LmRaptorMy spreadsheet comparison of clean F-16 blk 50 vs. F-35A shows: F-16 has a big advantage at the lower drag states. Namely the subsonic realm where its higher a = (T-D)/W ratio plays a critical role. As you get a bit quicker and the drag builds up and the F-35A starts to edge ahead a bit with a slightly higher acceleration factor from mach 0.8 onwards through the transonic realm. The spreadsheet loses quite a lot of fidelity when into the mid supersonic regime. The F-16 recovers energy quicker than the F-35A. In the supersonic realm I am a bit suspect of the weapons configuration for the F-16. The AAM stores – save those on the wingtips – are not as refined as they are on the Typhoon for supersonic performance.
LmRaptorThe F-35 can out accelerate a clean Blk50 F-16 in certain circumstances if the F-16 experiences ~ 70% of the drag of the F-35 in a particular speed/altitude state.
LmRaptorI believe there is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread, both with certain principles and some behind particular engineering judgements. Just going through it, is sometimes exhausting requiring to much effort to correct. A single example would be:
The total crosssection is smaller if you hang things on the belly rather to build housing around it (hopefully the bomb is not a brick). Crosssection is extremly important. So even loaded (same load) a tradional AC goes faster with the same thust.
This is also one of the main reasons why M1.6 can only be achieved with stagering 191kN. Many loaded fighters can go faster even when loaded with a EFT with half of that power.
The assumption here is that the F-35 has 191kN of thrust at mach 1.6/36000ft. The fact that it can only achieve this is seen by some as verification for the theory that its an ultra draggy pig and therefore will not be competitive with other designs.
The reality however is a bit different. For starters the uninstalled F135 at mach 1.6 @ 36kft will likely have around half to two thirds of the thrust it has at SL while static. When installed with the fixed inlet geometry affecting the thrust output – the thrust will likely fall below 1/3 of the static SL thrust as it approaches Mach 1.6/36kft. When trying to go over Mach 1.6 – it likely experiences a pressure loss lowering the thrust significantly – limiting F-35 to Mach 1.6~1.7. This doesn’t mean that in the Mach 0 – Mach 1.6 range the F-35 fairs poorly due to being overly draggy. In actual fact its net forward force in most situations is probably better than you would find in any ‘clean’ F-16/F-18.
Talking about drag here doesn’t really mean anything – drag comparisons between any aircraft is an apples and oranges comparison. You really need to look at net force in straight line acceleration, climb acceleration and maneuvering. Straight line F-35 does quite well here from an aerodynamic net forward force (thrust – drag). It’s actually more limited by its weight than anything else – even on the F-35A model.
I came up with an open office spreadsheet this morning comparing F-35A, and F-16 blk 50 in straight line acceleration. It compares the two jets at the mach and altitude that the user can input – using parametric scaling of the two engines with a technology factor that can be input by the user. The spreadsheet can load the aircraft with any fuel setting and technically loadout – yet doing this lowers the fidelity of the model. The main input by the user is an engineers guesstimate of drag % – i.e. how much less drag force does the F-16 experience than the F-35.
The results show the F-35 suffers from its high inertia during initial acceleration and with energy recovery for drag difference percentages of 70~80%. The F-35 does start improving at the higher speed/higher altitude states however, when the drag starts cutting into the engine thrust, meaning the normalising weight force becomes less relevant. In some states the F-35A does out accelerate a clean F-16blk50.
LmRaptorhypothetically, if the aircraft with a higher RCS has a better AESA and ECM and longer range weapon for example does this undermine the stealth advantage?
The answer to that depends on the details.
Air combat is an extremely complex dynamic 3D environment. Few here including myself truly understand all the advantages and disadvantages that the new toys bring to play. VLO represents a big hurdle for opponents to deal with because it enables an expansion of traditional tactics. Tactics that can offset an opponents superiority in other areas such as quantity of aircraft or greater performance. Denying or degrading the enemy’s information sufficiently can disrupt a kill chain.
It is interesting to note that Kopp claims a frontal -35 Bdsm RCS in the X-band for the F-35 based on shaping alone. I wonder where that puts the F-22 which he claims is stealthier.
