hopsalotThanks, but if you can’t produce a chart for your claims they are invalid :highly_amused: I will insert an insult now
I guess I will take your word for it
He is correct in this case. There will be increased drag due to increased weight, but you can’t assume that weight and maximum speed interact linearly in the way you did. (Doubling weight does not half speed, etc.)
Good research Shiny. I admit I googled it earlier but couln’t find anything. At least its been settled once and for all.
And it’s a good job poor old Andraxxus is not a pilot for he’d have ripped the wings off his F-16 whilst overstressing it trying to reach Mach 2 with his Mk-82’s.
Here I think a general appeal to civility is in order. Andraxxus has sparked an interesting discussion and brought some useful data into play, which is a heck of a lot more than can be said of some around here…
hopsalotTo you because either you dont read what I am writing or posting from fm, or you don’t understand my english or the graphs.
Total mission radius depends on entry to the combat zone.
An F-16 with
2x AIM-9
2x Mk-84
2x 370gal tankswill have 657 nm total mission radius if combat zone entry is at 554nm; flying 103 nm at low altitude dash.
will have 688 nm total mission radius if combat zone entry is at 600 nm; flying 88 nm at low altitude dash;
will have 810 nm total mission radius if combat zone entry is at 810 nm; no low altitude flying.Similarly, F-16 with the payload cited will have 814 nm TMR, IF CZR = 88nm as in the previous example? Got it?
Would you say I have been polite to you so far?
Earlier in this thread you were comparing F-16s flying 800+ NM radius missions to F-35s with a radius of 590 nm and said that an F-35 would need some number of 600 gallon tanks to match the F-16.
An F-16 with only 370 gal tanks have 688 nm combat radius. For that range figure, F-16 carries 9632 lb of fuel (page 487). On the configuration you made, F-16 carries 12605 lb of fuel. For drag index 250, it would make an additional 252 nm flight, adding 126 nm to combat radius (814 nm). F-35’s undisclosed combat radius is 590 nm with full internal fuel load of 18500 lb. For F-35, to reach 814 nm combat radius, it needs fuel tanks; How many? Assuming “miles per pound” stays same -which is not possible due to increased drag and weight-, it will need at least ~7030 lb of fuel, which equals to 1064 gallons.
Now I am asking: For equivalent scenarios, can F-35 with 4x 600 gallon tanks + 2 external AAMs go supersonic? If drag index system stays same, it means F-35 will be at drag index 162 to match F-16’s range at drag index 246. That is what I was trying to say in my previous posts. Yes, if you overload F-16 too much, its top speed will drop even below supersonic we all know that. However, if you want to overload F-16 to compare with F-35, put equivalent fuel and payload in F-35 too. F-35 cannot carry GBU-10 internally for example; add drag to the external payloads it has to carry.
Given that at a minimum it is fair to say that the conditions under which the F-35’s range was calculated are unknown, and also given that the Norway briefing depicted a 610NM radius mission that included flying the majority of the mission at or below 30k ft, and included “combat” at 20k ft… do you think it is fair to withdraw your previous assertion and perhaps replace it with something along the lines of : “Given that an apples to apples comparison isn’t possible right now a direct comparison isn’t possible…”
hopsalotIn your example what I am doing is looking at official, ford published manual of your car to get its 0-60 times, and top speed, load and tow capacity. What people are trying to is to find some Pinto drivers, and hope they are telling the truth about their 0-60 times or top speeds. Which as you know in real life, very few car drivers do.
If you have “hard proof” that F-16 cannot do ANYTHING I have claimed, please share it. If you don’t, then save your insultive attitude to yourself and STFU. What is terribly, horribly stupid here is your bias towards provided proof, and your inability to read the charts I have posted. I think you are the ONLY troll here, even bullsh*tting about what F-15 manual restricts, without any source
In post #1030 you calculated that an F-16 loaded with:
2 x AIM-9
2 x AIM-120
LANTIRN
2 x GBU-10
2 x 600 Gallon tanks
CFT
(and possibly one CL 370 gallon tank)
Would have a radius of 814nm.
We also have a Lockheed graphic advertising that an F-16 with an almost identical configuration would have a 630nm range. (They added an ECM pod to their jet, which would remove the CL tank if that was included.) Lockheed clearly felt the 630 nm range was exceptional given that they devoted a marketing slide to it. Even if you replaced the ECM pod with another tank you aren’t going to get close to 814 nm.
