The point of a VLO airframe is to remain undetected & untrackable until it is able to use its own weapons to complete the mission. If you can see the F-35 at 200 miles and the F-35 cannot launch until 50, then there is no point to stealth.

Again, nobody claims a 200 mile fighter detection & track range on the F-35.

Indeed, and it is worth mentioning that the F-35’s edge relative to 4th generation aircraft will grow as missile technology improves. However great the F-35’s advantage over a generic 4th generation fighter when both are armed with AMRAAMs, that advantage grows dramatically in favor of the F-35 if both are armed with Meteor or a similar missile. The key difference is that a Meteor has greatly expanded speed and NEZ relative to an AMRAAM, growing the F-35’s ability to take effective shots from beyond its adversary’s ability to track the F-35.

In an imaginary comparison of an F-15 to an F-4, where both aircraft have equivalent sensors and the same missile, the F-15’s kinematic advantages would give it a significant advantage. The F-15 could launch from higher and faster, and turn harder, adding energy to its own missiles and shaving time/distance off of crucial timelines…

If we alter our scenario to one where the F-4 has a Meteor type missile, suddenly the F-15’s advantage evaporates. It can still get higher and faster, it can still turn harder, but those marginal advantages, crucial in the previous comparison, will not be enough to put the F-15 on an equal footing.

If you give both aircraft the Meteor, the F-4’s more limited kinematic capabilities once again re-appear, but the margin between the two aircraft has shrunk from the first comparison. The F-15’s kinematic edge relative to the F-4 is as large as it ever was, but that simply means less when dealing with a Meteor class missile. The F-15 can still launch a little higher and faster, but with an air-breathing missile with much greater energy… it just doesn’t mean as much. Same thing for being able to pull a couple more Gs in a turn…

Returning to the original missile, but altering our comparison to one where the F-4 enjoyed the stealth and situational awareness advantage of an F-35, the F-15’s kinematic advantage is no longer decisive.

If you give both aircraft the Meteor, unlike in the previous comparison, the F-4/F-35’s advantage does not shrink, it grows.

So you are saying you don’t understand calculus? Fine. I thought you had learned since last time.

Please enlighten me with the actual scan rate in frames per second and resolution of the sensors. I know you cant because of the calculus disability you seem to have. The reason why people laugh at the fanboys is because you think one gimmick can change the laws of physics. You think that one chart or marketing brochure is truthful depiction of reality. Here is a surprise revelation for you, it isnt.

No, what I am saying is that this is a perfect example of garbage in, garbage out. Math is a useful tool only if applied correctly. If you create a completely worthless and unrealistic scenario then it doesn’t matter what math you apply to it.

Charts and models are simplistic ways to explain a phenomenon. It’s compiled data presented in an easy to understand fashion. Nothing more and nothing less.

:very_drunk: Smilies are also a simplistic way to explain a phenomenon, in this case your attempts to create pretty pictures to illustrate the worthless results of your calculation.

When you make comparative charts of missile range and a simplistic [merge->engage->egress]-scenario the only thing you are trying to obtain is comparable data for the engagement envelopes. If I would assume that the F35 always would attack from the side (and still be spotted outside the NEZ) the difference would be that the EF only needs 5 sec to make the turn instead of 10. And then it would take a little while before we have the merge described in the beginning. But that type of comparison would be over complicated and not offer anything new. And considering that a simple schematic of the most basic enagement was too complicated for you I wont bother.

Garbage in garbage out. Real pilots have spent a lot of time and effort on sophisticated simulators and the results show that the F-35 will be highly effective.

Again, these are not LM simulations.

I have purposely not gone over advanced examples as that would just be a long series of charts you wouldnt understand.

Don’t kid yourself…

Tell me how they measure it differently you poor excuse of a troll.

The SwAF estimates include everything from R&D to operation, weaponry acquisition, ground equipment and so on. Please read the original documents. They are online.

Now now, lets not start name calling. The simple fact is that every force calculates with different assumptions and you can not simply grab two numbers off the internet, neither of which you understand, and then start trying to slice and dice them.