LmRaptorFair point Lm. So applying a little basic thought as you have done, it could be said that the LM comment only serves to highlight the marketing that they are spewing out on the F35. :diablo:
No doubt snafu – just because my username is LmRaptor – doesn’t mean I swallow all of LMs crap. I think my views are fairly moderate and considered – similar to those of Scorpions in fact as I agree with a lot of what he has to say about things. Also while I applaud MSphere and yourself for putting a bit of perspective in the heads of LM fanboys – I sometimes think you guys get caught making similar statements to the ones you criticise them for. But I suppose perfect balance is never easy to find ;).
LmRaptorI just don’t buy the F35 will swan around impervious to the opposition stuff.
Back to the subject of this thread the Super Hornet. Fair comment on the avionics suites, however even taking that into account, to operate at the medium level you cannot deny that a full supporting cast is required, for a country that does not and will not have such a supporting cast it is not possible to do.Edit: I’m very much in favour of Brit Navy fixed wing aviation, it is stupid and short sighted by the politicians (military as well as civil!) to bin carrier capability, (JFH being the start of that.) when viewed alongside the future taskings they expect of the troops.
Nor do I see F-35 as a platform capable of ‘swanning’ around impervious to the opposition stuff. However, I do believe it allows operation at medium altitude, with much less support, in a hostile environment against systems that would make life much harder for the likes of Tornado, Typhoon or SH. I believe it renders many but not all SAM/AAA systems as obsolete/far reduced in capability. Of course Tornado, Typhoon and SH have means and ways of operating against such systems but I believe F-35 from day one offers a more survivable package and requires less support/work/effort to counter the potential threats.
Back to the SH. Whether it needs a full supporting cast vs. X threat or not is not within our capacity to answer. It depends entirely on the threat. And if the aircraft are employed as described with Tornado in the reeds and SH at a medium altitude say ~ 25000ft. Both will be doing around about the same speeds – near enough as makes no difference. But the SH will have the greater potential energy – and despite it being a poorer performer – the greater ‘potential’ kinetic energy as at that altitude it will be able to accelerate faster than the Tornado and achieve a faster top speed too. The range advantage of the Tornado will be offset by the low level approach and the sensor suite will be dramatically reduced in effectiveness – while being vulnerable to AAA, MANPADS and less sophisticated SAMs – all in the name of being less detectable by the higher end SAM systems. But for all we know SH might be able to survive at those altitudes against a vast array of threats with a standoff approach using JDAM/JSOW/DEAD weaponry/Self escort weaponry + HMS & on board jamming, towed decoy and enhanced situational awareness through higher altitude operation of sensor suite.
Against certain threats this probably won’t be enough and the Tornado’s low level approach will prove more effective despite being vulnerable to the low level trash fire. However one must also look at the Growler as a potential equaliser here. The same airframe – same logistics – for more money of course – but as the yanks say they are force multipliers – so you could operate a few of them along side the standard SH purchase.
Note im not suggesting this as the best solution, its a terrible one considering what we already have. In fact I rate the Tornado very highly and the Typhoon more so.
LmRaptorLM, can you expand on your comment, the point of it has currently gone sailing over my head.
Simply put if the kit on the F35 is capable of detecting vlo platforms and it seems per the quote, of targeting them, why would kit aboard other aircraft not also be capable of doing the same?
Of course the kit on other aircraft is capable of doing the same snafu, and that is the point. The old EE Lightnings radar could do it to a Raptor today. The high tech stuff on the T-50, Typhoon, J-20, Rafale could do it today. The F-22 and the F-35 can do it to each other. The point is any sensor suite can do it. We know that its possible from basic physics.
No one from LM is claiming the F-22 is undetectable. The question is at what ranges is the aircraft detected? That is the point. Not whether its possible. The article doesn’t shed any light on what ranges or whether its tactically valuable.
It’s just more marketing PR – a selling point for the F-35 – saying its sensors can detect the Raptor. Everyone knows they can. But crucially how far out is the question.
LmRaptorNah. Whilst you plod along at an “interesting” (for the sams and aaa) medium level i’ll take my Tornado down in the weeds at close to the mach ta.
See you in about 70 years when i die of old age.
