hopsalotFrom the article:
Thanks for that.
IMO first para should have been rephrased from
“The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.”
to
“The F-35 can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.”
I accept that the speaker is saying the F-35 can fly at M1.2 without afterburner but why confuse the issue by talking of supercruise? If he wanted to mention supercruise he should have said the F-35 does not supercruise. That is the import of what he is saying.
I could say that while not technically a supersonic aircraft, the Boeing 787 can cruise at Mach 0.86 but that would be a stupid thing to say, would it not? Not inaccurate. Just stupid.
Again, for the intellectually challenged… when you are reading “Airforce Magazine,” that is the say a magazine dedicated to the USAF, they are using the USAF’s definition of supercruise. For the USAF supercruise requires M1.5+.
I get that you don’t like the information you are being given, but making a fool of yourself isn’t going to change it.
hopsalotThe F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to “throw” such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes “through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily.” The transonic area is “where you really operate.”
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
That 150 mile supercruise at M1.2 figure is part of a more complete flight profile that is being discussed, as is made perfectly obvious when he goes on to say that the aircraft could go farther at M0.9. (Now we will no doubt be treated to some nitwit arguing that the F-35 can’t maintain M0.9 unless in a dive…)
The F-35 can of course maintain M0.9 on dry thrust, the limiting factor is how much fuel is allotted to that segment of the flight. If the F-35 accelerates to M1.2 and then sustains that speed, more fuel will be consumed and the range for that portion of the flight will be ~150 miles.
This really isn’t that complicated, but as is usually the case around here people have a habit being selectively obtuse.
Naturally this won’t stop us from having yet another circular discussion where the ignorant line up to complain that the F-35 is too slow…
hopsalotMy VW Beetle does over 100mph on the flat. OK, I have to point it down a long, steep hill first and the speed does bleed off rather quickly when I reach the flat bit at the bottom of the hill. But I challenge anyone to tell me that it doesn’t do 100mph on the flat. Technically. 🙂
IMO performance is performance. It is performance without abnormal qualification.
Let’s call a spade a spade. If someone told me they had a spade which only did what a spade does temporarily after certain circumstances had previously been met, I would tell them such an implement was not a spade.
…again with all the supercruise non-sense. The USAF does not regard M1.2 as supercruise, thus the F-35’s ability to sustain M1.2 without afterburners is not “technically” supercruise, at least as far as the USAF is concerned.
Of course by that standard the supercruise capabilities demonstrated by the various Eurocanards aren’t technically supercruise either.
The statement about the F-35’s ability to maintain M1.2 without afterburner was more than sufficiently clear for anyone not burying their head in the sand.
hopsalotDeliver me an aircraft which will turn in circles around the J-20 in 2035.
You would be hard pressed to prove you are missing the point on multiple levels more succinctly.
1)
A. Pure kinematics are not the driver of combat effectiveness that they once were. (Frankly the extent to which they ever were is overstated.)
B. “Turn in circles” around a J-20 would require a ridiculous misdirection of effort and resources on the part of aircraft designers.
2)
A. The US Military is not solely dedicated to fighting China. The Cold War and common sense have taught us that such a war is very unlikely.
B. Even in a US vs China scenario the J-20 would be only one part of a very big complex problem.
C. By 2035 the US will likely be fielding its 6th generation designs.
3)
A. The F-35 is slated to replace primarily F-16s and F-18s. Regardless of their origins in the LWF program, both serve primarily as strike fighters.
B. Over the last few decade the US and its allies have faced a far greater threat from ground based air defenses than enemy fighters. There is nothing to suggest that will change in the foreseeable future.
hopsalotUp until about 1950 we had real dedicated fighter aircraft. Then the highly intelligent desk jockeys decided to take guns off of fighters. But then the worst thinking came along. They wanted to make fighters all things to all people. They wanted to make them not only fighters, but bombers and basically flying garbage trucks. You need only to look at the Mig 21 vs the F-4 in Nam to see how that turned out.
