aurcovThat shall be not a surprise, the development on this field has been steadily progressing and the F-35, using the already fielded technology from Sniper-XR, shall slowly become obsolete in terms of hardware used, due to longer development times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flJ4NPQmjQ4
Wrong. DAS has nothing with Sniper XR. Sniper has a narrow field IR sensor for long range, while DAS is 60 x 60 deg. for wide coverage.
aurcovYeah, you are partially right. The F-15 would accelerate faster at 30,000 feet (when I clicked back on the chart I was looking at the acceleration chart with a centerline tank), but the f-18 takes 90 sec ( .8 to 1.2) not three min at max weight 30,000 ft, at 40,000 feet it takes around 3 min.
For F 18 I pointed the acceleration from 0.8 up to 1.5M, not 1.2.
Your quote “And BTW, an F 15 will go faster than an F 35 at all altitudes”, that very much depends on the stores.
Correct, but I mentioned F 15C which means A-A load and 1 EFT.
As I was trying to point out, the F-15 does not reach Mach 1.2 with 8 missiles and a centerline tank (not surprising)at 10,000 feet.
No fighter does this, except for the F 22 and surprisingly the old F 104!
As far as the F-15 being “faster”, clean yes, with weapons, even just missiles? Well, again look at the charts at 39,000 pounds carrying 4 aim-7 and 4-aim-9, the F-15 will reach mach 1.82 at 36,000 feet, at 36,000 pounds without the missiles it will reach mach 2.1 on a standard day. Take your f-35 carrying roughly 4,600 pounds internal weapons, it will reach speeds in excess of mach 1.6. Don’t really think there is a huge difference in max speed of the F-15 or F-35 carrying similar weapon loads, except when the F-15 is just carrying 4 aim-7 class weapons (an no other pylons), see for yourself. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94648410/TO-1F-15A-1-Flight-Manual-USAF-F-15-Series-A-B-C-D-Block-7-and-Up-Change-5-01-Mar-1986 (figures A9-1b a through g)
As far as acceleration, the F-35 appears to have decent acceleration at 30,000 feet. It won’t match an F-15 with an air to air load, but again it’s not an air superiority fighter, it’s a multi-role fighter and should be compared to an f-16c, f-18, gripen, etc.
That’s what I said. F 35 acceleration falls somewhere between high-performance 4th gen. planes (F15, F 16) with A-A load and the same planes with A-G load and EFTs. The kinematic performances of F 35 are decent, while the stealth and avionics put her in a different league.
What bothers me is the price…
aurcovPersonally, I doubt a F-15C armed with at least 8-AAM’s has better transonic accelerations than a clean F-35A. As the latter is approximately the same class as a clean F-16 Blk 50 or Raptor and better than the Typhoon and Super Hornet. (the latter armed)
Yes, it has. Either it’s important or not, I don’t know.
Same airframe………
Hardly: that’s over 2 tons heavier.
aurcovIs the F-15 combat loaded??? Nonetheless, you have no proof any model of the F-15 is faster than the F-35 at all altitudes.
If you check my post I was refering at F 15 C. Yes, an F 15C is faster and accelerates better than an F 35 at any altitude. Don’t get me wrong –the 35 will be a top striker and a decent fighter, but not what an F 15C was in its day, or an F 22 today.
BTW The F-35 is a Strike Fighter which is just another name for a Multi-Role Fighter. (Fighter-Bomber back in the day) The F-15A-D’s operated by the IDF can carry AAM’s and Bombs. So, they’re just as much a Strike Fighter as the Rafale, Typhoon, Hornet, Super Hornet, Lightning, etc. etc. etc. are today.
Not only in IDF.Any F15C operator can hang (dumb) bombs under an F 15A & C (not B&D as these are trainers)
In addition the F-15E/K/SG/etc. are just multi role two seat F-15C’s. So, you comment that the F-15 is a Fighter not a Striker is rather weak.
Again not talking about E/K/SG (you may add I/SA), but about C.
aurcovWasn’t talking about the F-22 nor did I even imply the F-35 could match the Raptor in Super Cruise.
I didn’t point supercruise, rather supersonic acceleration.
aurcovYou do realize that on a standard day at 40,000 feet according to to the diagram, the F-15 accelerates from mach.8 to mach 1.2 with (4) sparrow and (4) aim-9 in 65sec http://www.scribd.com/doc/94648410/TO-1F-15A-1-Flight-Manual-USAF-F-15-Series-A-B-C-D-Block-7-and-Up-Change-5-01-Mar-1986. The acceleration numbers for the f-35 are for 30,000 feet with 2 amraam at 61 sec (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html. Take the F-15 down to 30,000 feet and you are talking 70 seconds give or take. Yes it is carrying 6 more missiles, but that’s the point, the drag for the f-15 is high when carrying externals, the F-35 will not be affected as much even with 4 amraams. The difference is that the F-35’s numbers do not change much when unencumbered with stores. Your average fighter aircraft looks very impressive in clean config, when you start hanging the needed stores on, the difference dwindles. Does it not? BTW, it is the F-15 that “does not get there” at high alt + speed while carrying a tank and missiles, it won’t reach mach 1.2 according to the acceleration chart at 10,000 feet and takes 90 sec at 40,000 feet, so it does out-accelerate one f-35 in that configuration, the “C” model.
You got it wrong!
If an F 15 goes 0.8M-1.2M in 65 sec. at 40.000 feet, you can be sure that at 30,000 feet, it will take less.
