hopsalotAfter Brexit, I don’t think England will be able to buy and maintain any F-35.
Who needs fighter jets with the whole world ending?
hopsalotWell now that the English have taken back their country I can only assume they will be booting the Americans out.
Australians making jokes about getting booted out of the UK… :rolleyes:
hopsalotI was meaning to post this earlier, but this discussion is cyclical and I must have posted this or the extended version at least half a dozen times over the last many years 🙂
Joe public doesn’t understand that the F-35’s max speed isn’t directly comparable to that listed for 4th generation fighters.
Most of the people here are perfectly capable of understanding, they just don’t want to.
hopsalotThanks.. but you both have misunderstood my question.. By asking why wasn’t the F-35 designed for greater speeds I didn’t mean “why won’t it go past M1.6?” rather than “why can’t it spend spend most of its time at M1.3 using military thrust only?”..
It was designed for M1.6 because that was as fast (faster actually) as the US found its fighters operating in the real world. Don’t forget the US has data on literally thousands of 3rd and 4th generation fighters in war and peacetime. The simple fact is that the assumptions that led to M2+ designs haven’t held true in actual practice. The F-4 was replaced by F-16s, F-18s, Eurofighters, etc, all notionally slower but nobody is missing the “lost” speed. Similarly the Mirage 2000 is being replaced by the “slower” Rafale.
The F-35 is a continuation of that trend. Its theoretical maximum speed is lower than that of some of the aircraft it is replacing, but it will be able to achieve its maximum speed with a combat load of fuel and weapons… meaning in the real world it is faster than an aircraft like an F-18.
hopsalot??? you mean #2469? It doesn’t say anything about max. speed, let alone clean max. speed.
I am sorry, I figured on an aviation messageboard it would be obvious to everyone that the only metric that would have an F-18 “faster” than an F-35 is clean max speed.
hopsalotWho said anything about max speed? You did, no one else..
The max. clean speed is not that much important, but what is important are the speed regions where the aircraft will be spending 95% of its service life. This is the era of supercruisers and the F-35 is slower than most of its counterparts.
He did, read his post.
hopsalotAnd why wasn’t the F-35 designed for greater speeds? 🙂
Because a loaded top speed of M1.6 was deemed fast enough.
hopsalotOk, explanation accepted. Also because it was an explanation, not some cheap insults.
Still the question was another one and is still unanswered : given that someone pretend that F-35 is a true multirole fighter and not a strike oriented one, why it is still slower than Hornet, Super Hornet, Fullback, JH-7 Snow Leopard, that are all instead considered to be, the more, the less like so?
So basically you think max clean speed determines whether something is a “true multirole fighter?” Really?
You realize with that reasoning the F-111 (M2.5) is more of a “true” fighter than a Eurofighter (M2.0) or Rafale(M1.8).
That would mean the F-4 (M2.25) and the Mirage 2000 (M2.2) were both “true” fighters relative to the Rafale and Eurofighters that replaced them… etc.
Because, after more ten years from the first flight we still have not any sure information about what is its climbing speed? Someone would maybe like to avoid some uneasy comparison with F-16 or maybe even F-4?
Is max climb rate the metric by which a 21st century fighter should be judged? Is the F-35 fast enough? Does it climb quickly enough?
Again, the F-4 is “faster” than the F-16s(M2.0) and F-18s(M1.8) that replaced most F-4s. So what? Does anyone want the F-4s back?
Think, please.
hopsalotThe issue comes from LM defining Supercruise as > M1.5 but if we stick with the conventional definition then the quote is pretty clear.
Some have argued that the above is not possible, or that small/limited AB is required, but supporting evidence for the above comes from an interview with RAAF SQNLDR Andrew Jackson who stated specifically flying at M1.2 @ 40k. He wasn’t asked about SC, he stated those numbers at the end of the interview in the context of how much he enjoys his day and being able to fly the aircraft. For me Jackson’s comments are the evidence that supports the original claim.
Taking a step back for a moment… whether they are describing “true” supercruise, meaning 100% dry thrust, or some very minimal or intermittent use of AB it doesn’t really change that much. Either would effectively dismiss the F-35-hater theory that the F-35 is somehow an incredibly draggy/slow aircraft that can barely go supersonic.
