the comparison isn’t even close:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224036[/ATTACH]
The F-35 will remain M1.6 capable across a wide range of altitudes but the Hornet will be lucky to break M1.3.
An aircraft like the Gripen can theoretically hit M2, but once loaded will see its performance diminished. We don’t have data showing exactly how much it would suffer as we do for the Hornet and Super Hornet, but given it has only half of their thrust (in the Gripen and Gripen NG respectively) it is a near certainty that the Gripen’s performance will take a substantial hit as its load increased.
What is the bottom line? Certainly the F-35 isn’t setting the bar for top speed, but its real world performance is most certainly on par with that of most fourth generation fighters. Some will be incrementally faster, some will be incrementally slower. Exactly which and by how much will be loadout and altitude dependent.
hopsalotSelf protection a part of a strike package or defensive counter air with numerical superiority do not count as air superiority. These were the missions used to justify the project, indeed all air to air scenarios dealt with leakers, inferring dedicated platforms for air superiority.
Again, factually inaccurate. The F-35 was always intended to serve in traditional air to air roles in addition to its other missions. This should be obvious when you consider that it is slated to replace entire fleets of F-16s or F-18s with multiple foreign operators, and all USMC fighters. The USAF always regarded the F-35 as a more strike oriented compliment to the F-22, but then they always regarded the F-16 as a cheaper compliment to the F-15C. That didn’t mean that the F-16 was therefor incapable of carrying out traditional air to air missions.
As for unprecedented stealth, it is write clear that you do not understand the design priorities, which incidentally almost none of which look like being met. There was nothing unprecedented about the stealth characteristics deemed desirable and affordable, indeed the level of LO chosen, well ahead of maneuverability in terms of priorities, was a medium capability in frontal aspect. Even then mainly to enable the delivery of stand off weapons against battlefield targets early in a campaign.
I wonder how the term “unprecedented stealth” entered into this conversation… it certainly wasn’t one I introduced. It is also something of a mystery to me where you got the idea that “almost none” of the F-35’s design priorities are being met. There are a couple of specific requirements that have been missed and that have received a great deal of publicity, but in general news has been good. On the subject of stealth this is what Vice Adm Venlet had to say:
“Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighter jet has passed its initial radar-evasion testing and there are no “major potential changes contemplated for any of the stealth design,” according to the U.S. program office.
The program office has collected radar cross-section information on the Air Force version of the aircraft and “we are very pleased, very pleased,” U.S. Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet, the program manager, said in an interview. ”
The JSF was considered to be an adequately capable design for a $26 million strike fighter / battlefield interdiction airframe weighing little more than 25000 lbs. As this also will not be met it stretches credibility even to argue that the JSF is as capable as its design justification, never mind your fanciful attempts to confuse it with an F22.
Now I am trying to confuse an F-35 with an F-22? It seems to me that you are resorting to standard internet childishness in terms of seeking to move goalposts and argue with strawmen. The F-35 is not the F-22, and vice versa, just as the F-16 was not the F-15, but that does not mean that the F-35 is somehow not intended for air to air combat.
If you have a serious point to make then go ahead and make it, and do feel free to provide sources, but spare me the strawmen.
hopsalotWhilst I broadly concur with the content, I certainly do not with the tone…
As designed, as I stated, maneuverability was irrelevant to the mission. Hence an amalgam of then current mud movers was seen as adequate; then current multi-roles as a design risk and then proposed or current air dominance fighters as being undesirable.
That is factually inaccurate. The designers of the F-35 recognized that extreme maneuverability was of diminishing importance, but the aircraft was nonetheless designed to offer similar maneuverability to the F-16 and F-18… ideally combining their better traits. (BTW, if those aircraft are the ones you are describing as “mud movers” then there are issues there as well.) Essentially what the Pentagon wanted as an aircraft that offered a new level of capability in stealth and avionics, while preserving the kinematic capabilities of the most capable of the aircraft it was replacing. The F-35 was intended to be a multi-role platform including operating in an air superiority role. This was necessary because while the USAF had the F-22, the USN, USMC, and many of the allies would be relying on the F-35 to carry out air superiority missions. That is hardly consistent with your assertion:
If the JSF had been designed for anything other than frontal aspect defensive BVR it would be a very different beast. The design is shaped by the requirements and the scenarios posited, these simply did not envisage air dominance, quite the opposite as shown by the preferred tactic to engage purely in order to prevent stores jettison for the majority of the package.