Probably the biggest thing here is we try to make what should be a fighter into all things to all people. That makes them so damned expensive we cant afford more than a hand full. Yet we see Russia and China build fairly simple fighters, and field hundreds if not thousands of thier fighters.
The F-16 started out as a “cheap” simple airframe but then got loaded up for bombing and other things. The biggest joke was the AF thinks the F-16 can do the job of an A-10!!!
What we need is a good air frame that is intended ONLY to be a fighter. Leave all the multi use bomb racks, bombing computers, laser designators etc off of them.
Give us a simple straight forward air superiority fighter, and build hundred is not thousands of them!!!!
There are an awful lot of things simply wrong in this post. Rather than trying to go point by point through it I will just ask you a simple question.
What on earth do you expect the Air Force to -do- with your hundreds, if not thousands, of air-to-air only fighters?
There quite simply isn’t a need for those aircraft. The USAF currently has ~180 F-22s, plus another few hundred F-15s that focus on air-to-air. That is far more than enough to deal with any realistic scenario that exists today. Only a full scale conventional war with Russia or China would stress that fleet of aircraft, and such a war between powerful nuclear states is almost unthinkable.
Meanwhile the multi-role jets you seem less than enamored with have deployed countless times to go drop real live weapons on real enemies. The USAF is focusing on buying multi-role jets because that is what it needs. If the Secretary of Defense were given a $100 billion check tomorrow from Congress he would buy drones, tankers, multi-role jets and pretty much anything else before pursuing more dedicated air superiority fighters.
hopsalotYou mean deliver more like:
- A single 4-ship of F-35s can enter the defended battlespace without a circus of CAP, SEAD, jammers and tankers which a Gen 4 strike package would require. It is easy to forget about the cost of the protective circus and complain about the cost of F-35.
- Use stealth to bypass IADS strongpoints? Where a Gen 4 would have to roll back SAMs via SEAD and jammer support. And how many additional Gen 4 sorties would it take to roll back the IADS? And how much do those sorties cost?
- Use ESM and stealth to either avoid or ambush DCA? While Gen 4 requires CAP to stay alive. And what is the cost of the additional CAP?
- Use on-board sensors networked within the F-35 four-ship to find, fix, track and target the enemy’s relocatable kit who is using sophisticated camouflage, concealment and deception techniques? Where Gen 4 would waste munitions on decoys, requiring more sorties to finally destroy the real targets (Bosnia Kosovo lesson). And how many additional sorties are needed to kill the decoys and real targets? And how much do those additional sorties cost?
- Guide network enabled weapons to moving targets while the ring of protecting SAMs are furiously trying to stop the attack.
If your expected use over the next 30 years is performing fly-bys on national holidays, or bombing AK-47 wielding insurgents riding in the back of a truck, then keep the Gen 4 jets.
You aren’t thinking like a fanboy. The most important attribute about a fighter is the low speed maneuverability needed for bragging rights in international exercises and airshows.
After that the next most important factor is how fast the plane can go without a combat load. You don’t want a slow plane.
Once you have checked those two boxes it pretty much comes down to looks.
…unless you are talking about actually going to war against someone competent.
hopsalotThe problem with the F-35 is not its price alone or its capabilities alone. It’s the combination thereof. The bird should either cost much less or it should deliver much more for the price tag. Option one would allow sizeable western airforces stuffed with large number of relatively mediocre aircraft – that would be not much different from the past where the backbone of NATO forces was F-16A/MLU. Option two would allow airforces considerably reduced in size but equipped with superior weaponry.
So far it looks we will get option three – limited number of expensive mediocre aircraft which are costly to operate. This all so that USMC can have roughly the same type flying off Tarawa (as if export customers would care). I am afraid that the F-35 will be responsible for the largest setback of NATO/western aerial advantage compared to its peers (China, Russia) in history. Unless Chinese don’t screw up their J-20/J-31 combo somehow (or Russians their T-50), that is.
:rolleyes:
hopsalotNo, Bill Sweetman is the expert when it comes to Black Projects and their possible existence.
