Tu22m :

It depends on the adverse radar ‘s capabilities Tu22m and you know it .

Says who ?

Cheers .

Well, he just did, and I would take his word, or for that matter the word of any random person on the street, over yours….

Why would a fighter operate below corner speed ?

Seriously?

First off corner speed is going to be below M0.8.

Second off, your tightest turning radius is below your corner speed, which can also matter.

Third, fights tend to bleed energy. Regardless of where you entered the fight you will end up losing speed in most cases.

If jets never operated below their corner speeds why thrust vectoring? Why high AoA? Why nose pointing ability?

My words, exactly. While we usually do not have first hand access to fighter aircraft, we can use cars as an example.

1. British car fans will swear that the two decades old McLaren F1 is still way faster than Bugatti Veyron
2. Veyron supporters will swear the Veyron is considerably faster than the McLaren.

Watch this video and decide for yourself. In a way, they are both right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdVZU96gkDM

That video is a good analogy.

Two fast cars. Which is faster? It depends how you ask.

Returning to the F-35, it was never intended to be a high-fast interceptor. Operating at medium altitudes and at transonic speeds it will be a solid performer with a lot of advantages outside of pure aerodynamic performance.

An F-35 with a few Meteors or AIM-120Ds in its bays would not be a fun idea for an enemy aircraft to have to think about, but where the F-35 will really shine is as a striker.

The ability to carry a significant air to ground load while remaining stealthy, maneuverable, and capable of hitting M1.6 is a pretty awesome capability.

Yes, accelerating to M1.6 with a full load would eat up some fuel, but then most competing aircraft would burn an awful lot of fuel just to operate in the transonic realm and in many cases could go no faster. The F-35’s stealth will also allow it to approach a target more closely, enabling it to employ cheaper weapons to do the same job.

A small diameter bomb released from an F-22 has a range in excess of 60NM. (111km) That is a really big deal if you think about it. It allows an aircraft to achieve serious stand-off ranges with a very low-cost weapon. The F-35 can’t go as high or fast as an F-22, but it can hit its maximum speed and altitude with a full internal load. There are times F-35s may wish to employ air to ground munitions while high and fast and the jet has the ability to do that. ( A 4-ship of F-35s could toss 32 SDBs at a target, at a cost comparable to 1 single high-end cruise missile. :dev2:)

On a longer timeline propulsion enhancements will improve the F-35’s supersonic performance. The AETD program in particular is working on a variable bypass engine that will offer higher thrust and reduced drag at supersonic speeds. (as well as vastly improved fuel efficiency while cruising)

Noone on this forum dismisses Beesley as an expert. He only must be dismissed as a reputable source, for a good reason. This is nothing personal, the same way claims about the T-50 made by Bogdan or claims about the Rafale made by Gerard would be dismissed, especially the suspiciously positive ones.

Strongly disagree. Beesley’s claim is exactly how a well-thought PR claim would be – puts the aircraft into the best light but tells you nothing too specific so that it cannot be debunked effectively.

Of course it was a “PR Claim,” and it does paint the F-35 in a favorable light. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t factually accurate.

As you said, all manufacturers concoct scenarios that make their aircraft sound as good as possible. They don’t tell you that the aircraft in question was totally clean, or flying with a minimal fuel load. (Or alternately that it was so heavily loaded with fuel tanks that it was strictly subsonic and could barely turn…)

Beesley is talking about subsonic acceleration – what is that? From 0 to 250 mph? 350 to 550 mph? The term subsonic is way too general, it spreads over the spectrum from 0 to say 650mph, that is a huge difference. I personally suspect that the F-35 could be well capable of matching a Typhoon at very low speeds, say from zero to 250-300 mph until the drag starts to kick in and this is exactly what the PR is exploiting to show the otherwise slower and draggier craft in better light. Of course, for me it does not translate into “the F-35 matches a Typhoon in subsonic aerial combat” but for you it obviously does. This is exactly why I mostly disregard pilot’s quotes – they are like a Bible which can be explained in very different ways.

Clearly the F-35 accelerates well from a standstill. Pilots have said that its strong acceleration extends into the transonic realm. Here are a few other quotes:

But even with the limited flight envelope released to Eglin for training, Spohn says that some of the F-35’s characteristics are already apparent. The jet’s subsonic acceleration is excellent.

“I think it compares very favourably to the F-15C,” Spohn says. “I would say the acceleration in a straight line is absolutely comparable to the F-15C equipped with [Pratt & Whitney F100]-220 engines that aircraft is a pretty spy performer, if you will, and it compared very well with that.”

