Now, as far as the Raptor goes, all I have to say is…it could have been even more capable…I’ve got a book from ’84 with some 20 pages full of ATF design proposals and you should have seen those. You can’t tell which is more creative or revolutionary and in the end US chooses the 1970s layout…bah…

Finally, don’t compare F22’s layout with Eurocanards, as those are two different designs and although F-22 is a high performer, it has limits which can’t be overcome.

Cheers, Cola

The F-22’s physical (not the artificially/operationally impossed) ‘limits’ are higher than the Eurocanards.

I didn’t mean it is as aerodynamically efficient, but it’s TVC makes it as agile.

No, TVC simply extends the flight envelope (most particularly post-stall). The F-22 is plenty agile even when not utilizing its TVC capability.

GE fought an uphill battle on the F-16, and arguably had the better engine. Eventually they got a portion of the program.

No it didn’t. With the Alternative Engine Program, P&W & GE were put on ‘equal footing’.

And arguable amoung the IPE engines the F100-PW-229 is ‘better’ than the F110-GE-129. 😉

The PW engines on the F-14 sucked, the GE powered D model blew them out of the water.

Do you even realize that you are comparing engines that are more than a decade apart?

The TF30 was not intended to be a true fighter engine (was not designed for the rigorous flight conditions 4th generation fighters were designed for) & was only utilized because there was nothing else available that was even close when the intended engine for the F-14 was cancelled.

In the commercial world, the CF-6-80C series has about half the IFSD rate of the PW4000, and has won more orders. The CFM56, of which GE owns 50%, is the industry leading engine in it’s class, and has been for years. The crappy V2500 can’t even compete. The GEnx is coming soon, and will have industry best fuel consumption, PW doesn’t even have a competitor on the drawing boards.

Is it any wonder why PW doesn’t want to compete with GE?

P&W competes quite well in the commercial market.

Next-generation P&W engine: PW1000G

How does a test engine making two thousand pounds less thrust equate into the program not exceeding expectations. Just because the first supersonic flight did not exceed M1.2 does not mean that it’s performance does not meet expectations why just a test engine making 2K less than the production version of the engine be some sort of shortfall?

Again, whete are you getting that any test engine making 2,000 lbs less thrust?

Believe me if that were true it would be huge news that the anti- crowd would be posting over & over & over again to ‘prove’ the F-35/F135 is a POS.

You are all reading far too much into this.

No you are. There is no indicatiion that any test engine made ‘only’ 41,000 lbs of thrust. OTOH there is big positive news that the F135-600 exceeding expectations & demonstrated 41,100 lbs of hover thrust in recent tests.

***

Well you miss-interpreted again! top speed/endurance is not relevant in this issue.

Why does F-22 need 45% more thrust to reach same speed as F-15 ?

I’m not arguing the value of M2.4 vs M2.5, it’s irrelevant in any case. I’m arguing
why F-22 need 45% more thrust to reach same top speed as F-15 while consisting of much more composites and a brand new engine ?

And my conclusion is that F-15 is more aerodynamic.

Again, the thrust & aerodynamics of the F-22 are capable of well over Mach 2.5.

Also note that the ‘Mach 2.42’ figure out there comes from comments by test pilot Paul Metz stating that the top speed of the F-22 is greater than 1600 mph. Do you not understand what greater than means?

***

Max speed has nothing to do with installed thrust at first.

Absolutely false.

Without thrust your speed is zero.

But there are many factors that contribute to speed besides thrust…

Then there is something seriously wrong in the layout with F-35A, -simply cause F-15 has both longer range AND far higher speed, while at the same time having less fuel.
How is that even possible ??!!

You wish.

***

Yeah.. pretty amazing statements with only two percent of flight testing on the books and fatigue testing not to be completed for months ( read- a limited flight test envelope until that is figured out)

BTW… we are supposed to have 317 flight tests in fiscal year 2009. There are only 4 months left in the FY. There are supposed to be 1243 test flights in FY 2010. What do you think the chances of meeting the flight test schedule for FY 2009 and FY 2010 are? If you answered “slim”, you are a winner.