Seems like a significant disparity does it not?
Similarly in the same document you have been citing it includes this note:
“Drag index is a numerical factor which provides a means for quantifying the effects on aircraft performance of adding stores to the basic aircraft. The drag index system provides accurate corrections for store effects at all subsonic speeds (less than 1.0 mach). At supersonic speeds (greater than 1.0 mach), the size and shape of the store(s) affect drag to a significant degree, and a single value of drag index can no longer exactly represent all stores and combinations at these speeds. Therefore, it should be noted that actual supersonic performance may vary from that predicted by the performance charts.”
To what extent do you think the numbers you have generated deviate from those that would be achieved in the real world, and how?
hopsalotThat’s funny. But all SU won’t be the “bad guys”… This is another problem that the F35 will hve to deal with.
Another problem? How do you figure?
Not only is there a shortage of likely wartime partners that operate Su-27s, it would hardly be unprecedented for a Russian aircraft to be operated by an ally or a Western or even US aircraft operated by an adversary.
hopsalotI like the way he claims the Flanker “clearly has been designed as a counter to stealth aircraft” – what a load of horse s**t, and he says it with a stright face!
Bill, the Su-35 was designed to overmatch 4th gen fighters. The T-50 is the one designed to be able take on the F-22. Add to that if they were confident in the Flanker taking on F-22’s then why design the PAK-FA? Logic man, logic.
I’ve never heard a western pilot fret about Russian fighters airshow acrobatics either. All the hype reminds me of decades ago when we were told to fear the mighty super-agile Fulcrum yet look how the engagements against them always turned out…
Indeed, even by Bill’s standards that was a pretty disgraceful performance…
SU-35s are going to concede the first look and first shot, dodge missiles while closing to visual range and win in a knife fight? I truly hope that is what the badguys think they are going to do.
hopsalotYou wanted an actual comparison and you got it with a very simiar flight profile and a total range comparison. Gripen in air patrol vs F35 in Recce is definately comparable if you look at the recce mission profile, the F16 strike range and the F35 strike range are also pretty similar in mission profile.
Actually, this is not at all the case as you can see in my post above.
But I’m not interested in getting into too much details in comparing an outdated F16 to a F35 that will come some time in the future when the F16 is so far behind the Eurocanards in performane. It would just be irrelevant and a waste of time. Similarly I wount compare the Pak FA o the Brewser Buffalo since that too would be irrelevant. The optimum cruise altitude for the Gripen is in the high 20’000 ft, ie somewhere between 27’000-32’000ft. So its not that big of a difference. If you have other numbers, please share.
Again, this is not at all factual, to put it nicely. The F-16 is quite competitive with the various Eurocanards and has in fact out-sold all of them in the export market combined by a wide margin over the time since they entered into service. The F-16 has areas of strength and weakness compared to the various Eurocanards, but a the PAK FA to a Brewster Buffalo? Seriously? Grow up…
My main interest in this thread is to separate all the BS, mostly from posters like wrightwing, hopsalot and other trolls, and focus on the facts and physics behind it all. The debate (where theories and models can be tested and criticised) just happens to take place around the F35 where marketing claims are getting thrown out by the fanboys, then questioned and after that usually there is a genuine debate on what actually works and what doesnt. (see the debates on AESA performance, anenna and rwr sensitivity, kinematic performance, physics behind missile maneuverability, actual IRST system performance, claimed vs actual misile performance, evolution of datalinks and so on. All of this comes from a genuine debate and discussion and it has all taken place in this thread. Please tell me it isnt interesting topics!)
Ah yes, your “main interest” seems to be making a fool of yourself given that you can’t even read or make sense of the charts you provided.
I would suggest you refrain from personal attacks on people that clearly understand this a lot better than you do.
hopsalotLook at the normal F35 flight profile. I would describe it as a high alt with a quick dive.
There is no such thing as a “normal” profile. There are two different profiles in just the one file you linked to, and it isn’t clear that either of them are the one used to calculate the F-35’s range for KPP purposes.
