052 in post #1511 is carrying those dumb bombs on a (new?) twin rack. Maybe they’re testing just that rack.

Does anyone know if A/G stores can be carried on outer wing pylons?

I don’t dispute your numbers as much as I dispute that elements of power failed to account for the -1 showing numbers for .79-1.24

If you look at the chart I showed in my earlier post, you can see that he is accounting for that difference.

I think I spotted an error in it though. He seemed to use the wrong weight values; all the weights should be bumped up 2,000lb. He likely didn’t spot the change in the weight column from DI 50 to DI 100

Indeed, the charts are correct. I was focussing on the table (fig. 13) and missed that, my bad.
EoP should mention though it’s a Block 52. And weights are off, yes.

Also, I didn’t realize how much quicker the Block 50 was than the 52; that is interesting.

I second that. Before the manual was available, I was under the impression both engines are about equal. All (I think) Block 50/52+ customers still opted for the PW engine surprisingly.

That $60B USD looks like a huge number until you divide it into a production run of 3000+ aircraft. Now try looking at the Typhoon in the same light.

Well that’s not the point is it. If it were 30 billions, it would be even less per aircraft.
The point of the JSF was to save money by developing only one fighter instead of three. You’ve failed that goal if your JSF is 3 times as expensive as 3 seperate fighter programs. Of course, we will never know what the cost for 3 US programs would have been, but in my opinion, it wouldn’t have cost more. It’s not like 3 F-22 style programs were required.

Where are you getting those numbers from? I have the HAF F-16 supplement and don’t see those there. They also don’t gel with what is available at elements of power here, http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic_22.html

For example, figure 17 at the above link lists your drag index of 100 config requiring 80 seconds.

elements of power “cheated” by using 1. lower performance F100-229 numbers, and 2. directly quoting the numbers for 0.79 to 1.25 Mach acceleration from the manual.
Since 0.8-1.2 is not the same as 0.79-1.25, I extrapolated the former numbers. Same for the weight.
For example at DI 100, 30k lbs, the manual indeed says 79 sec, as does elements of power. Same extrapolated for 0.8-1.2, it’s 67.92, or rounded 68 sec. Not a small difference.
Now the Block 50: 0.79-1.25 takes 58 sec, 0.8-1.2 takes 50.33 or ~50.5 seconds. So it’s 79 vs 50.5 seconds. Oops….
Note USAF is mostly flying GE motors and the manual is for Block 50+ heavier than older Block 50 models.

A longer aircraft although more aerodynamically refined would still be significantly larger and heavier. Yet the F-35 is supposed to have a comparable “footprint” to the F-16 or F/A-18. I’d guess the elevator dimensions of LHAs, LHDs, and the UK’s Queen Elizabeth class carrier did play a factor in fixing the overall length but even the earliest estimates showed the size they wanted the ASTOVL/CALF/JSF to be. Was trying to fit two 2,000 lbs sized munitions in an aircraft of such size too much? From a purely aerodynamic standpoint it may have been but from a practical standpoint this aircraft was always a bit more A2G focused than A2A.

Why would a longer aircraft be significantly larger and heavier? It would be slimmer, for the same volume. Other aircraft of the same weight class (F-105, F-4, F-15) are all 19+ meters.
Yes, the comparable footprint has become a factor. CALF has grown into JSF, but it wasn’t allowed to grow in length. I guess if it was an USAF only, 600nm 2x 2000lbs bomb strike fighter, length would be ~19m.

*If* those are the specs used officially for those acceleration numbers and as far as I am aware that has never been confirmed. Also we don’t know the aircraft’s loadout for those numbers. And expecting a mere five second difference between the F-35A and the F-35C with its larger wing and tail surfaces but same overall length? That was downright unrealistic.

Well I thought it was maneuver weight as in note 2. FBW has other, probably better info.
Maybe they didn’t think the C required such a big wing initially. X-35C wing area was roughly 50 m2 whereas on the F-35C its a massive 62 m2… X-35A to F-35 both around 42 m2.

Pilot comments about the F-35A say it accelerates better than an F/A-18 and that seems probable to me. I’ll try to dig up that interview where the test pilot compared the F-35C to an F/A-18E in a relatively clean configuration “no pylons, no tanks” were his words IIRC.

Of course the Super Hornet isn’t a very high benchmark to beat in terms of supersonic acceleration, but it shows that at least the F-35C won’t be any worse in that particular area.

F-35A vs F-18 is not the same as F-35C vs F-18E 😉
The Super Hornet charts are difficult to read, but I figure it takes around 75 seconds from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach for a Super Hornet at 42k pounds, carrying 4 AAMs on wingtips and cheeks. Flug Revue says “less than 70 sec from Mach 0.8 to 1.2 at 35000 ft”, so it could be about right.

A “fat fuselage” is required to carry internal stores. Seemingly the specs for the F-35C’s acceleration were the same baseline specs as used for acceleration of the F-35A and F-35B which was never going to happen due to the larger wing and tail. Even so the F-35C matches a clean Super Hornet at least according to one interview.

No, a voluminous fuselage is required. It only becomes fat when you’re forced to design that volume into a short fuselage.
The acceleration requirements were not the same for the 3 variants:

Revised specs are 63 sec for the A, 81 sec for the B and 108 sec for the C model. I highly doubt even a clean Super Hornet takes that long. Compare that to the objective of 45 sec :very_drunk:

For those who claim the F-35 is NOT the future F-16.
They practically are the same size

I’m sure you will agree then these two actresses are the same size also:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245978[/ATTACH]
google says 1.55m and 1.57m. No offense.

Nose landing gear is now single wheel and looks flimsy compared with the previous twin wheel gear, probably done to lower weight and offset the rest of the weight increase, although I would have thought the extra weight would need a twin wheel nose gear.

It doesn’t look flimsy at all to me, more like very solid, compared to western fighters at least.
They changed it from twin wheels with brakes to a single wheel for compability with runway arresting wires. One if not the only thing that looks better now, reminds me of the Mirage series.