Yes cost is hurting now…But in the future this might not be the case…RAAF estimates that once the procurement is over their average cost per frame procured may come down to as much as 85 million a pop, this is very competitive, maybe not with the Gripen but definitly with the rafale, while both are IOC’d mature weapons systems while the F-35 is still in testing….Apples and orranges…Circa 2025 things could look a lot different (provided if these fighters are still in production)

Costs are coming down, but his cost comparison is bonkers in the first place. The Eurofighter and Rafale are hardly cheap aircraft and while the Gripen NG may prove to be cheaper, its entire future remains in doubt until the Swiss make up their minds.

In any case the decision is never simply between fighters and munitions/SAMs. Anyone buying high-end fighters is also going to buy SAMs and stand-off munitions.

Best tour/discussion of the “Silent Hornet” yet:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/fa-18f-cft-weapons-pod-mockup.html

A few key bits:

Conformal tanks are essentially drag neutral at cruise speed but impose a penalty at transonic speeds. (No surprises)

A Super Hornet with conformal tanks and a weapons pod with 4x AMRAAM will have similar drag to a SH with just four AMRAAM. This aircraft would also have a lower RCS of course.

The flight test this summer will include the internal IRST, and a “slew of RCS enhancement measures.”

Not discussed but clearly visible on the aircraft are missile warning sensors. Not clear if those are part of the flight test.

Nice looking jet, throw in the enhanced engines and you will be talking about a really potent aircraft.

You forget that one is cruising at m 1,4 and the other needs +60 seconds of after burner usage to get close to that speed. But with afterburner the currently fielded IRST-systems will detect the target at some 80-90km. So the blue bar for the EF gets even longer while the orange bar for the F35 gets a little bit closer to the Eurofighters. But still the Eurofighter has a larger margin.

But lets run the numbers, since you can’t.
25 sec burn, 1500m/s (theoretical max for METEOR) => 37,5
Subtracting turn gives 15km + 22,5- EF distance travelled in opposite direction (7,5km) = 15 + 14,85 ~30km
For the F35 it translates to 30km + 7,5km – 1,8km ~36 km or 20% longer effective range vs F35.

If the missile travels at mach 4, or 1200m/s we get the following.
EF 2000 as target, effectively engaged at ~ 23km
F35 as target, effectively engaged at ~ 27km

Of course + a little bit of glide flight in the end.

The big difference here is that the Eurofighter will track and lock on the F35 at 90km (or at least track) instead of some 50km and that the F35 will get a better launch speed (that in this example is greatly exaggerated pro F35).

The assumption I make here is that the F35 will have lower exit speed from the turn than the EF will because of the higher induced drag in the turning (because of poor lift/weight ratio => higher alpha => higher drag with a thrust/weight ratio that is too low to compensate for it). In other words, its based on physics and calculus. Now do you have anything but flamebaiting and smileys to add?

Not that it changes the outcome in any way but some level of accuracy should be present.

Time for another round? :very_drunk:

No aircraft, including the F-22, supercruises just for the heck of it. It is more efficient than using afterburners but it still burns a tremendous amount of fuel.

Spelling it out simply, the Eurofighter in this scenario would not be supercruising at M1.4 before becoming aware of a threat. Additionally, the F-35 would not simply fly straight at the Eurofighter unless it was being operated by a total idiot. Even if we assume the EF was through some fluke at M1.4 the F-35 would have the freedom to decide how to enter the fight.

Next, IRST systems do not look everywhere at once. (Unless we are talking about DAS) A target would have to be within its field of view and detectable. Even if this were the case an IRST only scans so fast and detection is not instantaneous. IRSTs are useful tools, but they aren’t the magic stealth beaters that the fanboys of the internet wish they were. If you are relying on an IRST as your primary sensor you are giving up a lot.