I don’t have the time or interest to to the calculations for the F16. But the range for the F16 was in 1998 marketed as 630nm with ALQ 184, 2xGBU10 (2000lbs draggy bombs), 2 x Aim120, 2 x Aim 9 and 2 x 600 gal drop tanks. It would likely be slightly better with JDAMs instead and without the ALQ 184 pod.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217716[/ATTACH]
So we end up with the comparable range of 623nm (2x Aim120 + 2x 200lbs JDAMs in the F35 vs 2 x Aim9 + 2 x 120 Aim120 + 2x 200lbs GBU10) on the F16. So the gain in range with the F35A isnt really there. And after this we have the F16 block 60 and/or F16V with even better performance.
That is an F-16 loaded for an extreme range mission… 2×600 gallon tanks, which are dropped when empty, plus conformal tanks. The fact that it is only able to match the F-35’s range even after you turn it into a flying oil tanker says a lot about just how much greater the F-35’s range is in a real world comparison.
It is also worth noting that with an essentially identical configuration Andraxxus calculated that an F-16 would have a radius of 814 nm(in post #1030 in this thread), showing again just how big a difference the specifics of a flight profile make.
But to be fair I think the F35 will be more maneuverable than the F16 in the example. But this is the beaty of the “legacy” jets. If you need range, just strap some extra tanks on them. If you want speed and agility, drop the tanks 🙂 You cant do that with a bulky fuselage or CFTs (ok its possible, but its rare).
Without question the F-35 is far more maneuverable than the F-16 in this comparison. Of course you are right that the F-16’s performance is more load dependent than the F-35, but the fact that the F-35 has the range and payload of this F-16, while retaining good speed and maneuverability, to say nothing of stealth, is a big deal.
http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf (for all interested, here is the presentation in Norway)
Read it for yourself. It’s the official numbers
There again, as many questions as answers. The document makes it clear that what the F-35 is doing on the surveillance mission is not flying a maximum range flight out and back at optimal altitude.
“The range of altitudes during the cruise is 5,000 ft to 25,000 ft“
Note that it says “during the cruise” they are not simply talking about during one narrow part of the mission. What they are saying is that the mission takes place at a range of altitudes between 5k and 25k feet, none of which are high enough to be optimal. If I had to guess why this is the case I would say that the profile allows for the possibility that the jet may need to descend below any cloud cover in order to employ its electro optical systems. This was also a major factor for the US Broad Area Maritime Surveillance program.
Altitude agility is an important requirement for the BAMS vehicle, which is likely to be required to drop below cloud cover to obtain detailed optical images of a target, then climb back up to high altitude to maintain a wide-area radar picture.
http://www.defensenews.com/print/article/20080512/C4ISR01/805120301/BAMS-finish-line
The same presentation also includes the graphic titled “employing weapons over long distances effectively.” This chart is a lot more useful as it shows conclusively that the 610nm radius is for a jet that spends the large majority of the total flight at sub-optimal altitudes and speeds. (Ingress/Egress listed as 30k ft, M0.9) On the chart this portion of the flight is indicated as being 390 nm each way. (780 nm of the total 1220 nm) The profile also depicts “combat at 20k ft” near the release point for the cruise missiles.
This should remove any doubt that the 610 nm radius quoted for the F-35 is in fact extremely conservative when compared to the HI-HI-HI, out and back, profiles sometimes thrown around for other aircraft.
hopsalotAndraxxus seems to be the troll, and a very successful one at that (good show sir!). As if there wasn’t enough subterfuge regarding the F-35 we now need to make up garbage about a 40 year old design based only on drag charts? Its one thing to debate the still unknown F-35, but it takes some serious suspension of belief to say that an F-16 can go Mach 1.8 with that kind of load out when the F-15 Manual restricts it’s air to air loaded top speed at 1.8. Bravo troll, Bravo.
I don’t think he is a troll, but I don’t think he is using the numbers correctly either. He has at least triggered a real discussion for once.
hopsalotDassault chief whines about Europeans buying American:
He mentions F-35 support from Italy and UK but ignores that these guys are also commited to Eurofighter and would never buy Rafales.
And maybe if Dassault integrated American/NATO weapons/systems into Rafale it would sell better. Instead the French want complete monopoly and then whinge no-one wants to buy their shiny toy.
