Please go back and read the original starting point of this discussion before lumbering in with your unnecessary observations.
Yes the F35 has both internal and external pylons, the point is that to get anywhere a decent load on the F35 you have to use the externals. Using the externals negates the passive stealth to a degree, the same passive stealth that supposedly gives the F35 such advantages over other platforms…at the same time the externals don’t give as much flexability as the other platforms already provide.
Thus in conclusion you spend a chunk more cash to get a platform that doesn’t give you the flexability or the ability (in terms of munition type and carriage) of cheaper platforms.
Clear now?
Wrong. The F-35 carries a decent load internally. Two ‘2000 lb’ guided munitions are commonplace these days for all western fighters (four ‘1000 lb’ guided munitions or six ‘500 lb’ guided munitions are also common for which the F-35 has eight ‘250 lb’ SDB) & of course with the F-35’s MUCH lower detectability, it does not need 6 AAMs to self escort. It is the F-35 which gives you the greater flexibility. It already carries the most common weapons load plus enough fuel internally & with VLO. Of course when you don’t need VLO or you need a greater payload (weapons &/or fuel) the F-35 can carry additional payload (weapons &/or fuel) externally & while not as stealthy as in its all internal payload configuration, still stealthier than any 4th/4.5 generation fighter carrying an equivalent load.
***
Sure, but you don’t or shouldn’t need 1,000’s of airframes to do that.
A decent number of high end, expensive platforms do that job (…or less expensive unmanned platforms…;)). After which the less expensive but less specialised and more flexible platforms take over.
But the F-35 gives you both. The high capability (survivability) in a less expensive, less specialised & more flexible platform. 🙂
***
I agree with what you say above, however a poster was stating that the F-35 was an all-aspect stealth aircraft. While the aircraft does have VLO design features affecting all aspects, the design is optimized for the frontal aspect. The military and industry does not consider the F-35 class as an all-aspect stealth aircraft vis a vis the F-22.
All stealth aircraft are optimized for the greatest frontal aspect stealth!
The military & industry do consider the F-35 class as an all-aspect stealth aircraft just like the F-22 (just not as stealthy).
***
LM marketing does seldom make any sense, such as saying that supercruising is only over Mach 1.5, but I did actually mention the possibility of a total of two SDB on the AtA stations.
Supercruise being >Mach 1.5 is not LM marketing, it is US DOD definition!
Consider why the small doors should be more complex than the big ones, maybe because they are designed for supersonic launch? Doing the same thing with the big doors could cost weight when so much effort has been made to cut weight.
Where do you get the nonsense that the ‘small doors’ are more complex than the ‘big ones’? Appearantly you have not ever even bothered to look at either.
Perhaps you would care to try & explain how it is that AtG weapons can be launched from the F-22 at Mach 1.5 (or more) but not from the F-35.
***
It is not me who is twisting any words, I just read what LM says and what they do not say. They do not say all weapons and they do not say from all internal stations.
Saying weapons does not mean every subset of that word, which would be clear for anyone who wants to understand. If you want to believe that, it is up to you, but why not email LM an ask them to clarify.
Yes you are twisting words.
How about you email LM an ask them to clarify since you are the one so confused by such plain language?
Note the errors in the FY2011 budget. 🙂
Pay particular note to Flyaway Unit Cost – that is the closest representation on these pages as to the actual cost of the F-35 (the part LM is responsible for).
so, basically, what you’re saying is: it’s tealthy because it carries everything internally… and when someone points the “LO nature of eurocanard designs, you come back running to show a pic with plenty of stores underneath it, pointing how “unstealthy” it is, and now, you say the F-35 will carry stuff externally but it doesn’t matter?
did you ever hear the word “consistency” mate? 😀
Not what I am saying at all.
Note that I have been quite vocal about how the eurocanards’ reduced frontal RCS is one of if not the greatest advantage they have over earlier 4th generation fighters.
***
Expect the F35 can’t carry the same payload, internally, externally or believe it or not in your dreams. Four pylons isn’t it?
And remember that ‘comparable’ 4th/4.5 generation fighters need 2 (or 3) external tanks to achieve the same combat radius as the F-35A has with internal fuel alone – plus the F-35 has EOTS integrated into the airframe as well…
As for the stealth thing; it is far far too simplistic and to borrow from your favourite mantra intellectually dis-honest to critisise one platform for being LO and carrying weapons externally yet claim that weapons carried externally for your favourite wet dream have an irrelevant effect on the signature.
