Scorpion82the old hornet can roll at 40 deg with new FCS about 2002 and the new sh is better
its said the f-35 will roll at 50
the f-22 roll at 50+ i think 60yo might want to recheck your 30 deg, i think its under 30
edit the old hornet with 2002 FCS will roll at 45 deg
Yes requiring ~5 sec to bank 90°. And even with that Hornets and Super Hornets got their a$$es waxed in WVR fighting by Rafales.
Scorpion82There’s a big difference between instantaneous and sustained AoA. The F-35 can sustain 55deg. The Rafale can’t.
The ~30° sustained AoA limit of the Rafale is imposed by the FCS software, that doesn’t mean that the aircraft couldn’t sustain even higher AoAs. But it’s of no use anyway. A sustained 55° AoA as can be alledgly achieved by the F-35 (alledgly because the real aircraft hasn’t demonstrated it) in trimmed flight conditions is of even lower use (not say no use) in combat than the much vaunted cobra maneuver. You need seconds to achieve that AoA and stabilise and the aircraft won’t do more than flying straight line nose up. The Rafale in contrast can still roll, turn and burn at an AoA of ~30° and keep its nose pointing anywhere. An F-35 won’t do so with an AoA of 55°. Per se this comparison is apples to oranges and anyone claiming that this would prove a higher maneuverability for the F-35 is just an idiot who has no clue about aerodynamics.
Scorpion82Maybe you should learn a bit about how to read statements.
Beesley claimed that the F-35 comes close in subsonic acceleration, but didn’t specify the altitude. He said in the high subsonic/transsonic region manoeuverability is comparable and it is, because at that speed those aircraft will all pull 9 g and there turning radii & rates are subsequently identical if the can sustain the load at the same speed. That doesn’t mean that the F-35 will match the F-22s low speed/high alpha maneuverability, nor that it accelerates as fast at supersonic speeds or even at subsonic speeds taking different altitudes into account. Matching the performance in a portion of the flight envelope doesn’t mean that both aircraft will have equal performance. That’s true for all types for that matter.
I would at best call Beesley a tricky guy who creates a wrong impression by those blind fools who can’t correctly understand what’s being said, much like monsieur Grandclaudon did when quoting certain results entirely out of context…
Scorpion82now the question, does the f-35 have a hot airframe ?
Has the Rafale an hotter airframe…?:p And if so, prove it!
Scorpion82Before you miss this good news:
First Test Flight of Rafale Fighter Powered by Upgraded M88-4E Engine
(Source: Snecma; dated May 4, web-posted May 5, 2010)COURCOURONNES, France — The first test flight of a Rafale fighter powered by the Snecma (Safran group) M88-4E engine (formerly designated the “TCO Pack”, for total cost of ownership) took place on March 22 at the Istres air base in southern France.
Lasting 1 hour and 30 minutes, the flight was a total success, and was used to expand the flight envelope. The complete test campaign for the M88-4E engine comprises some 70 flights in 2010, with different engine configurations. Ten test flights have been carried out to date.
“We are satisfied with the successful initial flights of the M88-4E, the third major engine upgrade, reflecting our continuing focus on research & development. The latest evolution of the engine enables us to better meet the expectations of our customer, by helping decrease the Rafale’s maintenance costs,” said Didier Desnoyer, Snecma’s Vice President Military Engines.
The development of the M88-4E is proceeding very satisfactorily. The first ground test of the engine was performed in September 2009. Development engines are now undergoing ground performance and endurance tests, and a series of altitude chamber tests was completed in late February. Qualification and delivery of the first production-standard M88-4E is now slated for the end of 2011.
In January 2008, French defense procurement agency DGA awarded Snecma the “TCO Pack” contract for the M88-2 engine. The aim of this contract was to extend the service life and time between inspections for several parts of the engine. Modifications mainly concern the high-pressure compressor and turbine.
Designed for the Rafale multirole fighter, the M88 is the first member of a family of new-generation engines intended for 21st century combat and advanced training aircraft. The M88-2 now powers all air force and naval versions of the Rafale. It is particularly well suited to low-altitude penetration and high-altitude interception missions.
Snecma, a Safran group company, is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of aircraft and space engines, with a wide range of propulsion systems on offer. The company designs and builds commercial aircraft engines – including the CFM56* world’s leader – that are powerful, reliable, economical and environmentally friendly, along with military aircraft engines that have always delivered world-class performance. Snecma also develops and produces propulsion systems and equipment for launch vehicles and satellites. Snecma also offers a complete range of engine maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services to airlines, armed forces and operators.
Scorpion82That doesn’t interest an automated detection and tracking system comprising 6 sensor installed in various locations around the aircraft to provide a 360°x360° coverage.
