aurcovFaster!? You don’t even know its top speed yet, dude..
I don’t know, neither do you. But LM has a hint…dude…
aurcovOh God, the same quotes from Beesley and graphs from LM without a single figure, this isn’t good even for a joke… someone please pull out Carlo Kopp … :rolleyes:
Do you want Kopp? OK, let’s have some:
In comparing the Joint Strike Fighter against the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, F-16C/B60 and F/A-18E/F, the Joint Strike Fighter will have a decisive advantage in its very moden integrated avionic architecture, which is modelled on that of the F-22A but built using militarised commercial computing technology. With a battery of GigaHertz clock speed processors, high speed digital busses with around 1,000 times the throughput of the Mil-Std-1553B busses in the teen series and Eurocanard fighters, it is no contest – the Joint Strike Fighter is in an unbeatable position. While growth versions of the teen series and Eurocanard fighters might see a similar integrated avionic architecture in the post 2010 period, this is unlikely to be a revenue-neutral design change.
Against all of these contenders, the Joint Strike Fighter has an unassailable survivability advantage in its use of evolved second generation stealth technology, again derived from the F-22A technology base. With a forward sector radar cross section cited to be `close to the F-22′ the Joint Strike Fighter will present a challenging target to forward sector radar guided threats.
As a bomb truck, the Joint Strike Fighter falls into a similar payload class to these players, but with the important distinction that it carries its bombs or missiles internally, and it has an internal fuel capacity similar to that of these competing aircraft loaded up with external fuel tanks. In practical terms this means that the Joint Strike Fighter can carry a similar load of fuel and bombs without the critical transonic regime drag penalty of external stores. Therefore it can carry the same bomb load further using a similar fuel load. Claims that the X-35 demonstrator exceeded the Joint Strike Fighter combat radius requirement should come as no surprise – the cited figure of 600+ nautical miles is credible and a distinct gain over the F-16C and F/A-18A/C. This radius is however unlikely to be acheivable if the F-35 is heavily loaded with external stores, since it will like its competitors incur a major drag penalty.
With a nominal payload of 2,000 lb of AAMs the USAF F-35 yields a combat thrust/weight ratio around 1.1:1 which is competitive against a modestly loaded F-16, F/A-18A/C or Eurocanard, but with a typically better combat radius or combat gas allowance – however it is not in the class of an F-15C let alone F-22A. Therefore the F-35 should provide competitive acceleration and climb performance at similar weights to the F-16, F/A-18A/C or Eurocanards. With the upper portions of the split inlets likely to produce good vortices, the F-35 should provide respectable high alpha performance and handling, especially if flight control software technology from the F-22A was exploited fully.
Happy? 😀
BTW, I see that you conveniently skipped the “performance between F-16 and F-18” part, let me guess why..
I did not, I already explained that the Italian journalist was refering to AoA capabilty.
aurcovNewton
😮 Newton told you that underwing pylons, missiles and EFTs has no effect on speed/acceleration/climbing speed/maneuvrability ? :p
aurcovThat graphs are useless to stay polite. Without the basic value given non can verify or disproof such advertisement claims. The graphs give no idea about real gains nor the configuration of the contenders.
This fact does not change the main point. The F 35 is faster in A-A than most of its competitors (with the exception of EF).
Briefing Australian journalists at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility on 2 February, Jerry Mazanowski, senior manager of air systems in the company’s strategic studies group, compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI. He said that in a typical combat configuration carrying four internally stored AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), the F-35 was marginally faster than the Su-30MKI carrying eight beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles and no external fuel tanks; and that it was faster than the Eurofighter, Gripen C, Rafale and F/A-18 carrying four BVR and two WVR missiles and a single external fuel tank (two in the Eurofighter’s case).
It will also have a better acceleration (sub and supersonic).
An ordinary Gripen will fire its AIM-120s at Mach 1,7 f.e. 😎
And…
aurcov– there is not a single mention about a CLEAN F-16 and CLEAN F-18 in the words of the Italians. He simply says F-16. Stop making things up.
– when someone says “the performance is somewhere between F-16 and F-18”, then he means “better than F-18 and worse than F-16”.If something combined acceleration of F-16 with AoA handling of the F-18, then it would not be “between F-16 and F-18” but even better than F-16. The words clearly indicate that F-35 is not the case.
I don’t get it, do I need to talk to you like to a school pupil? I thought these logic basics were taken for granted here..