Bill has been right about as often as he has been wrong. (If that) :rolleyes:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Aurora.html?id=GHkCAAAACAAJ
As for this latest report, It doesn’t take a genius to predict that the US has some undisclosed aircraft in testing or even operational given the size of the US black budget and the fact that there has been an essentially unbroken stream of such projects going back decades.
Discovering that the US -didn’t- have any black aircraft in some stage of testing or development would be more noteworthy than discovering they did.
hopsalotIt has about as much chance of happening as 130 B-2s or 700 Raptors. The Pentagon’s own docs have production continuing through 2040 at production rates that’re unlikely to be realised in order to hit those numbers. But you can keep fantasizing about 2500 F-35s in US service if you like. The reality is likely to be closer to 1500.
Mind you, I’m sure China would love to see the United States still pouring money into F-35 into the late 2030s at the expense of relevant platforms such as F/A-XX, UCAVs, NGB, etc.
Yeah, because your word is so much more reliable…:rolleyes:
hopsalotThat door acts to funnel air to the lift fan. Designing a door that opened in a manner that maintained a low profile would certainly have been possible, but this would have been less effective.
It does increase drag, but while doing so it helps the lift fan system function. It is not a simple brake or somehow an oversight on the part of the engineers.
hopsalotActually, they all build jet engines. The Japanese P-1 MPA has Japanese jet engines, for example, as does the T-4 trainer. The T-1B trainer had a Japanese engine 50 years ago. Significant parts of the V2500, GE90 & GenX commercial airliner engines are Japanese designed & built.
Yes, I should have been more clear. All of those countries make jet engines, what I was referring there was state of the art engines for (new) fighter aircraft designs.
hopsalotOut of curiosity… what does “fielded” mean to you?
If you don’t yet understand the difference between small scale model and simulation efforts and a real program that produces an operational platform I am not sure how I can make you understand. The truth I suspect is that you understand all too well, but choose to ignore that which you wish were not so.
So once again, I invite you to try to be serious. Ultimately you would be the greatest beneficiary of such an approach.
Oh, and btw I find this to be a much um, clearer, picture. :rolleyes:
hopsalotI saw the Youtube of F35B flying off USS Wasp and wasn’t that impressed looked like if put something else on it it might not get off. It might be that barn door on top that acts like an air brake it can’t help when trying to pick up speed 🙂
Don’t worry, the engineers are aware that the F-35 will be expected to take off carrying a load and have allowed for that… :rolleyes:
The “barn door” on the top is an intake and is most certainly not acting as an air brake at the speeds it is open.
hopsalot🙂
nEUROn is how it is written, to underline the fact that it’s a EUROpean project. This is what makes it so easy to remember. It may look unimportant, but some people care about it at Dassault’s. If it’s too hard to remember, we should notice that only the first and last letters are lower case (that’s unusual). Or only the “n”s.
My initial intention was only to help those who tried to spell it correctly (“nEuron” is in the tittle of the thread for example). That’s all.
I know what they are doing and why, it just isn’t something I am going to try to actually stick to.
What happens when you start a sentence with Neuron? Is it suddenly then NEUROn?
The whole thing is some marketers “good” idea, which is to say it isn’t real bright.
This isn’t directed at Neuron specifically. I have the same complaint about other products that use similar approaches. (“iPad” etc)
hopsalotThe notion that Europe are long behind the competition are simply not based on reality. Just because they have not decided to field stealth aircrafts jet does noe mean they do not master stealth.
Just look at the ships they build for their navies or at vlo cruise missilles. The worlds biggest and most advanced RCS ranges are on the european continent, and both Japan and South Korea has used these facilities, and the expertice of european engineers.
You can’t master a technology like stealth without fielding a design. The underlying technologies are widely understood, but that isn’t the same thing as producing a workable design. Take for another example jet engines. A country like China, India, Japan, etc all have plenty of engineers that understand the principals required, but that isn’t the same thing as saying any of the above have developed the technology.
Stealth in ships, etc has some relevance, but it is limited because of the vastly different operating requirements.
Sign In