Scorpion82By such a claim you have no problem to provide the related source (link/scan). 😉
Which part did you mean exactly?
Have checked again, the ~3000 km figure for the F-22 again, it includes 2 drop tanks according LM and the USAF. Early sources stated such ranges without mentioning ETs.
Scorpion82Unless we believe, that somehow, LM presents conservative figures while the rest of the world follows a diferent policy…
Why different policy? We have seen a lot of conservative figures for various aircraft types at such an early state of their programme history. Look at the combat radius figures of the Typhoon from the later 80s/earlier 90s it was just 556 km, while it’s now stated with 1389 km (of course depending on the mission profile). Look at the payload of the Rafale which was long stated with 6000 kg, later with 8000 kg and now with 9500 kg… F-22s supercruise speed stated with M 1.5 and now with ~M1.8 etc. There are countless examples were early data were much more conservative.
Scorpion82gotta love that quote:
so they are selling a product, and, on their own official website, where everybody can see it, they intentionally stated lesser than real specs to dupe people on internet?
man…
kid…
I don’t know how to call you, seriously…
do you ever think before posting?
It’s certainly not the first time that the public data are below the real world data. Of course it can be the other way round as well. Given the F-35s weight, fuel load and thrust and applying a common SFC figure the F-35 should have no problem to exceed 2222 nm by a fair margin. The F-22s range is often stated with ~3000 km! And the F-22 is 50% heavier, has MUCH more thrust, but a not to different fuel load. Add the fact that the F135 engine is more optimised towards subsonic economic cruise in comparison to the F119 which is more optimised for high thrust output at supersonic speeds/high altitudes.
Scorpion82Guys this is becoming ridiculous!
While the LM statement about internal weapon releases at supersonic speeds is a bit vague, the specific outlining of “including AAM release at max speed” allows you to extrapolate that other stores can be released at supersonic speeds as well. Maybe not at max speed and possibly not all kind of stores, but at least some. The F-22 has demonstrated JDAM and SDB drops at supersonic speeds, close to the F-35s stated max speed. Sure the devil might lie in the detail and the aircraft has yet to demonstrate that, but those guys at LM are certainly no idiots or beginners to start with. They are humans and humans make errors, but I think it’s a quite safe bet that the F-35 will be capable to drop at least some AG weapons i.e. SDBs or JDAMs at supersonic speeds.
With regards to the loadout it’s quite dumb to assume that the aircraft won’t be able to carry an equal load as the F-22 which can already carry the same load claimed in a smaller weapons bay.
With regards to the range issue, just use your brain and extrapolate the data available. Wrightwing is right here, a 600+ nm combat radius means that the ferry range must be higher than 1200 nm and given the engine thrust, weight, fuel load and applying a typical SFC figure for a modern military turbofan should leave no doubt that the F-35s range is actually greater than 1200 nm. Where I disagree is that the F-35 will achieve the same combat radius as every other current fighter with ETs. That might be true for some, but not for all of them!
Scorpion82Press releases over the recent month/years indicated that there won’t be a lightweight 5th generation fighter to complement the PAK FA and that the RuAF will instead opt for a mix of MiG-35/Su-35 and PAK FAs instead. RAC MiG is certainly not in a state to fund such an aircraft at all, the company is near bankrupt and just kept alive by the more recent orders from India and Russia. The original LFI launched in the 80s to complement the MFI was canceled in 1992 and while a new programme dubbed LFS was launched in 1994 it was finally cancelled around 2001 in favour of the PAK FA. The PAK FA has the priority and without significant financial help from outside it would be hardly possible to develop such an aircraft. Up to date there is no interest on the international scene and it’s therefore quite unlikely that the a 5th generation lightweight MiG will be developed.
just my 2ct
Scorpion82Scorpion , external loads are usually limited to 5 to 6G (on good aircraft) .
At 6G , a 2000l EFT weights more than 13.000kg !:eek:
Add to that the other possible weapons hanging under the wing and you can get a possible 20.000kg (per wing) under the same 6G 😮(The Rafale ‘s airframe starts to brake after 185% of the max load ;))
You are actually repeating what I have said above, just with different examples…:rolleyes:
Sorry ? You are confused . It can or it can ‘t ? :confused:
I tell you : Rafale can .
Then , where could be the “structural damage” when the aircraft is flying supersonic with no G ? :confused:
You ‘re not making sense .
Vibrations and flattering at supersonic speeds is problematic for large stores, particularly those which haven’t been designed for supersonic speeds. Most external AG weapons aren’t cleared for supersonic speeds and this includes many of the weapons used by the Rafale. If you would have read properly you would realise that my statement makes sense. The F-35 carries weapons internal, therefore no restrictions on the speed performance are imposed, in contrast to aircraft which rely on external carriage and I’m certain the Rafale can’t do so either.
