I‘m NOT saying I want both aircraft in a simulated dogfight.
I am wondering how the F-35 compares to other aircraft without the stealth features?
*People claim the F-35 is a dog, but does it compare to a blk 60 in the bomb truck role?
*what can a dirty F-35 do that a f-16 or for that matter a Rafale cannot?
* if the F-35 with no stealth is a dog then wouldn’t that make F-18,f-16 and Rafale dogs also.

Even ‘dirty’ the F-35A is MUCH stealthier than any 4th/4.5 generation fighter with a comparable payload.

ALL ‘comparable’ light/medium weight 4th/4.5 generation fighters require 2-3 external tanks to achieve the combat radius/range of the F-35A with internal fuel.

The F-35 is NOT a dog. A COMBAT CONFIGURATION F-35A has similar accelleration & turning abilities as a CLEAN F-16C Block 50. Load up a Typhoon/Rafale/Fulcrum (whatever) with a comparable load as the F-35A carries internally & they are not as fast/quick/agile as they are clean…

Even without stealth the F-35A has superior avionics, situational awareness, et cetera…

***

Well, they all have a similar T/W & Wing Loading, so should be fairly similar,
except for Rafale that has a wing loading of 326 kg/m^2, as opposed to
446 kg/m^2.

EF 311 kg/m^2
Rafale 326 kg/m^2
Gripen 336 kg/m^2
F-15 358 kg/m^2
Su-27 371 kg/m^2
F-22 375 kg/m^2
F-4 phantom 383 kg/m^2
F-16C Block30 430 kg/m^2
F-35 446 kg/m^2

Boeing 747 727 kg/m^2

(Lower=better)

Not that nonsense again…

This is 2010, not 1910.

Btw i read a pilot claiming block 30 to be No 1 of the F-16’s fight wise, after that it was more and more diverted towards A2G.

Yes, most F-16 pilots which have had the opportunity to fly multiple Blocks are most likely to indicate that the pure flight performance of the Block 30 is the best. Block 50/42 & 50/52 do not offer much additional thust, ‘only’ additional weight & the Block 60 additional thrust basically just compensates for its additional weight with none offering greater lift or control authority.

I don’t get why all the fuss over this ‘diverted inlet’ stuff..is a fixed inlet for certain speeds, is not a magical solution that some guys think..

It mean the F-35’s inlets are not limiting its top speed to Mach 1.6 since its inlets are capable of Mach 2.

Now at which speed it is optimized? we don’t really know, we can go through a long discussion about this…is the experimental fixed inlet of the F-16 optimized for M2?, but bad for M1.5?, is the F-35 inlet optimized for M1.6?..but a disaster for M1.4-M2?? who knows…

I seriously doubt you are going to get that kind of information until after the F-35 has been in service for many years. At any rate DSI is not about any optimized speed but rather desired performance up to Mach 2.

Let’s remember that Boeing went with a variable inlet for the x-32, and Lockheed went with this diverted inlet thingy (a nice/cool name -so typical in the US industry- for a faired FIXED inlet optimized for certain speed) after their experiences with the magical plasma-coil-alien F22’s inlets….:D

No, the Boeing F-32 (if it had been selected) would have used a DSI inlet.

***

Ok , no problem, then the range could be M1.3 to m1.5 for the F-35..according with the requirements, with a max speed of M1.6, and for the F-16 was probably M1.7-M1.9 with max speed M2..

MINIMUM top speed of Mach 1.6 with a “full internal load”.

And by the way, the F-16 fitted with the F-35 represenative DSI inlet performed as well or better than with its original inlent…

The point is that having this inlet means nothing.

Again, it means the F-35’s inlets are not limiting its top speed to Mach 1.6 since its inlets are capable of Mach 2.

***

Is still limited, because to achieve higher ranges of speed you need a different shape, so is your choice

Yes, the inlet is limited to ~Mach 2.0 – well above the MINIMUM top speed (with an “full internal load”) requirement of the F-35.

1) dissemble the ‘DSI’ stuffing another ‘DSI’ with different shape

2) Install variable inlet

Wrong, DSI is good for ~Mach 2.0.