The Marines thinking that they will see IOC in 2012 is nothing more than the product of a crack pipe induced stupor.

Yeah right, & nobody had any ideat of the flight performance of any previous aircraft prior to completion of the flight test program…

***

This claim is wrong since it greatly depends on what the load actually is. Is it just two AIM-9Xs and two AIM-120s or is it a long range setup with three wet bags under the Viper?

Nope. A clean/empty F-35A beats a clean F-16 & a F-35A beats a F-16 no matter what equal payload they carry.

Besides that, taking absolute amounts of fuel for comparison is erroneous, as well since F-35 has greatly different fuel consumption (in plain simple language so that simple people like you can understand – it needs more fuel to do the same as F-16). I hope that was simple enough even for you.

I never said that a F-16 needed the same amount of fuel as a F-35…

This claim is not correct because you forgot to add that F-35A has 55-84% more empty weight than F-16 so it utterly needs the mentioned thrust increment to be able to perform like an F-16, at all. That is what I have already pointed out. But, F-35 still has the drag penalty due to large cross section – and this penalty cannot be jettisoned like the draggy wet bags can be when required.

F-16 Block 50
empty weight: 19,200 lbs
engine: F110-GE-129; 17,700 lbs dry & 29,500 lbs with afterburning

F-16 Block 52
empty weight: 18,335 lbs
engine: F100-PW-229; 17,000 lbs dry & 29,100 lbs with afterburning

The F-35A
empty weight: 26,664 lbs
engine: F135-PW-100; 28,000 lbs dry & 43,000 lbs with afterburning

…

F-35A vs F-16 Block 50
empty weight: +38.9%
thrust: +58.2% dry & +45.8% afterburning

F-35A vs F-16 Block 52
empty weight: +45.4%
thrust: +64.7% dry & +47.8% afterburning

I think the only one blind here is you. The F-35 is better than F-16, noone denies that. DUe to stealth and avionics. But it does not have better flying characteristics, in fact they are worse. Live with it.

Wrong. It is part of the design goals of the JSF to do as well or better than both the F-16C & F/A-18C in aerodynamic performance. And all indications are that the F-35 is exceeding design goals & expectations.

..yawn.. more empty rhetoric. Refer to LM marketing dept, they got tons of cheap slogans like that.

I know the truth hurts.

Yes, it has 45% more dry static thrust and 47-48% more afterburning thrust. At the same time it has 55-84% more weight depending on version. In either case the F-35 comes out worse so what exactly is your point?

Empty weight figures: 29,300 lb of F-35A, 32,000 lb of F-35B, 34,800 lb of F-35C vs 18,900 lb for F-16C
Thrust figures: F135 111 kN dry thrust, around 190 kN afterburning thrust, F110 76 kN dry thrust, 129 kN afterburning thrust

Try using correct data.

As I have posted many times, the 2007 program review gave the post-weight reduction figures…

F-35A
26,664 lbs empty weight
18,307 lbs internal fuel capacity

F-35B
29,695 lbs empty weight
13,400 lbs internal fuel capacity

F-35C
29,996 lbs empty weight
19,145 lbs internal fuel capacity

***

Scooter, what do you think of Beesley saying the F-35 only has 41,000 lbs of thrust?

Likely just mixing the 41,100 lbs hover thrust of the F-35B with the 43,000 lbs ‘normal flight’ dry thrust.