Sour grapes… France had more than a ten year head start to sell Rafale and/or reach partnerships with other European nations for its development. We all know how that turned out.
hopsalotFYI the range for the F35 is as follows:
Without drop tanks, total range is the radius x 2. (it’s simplified)F35, 2xAim120 + 2x2000lbs bombs – 623 nm (the 590/584 nm figure + maneuvering)
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x900lbs bombs – ~670 nm (the 610 nm figure + ~15 min maneuvering)
F35, 2xAim120 + 2x500lbs bombs – ~673 nm (the 673 nm figure)That’s the numbers LM produce in their presentations when mission profile etc has been accounted for. The range number is 0,5 x total range (makes it easier to compare). Inside the parenthesis is the stated “mission radius” or “combat radius” based on normal combat load, longer range combat load and recce loadout). The average altitude should be 20-30 kft.
Hopefully this gives you a better start for your comparisons. (two of these numbers are from the norwegian executive summary, dont remember where the other is from but its all from official sources)
Do you have a source for those numbers? Those numbers sound plausible, but I am not sure what of that is original source material and which is someone’s interpretation of it.
Who said the 623 nm range number was reached by adding “maneuvering” to the 590 nm range? I don’t see how it makes sense to add “maneuvering” to the combat radius. Combat radius is how far you can travel to do something. It wouldn’t make sense to add time on station or fuel planned for operations in the target area to the radius. I suspect the range given was the radius, and any maneuvering in the target area would not be included in the range.
I also notice that in at least the first case the range quoted (623) is similar to the F-35A’s range once you remove the 5% buffer margin included for flight test and use a typical rather than end of life engine.
But programme officials are also debating whether to change how the range of the F-35A is calculated, the source said. The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft’s combat radius, the source said.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-may-need-mods-to-fix-range-shortfall-356581/
Adding that 5% back into the F-35’s range would get range back to ~613. The last 10nm could easily be attributable to the end of life engine.
hopsalotThere is no point in comparing F-35 with an F-16 flying with drag index 250, where F-35 also be at drag index 150. One thing is clear: F-16 flying with total drag index lower than 100 will have greater top speed than F-35 and logically better supersonic acceleration and climb rates.
GR1F-16CJ-1-1 is the exact same manual I am currently posting these values from.
…but where are you getting the F-35 numbers? Are you just treating it as a draggy F-16? If so, that won’t work.
hopsalotThe question is whya Fighter needs acceleration or high dash speeds on a A/G mission? The answer is a) when a high speed penetration is required, b) aircraft is attacked and needs to retreat. On both occasions, F-16 will drop EFTs. Surely, F-16 would not be carrying 2 bombs + 2 AAMs, in real life, but thats the payload F-35 can ever reach M1.61. With any greater payload, be it an extra pair of Mk-84s or AAMs, drag will be affecting F-35 just as same as F-16. There is no point in comparing F-35 with an F-16 flying with drag index 250, where F-35 also be at drag index 150. One thing is clear: F-16 flying with total drag index lower than 100 will have greater top speed than F-35 and logically better supersonic acceleration and climb rates. Playing with various configurations gives us:
1- F-16 with 4x AAMs and 2x600gal tanks can go faster than F-35 with 4 internal AAMs, and out range it. Possibly have kinematic advantage at most of the supersonic envelope.
2- F-16 with 2x 1000lb bombs and 2x AAMs plus lantirn OR ALQ-131 OR centerline 300gal tank can go faster than F-35 with same payload on a short range mission
3- F-16 with same A/G payload but with EFTs is inferior to F-35 in terms of kinematic performance.What we are trying to find out is what is the importance of these 3. IMHO, #1 is very clear, where F-16 will have beter kinematics on most if not all A/A configurations. I understand what you are saying, #3 is the most realistic scenario in real lifre, but what I am trying to say if pilot or mission planning demands, F-16 can switch from condition #3 to #2 at any time.
The best I can say at this point is that I have good reason to believe you are underestimating the F-35’s kinematics, not dramatically perhaps, but enough that it matters.
hopsalotWhat’s interesting is that the USA (and West in general) has taken a position in the centuries old Shia-Sunni conflict (i.e. pro-Sunni). It’s so pro-Sunni they’re willing to risk arming Al Qaeda insurgents.
That’s completely against Western values of equality.
Interesting comments from Italian Defence Minister – basically he states Syria could become like Spanish Civil War.
Both the Sunni and the Shia are completely against Western values, that is the problem. There is no way to win.
hopsalotProbably ideal if you’ve got the cash to operate them.
