What do they mean by Max Power? Dry thrust or A/B?

It isn’t clear to me honestly. Certainly an F-15 can execute a 5 g turn while traveling transonic/supersonic. Even if we were talking about dry thrust an F-15 can approach M 1 and could certainly pull a 5 g turn there unless it was carrying a significant load.

Here is a similar chart that is less ambiguous:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]223617[/ATTACH]

It makes me wonder if the one posted earlier in this thread is another of APA’s doctored slides. They like to try to dress those up with “according Lockheed Martin” or something similar to try to make them appear credible.

Obligatory, where did you find that chart?

with 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

Exactly… people around here want to pick and choose what they believe. If a report says something negative then it is “official.” If a report says something positive then it is “propaganda.”

Indeed. There was another source stating the 40k+ft at Mach 1.6+ figures was a report by Mark Ayton via AIR International, a few issues before the current Typhoon Supplement release, and a short time after Red Flag ’13 had finished, which particular volume/issue though I’m not certain. I believe one must take note with regards to the particular caption of Typhoon’s configuration in the report of Combat Aircraft, the link you kindly posted just now, a RAIDS pod and 2x Drop Tanks with no armament on-board is still quite a load to operate at such a high Mach at that kind of altitude, of which the aircraft will find rather easy to fight with, especially taken into account that a “clean” Typhoon is an aircraft considered to be with 6x A/A Missiles (no Drop Tanks) and is regularly seen on IPAx units regardless of what other weapons or tanks they’re carrying. If the Typhoons at Red Flag ’13 had the weight of 8x A/A missiles on-board I doubt it’d struggle to reach Mach 1.6, given that ASRAAM is as streamlined as can be and the 4x AMRAAMs are semi-recessed.

I would agree that if it could get there with the two tanks and the RAIDS pod that it would have a good chance of doing it or something close to it with the 8x AA missiles and the tanks, but that would be a heavier and draggier load. (and I wouldn’t rule out completely the possibility that the Typhoons weren’t always flying with tanks)

As a side note, I don’t get the references to a Typhoon being “clean” with 6x AA missiles. Certainly the 4 conformal missiles will add negligible drag, but the two out on the wing count. They won’t add a great deal of drag, but the aircraft isn’t clean.

Have 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…

Perhaps 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.

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.

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)

Secondly, with an A/A configuration (2x Drop Tanks, 4x ASRAAM/IRS-T and 4x AMRAAM/Meteor) Typhoon is capable to launch BVR shots off at Mach 1.6+, which they demonstrated (simulation, obviously) during Red Flag ’13 to the surprise of those whom attempted to claim simulated kills of the Typhoons themselves, only to be “Slayed” in the process.

I would be interested in seeing the source for this. If you are referring to this article:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142050919/Hunter-J-May-2013-The-Ultimate-Test-RAF-Typhoons-on-Red-Flag-Combat-Aircraft-Vol-14-No-5

…then it never explicitly gives a load out to go with the quote about taking shots from 45k ft at M1.6. Later in the article, in a caption, it states that Typhoons flew only with drop tanks and a RAIDS pod. (Though clearly load outs must have varied because at other points they referred to the use of targeting pods.)

It takes only a small amount of intelligence to understand the context of his speaking, and understand the different permutations of conclusion. I will explain it to you though.

As stated,

CHAIR: Let the Air Vice Marshal finish his answer, then proceed.

Air Vice Marshal Osley : If we compare those two, the legacy aeroplane with fuel tanks and weapons on it, if we take a fourth generation fighter, typically an F16 or an F18, in that configuration it would take substantially longer than 63.9 seconds. If you took a 4½ generation aircraft it actually could not accelerate to supersonic in any time over that 0.8 to 1.2 range with a combat configuration of external tanks and weapons. The point I made originally was that we need to talk apples and apples between legacy fighters and the F35 on manoeuvrability and performance capabilities.

Well of course NO highly loaded typhoon/rafale could go supersonic with this, additional weapon parameter limitations.

The F-35 can, though the time to do this is not mentioned, and hence fuel consumption may put a full stop to this regardless, never mind maintaining above mach flight.

The fact it can do it does not mean it adds value. Why burn a **** load more fuel, increase IR sig and reduce manoeuvring capability for such a small increment in flight velocity? Not much.

A “small amount of intelligence” huh? So why don’t you re-read what you posted above and show me where he says :

His statement is reference to full atg loads, i.e. full gas bags, 4-6 lgb’s/smart bombs and the ata fit.

Oddly enough that little tidbit doesn’t appear there. He says tanks and weapons sure, but nothing about “4-6 lgb’s/smart bombs.” Given that he is comparing to a load the F-35 can carry internally he is almost certainly talking about a pair of air to ground weapons, a targeting pod, and some fuel tanks. (which he did state explicitly) (Perhaps what you need more than a “small amount of intelligence” is a small amount of critical thinking… :rolleyes:)

Additionally, what you don’t seem to realize is that while carrying a load internally the F-35 can go supersonic easily.

Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft “felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel” but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts’ performance.

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

So what you are clearly failing to appreciate, despite your “small amount of intelligence” is that the F-35 can carry air to ground weapons internally with only a very slight performance penalty, meaning that there is simply no comparison between its performance in that metric and that of a 4th generation fighter.

Then the argument of a threat (Note, not typhoon vs F-35).

Typhoon just drops the stores and is able to use the much higher kinematic performance available to it. Say the F-35 does not, it’s performance is even poorer than usual and in all likelihood getting rid of a few $100k of internal stores is needed to give the F-35 a slight increase in ability and prevent the loss of pilot and $mils of the jet. The scenario I am describing is uber simplistic and pretty much fictional with all the over support available, however it is a case that the typhoon just drops the stores and then it has far better kinematic performance than the F-35.