***

If you say so…

Range
F-35A 1,200 nm (2,220 km), F-35B 900 nm (1,670 km), F-35C 1,400 nm (2,520 km) on internal fuel

F-15A – 2,503 nm (4,631 km) with three 600 gallon EFTs
F-15C – 3,105 nm (5,745 km) with three 600 gallon EFTs and two 849 gallon FAST packs
F-15E – 2,400 nm (4,445 km) with EFTs and FAST packs,

Combat radius:
F-35A 610 nm (1,110 km), F-35B 500 nm (910 km). F-35C 640 nm (1,150 km) on internal fuel

F-15C 810 nm (1,498 km) with EFTs, no FAST
F-15E 1,000 nm (1,853 km)

Fuel:
F-35A 8,382 kg; F-35B 6,352 kg; F-35C 9,110 kg

Internal:
F-15A 5,260 kg; F-15C 6,103 kg, F-15E 5,952 kg
External:
F-15A 5,395 kg; F-15C 4,423 kg+FAST, F-15E 9,818 kg (incl. FAST)

Are you guys doing that deliberately? Whatever claim you let out about F-35, it is all wrong… Are you lying on purpose or should I believe you just cannot read properly?

The F-35 has a combat radius of >600nm (remember that the 590nm for the F-35A is just the KPP THRESHOLD & not what it can actually do & is for a typical strike mission, not AtA). Range is typically 3 times a given combat radius.

A F-35A with internal fuel has greater combat radius/range than a F-15C with internal fuel.

In other words, you are telling us that Raptor’s SC speed of over M1.7 is useless, do I get it right?

No because the F-22 was designed to (& can) sustain that high Mach for extended periods of time without the use of afterburner.

***

I hope you realize its getting increasingly difficult to take your word about anything, right?

AGAIN (third time is the charm :D): F15 (~22,000kg thrust) > Mach 2.5
F22 (~26,000kg thrust) > Mach 1.72
F22 (~32,000kg thrust) > Mach 2.42

assumption :confused:

OK that is about enough of that nonsese.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about &/or what the numbers you are referring to are.

First & formost to correct the numbers…

Only a fresh off the factory floor & at only under perfect conditions could a F-15C reach Mach 2.5 in level flight.

A combat loaded F-22 can verifiably & repeatedly sustain Mach 1.78 for extended periods of time without afterburner (& F-22 pilots indicate that they have obtained even higher speeds). And Mach 2.42 top speed for the F-22 is purely an arbitrary number. If one did not care about protocal (or pissing of his aircraft’s crew chief) the F-22 has plenty of thrust & aerodynamics to exceed that number by a significant margin.

***

I wholeheartedly agree. I think the biggest flub he has made up to date was when he compared F-35’s agility to that of the clean F-16 Block50. He in fact meant F-18E Block 5.. 😎

Those pesky details… :p

No he meant F-16 Block 50. Which is what two of the F-35 flight test program chase aircraft are (one in fact has an uprated ‘32,000 lbs class’ engine – although I do not personnaly KNOW if it be a modified F110-GE-129 or a prototype F110-GE-232). There is no such thing as a F-18E Block 5. The F/A-18E/F Block II is the latest & current production varient.

***

You obviously don’t have a faintest idea of what are you talking about. Engine technology, aerodynamics, sensors…all those areas are clearly a mystery to you.

You obviously don’t have a faintest idea of what are you talking about.

Engine technology, aerodynamics, sensors…all those areas are clearly a mystery to you.

I mean, I really admire your conviction in F-35’s program success (don’t get me wrong, I hope for it to succeed too) and you are obviously one of the F35’s hardcore fanboys, but maintaining your present course and “blindly” keeping to the facts that doesn’t hold water, is in fact counter productive.

People who know better do not admire your continued misleading &/or inaccurate nonfacts.

Do you really think that Norway (or any other country) will buy F35, just because you go around forum(s?) and talk nonsense (I’m being VERY polite now)??? Wake up.

No Norway & other countries will but the F-35 because they have seen the true facts about just how good the F-35 is.

THE ONLY WAY for the F35 to get rid of its problems is if those problems get recognized and then solved in the most efficient manner, even if that means going back to the drawing board. So far LM didn’t do a good job and you obviously can’t (OR WON’T) see it. There’s so much arguments in favor of that, that citing them is pointless.