With France cutting military expenditure, it means the M-346 is probably not an option.
This by the way is bad news for potential Rafale exports – it looks bad when the production country can’t afford to fly the plane, even after gutting the orders by nearly half.
Any news on future structure of fleet?
It was to reduce to 225 aircraft, of which currently 175 would be Rafales. I assume remaining 50 would be Mirage 2000Ds?
Yes, when you buy a fighter you are making a multi-decade commitment. If the original producer is too short of cash to properly support and upgrade the platform then all users will suffer.
On the subject of training specifically, simulators will pick some of the slack but nothing can completely replace flying time. If France is smart they will buy some high-end jet trainers rather than trying to go the cheapest possible route. A T-50 may cost more to operate than a turboprop but it is a lot closer to a Rafale in terms of what it offers than any turboprop and it will still be far cheaper than a Rafale. Given that France’s overall fleet of fighter is also shrinking getting combat capable trainers might be worthwhile. They might not be suitable for a high-end conflict, but France still has a lot of involvement in places where a combat capable trainer might be sufficient.
hopsalotDrag index 50 is not a draggy configuration at all, basically its same drag index for 6 AIM-120 missiles. An F-16 with such payload can accelerate from M1.1 to M1.52 in 111 seconds. Fuel spent for this acceleration is 828 lb or 375 kg. As far as F-35 is concerned, any fuel and bomb weight will reduce T/W and acceleration just as much as F-16.
Assuming an F-16 were carrying nothing at all but two bombs and two AIM-9s… this is not a configuration you are likely to see in the real world. If as is much more likely the F-16 were carrying at least a targeting pod and likely a pair of AIM-120s as well things change very quickly.
Even using the configuration with just the two bombs and Sidewinders you are still going to blow through a big chunk of your fuel to reach that speed from cruise speed. (Why start at M1.1? ) Time and fuel consumption will also vary with altitude.
As far as the F-35 goes, its acceleration will suffer a far smaller penalty for fuel and bombs as long as they fit internally. When talking about acceleration to supersonic speeds drag is by far the biggest concern. Added weight certainly won’t help, but the F-35’s drag won’t increase appreciably as long a the load is internal.
True for lantirn, add 32 for navigation pod and 22 for targeting pod. However I disgree about ECM, only wild weasel role would require it.
As far as the ECM goes it would depend on the threat and the operator. Not everyone has the luxury of stand-off jammers. (and not all ECM pods are equal, some of the newer ones are quite small)
Debatable; they are both Hi-lo-lo-hi A/G missions. Changes of profiles are possibly due to aircrafts’ own capabilities.
I don’t think there is really any way to compare them. It is too easy to skew things just by tweaking assumptions about time/burner use in the target area, the exact distance spent at low/non-optimal altitude, etc.
Agree with you completely, however I put an emphasis on “Finest aircraft of its type“. When all 4th gen fighters are concerned, F-15 and Su-27 are the ones with reputation of speed and range; be it clean, lightly or heavily loaded; former will eventually be replaced with F-35.
Agree on the Su-27 and F-15, but I wasn’t counting them among the F-16’s competitors as they are far larger and more expensive aircraft.
And I say it failed in this regard. Judging by the info at hand, it barely matches/exceeds F-16’s kinematic performance in some areas, and not even approaching in others. I am not saying F-35 is inferior to F-16 as overall package, and I am aware of the leap of capability it has made. I am saying its kinematics will be inferior to F-16 for 80% of the time, and inferior to F-15 it replaces 99% of the time.
The current plan does not call for F-35s to replace F-15s. They may ultimately end up doing so but if they do it won’t be until sometime in the 2020s if not later. By that time much may have changed. At a minimum the variable bypass engines being developed under the AETD program will likely be involved. These engines are intended to provide a 10% improvement of maximum thrust, a reduction in drag, and a 30% increase in range. There have also been studies on the possibility of adding a plug into the F-35’s fuselage to lengthen it by 40-50 inches to either add a backseater and/or more fuel. Bottom line, I wouldn’t have a hard time believing a growth version of an F-35 might provide a suitable replacement for a Strike Eagle.
As far as how close the F-35 comes to matching/exceeding the F-16’s performance I believe they have achieved that provided a realistic load out is used. F-16s aren’t flying around clean other than two bombs and wingtip Sidewinders.
Sign In