You’ll never get those more modern avionics and range of weapons anywhere close to the target to use without a massive supporting cast of platforms baby sitting the F18 in there.
For a nation like Britain which doesn’t and won’t have in the foreseeable future the supporting cast the Tornado very low and very fast approach is the only one.
F-35C won’t need to use that very low and very fast approach in many scenarios. F-35C is in the foreseeable future.
Also ‘plodding’ along at ‘medium level’ rules out much of the AAA threat/lower end SAM threats – threats to Tornado down in the reeds whose speed will only be marginally and faster at the expense of its range, sensor reach and standoff capability. Sure it makes SH more vulnerable to the top end threats but less so if the enemy has AWACS supporting the IADS.
The fact is we don’t know how capable the current SH self defence suit is. Nor do we know the details of corresponding piece of kit on the Tornado. Therefore its not safe to assume anyones going to live to 70.
LmRaptorSnafu352, surely an ancient Ferranti A.I.23 can detect and target RF optimised VLO aircraft? But is that the point?
LmRaptorUntouched?
Source. AW
So a smaller diameter radar than the Typhoon proposed Caesar can target the F-22, or the IR system on the JSF that is optimised for AtoG.
Either way untouched it is not.
cheers
It is not untouchable and those 10-30:1 ratios predicted against advanced derivatives of Su-27/F-15/F-16/F/A-18 etc are definitely not applicable to Typhoon, Rafale etc in similar conditions..
But offering a quote claiming JSF’s sensor suite can detect F-22 doesn’t really tell us anything new or relevant. We already know this is possible. We know that an ancient Ferranti A.I.23 could achieve the same under certain circumstances.
The point is, kill ratios are dependent on how easily a pilot can engage an opponent in the circumstances that maximise his own potential. Doing so against the Raptor is by all accounts fairly difficult.
LmRaptorThe F-22 fanbois were told some time ago that the “LPI” radar is a load of bull.
Better start hoping the DoD produce the greenbacks to fund IRST integration on the F-22.
With regards the bit in italics – quite presumptuous to presume the performance of competitors that Lockheed will know very little about. *Probably* not wrong, but nevertheless indicative of Lockheeds arrogant nature – talk the talk, but continually fail to walk the walk.
“The F-22 fanbois were told some time ago that the “LPI” radar is a load of bull.”
With that statement in mind, I find this statement fairly ironic even if there is a degree of truth in it:
“*Probably* not wrong, but nevertheless indicative of Lockheeds arrogant nature – talk the talk, but continually fail to walk the walk.”
As for the bit about being able to target the F-22s – that has no real context – so we can’t draw any conclusions from it despite the fact that it is possible to target F-22s. Which we all knew was possible anyway.
As for IRST – I agree.
LmRaptorWhat is that supposed to mean?
If you’re referring to internal fuel capacity, Typhoon is about 5000 kg, & according to the JSF project office, F-35 6000 to 8900 kg depending on model.
I think he means ~18000 lb for the F-35A
LmRaptorNo internal fuel on the F-35 is close to 18k.
The Ef about 6k ill check figures when I’m off mobile.
But wait netta I didn’t ask if the amount of fuel was similar did I? I asked if the range figures on internal fuel were similar. The Typhoon carries about 4900 kg of fuel or 4900 * 2.206 = ~10810 lb. But what is relevant is range not fuel surely?
LmRaptorDear sir,
If your going to compare F- 35 to EF, the Typhoon needs all external tanks + weapons.
You might wanna throw on a targeting pod also.
Why? If you look at the range figures on internal its fairly similar?
LmRaptorDear sir,
The advantages of internal weapons storage are.
1. stealth
2. Clean combat configuration
3. greater range because of 2The disadvantages are:
1. weight
Too simplistic buddy, as was your rebuttal earlier, about fuel. To be honest, I didn’t really read it beyond the point where I realised you fall for the same overly simplified nonsense that scooter does. Try to realise that absolute numbers mean nothing… even if the F-35 carries over twice the internal fuel the EF does; it isn’t very efficient in its use according to the range figures released by LM. That doesn’t mean the F135 has a higher TSFC. There are other factors to consider that leave enthusiasts a bit confused.
Sign In