What problem are you alking about?

So, you should really question your approach to other people’s (valid) arguments, or some day, when enough people get sick of you, you’ll remain all alone and no one will even bother to reply to your posts.

What valid arguments?

I don’t know. Frankly, his stance about the F-35 is very defensive which is suspicious for a man who should be so persuaded about superior A-A capabilities of the F-35.

The main argument for his reasoning is the idea that hanging missiles under the wing creates additional drag and weight which is not calculated in the original TWR figures quoted in the first minute of the video. OK, point taken. Now the question is how much drag can a pair of AMRAAMs on pylons create. I mean, the thing is streamlined, aerodynamically designed to fly at about M4.0 so what kind of draggy structure are we talking about?

My impression from all this circus is that F-35 came out pretty lame in A-A but in certain regimes it is better than a fully loaded F-16 in godonlyknowswhat configuration with three wet bags (nothing really strange with that) so PR dept has decided to use this as an argument and told Beesley to spread this information without any closer details.

BTW, Mr. Beesley looks like a nice guy, I’d love to hear what he has to say about the F-35 after few bottles of whisky. 😉

LOL

Just trying to put into simple plain language so that people like you can (& more importantly the people you have fallen pray to the disinformation of people like you) that the F-35 is in fact MUCH better that what some have made it out to be. They did the same with the F-22 & it has proven them so wrong it isn’t even funny.

Load a F-35A & a F-16 with a similar load (weapons & fuel) & the F-35 has superior T/W ratio & aerodynamics. The F-35A has >50% greater wing area & its design is such that in most all flight conditions the actual total lift generated by the F-35A is even greater than that (I would take a wild but educated guess to say that it is over 75% greater) and don’t forget that the F-35A has basically the same amount of dry/non-afterburning thrust as a Block 50/52 F-16 does wet/afterburner. It may be more realistic when making lift/load/thrust comparision to compare the F-35A to the F-15C than the F-16.

My impression of people like you is that so blinded are you of your love of your 4th generation fighter(s) that you simply can’t/won’t see that something that much better is actually out there & are doing all you can to fool others into your backwards line of thinking.

Wake up & join the 21st century. 5th generation fighters make 4th generation fighters every bit as ‘obsolete’ as 4th generation fights did to 3rd generation fighters.

***

TWR ratio of a Viper is better than the one of the combat loaded (ergo externally clean) F-35. If you would only fill the F-35 with the amount of fuel for F-16, the TWR could be a bit more equal but frontal cross section of the F-35 is much larger which still means more drag. There is nothing substantial in the claim that F-35 should accelerate better than a Viper..

In this video Beesley does not say anything about a *clean* F-16, in fact he talks about hanging missiles on the airplanes which clearly contradicts that claim..

Sorry but ‘combat loaded’ does not necessarily mean with a full 18,000+ of internal fuel…

And again, the F-35A has the basically the same amount of dry/non-afterburning thrust as a Block 50/52 F-16 does wet/afterburner.

***

EELightning, let us all know if/when you return to reality.

***

Cause it can guzzle fuel from two engines, like F-22 btw…

And the F-35A (smaller & lighter than the Eagle) has about the same dry/non-afterburning & wet/afterburner thrust as the F-15C…

“20/20” vision is not a range it is ‘picture/vision clarity’.

I remember seeling program brief demonstrating the ‘clarity’ difference vs previous systems & it is quite significant.

Yes, that’s precisely why I asked. Glad to see there are still some ppl with common sense here 😉
It is really funny to see how people, even head of the states, find comfort in advertisment provided by certain manufacturers and “feel safe, knowing the latest gen aircraft are protecting them” 😀
It really isn’t that important what exactly those planes can do as long as they’re latest gen.

It would be funny, if it wasn’t tragic.

Cheers guys, Cola

Quite the opposite.

It is “what exactly those planes can do”, by the nature of its “generation” characteristics which is what defines its “generation”.