Isn’t that a “Sidearm” anti-radar missile not a regular sidewinder?

It’s a Sidewinder, AGM-122 Sidearm looks like this (it’s based on the C-Sidewinder):

It is known that the B can’t go dry tank (disregarding the flight risk now) on vertical landing, since it needs *some* amount of fuel for cooling. What that amount is I can only guess, but I bet it’s at least 650lb. (The B might outright burn up (or even explode if an ignition source is present, like from battle damage) from hot fuel vapors beyond the flashpoint, if it can’t cool its inards). The min fuel to satisfy cooling requirements will probably vary widely, depending on ambient temperature.

650 seems like a good guess considering it adds up nicely to 1000kg below. 😉
But OK, it doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Assuming a vertical-mode fuel consumption (at max bring-back weight) of, say, up to 450lb per minute (number of unknowns here, like the influence of the cold blower on consumption), 1000lb of fuel minus an assumed 650lb for min cooling leaves 45 seconds for hover – fine on paper!

BUT: Slowing a B from wing-borne to thrust-borne flight should take about 30 seconds (let’s say 150lb of fuel), with another 30 seconds hover to land (makes 225lb). That’s 375lb. Standard flight ops will require fuel for at least one go-around. Let’s say 900lb for a two minute go-around (would he go around in hover-mode? and in dirty configuration?). Then again the 30 seconds hover sequence. That’s about 1500lb for propulsion, plus 650lb for min cooling – voilá, makes my assumed 1000kg (2200lb) min fuel for landing. Nowhere near 1000lb!

Somehow, I read 1000lbs in your linked post. Not considering the cooling requirement, that would still work with less reserve fuel. With cooling, 1000kg looks like a realistic number.

I’d be happy to see the weight reduction measures of the B result in 13500kg empty, as advertised by LMCO. And maybe the weight delta for the B over the A is not 1500kg, but only 1200kg, which would put the A at around 12300kg empty. Which I strongly doubt, since a Super Hornet E is already something like 13750kg empty, and I haven’t seen any technology on the F-35A that tells me it could save another 500kg over a (theoretical, land-based) Super Hornet E (assuming a 1000kg delta for carrier capability).

Weight difference has remained more or less constant at around 1400kg so thats probably going to remain.
The numbers pfcem posted show the delta beetween land and carrier based is 1500kg for the F-35. That explains your missing 500kg.

But let’s just assume they managed to reach 13500kg empty for the B: 2x GBU-32 at about 950kg, 2x AIM-120 at a little over 300kg, a pilot plus his stuff at around 120kg, a couple of dozens of chaff/flare, makes between 1400kg and 1500kg. Plus the 1000kg of min fuel bring the weight for a vertical landing to 16000kg, which translates into 500kg too much for a save vertical landing in a real-world environment.

18 tons of (static?) thrust should be able to lift 16 tons.

But it might be possible on a good Norwegian day. On a 35°C day over the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, coming in for landing on LHA-6, with the next friendly land base 500 miles away? Pucker-assed.

In that case, you can still jettison the bombs.

I would gladly admit that I was wrong with my original estimations! But: In case the B’s empty weight should remain at around 14500kg (or the A’s empty weight not fall to *at least* 12.300kg – which would relax my original estimation by 800kg) the B can, as said, bring back just a skinny pilot.

True. SWAT (or whatever that weight reduction stuff was called) was not initiated without a reason I guess.

Never! Utter spin on the part of LMCO.

Falsify this, if you can:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1306815&postcount=387

What’s the empty weight of the B? 14500kg. That is just enough for min fuel and a pilot!
In the above described configuration the plane could only hover JUST SO, but not climb. Meaning no ability to abort a landing.

I’ve got more pdfs. 😀
The Navy League briefing from April 2007 says bring back weight is 4940lbs which is enough for ~1000lbs of fuel.
The JSF Range & Airspace Requirements briefing says empty weight is 29,695 lbs which is around 2500 less than those 14.5 tons (as stated in earlier reports too). Guess thats the result of the weight saving.
Of course, it remains to be seen how accurate those numbers turn out. But obviously 14.5 tons empty weight and 180 kn vertical thrust would result in very poor and imho unacceptable STOVL performance.

So, what are the bring back loads for the F-35B and/or F-35C? I hear alot of speculation! As a matter of fact one poster claimed the whole weapons load would have to be jettisoned to land………….EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL!:mad:

The F-35 briefing for Norway (from January 15, 2008) gives 2 1000lbs JDAM plus 2 AIM-120 plus fuel reserves bring back load for a vertical landing.
With 550 feet take off distance, or 450 with ski-jump.

What about the F-20?
Sure, it did not enter service, but it was developped and ready to go.
It combines the proved flight characteristics of the F-5 with appropriate thrust.
Probably the only shortcomings are the suboptimal guns and limited cockpit visibility.

You have to mention also that the F-16 is very slow compared to Mig-23.
With is max speed of 1.6 Mach, with 2 AIM-9, it compares miserably with sparkling 2.35 Mach of MiG-23 carrying 2 large R-24.

Top speed with 2 AAMs and a centerline tanks is M 1.9.

The F-15A is cleared to 7.33G and its ultimate (breaking) G load is 11G. At more that 11G pull-out, it will break.

The newer F-15C is cleared to 9G and its ultimate is more than 13 G.

Those were the original figures. Nowadays, F-15s are restricted like the Tomcat was. Doesnt mean they can pull 9Gs in anger without braking. However, some Eagles do brake at 5Gs, others don’t at 30Gs.

Gripen NG shall have the internal fuel load that is almost equal to F-16, while its engine’s (F414 series) SFC is around 10-15% lower than the engines that F-16A/B/C/D use, which shall make Gripen NG have a very impressive combat radius and ferry range.

Actually it will carry more internal fuel (~3600kg) than your average F-16 (~3200kg).
So for its size, the Gripen NG will have truly impressive range figures.

It also has 4 heavy stations and 4 AAM/light stations like the F-16 giving it the option to carry heavy stores over meaningful distances (with external fuel). Looks very promising.