Let’s put it clearer since you are trying to sneak into arguments to believe your fairy tales

And engine that is not producing significantly more thrust after M1.3 will produce thrust to M1.5 with a special designed inlet for the M1.3-1.5 ranges (which is the DSI thingie)

The F-35 might be designed for these parameters, while other planes ‘DSI’s could be designed for other parameters.

You are the one trying to sneak into arguments to believe your fairy tales. But no matter how you or anyone else trys to spin it the F-35’s inlets do not limit its top speed to Mach 1.6.

M1.6 is the design goal, but it’s interesting how powerful of a force wishful thinking is 😀

No, Mach 1.6 is a program MINIMUM requirement.

***

Show me where M1.6 is KPP. (pfcem’s shouting don’t count)

You have already seen it…

IIRC ATF didn’t have any KPP max speed, but did have KPP on maintanence, which it failed. (MTBM =/>3 h) It did however make it past SC KPP of M1.5.

The F-22 is in fact well on its way to meeting its MTBM KPP but is still many total fleet flight hours away from the point at which it is to be achieved.

***

The official statements about the F-35 top speed has been very consistent and quite clear. This is from what I think is the latest official presentation from 2008.

http://www.florida-edc.org/Roundtable/MGen%20Davis%20F-35%20Sept08.pdf

Exactly. KPP (aka MINIMUM requirement). ‘Range’ there is in fact the KPP for COMBAT RADIUS.

***

No, it may well be that the designers are so confident it won’t make it past M1.6 so they state it as Limit these days.

Quite the opposite, It is a MINIMUM requirement (a LOWER LIMIT, not an upper limit – setting an upper limit rather than a lower limit is absurd) that the designers know full well they designed the F-35 to exceed.

But most papers i’ve read state it as a design goal, and while i do believe they can come close, i rather see some actual top speed test before i conclude speed limitation, be it more, or less, or precisely M1.6.

A MINIMUM ‘design goal’, not a MAXIMUM ‘design goal’ – it MUST meet or exceed Mach 1.6 “with a full internal load”.

Another issue is the fact that USAF didn’t get more then a handful F-22, so they will find themself surrounded by a world with faster jets then they got themself,
So it is highly likely to see an upgrade in near future, or an all out improved/redesigned frame/engine.

Load up any ‘comparable’ light/medium-weight 4th (or 4.5) generation fighter with the 2 AMRAMM + 2 ‘2000 lb’ JDAM + enough fuel for a comparable combat radius (it will take 2-3 external tanks) as the F-35A has on internal fuel & they are not nearly as fast as you want to believe.

If what you are proposing were at all true, the USAF would not be waiting, it would be calling for the ‘necessary’ design change NOW.

***

So in the next year IF the F-35 flies more than Mach 1.6 will you be willing to openly apologize in a new thread, and make it as asinine, contrived, and pointless as your counter point. I’m sorry to tell you but your points sound extremely forced. You didn’t have to try so hard to sound intelligent. No ones here is knocking your intelligence but your common sense.
BTW I want kissy lips in my apology thread. I don’t have to spell it out for you you know what they are for.

No, he & all the other naysayers will continue to diss it as not fast enough.

***

they have relesed the test flight of the early f-35 that exceeded the 1.6 to 1.67, although it wasnt claimed as that was as fast as it could go, just to keep the fanboys guessing

Not a flight test. Calculated/projected/simulated. A 240-4 (aka 29,036 lbs OEW; aka ‘nearly 3,000 lbs over weight’; aka AA-1) in COMBAT CONFIGURATION.

Reheat on a seperate scale?
AB1, AB2, AB3…..?

That is correct.

Reheat is generally modulated from min to max (that means infinately variable) and operated through the throttle quadrant. There are some engines fitted with PTR (part throttle reheat) but those are for specific applications If you wish to discuss fixed or finite position reheat then you’re better off in the Historic forum. Try the Swift or the early Lightnings. They had two and four position reheat.