Your own paper contradicts your stance..
“The overall performance of the proposed JSF is highly inadequate to be considered a “next generation” fighter. The minimal, if any, increase in performance over the legacy platforms it intends to replace, proves that designers are completely dependant on stealth technology”
That is the opinion of the author, which should be differentiated from the factual information he based that opinion on. (the requirements) This paper has already been torn to shreds over and over again so I won’t do it again here, but I disagree with his conclusion. (as do the various services around the world lining up to buy the F-35)
Hence the ‘facts’ which you have introduced would appear ironic unless you consider a carrier based multi-role medium weight fighter of 25 years vintage as the bleeding edge.
The F-18 remains an exceptionally maneuverable aircraft even today so I am not sure what the complaint is. Though aircraft have gotten more maneuverable over time, the trend has slowed dramatically. Aircraft like the F-18, Su-27/30, Mig-29, etc remain very relevant as air superiority aircraft, especially when paired with new generations of missiles and avionics.
I’m not convinced that you understand the project, the weapons system or the role of the aircraft….
That doesn’t much concern me. I will point out that when initiating a new project one should not simply take all of the specs of the previous system and increase them.
If the previous platform was fast or maneuverable enough, then spending billions of dollars to make its replacement faster or more maneuverable just so that one could say “ours is faster than the one from 25 years ago,” is not smart.
The F-35 draws the most hostility for its supposedly compromised design, which does not advance certain performance metrics beyond those of its predecessors, but this is hardly unprecedented. For example:
The US Navy replaced the M2.2 Phantom with the M1.8 F/A-18.
France replaced the M2.2 M2000 with the M1.8 Rafale.
The USAF replaced the M2.2 Phantom with the M2.0 F-16.
The USN replaced the M2.3 F-14 with the M1.8 Super Hornet
etc…
Requirements are based on what is necessary to accomplish the mission, not simply on exceeding those of the platform to be replaced. This is especially true when usable real world performance increases even as theoretical peak performance decreases. (as is the case in most of the examples above and is true of the F-35 when compared to its predecessors.)
For a perfect example of this look at the Gripen NG. The project is being driven by a desire for increased range, endurance, and carrying capacity, as well as accommodating a new generation of avionics, but increased maneuverability or top speed are not meaningful drivers of the program.
Should Saab/Sweden be satisfied with performance matching that of a multi-role light weight fighter of 20 years vintage? Is that, “bleeding edge?”
hopsalotIn last 12 to 13 years. Almost 1500 GE 400/414 engine built. that kind of pace is impossible going forward.
the LCA MK2 is very slow induction. first operational some where in 2020 period. Gripen NG is similar situation of post 2018 period.
T50 is hardly 10 per year. so how you are counting 300 signed orders and on what will be yearly production rate?
The point is that the F414 has plenty of orders extending out well over a decade from now. The volume will be lower than it was perhaps, but still well above that of many military engines.
hopsalot“The F-35 is hardly inferior to any 4.5 Generation Fighter let alone the 3rd Generation F-4 Phantom. Which, is supported by an number of test pilots. Which, have extensive experience in Vipers, Hornets, Super Hornets, Typhoons, and Raptors.
Honestly, unbelievable that some still try to imply the F-35 is not a good dog fighter!”
Inferring anything else would be unbelievable considering the original study showed that maneuverability was almost irrelevant to the JSF’s mission.
At the end of the day it is designed to bomb North Korea, Iraq or Iran into dust in the most ruthlessly efficient manner possible, with specific reference to battlefield interdiction of armoured columns protected by SAMs. Whilst a single defensive scenario was looked at it assumed local superiority of numbers.
If the JSF had been designed for anything other than frontal aspect defensive BVR it would be a very different beast. The design is shaped by the requirements and the scenarios posited, these simply did not envisage air dominance, quite the opposite as shown by the preferred tactic to engage purely in order to prevent stores jettison for the majority of the package.
