hopsalot1- Dash speed + high mach acceleration of pursuer,
2- Dash speed + high mach acceleration of target,
3- NEZ of missile fired at M2.5+ target.Those are only factors matter in such scenario. Comparing with MiG-25B vs SR-71 scenario:
#1,2: SR-71 has 16% better top speed than MiG-25B (3% if MiG-25 overspeeds), where as MiG-25RBS has at least 30% higher top speed than F-22.
As for #3, I doubt there would be much difference between NEZ of R-40 and small finned AIM-120C againist a high altitude/high speed target.So if 6 MiG-25B is required to intercept SR-71 due to 16% improvement in speed, at least 11 F-22 is needed to intercept the MiG-25RBS in the exact same scenario.
This would be the case if the Mig-25 were aware it were in danger. It is one thing to evade a pursuer you can detect and track, but quite another to evade one you are unaware of.
In all likelihood the F-22 would be able to fly out to an intercept point guided by off-board radars and the Mig-25 would have no cause for alarm until it was too late.
(A variation of the Iranian F-4/F-22 story that hit the press recently.)
hopsalotAll in all you guess something then assert is as a truth.
That isn’t a guess.
All airframes crack, it is just a question of where/when/how. Remember that a crack is not the same thing as a structural failure. Planes fly with cracks all over the world, every day.
Like all modern fighters the Eurofighter and Rafale were certainly tested to well beyond their design lives to study how the airframe aged. Cracks most certainly would have appeared at some point in this testing. (In this most recent case on the F-35B for instance the latest cracks appeared after 8,700 simulated hours for an airframe that was designed to last 8,000hrs.)
hopsalotThe big difference is that many other fighters deliver on their promises.
Gripen has delivered on, and exceeded all, performance benchmarks while beating the budgeted price.
Actually, the Swiss evaluation results made it quite clear that the Gripen was a distant third place compared to the Eurofighter and Rafale, failing to meet threshold performance even… and before you bring up the Gripen NG remember none of those have even flown yet, let along been delivered.
Rafale was only supposed to be a single multirole platform that could replace the Mirage versions, performance wise it has beaten the performance spec on pretty much every point (and remember, it was “too small” for the Eurofighter countries at the time)…
How do you figure it beat performance specs on “pretty much every point?” Why don’t you tell us what the original requirements were and how the Rafale exceeded them.
It is true that all of these manufacturers highlight their product as good as they can. And Dassault made some laughable claims after they lost in Switzerland, but overall manufacturers, incl Dassault, play to their actual strengths.
This is where LM take it to the next level by rarely meeting the criteria, or deadline, not meeting the budget, and boasting imaginary strengths. They also make comparisons that never follow any standard comparison model, they never give any details and they make dishonest selections from the beginning.
I think that is the biggest reason why the debate is focused on the F35, and that is also why small cracks in the program have a huge impact on the debate.
:very_drunk:
I find it really amusing that you see anything different at all about the F-35. The F-35 has been the most transparent program in history with every glitch, delay, or flaw discussed ad nauseam by a hysterical press corps and of course messageboard kiddies.
The Rafale and Eurofighter for instance both suffered cracking during their durability testing. Do you know how I know this? Because unless you over-engineer your airframe to a ridiculous extent cracks are inevitable by the time an airframe reaches its design life… but where are the stories about this? As for schedule slips, budget overruns, etc, we don’t really need to compare the F-35 to the Rafale and Eurofighter again do we?
This is just the latest example of the dual standard employed by the anti-F-35 crowd around here.
hopsalotThe very story was told to me by head engineer of combat systems of one of the contenders, believe it or not, P3 was crappy
A head engineer told me the P-3 dominated and it was the other platforms that looked crappy.
I guess your guy was wrong.
hopsalotMore versatile, certainly, but a really poor sub-hunter. AFAIR a competition in SE Asia, it tooks 2hours to P3 to find a sub contenders had found in ten mins… Needed a phone call from white house to sell them…
I heard the exact opposite. :rolleyes:
hopsalotExcept for one thing – the OT&E is still cheaper than the actual operating cost of the aircraft.
Which debunks your claim in the post #480 about the figure being inflated because of all the extra stuff included.
All I wanted to prove, I am satisfied now.
Let me see if I can summarize this argument.
The Dutch have budgeted money to participate in some F-35 testing. Nobody here knows how this money will be spent but they would like to divide the total budget by the numbers of flight hours flown by the Dutch F-35s in support of the testing effort to calculate the “cost per flight hour.”