From these descriptions it is clear that the F-35 won’t struggle to sustain a supersonic dash in a manner broadly similar to essentially all 4th generation fighters. (and unlike most of those fighters it can do it while carrying a very large fuel load and air to ground weapons)
This whole discussion is very similar to the claims we used to hear from the fanboy community that the F-35 couldn’t maneuver and/or wasn’t a fighter. The actual pilots kept describing it in completely different terms… then that recent airshow video came out and surprise surprise, it was the actual pilots who knew what they were talking about.
Looking down the road a few years, enhancements to the F135 will expand the F-35’s supersonic capabilities. If it doesn’t quite supercruise today I imagine it won’t struggle to with 15% more thrust…
hopsaloteven if they just hit the low numbers, it will be impressive gains.
Believe it or not, those numbers are just block 1 of the engine improvement plan. PW is already talking about hitting 15% increased thrust and a 20% reduction in fuel burn as soon as the early 2020s.
From an earlier Av Week article:
While Pratt makes it clear that there is currently no firm requirement for an upgraded F135, the company is working with the U.S. Navy on a fuel-burn improvement program for the engine, which combined with other turbine cooling technologies recently tested on the XTE68/LF1 demonstrator engine could be packaged as the first block of a two-step enhancement. “The Navy is working with us to develop technology for an engine test next year that would demonstrate a 5% fuel-burn reduction in the F-35,” says Pratt & Whitney’s Advanced Programs and Technology Director Jimmy Kenyon. This would be grouped potentially with blade-cooling technology demonstrated in late 2013 on XTE68/LF1, which Kenyon describes as “a fantastically successful test. It was the highest-ever turbine temperature in a production-based engine.”
The block one improvement will offer between a 7% and 10% improvement in thrust, as well as between 5% and 7% better mission fuel burn, and could be available around 2018. “So far, no one has decided they need the capability but we are making sure we are providing the options,” says Pratt & Whitney Military Engines President Bennett Croswell.
Although higher thrust and better fuel burn have obvious payload, range and mission advantages, Pratt expects the main benefit to come from trading the performance for lower operating temperatures and longer time on wing. “We are planning a life-extension for the F135, like we did on the [F100] -229 with an engine enhancement package where you had a 50% improvement in life. So we have set a goal to reduce sustainment costs for the F135 by a factor of 30%. A big piece of that will be increasing the life, which means reducing the number of depot overhauls you do over the life of the engine,” says Croswell. “The real focus for the Joint Program Office and Navy is on reducing life-cycle cost,” adds Kenyon.
For a longer-term block two upgrade path, Pratt is studying the possibility of configuring the F135 with elements of a technology suite in development for the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP). Tipped for possible start-up funding later this year, AETP is primarily designed to prepare the ground for an adaptive, 45,000-lb.-thrust-class combat engine for sixth-generation fighter aircraft. However, the stated provisions for the program also make it a possible future reengining candidate for the F-35, the prospect of which is also driving advanced engine development work at General Electric.
…
“We are looking at how we can take technology from that engine and use it within an F135-based architecture. We could potentially get a lot of that capability improvement for a lot less cost because we are already starting with a known engine and looking at an upgrade,” says Kenyon. “So we are working on different trades about how much the technology would bring in, how much that would cost and what kind of capability it would provide us as we go forward. The great thing about AETP is you are going to build and test and really wring out this technology, so by the time we get to the end of it that technology will be pretty mature.” As a result, Kenyon adds that “getting it into an F-35 would really not be as difficult or expensive as it would be to now take it forward to a brand-new engine.”Block two would therefore take elements of the advanced engine—in particular a new compressor and turbine— and feed it into the F135 for as much as a 15% thrust increase and a 20% reduction in fuel burn. “The compressor has more stages. It fits and is compatible with the current engine,” says Croswell, who adds the upgrade could be available in the 2022 timeframe if development of this, and the associated block one improvement, is approved soon. Although there is “still flow capacity in the inlet that we are not using,” Croswell acknowledges that the tightly packed F-35 fuselage does not allow for much leeway when it comes to providing space for a third stream. “Lockheed would like us not to tear up the airplane a lot, so I don’t know if we can integrate a third stream, but we will do those trades. We have defined what we could offer, and it is not part of the block upgrade plan as yet.”
http://aviationweek.com/defense/pratt-unveils-sixth-generation-fighter-engine-f135-upgrade-options
hopsalotIt’s amusing to see how you suddenly play smart, but just few years ago you were one of those who were burning the “F-35 naysayers” claiming it could not supercruise as heretics.. At that time, the F-35 seemed optimized pretty much for everything to you..