I hate to spoil the party by introducing facts… but according to the famous/infamous Bowman paper:
“The requirement for all three variants is to provide a platform that will have a positive exchange ratio during air combat maneuvering (ACM) engagements against “high performance threats that employ helmet mounted cueing and high off-boresight weapons.” The JSF must further possess high angle of attack (AOA) capabilities “similar in nature to (or better than) the F-18C.”
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
The F-35 was always intended to be a multi-role fighter. BFM was not as heavily emphasized in its design as some previous aircraft, but it was most certainly not designed purely for “frontal aspect defensive BVR.”
Thank you for your interesting theory though…
hopsalotZuni?
APKWS would be the most obvious upgrade.
hopsalotReally struck a nerve with the comment about the radar huh?
I never said that Captor wasn’t a good radar, but it is most certainly a weak point for the Typhoon when compared with other late 4th generation jets. Most fighters operational in the world today use mechanically scanned arrays, and the Eurofighter can arguably claim the best such radar in the world, which ranks it highly among the world’s operational fighters.
Even so, AESAs are clearly the future and Captor, capable though it is, is a major impediment to Typhoon sales.
The APG-79 meanwhile is an all-new radar, designed from the start as an AESA. (not a retrofit) It only achieved IOC in 2005/2006 and as such is probably the world’s newest (operational) all-new AESA radar.
Bottom line, in a comparison of the two today, the Super Hornet has a clear and substantial edge in the radar department.
In a comparison set some years into the future things may be more subject to debate. The APG-79 lacks the swashplate that has been discussed for the Captor-E, but it will have powerful electronic attack capabilities that have not been discussed for the Captor-E to my knowledge.
hopsalotNot really. The ETs became bigger as well to keep the former endurance.
I wasn’t talking about endurance, but cost. The Gripen NG will consume more fuel. It should certainly have more endurance… but it will be more thirsty nonetheless and this will result in some increase in costs.
hopsalotIf the Typhoon’s radar is such a strength… why is it that replacing it is such a priority? :stupid: Hmmmmm? :rolleyes:
Things to ponder…
“To export Typhoon in the future around the world, if it’s not equipped with an E-scan radar, I do not believe that there would be another sale made,” said Bushell, whose company produces the jet alongside Britain’s BAE Systems (BAES.L) and EADS (EAD.PA), which represents Germany and Spain.
“It is very well recognised by the partner nations, it is very well recognised by the four industries, and clearly particularly for the UAE, who are an exceptionally demanding customer.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3027453/posts
When will the Typhoon be operational with a new radar? … try early 2020s…
The RAF expects to reach full operational capability with an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in 2021, allowing the aircraft to reach its full potential 18 years after it was first delivered, although the type is expected to start retiring from service in 2030.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_19_2013_p03-01-607933.xml
hopsalotWhy would it be at a likely short distance? Gripen E, armed, has an action radius of more than 1700km or 919nm. That is not short range.
And when it comes to A2A the EF2000 has the largest radar amongst the eurocanards, low RCS etc. I only see two options, if its accurate then it is binary, otherwise it is illustrative.
Could a Gripen perhaps fly 900+ miles? Possible, at the price of turning the aircraft into a sub-sonic only flying fuel tank. Even if this were done its endurance at range would be tiny because in combat it would be forced to drop its tanks. (meaning it would need to retain enough internal fuel to fly home 900+ miles after combat) It doesn’t do you much good to fly out 900 miles if you can’t fight with your tanks on, and have to turn around and fly home the moment you drop them…
In the real world a Gripen would be a completely unsuitable aircraft for operations at that range.
The EF is certainly a strong performer in air to air, but then all of the 4.5 generation fighters are. We could go through the total rundown but we know how that is going to end up. The EF is fast, but still has a mechanically scanned array. The Rafale is nimble but has the smallest radar of the bunch. The SH has the most capable radar of the three, tied with the EF for size but a very modern AESA. It also has a towed decoy and some other nice features, but it is the slowest of the group… etc.
I don’t see any reason to believe that the above chart doesn’t represent how the aircraft score out in a generalized air to air scenario of one type or another.
hopsalotThe chart only makes sense if it is binary or if it’s symbolic. I agree that F16IN should be put higher.
Clearly it is simplified, and must represent a scenario fairly favorable to the Gripen NG, (air to air, and likely at a fairly short distance) but other than that this really isn’t that hard to grasp unless you buy into the APA fanboy business.
Sign In