No, reheat/afterburner is generally modulated/applied in stages (IIR the F100 on F-15s & F-16s for example have a 6 stage afterburner). Even in YOUR example of the Swift or the early Lightnings.

Please try and acquaint yourself with the basic workings of equipment when you wish to dazzle everyone with your knowledge.

It is YOU who should try & acquaint yourself with the basics. I am not trying to dazzle anyone with anything, mearly posting the facts. And no matter how you (or anyone else) tries to spin it the FACT is that when you see a % throttle, 0% is idle & 100% is max dry/military thrust NOT as some have tried to pass of as 0% being engine off & 100% being max wet/afterburning.

IRST worthless?

Worthless, no. But not THE answer to countering even current stealth tech either.

I’m torn between both. It does look like it twists from a horizontal position.

As I am but I posted recently I am now leaning more (~75%) towards horizontal (where as I used to be leaning >75% towards vertical).

***

In all the photos posted there doesnt appear enough room for horizontal stowage, nor does there appear any “cutouts” for it to sit in.

The main gear does rotate as shown in the vedio clip but its only turning enough to fit snugly against the intake wall. 20degrees or something like that.

Actually if you watch the ENTIRE gear sequence you should note that the MLG arms/legs stoe up horizontally. It does not look as though there is enough vertical space ABOVE for the wheels to be anywhere near horizontal at that point.

***

5 seconds earlier the gear doors are closed….. :confused:

That is right. Then you see the ENTIRE gear sequence, including the MLG arms/legs stoe up horizontally & the relative length of time before the wheels ‘appear’.

.5 seconds earlier the first glimpse of the wheel appears – straight down out of the well.

Yes but much happens BEFORE that moment…

There is some degree of rotation – but as slipperysam says – just enough to tuck the wheel into the vertical stowage position tight against the wall.

Except THAT would cause the wheels to stick out WIDER. 😉

If it does stow horizontally, the wheel must rotate about the axle in the last few degrees of arc – and if it does that – why the HUGE cutout ???

Actually in the video there is a considerable amount of time which passes before the wheels appear & the MLG arms/legs begin to move.

It looks as though the cutout is for the MLG arms/legs, I agree ther certainly to appear to be significantly bigger than necessary BUT if you not the stoed position of the MLG arms/legs they would not need to be that big for the wheels either & there does not appear (to me) to be the vertical space ABOVE for the wheeels at anywhere near horizontal.

I just cannot believe (or see) why the designers made such a massive cutout in the vertical wall out the outer nacelle – and a corresponding bulge inside the nacelle – if not to accomodate the wheel stowed vertically.

I also find it amazing how two observers – seeing the same thing – can come to two totally different conclusions.

No criticism of you intended – so lets just agree to differ…..

Ken

You are too caught up on the cutouts & it is ‘clouding’ your vision of other things.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. A non-US operator will need to budget for support equipment, sims, and other facilities separately because those costs are not factored into a URF. These additional costs required to field and operate the aircraft will be considerable.

Any/all operators of any/all combat aircraft…

***

The 140m is a generous number.

No it isn’t. It is the average total flyaway for the 60 Lot 7-9 F-22s.

But say you get a commitment to build 100 more planes (and if the production line wasn’t shut down,) you could conceivably negotiate a significant price reduction.

Not could conceivably negotiate, would GET.

But that’s not going to happen unless something drastic occurs.

You mean like a fiscally conservative & pro-defence administration (& Congress) in 2012…

Reopening the production line would most likely increase the AUPC.

According to RAND (take it or leave it as at all accurate), an additional 75 F-22s (between 2012 & 2016 after production stut down & restart) would have an average total flyaway cost of $179 million (FY2008 dollars).

***

Maybe (btw the ~140m is the 2007 URF based on a 20 unit buy.)

No it isn’t. It is the average total flyaway for the 60 Lot 7-9 F-22s.

***

and there is the whole problem and one of the main reasons why it was canceled, it wasnt designed for spiral development

No, production was stopped at 187 because John Young had a personal vendetta vs the program for not hiring him & Gates is an idiot who ignored everyone except Young.