Quit this tone, please…
– first of all, I was pointing that there no Italian pilot flew (yet) on the F 35 as you said; this speaks a lot about how much you know the plane you are trashing;
– I did not said that in the acceleration issue was mentioned in AvLeak article that quotes Italian pilots. The author was more focused about maneuvrability:
The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg.
Regarding acceleration, there are many other articles:
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. 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.
The aircraft flies in “large measure like the F-22, but it’s smaller, and stiffer” than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.
What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor“, Beesley said.
And graphs…:
aurcovYou still don’t get it, every fighter get affected by weight when you load it up with bombs, and yes, even F-35,
that is why none in his right mind is going to fight it out A2A while loaded with bombs.
I was talking about A-A.
A2A missiles has negligible effect as they don’t weigh that much, except Phoenix and the like.
Who told you this?
aurcovAnd what you don’t get is that the compared F-35 is also clean
EXACTLY! While anything else (EF, Rafale, Gripen) are “DIRTY”. The pylons, missiles, EFTs will penalize the performances.
That is it will be as responsive as a stone at high alt., where all BVR engagements take place.
:p keep dreaming…
aurcovLOL, that is one piece of an academic proof, indeed… Italians have tested the thing already and found it to be somewhere between F-16 and F-18. That is far more detailled informtaion than any manufacturer’s claims would ever have provided and certainly does not sound impressive to me.
Some people still did not get it…
-First, no Italian tested “the thing”, BTW. In an article from AvLeak, Andrea Nativi, an Italian aviation journalist, said that Italian pilots “close to the program” (which is a little different from flying “the thig”) declared that the performances fell between f 16 and F 18.
-what do you did not get it is that those are CLEAN F 16 an F 18 !! If an F 35 would combine the brute acceleration and high G maneuvrability of a CLEAN F 16 blk. 50 with the superb AoA handling of a CLEAN Superhornet, it would be a kick ass plane.
aurcovTwice the fuel is worth nothing if your aircraft also consumes twice as much and is twice as heavy! I doubt that a 50% range difference can work out like that. Even if we assume a 0.8kg/kg/h SFC figure for both engines. The F119 provides about 11500 kg dry, the M88-2 5100 kg. Internal fuel load of the Rafale C is 4750 kg with 8200 – 9386 kg for the F-22 (depending on which source you want to believe). Empty weight of the Rafale C is 9500 kg vs 19700 kg for the F-22.
Doing an oversimplified calculation (only engine fuel consumption at full mil thrust at S/L):
Rafale C: 35 min
F-22: 26.74 – 30.6 minFuel fraction (empty weight plus fuel only):
Rafale C: 33.33 %
F-22: 29.4 – 32.27 %
The Rafale figure I mentioned are from various French sources (radius between 400 Nmiles without EFTs in subsonic, up to ~ 900 Nmiles with 3 (or 4?) EFTs). In F 22 case, the range was mentioned in AFA.org (Air Force Association) so is semi-official. They say that the radius is between 400 Nmiles (but with 100 Nmiles SC) and 595 Nmiles, subsonic only.
aurcovI believe a Thales spokesperson said earlier this year that the three leading companies in the world of AESA fighter radars are Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Thales….
Whereas a Selex person said they are Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Selex…
Perhaps an Elta person would say the leading three are Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Elta…? 😉
Well, Ray and NG would appear in any statement…
aurcovELTA is a leading producer. And physics works in the US exactly as it works in Israel.
BS. They were not even the first ones to deliver an operational AESA on a fighter, let alone the only ones.
Sorry mate, try harder next time.
The AESA built buy Mitsubishi for the F 2 is regarded as a failure.
aurcovQWIP is a widely-accepted as being technique that greatly enhanced the performance of IR sensors.
Mercurius, I red about this technology, but the quote was so obvious from Kopp/APA that I can’t resist…the next post of the guy confirm it…
Some people take APA as a serious source…:p
aurcovAnd Mitsubishi, & Selex is delivering them to a customer – though not for installation on fighters.
There are others too that mmanufacture AESAs (Thales is one of them), but they did yet deliver yet an operational radar for fighters.
aurcovAnother possible scenario would be Saudi Arabia Eurofighter Typhoon vs Israel F-35.
But this won’t be a confrontation between 5 gen planes…
aurcovnot too far behind
Russian T/R module for Phazotron Zhuk-AE AESA radar
Source: Dr. Carlo Kopp – Air Power Australia
I was right…
Sign In