As a “starter” , does the F-35 has anything like that :
A very predictable response! It was clear that you would argue for the Rafale, but lack any details about the other aircraft. You make the claim, it’s up to you to back it up, not others to wrong prove your claims, you can’t prove in the first place.
Scorpion82But then , we have to take into account how the aircraft fly with such a load 😎 and there I give the edge again to the Typhoon over the F-35 .
In case push comes to shove while loaded like a mule , I would rather be in the Typhoon because I would have better flight characteristics and a much better thrust-ratio . Even if both aircraft have about the same G limitations with subsonic external stores (5 to 6 Gs , same than the Rafale) , the Typhoon will still enjoy a better acceleration , a better agility and a better max speed .
Unlike a Typhoon or a Rafale the F-35 can still go supersonic with 2000 lb bombs! A Typhoon and Rafale could do so, but risk structural damage.
Its aerodynamics are wrong and only its engine saves it from being below average .
Requirements and priorities define the external layout of an aircraft. The F-35 was neither designed as a high performance fighter in the first place, nor was it designed as a fighter in the first place. Its performance is adequate and the aircraft features VLO which is much more useful in many situations if you are facing a serious enemy.
Oh sure , in good hands , it is going to be something to be accounted for but its users will soon learn the limits of the platform . If they want to fly it with internal stores only , it is going to be fine and it will do its job probably brilliantly . Don ‘t get me wrong .
Every aircraft has its limits, nothing special about that. The F-35 offers a kind of flexibility that no other fighter offers today and that is VLO+with limited payload or compromised stealth with high payload.
it is slow and it can ‘t escape or run away and its IR signature is awful[/B] .
If we talk about attacking someone strong , things can go pear-shape and the last option for a striker is to dump its load , turn back and escape quickly to have a chance to survive (yes , things can go wrong) .
At this game , the F-35 may have a big problem in its hand.
The information advantage is going to help the aircraft to avoid such situations.
(the lowest IR signature for the 3 aircraft seems to be the Rafale ‘s one . Btw , what kind of by-pass air cooling systems the Typhoon and the F-35 are using to cool down the gas exhausts ? :rolleyes: )
Something similar than Rafale and F-22 ? :rolleyes:
And you have exact figures for the IR signatures of all these aircraft? You know the techniques being used or not being used to reduce their IR signatures? I doubt so!
Scorpion82Carrying the weapons internally, and nearer the center of gravity, means that there’s less inertia to overcome for one, which is why LM/USAF says that a combat loaded F-35 is more agile than a clean F-16.
So I think that answers the question about G loads.
Not really, because it’s a quite unspecific generalised claim. The main problem isn’t the inertia here, but the stress a heavy store puts on the airframe if a great amount of g is pulled. Imagine a 1000 kg bomb becomes 9000 kg under 9 g! The fuselage structure might fare better to absorb such loads than a wing does, but I would like it to see confirmed that the aircraft can in fact pull so much g with 2000 lb weapons loaded, regardless whether they are internal or not.
The question is which one is going to have the higher degree of survivability, or ability to operate in less permissive environments?
No that wasn’t the subject of the discussion here.
It also has less weight and drag though, and without a true apples to apples comparison, I’d hesitate to draw to many conclusions about which numbers were right.
But it also has more lift and fuel which should at least compensate.
Scorpion82Again, these were prior to weight reduction, and we don’t know what the cruising altitudes used to ascertain those numbers were. The important thing is that the F-35 doesn’t have to use EFTs, to still be competitive, and has no G restrictions due to external stores(or RCS penalties). In more permissive environments, the F-35 can also carry EFTs, and additional stores.
The cruising altitudes are unlikely to be below the stated combat altitude which is given with 35k ft in the slide. And for that matter internal carriage doesn’t protect your loads/structure from g-loads. Where is the prove that the F-35 will be able/cleared to pull 9 g when loaded with internal AG stores?
I agree that the F-35 don’t need ETs to achieve a similar range, but the fact that the F-35 don’t offer a significantly greater range while carrying more fuel and not being constrained by external stores is telling, if these data are true! And that’s the point here, the Typhoon wasn’t designed as a deep striker!
Even the F-35A isn’t much different(728nm, and that includes a low altitude leg, and cruise at 25k feet- I suspect that at 35-40k+ you could squeeze even more range).
40 nm less range at lower cruise altitudes and with fewer fuel? Sounds a little bit odd don’t ya think so?
Sign In