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/first-air-national-guard-pilot-starts-transition-to-f-35-374470/

Griffith says in June he took the F-35A to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). “I may be the first to fly this fast in the jet so far,” he muses. “The jet handles well, and she just wants to fly fast. It has a monster engine. It looks like an aircraft that’s built around an engine.”

…

Even when loaded internally with two 2,000lb GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Griffith says the sheer power of the Pratt & Whitney F135 is evident. “The engine has a lot of thrust. It’s been fun to outrun the F-16 (chase aircraft). They can’t keep up. If we go to full military power the F-16 has to go to afterburner to keep up.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253A5c517cbf-5655-4e5d-aa85-2c03d7757ea7&plc

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission,” says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-hornet-382078/

The veteran F-16 operational tester and Weapons School grad shared some of his impressions the F-35. The jet is powerful, stable and easy to fly.

“One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it’s not an F-22,” Kloos says. “An F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we’ll never be that.”

But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. “When I’m downrange in Badguyland that’s the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that’s where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16,” Kloos says.

…

The F-35’s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50 F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35,” Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it.”

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/05/eglin-f-35-initial-cadre-start.html

Pilots at Eglin can’t really say since they are allowed to operate only in a very restrictive envelope, but Andy Toth was able to say this: “I will say in afterburner during takeoff, the acceleration is impressive and if you do not pull the nose up significantly higher than I’m used to in an Eagle or a [F-16] Viper, you could over-speed the gear very quickly and the retract ‘in the well’ speed is 300 knots versus 250 in the Eagle.”

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/eglin-f-35-pilots-fly-tactical.html

Transonic acceleration is excellent in the F-35, as it is for the Typhoon and better than in an F/A-18 or F-16, but mainly due to its low drag characteristics than to its powerplant. That means that immediately after the transonic regime, the F-35 would stop accelerating and struggle forever to reach a non operationally suitable Mach 1.6.

http://theaviationist.com/tag/eurofighter-typhoon/

If you look at all of these quotes you will see that there really isn’t much inconsistency in them. They may not be providing numbers, but they all agree that the F-35 accelerates well while subsonic/transonic. Nobody is claiming it accelerates well while supersonic.

The same will be true of the F-35’s handling. While lower and slower the F-35 will be a very strong performer. At high altitudes it isn’t going to be a world beater. (Again, consistent with what it was designed to do.)

I will keep reserved on this until a better explanation is provided. What you say makes sense but then the quote of the pilot does not seem to make much sense, at all. How can a pilot describe an aircraft which clearly has great trouble to hop over the transonic region as a low-drag design is beyond me.

Because drag changes at different speeds.

An airliner is actually a very low drag aircraft, operating where it is designed to operate. The F-35’s straighter wings and shorter/wider fuselage don’t start to become issues until you get into the upper part of the transonic realm.

You better quit your “know it all” attitude on the spot, dude. You know nothin about how the craft really performs or about its drag characteristics, same as all of us, don’t you even try to pretend otherwise. BTW, you did not even grasp what I was trying to tell you as the Flynn guy has practically confirmed much of what the “naysayers” have been assuming for years..

Actually, I know quite a bit about how the F-35 performs, not that that is worth much around here given how casually people dismiss even world class experts like Jon Beesley.

As for dropping “the attitude” let me help you remember how we got here starting with your cute little comment :

Pretty much yes. Or have you already forgotten Beesley’s claims that the thing accelerated almost like F-22?

Lets return to that statement shall we?

In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

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

Beesley was quite clear that he was talking about subsonic performance, and he is of course correct about how the F-35 compares. You and a whole mess of other internet “experts” have called him all sorts of names, but the simple fact is that you can’t even make sense of what he was saying.

There is nothing inconsistent about Beesley’s statement, nor any of the other F-35 pilots that have described its acceleration in favorable terms. You want to call them all liars, but they are telling the truth, they always have been.

To sum it up, all you got there is another quote from another pilot. On top of that, a misunderstood one.. That, you assume makes you more clever than the rest… Cry me a river.. We have been reading quotes spreading from “almost a Raptor” through “matching a clean F-16” to “hardly between F-16 and F-18”, all coming from various pilots, Yanks, Brits, Italians.

There is really nothing inconsistent about the various quotes, but again, your problem is that you can’t make sense of the information you are being given. The qualifiers matter. There is no one single number that describes a jet’s acceleration or handling. To say that the F-35 flies like an F-18C when subsonic is high praise. To say that an F-35 accelerates like an F-22 or Typhoon when subsonic/transonic is also high praise and is in no way inconsistent with the F-35’s real world performance or the accounts given by its pilots.