This is of course the equivalent of hiring a team of experts to test and tweak a new car at the track, and then dividing the total cost of the effort by the number of hours the car was driven to calculate how much it costs to operate the car per hour… :eagerness:
Of course since nobody here has any clue how many hours the Dutch F-35s will fly in support of the effort they have resorted to making up numbers.
Suppose we actually knew the cost breakdown of the test effort, and the number of hours budgeted to be flown. Suppose we actually knew the real cost per flight hour of the program… what value would that have to anyone? Flight hours in support of a test program with an orange wired airframe are hardly representative of actual operational costs. This effort will certainly cost far more on a CPFH basis than real world operations. The same is true of any similar flights flown by any other aircraft program.
hopsalotThanks, hopsalot. Of course, any at least remotely comparable brakes-off to Mx.x figures for F-35 would be most welcome. But something tells me LMA will hardly be eager to make them public rather than send in another dozen of test pilots making generalized claims which can neither be verified, nor properly debunked because they contain no specifics, whatsoever.
This may be surprising to you, but the Eurofighter guys released the numbers they did because they thought they would make their product look good. (and they do)
Other manufacturers do the same thing with the stats that they think will show their product in the best possible light.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for LM to release directly comparable numbers, they won’t, nor will most other manufacturers. (hunt around, see if you can find the same thing for a Gripen, Rafale, Su-27/30, etc. I honestly haven’t looked myself but I suspect in most cases you won’t be able to make an apples to apples comparison.)
The other thing to keep in mind is that LM isn’t free to release just whatever they want.
hopsalotNot so much need to be discreet when you can plonk JASSMs from long-range.
Exactly, this is a case where the P-8s range and payload advantages would greatly exceed those of any tactical fighter (and for that matter the F-111s Australia used to have) and where its limited survivability would not be a major concern.
I don’t have proper data for how far a P-8 can carry a load, but given that it can carry five 2,000 lb munitions internally I suspect it could carry at least that load out to around 2,000NM given the “range” of 4,000NM given in the first post of this thread. (For reference it is roughly 1,700NM from Darwin to Manila, without counting the range of the missiles themselves or the possibility of aerial refueling.)
Sure, it’s not ‘sustainable’, but then neither are any Australian strike scenarios involving tanker-supported F-35 operations. The difference is that besides the token long-range strike capability P-8 brings with it a host of other useful capabilities in MPA, ASW, etc. F-35 … well, it can launch AMRAAMs I guess. But then so can Super Hornet.
If Australia had sufficient munitions this would be more than a token strike capability. Figure 2 x P-8s could deliver 10 JASSMs or SLAM-ERs out to very long range, and the same two P-8s could deliver 22 weapons out to some shorter range. Sure it isn’t a B-52, but that is a substantial number of missiles for just two aircraft to carry, and without requiring limited tanker resources.
This same math would apply in the case of a large scale anti-ship cruise missile strike, which is really more applicable to the P-8’s real mission and so is worth noting here.
hopsalotMSphere just said it: EF= Brakes-off to Mach 1.6: under 150 s (incl. climb to 36k ft)
F-35 can’t go to M1.6 in 150 sec. starting from M0.8 even, and starting at 15.000 ft at that. !
And due to how its acc. flatten out, would be near bingo fuel when it finally reaches M1.6.
So to sum up, EF climb from 0 to 36.000 ft, while simultaneously start from speed 0, up to M1.6,
in less time than F-35 climb 0, and acc. only half the scale (M1.6/2=M0.8)
See my post above.
hopsalotHere is the few hard data we have about Typhoon:
Brakes-off to supersonic: under 30 s
Brakes-off to Mach 1.6: under 150 s (incl. climb to 36k ft)That says nuff about what I think about Mr.Flynn. Another troll on the LMA’s payroll.
Ok, there really seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread so let me take a moment to lay out a few things.
1. 30k ft is not the optimal altitude for level acceleration. (at least in terms of “time to go from M.8 to M1.2”) You can’t directly compare acceleration times of different aircraft unless you know the specifics of the conditions. Going from 0 to supersonic in 30 seconds is impressive but that number isn’t directly comparable to level acceleration at 30k ft.
2. The optimal way to accelerate to supersonic speeds is not in level flight. Operationally a fighter will go into a shallow dive to build speed rapidly, before climbing again. This means that a hypothetical F-35 (or for that matter F-22) flying an air to air mission would not simply push the throttles all the way forward and wait… they would put the plane into a dive, build their speed rapidly and then regain their altitude while maintaining supersonic speeds. (so please spare us this business about F-35’s running out of fuel before hitting M1.6, that isn’t even close to accurate.)