Look at the F 18 C flight manual that Sintra mentioned. At 30,000 feet (2 Sparrows +2 Sidewinders) the Hornet needs 3 min. to reach 1.5M (page 328/346). At 40,000 feet (same load) it needs 5 min. (page 336/346)!
So. if an F 15 (8 AAMs) needs 65 sec. at 40,000 feet, you can bet that it will need less than 40 sec. at 30,000.
And BTW, an F 15 will go faster than an F 35 at all altitudes. It is a fighter not a striker.
aurcovHere’s Jon Beesley Direct Quote
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.
You did not quote all Beelsey said. Let me add:
Comparisons to the F-22 Raptor are unfair as “supersonically, the Raptor is in a class by itself. It lives there,” Beesley explained. “In many ways the Raptor is the first true supersonic fighter,” Beesley added, referring to that aircrafts’ much publicized and unique supersonic cruise capability.
So, yes an F 35 would be comparable with an F 16 or F 22 in subsonic.
aurcovWe have no hard data for the F-15C dirty nor the F-35A Clean in such a comparison. Yet, what we do have is comments may by the former chief test pilot for the F-35 Program. Which, states the acceleration for the F-35 is ~ the same as a clean F-16 Blk 50 Viper or F-22A Raptor. I would add that said pilot has considerable experience in both of the latter. So, unless you can provide a reliable source that is counter to his comments. I will accept the latter as true.
Also, we know that even an AMRAAM mounted externally creates a significant amounts of drag. So, for the F-15C to mount four such weapons plus four more Sidewinders including the large pylons to mount them. To even suggest the F-15C can out accelerate a clean F-16 blk 50 Viper, F-22 Raptor, or F-35 Lightning. Is in fact unreasonable even to the layman………Honestly, in my opinion “ridiculous” is totally appropriate in the context of this discussion.
You missquote Beesley. He actually said that an F 35 has an acceleration comparable with f 22 in subsonic. He added that in supersonic the f 22 is in a different league.
aurcov“Bordering on the Ridiculous”? “Respectfully”?!
You have a very interesting way of showing “respect”…
The USAF F-15A/B/C Flight Manual has enough credibility?
On top of that we actually know, from LM themselves, that there´s another Western aircraft (i am not talking of the Raptor,) with dynamic performances not dissimilar to the F-15C, that outruns a F-35A while being “combat loaded” (i would imagine that this means 8 AAm´s and 2 external 1000L fuel tanks, but again that was not stated in the paper), its the same aircraft that goes to mach 1.8 with three external fuel tanks, you can figure it out what aircraft i am talking about; by the way this LM presentation was made before the FY2012 Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report recommended reducing the F-35’s performance requirements.
you can name it–Typhoon 🙂
aurcovSpeaking of…
F15 empty weight: 12’700kg, dry thrust 130KN
F35 empty weight: 13’300kg, dry thrust 125KNBasically Norway is getting a fighter in the same class as an F15 (at least when counting weight and thrust).
Same weight and same thrust do not make two planes being in the same class. A loaded F 15 (8 AAMs + 2 EFTs) will outaccelerate a “clean” F 35. Of course, stealth and avionics can compensate.
aurcovSlide 12 shows the conformal tanks adding around 150 nautical miles to a Super Hornet’s combat radius with various loadouts.
It’s more like 260 Nimles…
It would be great if the F 414 EPE will be implemented. It will cut acceleartion time in half.
aurcovWell, the Gripen has won more orders than Typhoon and Rafale put together so there’s a lot of demand for it. But there’s no reason why a country with a large budget shouldn’t buy it, it’s a mighty fine aircraft and an aircraft I’d most certainly consider for the UK if I had my way.
Typhoon: S. Arabia 72, Oman 12, Austria 15, total = 99
Rafale: India 126
Gripen: S. Africa 20, Thailand 6, Hungary 14, Cz. Republic 14, Switzerland 22 = 76
??????
aurcovQuote from a former Typhoon Test Pilot!
– – – Updated – – –
Do you have a source that states the Super Hornet will have a 700+ Mile Combat Radius with CFT’s only???
Yes, I have:
aurcovThere are only three credible reasons the US Military Services use to justify a change to an existing airplane. In order of priority, they are:
- Improve safety (save aircrew lives and save airplanes) – these changes are almost always funded
- Improve mission effectiveness (ability to get to the target and destroy it with bombs)
- Reducing operating and support cost over the airplane’s life cycle
EPE does not improve safety since the twin F414s have proven to be tough and reliable.
EPE does not improve the ability to get to target and destroy it with bombs, but the CFTs and pods do.
EPE’s business case evidently does not save enough O&S cost despite durability improvements to justify the initial expense. In other words, the business case fails.
DJ, un this case, EPE will qualify !
1. more powerfull engine means less time in AB. This will:
– “Improve safety”: smaller probability of engine failure; smaller chances to be detected by IRST
– “Improve mission effectiveness (ability to get to the target and destroy it with bombs)”: increased combat radius; acceration time reduced to 50 %!
– “Reduce operating and support cost over the airplane’s life cycle”: less AB=less tear and wear; less fuel consumtion for those missions where the Superhornet must use AB for now.
2. in peace time EPE engines could be operated with peace settings (at present F 414 temperature) and triple the hot section life = reduced costs
BTW, the CFT will also greatly increase the capabilities in A-A ; The combat radius with CFT is “in the high 700 Nmiles”. This means that for most of the scenarios the Superhornet will fly without EFT.
aurcovthe outer wing station in the first picture also very strange , normally it look like this
but in your picture it have triangle shape
I puzzles me too. it seems sort of ECM (RWR +jammer?) like the wingtip of Typhoon or newer Flankers.
Sign In