P.S. The red colored part you have highlighted was about Typhoon, not F-35, BTW. The only way you could make the F-35 a low drag design is to send it to space.

You are wrong, again.

I get that not everyone is a native English speaker, but let me help you out because I am.

1. When someone constructs a sentence in the way that sentence was set up…

“Bob has always been a big man, just like his brothers Tom and Fred, but he has really put on weight lately.

The “he” is referring to Bob, not Tom or Fred.

2. Additionally, he said “its powerplant.”

“Powerplant” is singular. That means just one.

If he were talking about the Typhoon he would have said powerplants. Get it? :confused:

Now, about your attitude…

It should not be hard to fathom that every aircraft has areas where it its design is optimized and others where it is compromised. It was well known and ACCEPTED (when charting out the requirments for the JSF) that its out and out performance would not be comparable to the F-22, but would be compromised for the sake of affordability and multi-service design compromise (B). As a weapons system it was supposed to get some of the EDGE BACK by having highly integrated avionics that build up on the work done on the F-22 program, and advances in active/passive sensors, high situational awareness, stand off weaponry and other technological advances in avionics , propulsion and signature suppression. For most services looking to replace the F-16 or F-18 ( like the USAF, USN, USMC) the F-35 will be a very potent aircraft compared to current and future threats if we look at the overall picture ( air combat is not about JOUSTING but about the bigger picture) even more so when paired with the Raptor, EF typhoon, Rafale and other western 4-4.5 generation aircrafts. Ofcourse it would not be the most OPTIMIZED AIR defence fighter for any air force, but its not meant to replace the outright best A2A fighter in the world, but a credible, highly successful multi role strike fighter (the F-16C/D) .

Agreed

My main point is that people on message boards like this one tend to oversimplify things. They will say one plane is “faster” or “more maneuverable,” etc, as if these attributes could be expressed as a single number.

The reality of course is that things are much more complex than that. Different aircraft are optimized for different operating conditions.

Even in this thread you see people calling the F-35 fat, slow, etc because they understand enough to recognize the strengths of its design and the differences in how it will be employed.

Pretty much yes. Or have you already forgotten Beesley’s claims that the thing accelerated almost like F-22?

…and once again observers on the internet have trouble making sense of the information they are provided.

Dependent on its speed and altitude the F-35 will accelerate exceptionally quickly, this has already been noted by several different pilots with experience in the jet.

The catch is that the F-35 is optimized to operate at transonic speeds and below. As it exceeds transonic speeds and wave drag becomes a bigger issues its acceleration slows.

So returning to the issue of the F-35’s acceleration… here is a nice quote from a EF pilot(who is clearly not a F-35 booster):

Transonic acceleration is excellent in the F-35, as it is for the Typhoon and better than in an F/A-18 or F-16, but mainly due to its low drag characteristics than to its powerplant. That means that immediately after the transonic regime, the F-35 would stop accelerating and struggle forever to reach a non operationally suitable Mach 1.6.

The Typhoon will continue to accelerate supersonic with an impressive steady pull, giving more range to its BVR (Beyond Visual Range) armament.

http://theaviationist.com/tag/eurofighter-typhoon/

Now you have a Typhoon pilot saying the F-35’s acceleration is “excellent,” and implicitly putting the F-35’s transonic acceleration in the same category as the Typhoon, even as he otherwise attacks the aircraft. Is he a liar now too because that doesn’t fit into your worldview?

Similarly, the same pilot had this to say about the F-35’s maneuverability:

No doubt the F-35 will be, when available, a very capable aircraft: its stealth design, extended range, internal carriage of stores and a variety of integrated sensors are definitely the ingredients for success in modern air-to-ground operations.

However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky. And in that nothing comes close to a Typhoon, except an F-22 which has very similar values. The F-35 thrust to weight ratio is way lower and its energy-manoeuvrability diagrams match those of the F/A-18, which is an excellent result for a single engine aircraft loaded with several thousand pounds of fuel and significant armament.

But it also means that starting from medium altitude and above, there is no story with a similarly loaded Typhoon.

So how is your reading comprehension?

When he says “starting from medium altitude and above…” what does that say about medium altitude and below?

Bottom line, the F-35 has areas of real strength. At transonic speeds and below it is very quick to accelerate. At lower altitudes it is a very high performer in general.

Maybe in the future when you get a quote you are having trouble making sense of, rather than simply calling the speaker a liar, you might try to make sense of what they are talking about.