I didn’t say it didn’t supercruise… I said it wasn’t optimized for supercruise. … and heretics? Really? If anyone here has a religious devotion to their cause it is you. Everyone else relies on sources. You just believe what you choose to believe, and end up looking like a fool. :stupid:
I know it’s your wet dream but it simply ain’t happening.. The KLu videos have shown the F-35 a tad better than expected and I have had zero problems to admit that.. But as already said, there is nothing jaw-dropping in that, we have seen dozens more aggressive or more aerobatic displays.. I still feel a bit sorry for any F-35 pilot who will need to encounter something like T-50.. (or F-22, even if that combination does not make much sense)..
Yeah, “tad better than expected” :rolleyes:
And I still think the F-35 has huge amounts of drag.. If we are to believe the test pilots, it bleeds energy rather fast.. If that ain’t an indication for it, then I don’t know what is..
Well at least in this case you are admitting your ignorance. That is a start I guess.
Here is a hint, bleeding energy during BFM is very different from being draggy in cruise.
hopsalotI am not judging the drag of the F-35 by its looks rather than the published acceleration times up to M1.2 and its inability to supercruise..
So I know this is complicated and all… but you do realize those aren’t measures of drag, right?
The F-35 isn’t optimized for supercruise, nor is its transonic acceleration stellar… but neither of those speak to its drag under normal cruise conditions.
This has been a bad few months for the F-35 haters hasn’t it? They so loved the idea that the F-35 was a fat, slow, unmaneuverable bomb truck… and yet pilot after pilot has contradicted that description. Of course, according to MSphere, the pilots were all liars, idiots, and/or bought off. Now the air show footage emerges…. inconvenient isn’t it? A lot like the 760nm range in an air to air configuration… longer than a Typhoon with 3 tanks. That does kind of call into question the idea that the F-35 somehow has an incredible amount of drag… for those that employ critical thinking that is. Then there is the matter of the Danish eval with the F-35 winning every category, including air to air… it is no wonder the trolls are restless.
hopsalotGiven the huge investments in the F-35 R&D one should expect it to have significantly reduced IR signature compared to older designs.
It will be interesting to see how effective those IR reduction measures will be against future threats. Perhaps the F-35 will need to rely on flares and similar tricks like fighter jets of today?
The F-35 will certainly have an IR signature… it is impossible to eliminate. There are scenarios where it will be detectable and the F-35 does carry flares.
That said, you have to be a real fool to think that after the decades and billions of dollars LM has invested in IR reduction technology they haven’t achieved anything. Don’t forget the F-35 isn’t LM’s first or second operational stealth aircraft. They have vast amounts of real-world data on how their systems perform.
They seem quite proud of the IR reduction work they have done on the F-35… I think that says something. A lot more than the opinion of an internet know-nothing anyway.
hopsalotSo lets see if we can summarize.
First there were no IR signature reductions:
There are no IR suppression measures to speak of..
Then he needed proof:
Evidence??? :confused:
Then once he was given proof he resorted to calling Lockheed Martin liars:
“We have done something but I can’t tell you what”, LOL… that, my friend, is preciously little… very close to nothing..
Because there is nothing to give details about.. It’s just blowing hot air and pretending to have some mythical features, so secret that one can’t even talk about them.. Don’t be ridiculous..
Now of course he has moved to bickering about minutia and throwing out half baked counter accusations… all without providing a single actual source.
This is classic trolling, and not good trolling at that. So long as he plays dumb people will keep wasting time trying to educate him. For each new source he will just move the goalposts or play even dumber. At no point will he actually learn anything… and in a little while this whole discussion will repeat.
Here is is playing the idiot on the IR reduction subject in 2015:
and here he is playing the idiot in 2014:
We can all assume that in a few months he will reintroduce the topic once again just to make a fool of himself once more and waste everyone’s time.
hopsalot“My tailfin blocks the view on the nozzle when you look at my aircraft from a 20deg angle..”
On every other aircraft it’s simply a design thing not worth a mention, but on the F-35 it’s an “advanced IR suppression technique”.. you must be getting really desperate..BTW, it works fantastic… If I was a missile, I would probably think it’s a pigeon..
That is one of several approaches they listed… you know… the ones you said didn’t exist. :highly_amused:
No fighter is going to be hard to detect on IR in full AB. I think everyone else here realized that.
Sign In