So at the first sign of a threat the Eurofighter drops its stores, wasting them, and failing in its mission….

What’s not to like? :applause:

You are right though, once it had aborted its mission the Typhoon would have excellent handling and acceleration on its flight home.

An F-35 in that same scenario, and with the benefit of its stealth and huge kinematic superiority over a strike configured 4th generation aircraft would likely simply avoid the threat and see its mission through to completion.

Now, if you can show me the F-35 can usefully go through the barrier and obtain M1.3+, with full internal load, without it compromising critical fuel levels and make it into a meaningful advantage I will retract my argument.

See the quote above. The criticism on these types of messageboards always centers around the F-35’s performance when compared to clean or very lightly loaded 4th generation aircraft because the F-35 incurs a performance penalty in that scenario due to its internal storage capabilities.

The situation reverses completely when you start talking about carrying an air to ground load, in such a scenario there really isn’t a 4th generation fighter that can touch an F-35’s performance, including the Typhoon.

And finally when he states no transonic performance with external tanks and weapons, typhoons blast past M1.4+ with 2 tanks and 8 ata missiles. So you have to ASSUME he is talking about heavy atg loads with restrictive flight parameters.

Simple.

Could a Typhoon get to M1.4 while carrying that load? Perhaps… but it would be a very strange scenario that would see it attempt to do so. Regardless, it isn’t much of a comparison because a targeting pod and bombs add quite a bit more drag and weight than air to air missiles.

Really if you want to get technical a Typhoon doesn’t have enough pylons to carry 6 smart bombs, two fuel tanks, and a targeting pod so the absolute most we could be talking about here would be 4 bombs. (but for the reasons stated above we are almost certainly talking about 2 bombs)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]223591[/ATTACH]

Anyway, thanks for sharing your small amount of intelligence. It lightened my day. 😎

Wow, look away from this thread for a day and it blows up.

I am not even going to try to address all the various points raised here.

I will just point out the vastly differing standards of proof accepted by the critics. They are happy to completely dismiss any positive comment from any person that has been within 10 feet of an F-35, but will then happily announce the inferiority of the F-35 to their favorite jet without a shred of proof whatsoever.

I think we can all agree that the F-35 was not designed with an emphasis on prowess in BFM exercises, nor was it designed as a high-fast interceptor. That said, it is a 9G capable aircraft with the ability to go to 50 degrees AoA (compared to the Rafale or Eurofighter at 29 or 25 degrees).

It will have a thrust to weight ratio in excess of 1:1 in an air to air configuration with 50% or less fuel (a fuel load that corresponds to roughly 100% fuel load for a Rafale or Eurofighter) and by all accounts has excellent handling characteristics and strong acceleration at speeds where WVR occurs.

It also has an excellent avionics suite and a new generation of helmet mounted display which will certainly be assets.

Taken together the F-35 will clearly be a dangerous foe even in WVR combat. Will it be the absolute top aircraft in the world at BFM exercises? Probably not… but in the real world and combined with the F-35’s other advantages (sensors, stealth, networking) there is every reason to believe the F-35 will be effective. I guarantee you there isn’t a pilot with a brain that would relish the thought of having to fly against a LO adversary armed with Meteor or AIM-120D.

They may choose to want to test it. See nothin peculiar in that. That is still quite far from placing an order.

Still nothing peculiar. I, too, would be quite curious to get some data and try few rides for free. Looks like you are even more desperate to see it selling than LM themselves.

Desperate? Not at all… the F-35 has been steadily picking up customers with more to come. As for the Gulf states just being curious… keep telling yourself that.

Oh yes, I forgot, your emoticon is enough to debunk me completely 🙂

Really debunking you doesn’t require much of anything since you don’t provide much of anything. You claim you know what the Gulf states “really” want. You claim to know how the F-35 performs relative to what they “really” want. Of course you know neither.

The F-35 offers capabilities buyers badly want, that much should be obvious by now.

You’re making no sense. There is no mission where you need to hang a Rafale with full bomb load and then require speed of M1.8. But Rafale can exploit its agility and speed with A-A missions (policing, interceptions, CAP..).

We aren’t talking about just air to ground loads here, though some speed and maneuverability is still nice to have there and the F-35 will certainly provide it.

Even an air to air loadout will impact a 4th generation jet’s performance. A 4th generation jet with a top speed of M1.8 will not hit 1.8 with a meaningful weapons load. That is the reality.

The F-35 meanwhile, all three variants, can hit M1.6 will a full internal load. At a minimum that shows that the F-35A can hit M1.6 fairly easily given that it is substantially less draggy than the F-35C.

Aircraft need speed to dictate the rules of A-A engagement. Even more than the absolute velocity figure is the capability to get to the desired speed level quickly and maintain it for a meaningful time. F-35 can do neither, for that you need a mission reconfigurable aircraft – something which can transform from a heavy bomb truck loaded up with bags and bombs to a lightweight agile figter if need arises. By opting for heavy internal fuel load and supporting structure for internal weapon carriage, the creators of the F-35 have given up this versatility.

As usual, you have a few things right mixed in with a bunch of stuff you clearly don’t understand.

Speed is important, acceleration is important, but what you still don’t understand is the F-35 is quite similar to other 4th generation aircraft in those metrics, even in an air to air scenario. Meanwhile the F-35 has huge advantages in stealth, sensors, and networking, which play at least as large a role in being able to dictate the terms of an engagement.

The F-35, like all 5th generation aircraft, does give up some “configurability” relative to 4th generation aircraft, but that is more than compensated for by its ability to carry a substantial internal load while remaining stealthy. Ultimately 5th generation jets are the future the advantage of stealth is just too important.