Next, decision-making takes time. The F-35 in your scenario would have a period of time to evaluate the situation, coordinate with any wingmen, etc, before committing to the fight. You don’t simply detect a blip and then instantly race off to go lobbing a missile at it, especially if you were relying on an IRST which would deny you range and speed data in that initial detection. Your Eurofighter pilot would see a blip, he would know its bearing and rough altitude, but would not know either its range or speed. It is also possible that the initial detection was a false alarm, or something extremely distant and bright that bore no relevance to his aircraft.(A missile launch far in the distance…) He wouldn’t even know if the blip was approaching him or moving away… simply put, it takes time for a human to gather information and make a decision. Not only wouldn’t he know what he was dealing with, even if he had valid range information he couldn’t assume a missile wasn’t already bearing down on him. 80km is well within the effective range of an AMRAAM or Meteor. The F-35 could plausibly have fired at 100km, and then begun to accelerate for a potential follow-on shot. If the EF turned toward the mystery blip and went racing toward it the moment it saw it that follow-up shot wouldn’t likely be necessary…

etc etc etc

This isn’t about numbers. This is about lacking even a basic understanding of the factors at play here. You can’t simply cook up an APA scenario and make a pretty chart and expect to be taken seriously. Real pilots have war-gamed these scenarios over and over again in the best simulators available and the results were very very good for the F-35.

Pls stop trolling Spud.

I will show it with a graph what kinematic performance does and why it is so important.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216856[/ATTACH]
As you see the superior avionics and VLO platform makes the track and detection range relatively impressive. But is it comes at the expense of poor kinematic performance this means that the enemy will have one advantage in launch speed and one in exit speed. In the case of EF 2000 its close to doubling the effective range of a Meteor. This is just physics and has nothing to do with avionics so far.

Against old jets however it is a different story. What the ultra cool stuff like EOTS, stealth and radar does is increasing the blue bar for the F35. But unless the orange can keep up it is of no benefit at all.

The can’t climb, cant run argument is the relative performance of the F35 vs the competition. And that assesment is as correct as it gets.

The F35 is not designed as a fighter jet. It is the most advanced attack jet made but without kinematic performance that’s on par (or close to) the competition it simply isnt good enough as a fighter. And you can have as many cool gizmos as you please, but unless your orange bar is larger than the enemys blue bar it will be a fight where kinematics crown the winner.

EDIT: The F35 should have a larger blue bar but I dont see if that matters.

:very_drunk:

Hilarious, you made up a chart to illustrate your simplistic calculations… is APA hiring?

Even if your numbers were accurate, and they aren’t, a Eurofighter’s hypothetical ability to achieve higher speeds or altitudes isn’t worth much when fighting a threat it can’t detect reliably at long range. You need significant space and time to accelerate and climb to an optimal release point for a BVR shot. That is plausible against a 4th generation aircraft that you can track 150km+ away, but you are never going to have time for that against an aircraft like an F-35.

The far more likely scenario is that an aware F-35 will decide to engage or avoid the fight and it is the F-35 that would likely be able to accelerate and climb rather than the Eurofighter.

Naturally that won’t fit your world-view so you will just ignore it. :rolleyes:

That’s about the most accurate F-35 description i’ve ever heard.

Except for the part about the range of course…

I think you miss my point.

The USAF are tying themselves to a solution strongly emphasising VLO and sensors.

The others are considering LO, sensors and, at least for the Russians, placing very high emphasis on kinematic performance.

Which route is right depends greatly on your point of view.

There is nothing so simplistic as a “right” answer, it depends on the intended mission of the aircraft and how it works to achieve that mission.

The US (specifically LM) has built and operated high-speed, highly-agile stealth aircraft (F-22), it has also built and operated strictly subsonic stealth aircraft with very limited maneuverability (F-117). The F-35 was intentionally speced out to fall between those two designs by the Pentagon, and designed and built by the same manufacturer that designed and built the previous two designs.

The F-22 is not a substitute for the F-35, nor is the F-35 a substitute for an F-22. (Just as the F-15C and F-16/18 are not interchangeable aircraft.)

The F-35 is a multi-role fighter and more than capable of replacing the aircraft it is designed to replace, but it is not a replacement for the F-22.