If your critisism of the first is largely based on the external carry then you cannot dismiss so easily the same external carry for the F35. Unless you are not being intellectually honest that is :rolleyes:
Not even close to what I have said. Are you even capable of not misrepresenting my position?
Pray tell which other magical advantages the F35 has, gosh is it going to be sensor fusion…it isn’t going to be performance is it…:rolleyes:
Do you really, truly think that “sensor fusion” isn’t something that other platforms also have or can be upgraded with…dear oh dear…
No other platform comes close to the F-35’s “sensor fusion”. And you know full well the F-35’s other advantages.
***
F-35-
internal carriage- ~5500lbs
external carriage ~15000lbs(and the F-35 doesn’t have to waste pylons for things like targeting or ECM pods)
Fair point. In terms of weight it can carry more the the Typhoon, a total of 8,164kg counting both internal (1,360kg) and external load (6,804kg). The Typhoon carrying around 7,500kg. The Rafale carries 9,500kg. The Su35 8,000kg. The F18E/F 8,051kg.
To be more specific, the 4 internal stations are rated for a total of 5,700 lbs (2585.5kg) & the 7 external stations are rated for a total of 16,600 lbs (7529.7kg) for a combined total of 22,300 lbs (10,115.2kg). Not that you will ever see any (much less all) stations maxed out.
***
when comparing to the rafale, it doesn’t “waste” pylons neither…
The Rafale still requires 2-3 external fuel tanks (note that can include CFTs when they become operationl) to achieve similar combat radius as the F-35A with just internal fuel alone.
***
And this is based on what? Your wishful thinking? According offical data the F-35A has a range of just 2222 km on internal fuel, while the Typhoon has a range of 2600 km on internal fuel. While I think it’s reasonable to assume that the F-35s range actually exceeds 3000 km, your claim definitely doesn’t hold water, nor can you back it up.
Range of the A model F35 on internal fuel is quoted as 2,222km, C is 2,593, B is 1,667.
The ‘range’ numbers you see for the F-35 are complete crap. Possibly deliberately so. Anyone who knows jack about aircraft range/combat radius knows that a fighter with a strike mission combat radius of 625nm has a ‘range’ significantly greater than 1200nm.
***
Check the empty weight of the various aircraft and admire the difference 🙂
– Typhoon : 11.000kg
– F-35 : 13.300kg (A) , 14.500kg (B) and 15.800kg (C) .
– F-18E/F : 15.000kg
– Rafale : 10.200kg for the heaviest (Navy M)
F-35A: 26,664 lbs (12,094.7kg)
F-35B: 29,695 lbs (13,469.6kg)
F-35C: 29,996 lbs (13,606.1kg)
***
LOL…
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/technik-daten.htm
Weapon loadouts…
http://www.eurofighter.com/et_sr_mc_sw.asp
Yes. Funny how none of those links back up your claim.
***
All the F-35 fans (Americans or not) can say whatever they want , the LM fighter has a lot to desire .
Yes the is a lot to desire about the F-35. That is why so many air forces desire it.
Its aerodynamics are wrong and only its engine saves it from being below average .
On the contrary. Its aerodynamics are quite good especially when you consider just how much capacity & capability is packaged into such a relatively small airframe.
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 .
Its users will know its limits well before they even take delivery of their 1st aircraft.
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 .
It is going to do more than fine even when flying with external stores.
But it is not the best multirole aircraft , far from it .
Quite the opposite.
Sure it has its stealth (when clean) and top notch electronics but if the adversary is equipped with good optics , good optronics and good IR seekers coupled to a good fire control system (FCS) , the thing will be in a hell of trouble because (read my lips Gents) : it is slow and it can ‘t escape or run away and its IR signature is awful .
No, it has stealth when clean & with external stores. Sure it is stealthier clean than with external stores but even with external stores it is stealthier than 4th/4.5 generation fighters with similar payload.
No, it is not slow, not only can it escape but is can do even better & avoid detection (BOTH radar & IR) much better than 4th/4.5 generation fighters.
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 .
You clearly have absolutely know clue.
A Typhoon (or a Rafale) might not have such problem 😀
A Tythoon or Rafale are going to have problems well before the F-35.
Sign In