3. Sustained turn performance is altitude, weight, and drag dependent. It isn’t enough to simply say aircraft X can sustain a X.XG turn unless you know the specifics of the conditions including speed, altitude, weight, and drag.(external stores)
4. Brakes off to M1.6 and 36k ft is talking about minimum time to energy. (both speed and altitude) This is important for an interceptor but once again it is important to remember that this is much more complex than simply executing a subsonic climb to 36k ft and then accelerating in level flight to M1.6. The Typhoon in this case almost certainly flew a “minimum time to energy profile.” This means that the aircraft executed a max subsonic climb to altitude, before diving while accelerating, and then climbing again. Flying this type of profile saves a substantial amount of time over a simple climb to altitude followed by a level acceleration. (All of this is explained in section 9.6.3 of this document: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA320211&ei=WQNcUuzYLIyekAenzYC4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHdCkVOrwixQrprwa4B89tDebCz8Q&bvm=bv.53899372,d.eW0&cad=rja See in particular figure 9.25. ) So once again, this is impressive performance, but it isn’t directly comparable to the numbers we have for the F-35.
It is a virtual certainty that the Typhoon would win any drag race with a light load against an F-35, but not nearly by the extent implied by a simplistic look at these numbers.
hopsalotThe charts so far puts F-35 below everything but F-5 & F-18, so what charts is that you’ve been looking at ?
Acc. at supersonic speeds also slow down on F-35 to such an extent so we can tell it will never reach M1.5 operationally
The question is whether that level of speed/acceleration is insufficient. Thus far the US Navy has been extremely happy with its Super Hornets even though they are a poor performer in this area. Even with more powerful engines available they are primarily interested in cost savings…
It is also important to remember that peak acceleration times are not observed at 30k ft, and that operationally a smart pilot would not likely accelerate to supersonic speeds in level flight. By diving slightly acceleration times can be dramatically reduced and then the lost altitude can be quickly regained.
hopsalotThe f-35c is a 700kt limited to Mach 1.6 or whichever is less [depends on altitude]
Your Mach 1.2 and 1.4 can be correct at a given altitude ..700kt at Mach 1.2 = x altitude and someone here will have a chart handy.
In an equal ‘go to war’ comparison configuration. When I look at the charts, the f-35 exceeds the f-15, as well as the f-16/18. the mig isn’t even upto the teens
The F-15 and F-16 can both exceed M1.6/700kts with a light load. There are questions about whether or not this is a useful capability but this is not a metric where the F-35 has the advantage.
hopsalotNo but I do believe that for the sake of achieving affordable unit cost in the early stage, the US are desperate to sell as many JSF as they can to any foreign customers.
You guys really have problems with the word maybe. People were crying that Israel “bought” the JSF because it’s superduper. I said that maybe, just maybe US aid didn’t come without restrictions. If you want to see conspiracy theories in there I suggest you get a grip.
Nic
The US has been giving Israel money to buy weapons with for decades. I don’t see any reason to think that this money would suddenly have strings attached that it didn’t previously, especially given that if the US suddenly demanded that Israel spend a big chunk of the money on something they didn’t want they wouldn’t be shy about raising a stink.
Besides, when the US Congress wants to give Israel money for something specific they just cut them a check:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-house-to-boost-iron-dome-funding/
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Congressional-ctee-backs-increase-in-Arrow-funding
hopsalotGenerally we consider a “buyer” as a person or entity with its own money. And in military procurement a requirement is the buyer’s side of a contract and binding on the seller. Can any genius here explain how to have a contract without such a thing?
Really? Arguing semantics? :stupid:
Yes, Israel receives military aid from the US, in the form of -money- which is deposited in an interest bearing account early each fiscal year. Most of this money (~74%) must be spent in the US and the remainder of it may be spent in Israel.
That is to say that Israel is free to use this money to buy any of the four fighters currently in production in the US, or for that matter any other piece of equipment manufactured in the US that the US is willing to sell.
If your point is that no Eurocanard was considered by the Israelis then I can’t argue with that.
If you are trying to argue that the F-35 faced no competition and/or that Israel doesn’t have “requirements” as any other buyer would then you are just flat wrong. Israel has shown itself to be a highly discerning buyer over the years and most certainly defines its own requirements.
…but hey, what do they know anyway? :rolleyes:
hopsalotDefine “buyer”.
buy·er
[bahy-er] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who buys; purchaser.
2. a purchasing agent, as for a department or chain store.
Sign In
