hopsalotSame 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.
As usual, no source…
The source we have shows an F-35 going from .6 to .95 in ~18 seconds. I don’t see why .5 to 1.1 in 30 seconds would be out of the question.
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).
.2 seconds, sure it is slower… :rolleyes:
As for your business about how it compares in transonic… no source.
Still, I am the only one providing sources.
:highly_amused:
hopsalotReading the Combat Aircraft Monthly. There was a story about US F-16C doing exercise in Bulgaria.
Both Mig-29 pilot “Hunter” and F-16C Pilot Lt Col Andrew “Wolly” Wolcott the 480th Squadron Commander tells each their story.The Mig-29 was the 9.12 Version With Limited internal fuel Storage and the kickback(AoA limiter) stick.
The F-16C was of the Block 50Here is what the Mig pilot said:
The Mig-29 pilot “Hunter” Counters that regardless of the AoA limiter, the jet retains very good nose autority and the fighter is under full Control even at speed less than 100kt. After decreasing the AoA, we can easily and quicly accelerate -much faster than the F-16 can. The Mig-29 Owes its Incredible Acceleration to its powerfull RD-33 Engines. “Hunter” believes it is not necessary for me to pull highG like the F-16; 6,5-7G is quite enough for the Mig-29. Here we rely on Our engines to gain on the F-16C.
Also “Winnie”(former US pilot flying Ex-East Germany Mig-29) claimed -“if you are not over 8G at above 350kt at 15,000tf, you are accelerating!”
With only 230-250kt at the merge, you could still og vertical and over the top.
350kts? It isn’t clear what they are talking about there but it sounds like very slow speeds.
So if we are talking about Acceleration at subsonic speed regime. The Mig-29 beats the F-16 hands Down.
Hardly… you have a quote from a pilot with limited context and no real specifics.
hopsalotTactical 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.
No, maneuver weight for an F-35A is defined as “60% fuel and no air to ground ordnance remaining,” according to the famous/infamous “Bowman” paper.
…and need I remind you again we are trying to have a discussion with sources. So please find sources to support your points or perhaps add a disclaimer along the lines of “these are numbers that I have made up but that fit my agenda.”
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.
The source we have shows the F-35 essentially matching an F-16C without tanks in subsonic acceleration. I wouldn’t call that “strugg[ling] to keep up.”
…and again, sources.
hopsalotYes, 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?
The data is incomplete, but subsonic is certainly of interest.
This current round of ridiculousness started with a discussion of BFM, where subsonic acceleration is applicable.
hopsalotThe data presented shows F-35 at tactical maneuver weight, which is roughly 50% fuel. At the same time I am not sure if we are seeing figures of a clean F-16 or a loaded one (albeit w/o tanks). Nevertheless, the F-16 is counted with full internal fuel (wet bags on a half empty aircraft don’t make much sense to me) which makes such comparison at least intellectually dishonest, if not deceptive.
Not at all dishonest, an F-16 will almost always fly with tanks. As it neared the target area or if it encountered a threat it could be expected to drop them, leaving it with full internal fuel. An F-35 meanwhile will not generally fly with tanks and will therefor arrive in the target area with a significant percentage of its fuel burned off. Additionally, an F-35 with 50% internal fuel is still carrying significantly more fuel than an F-16 on full internal fuel.
I might have already asked this question before, so let me rephrase:
In 2028, what BVR tactics and weapons would you utilize with your F-35 against a T-50 or J-20 approaching at M1.4-1.5?
Why, so we can have yet another fanboy discussion about whether or not a Meteor/AIM-120D can hit a target going M1.4-1.5 based on nothing but speculation?
No, I prefer to stick with the Australian source for now. If you have a better source I would be happy to see it.
hopsalotI have to take the first graphics into account because it contains measurable figures.
The second one is kinda questionable, few bars with little explaining value. Especially if MiG-29 jocks were quoted that they could fight an F-16 single-handedly with full military setting (w/o burners) which ain’t consistent with this graphics.
The second one has less detail that would be ideal, but given that all the aircraft are presented side by side I think we can expect similar assumptions for each… even if we don’t know what those are. Also since this is a Eurofighter slide I don’t see any reason to think it would be biased in favor of the F-16 or against the Mig-29.
As for the pilot stories… those aren’t even plausible. A Mig-29 has about 22k lbs of dry thrust. (thrust to weight ratio of ~.66 full fuel, only a little better at 50% fuel)
(besides, if we are accepting pilot quotes there are a bunch of good ones for the F-35)
hopsalotThis 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.
So no loadout information, no altitude other than “low.” Not much of a basis for comparison is it?
This is what got you going in the beginning.
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.
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:
And the details for the comparison? Ah, there wherent any. To bad.
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)
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.
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.
hopsalotThe claim is incorrect. Only in carefully chosen specific conditions the F-35 is able to maintain similar aerodynamic performance to the aircraft it is replacing. That means taking best case for F-35 (internal load only) vs. worst case for the 4th Gen (external A-G load, external fuel).
In all other conditions the F-35 is inferior even to F-16, let alone Typhoon or Rafale. Plus the fact that Gen4 can jettison the load and transform into a light loaded config within few seconds.
We are trying to have a discussion with sources here. If you have them please present them. Right now we have data showing the F-35 matching a clean F-16C in acceleration which rules out any possibility of what you are describing being the case.
So again, lets try this again with a source or two.
Again, the same factually incorrect claims. The last sentence is a pure assumption (an incorrect one on top of that, IMO).
Not at all, this statement is supported by numerous positions taken by uniformed and civilian defense officials with inside knowledge of the F-35 program.
Take this example:
Air Vice Marshal Osley: I will take the detailed questions there on the sensors on notice. What I would like to say is that the simulation that has been done was actually done using highly trained fighter pilots, acting as Red Air, using to the best of their knowledge, the best capability they could to defeat the F35. The point I would like to make here is that if you use the F35 and play to its strengths, not its weaknesses, you can prevail in air combat. Winning in air combat late in this decade and into the 2020s is not going to be easy. I am not saying that the F35 will answer all our prayers. If you use the F35 incorrectly and do not play to its strengths, you will probably lose. But the same could be said for the F18 and the F16. If we play to the F35’s strengths, and it has a lot of strengths of stealth, good sensors and exceptional situation awareness. For instance, the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability. It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there. If you have the right weapons on board, and they will need to be upgraded, if you have good training, good tactics and good supporting capabilities, the F35 will prevail.”
Note that this is against what he described as “top-end, high-end [fighter] threats”
So here you have a senior Australian officer stating what their assessments have shown, on the record in Parliament.
What source do you have?
hopsalotI might have missed something, but what facts have you presented? I can’t see a single verifyable parameter in your post.
Do you have acceleration figures for MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 (M0.8-1.2) at hand?
See page 43 of this thread:
and
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223608[/ATTACH]
The first chart shows the F-35 essentially matching a clean F-16C in acceleration while the second shows the F-16C relative to several modern 4th generation jets, where it slots in right behind the Eurofighter and Rafale in acceleration, and well ahead of the Mirage-2000, and Mig-29.
These charts aren’t a perfect comparison, as the first is at 15k and from M.65 to M.95 and the second one states only “20k ft M.9” but they are clearly close enough for ballpark comparisons. (that is to say that the F-35 will most certainly offer similar acceleration to other 4th generation fighters, not the fastest perhaps, but nowhere near as slow as the critics like to claim)
This is really to be expected based on the numerous accounts now available of the F-35 having strong acceleration performance.
hopsalotdude you cannot be over 16.
NB, WVR (however likely and avoided at all cost) is only 1 aspect that raw performance can bring. F-22 is soo strong because it combines F-35 positive attributes with high performance for BVR (list of sub-reasons), engagement command and effective stealth (think vel advantages).
You seem to be having a problem carrying on a civil discussion here.
Perhaps you should take some time, relax, visit your library and do some reading, and return in a better mood and with some data.
hopsalotChart is similar to ones in Sweetman’s book “F-22 Raptor”, There is another one showing dry vs ab thrust in the book. Problem is, chart has no mention of weapons load fuel, etc, for the 5g maneuver envelope. The E-M diagram for the F-15 is available (A version) so here:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223619[/ATTACH]
I don’t think anyone is comparing the F-22 and F-35 as equals, especially at high speed/high alt. Most jets wouldn’t compare well on that (obligatory’s) chart, loss of control surface effectiveness at high alt. makes strong case for thrust vectoring as chart shows (and a high bypass turbofan). Btw, I believe the original ATF requirement was 7+g’s at 30,000 feet. Don’t think that was quite reached by the raptor, but damn. Back on topic look at chart from obligatory and put a little red dot where 8. mach and 15,000 feet meet that is the one data point (with no mention of weights) that’s what people are basing assumptions of f-35 maneuverability on.
This chart clearly shows a clean F-15 as capable of sustaining a 5 G turn well in excess of the envelop depicted in the suspect slide presented earlier.(where the F-15 was unable to sustain a 5 G turn anywhere above about M0.8) So once again I have to wonder what the mystery slide shows, either an F-15 with a significant load, or perhaps it is just an APA creation.
hopsalotI am failing to understand why showing that the F-35 has performance characteristics on par with the F-16 is a great thing.
F-16, whilst a fantastic jet, has been surpassed by many designs now. Just comparing performance and results from exercises with F-22’S, Typhoons, Rafales etc.. prove it isn’t that special anymore. End result, it is at a disadvantage.
With the F-35 having similar, it is at a disadvantage as well. F-16 comparable is not a strength but a weakness.
But the F-35 has a lot of strengths other jets do not, that is where to take the argument of ‘superiority’.
hoppy do you get it?
Oh I more than get it my sourcing challenged friend.
I said at the start that the F-35 will not set a new benchmark for aerodynamic performance, that was never its intention. What it will do is set a new benchmark for stealth, sensors, and networking, while maintaining similar aerodynamic performance to the aircraft it is replacing. (with the exception of the Harrier)
Thus while the F-35 won’t be the fastest plane in the sky, as shown in the slides posted on the previous page of this discussion, it will most certainly offer “fighter” performance similar to and better than many other 4th generation fighters. That level of performance is more than adequate for the F-35 to be highly effective when combined with its other attributes, especially considering the steadily dwindling importance of close turning fights.
(still swear you are Scooter)
Which demonstrates your willingness to leap to conclusions I suppose.
hopsalotIn level flight, fas refer to it as low alt and so do Walter Boyne.
So you have no source sufficiently detailed to be useful?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What does this all mean? It means that the F-35A while perhaps not the quickest accelerating aircraft in the sky will be among the quickest and will offer far greater performance than aircraft like the Mirage-2000 or Mig-29, aircraft people around here don’t generally describe as unacceptably slow. :rolleyes:
I really do see this as an opportunity for you to demonstrate some maturity and accept the facts that have been presented here.
hopsalotThat’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).
Yet another strawman… having a rough day perhaps?
I said the F-16C had good acceleration. Refer to the chart posted above…
hopsalotWell. 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
Who 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.
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.
At what altitude? What load? In level flight? Oh, and sourced please. 😉
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sign In
