Because it IS designed like one, or rather OPTIMISED for the SAME role.

LOL

Actually…

The F-35 is designed like the F-22 AND for ALL the roles performed be ALL the various aircraft types it is intended to replace.

Oh, and of course being “optimized” for a particular flight regime DOES NOT prevent an aircraft for performing in another flight regime.

JSF starts with the USMC…

No it did not.

The F-35 starts with the accumulation of a USAF F-16 replacement program, a USN F/A-18 replacement program & a USMC/UK Harrier replacement program.

***

I desagree, XFV-14A had nothing to do with strike as far as i can remember weither A7 WAS the main US Carrier-born STRIKE programme, more to the point, its specs were a lot closer to F-35 than that of F-14.

You are confusing XFV-12A with F-14…

AGAIN: Primary architects (requiered specs and design) were USMC high rankers.

No they were not.

We know that, this is WHY they shares the original specs basic design for a STRIKE aircraft in replacement of the Harrier II+ including Operational ceiling.

There was NO requierements even from USAF for increased performances in order to make of it the “aerodynamic” equivalent of LWF this was foreseen as internal weapon baies mainly for A2G performances.

LOL

***

Note the mention to the increased sweep to 42* which is that of the F-22 reduced from the YF-22 48* (value for Rafale).

Note that a 42 degree sweep does not prevent the F-22 from CRUISING without afterburner at >Mach 1.5…

***

Requierements for JSF are those designed around the Harrier II+ Role and even its Operational ceilling; PLUS (USAF) Internal weapon bay and Supersonic DASH (To improve on Harrier’s Dash and L.O signature).

Nope.

F-16 requierements were for a LWF or to put it bluntly, PURE Air Superiority.

Nope. LIGHT WEIGHT FIGHTER requirements were for a light weight/inexpensive day-only fighter. The F-15 was the PURE Air Superiority.

If requierements weren’t leading to different designs and performances then a B1 sould be doing Air Supremacy.

:confused:

OBVIOUSLY even the USAF didn’t envisage Air superiority as a role when it comes to that, it only became so when it was time to a) justify the cost b) persuade customers it was worth the expense, expecialy those who aren’t going to use Typhoon in the Air superiority role.

OBVIOUSLY you are clueless as to what you are talking about. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the F-35, it origins, its purpose, et cetera

***

Considering their reespective requierements i think not.

They needed this strike aircraft…

No, they needed a less expensive (& less technologically sensitive) strike FIGHTER that would replace the F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, et cetera not only to provide the “low” for the USAF ‘high/low’ mix (the F-22 replacing the F-15 & providing the ‘high’ to the mix) but to be exported since the F-22 would not be (which INCLUDES being THE air-superiority fighter for non-USAF/USN customers).

This is where i always laugh…. Tell me again the advantages of hanging weapons under the wing of the F-35?

That fact that you can when you want to but that YOU DON’T HAVE TO…

Once you do that you may as well buy a Typhoon… DUH.

LOL

What people always forget is that the internal weapons bay of the F-35 is pityfully small…. 2 Large bombs and 2 small AAMs.

No, what FAR too many people fail to realize (or accept) is that “2 Large bombs and 2 small AAMs” is perfectly adequite for a modern light/medium fighter & in fact “2 Large bombs and 2-4 small AAMs” is a common loadout (obviously the number of AAMs vary depending on how many one feels the need for) these days. The days of needing 4+ bombs to take out one target are long gone.

Then of course you can replace those “2 Large bombs” with “8 small bombs” when you don’t need the devastation of 2,000 lb class munitions.

So again.. hanging weapons under the wings of the F-35 in order to turn it into a bomb truck does what?

Makes it a less expensive yet more capable bomb truck than the Typhoon…

…that can (if needed) become a VLO strike aircraft.

Damned right, they say; NO F135 isn’t designed for it…

The F-15, F-16, Typhoon, Rafale, et cetera weren’t designed to supercruise either YET THEY CAN. 😮

AND to the USAF/US DOD/LM supercruise means cruising at >Mach 1.5…

Here F-35 typical ceilings and Machs as you can see it’s predicted at M 0.90 and 30.000 ft with optimum ceiling/cruise about 35.000 ft…

LOL

No prediction, no ceilings. Just as simple graphic illustration of a mission profile.

He’s got a point (technicaly).

No he does not.

Is the Typhoon a waste of time?

It is now. 😉

OK not REALLY…

It wasn’t when it started, it simply took TOO long to get into service & technology has “passed it by”.

It is like an uber prop-driven fighter of 1946. While arguably better than any prop-driven fighter before it, there is something else just around the corner that is SO much better…

Nothing strange at work here: all three engines are modern jets that burn about the same amount of fuel/pound of thrust

F22 Internal Fuel ~18448 lbs
(2 x F119)
55000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0.7 lb/lb.hr~0.48~29 min
(55000×0.7=38500->18448/38500=0.48->0.48×60=29 min)

EF Typhoon internal fuel ~10990 lbs
(2 x EJ200 engine)
~27,000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0.7 lb/lb.hr~0.58~35 min

GRIPEN NG Internal fuel ~7100 lbs
(1xF414)
~15000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr~0.68~41 min

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html

Sorry, but the F-22’s internal fuel capacity is >20,000 lbs…

And a F-22 at military thrust is traveling ~50% FASTER than a Typhoon or Gripen NG at military thrust…

I think the USAF will be pleased to know this! 😀

F-22 factsheet.
Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

General Characteristics
Primary Function: Air dominance, multi-role fighter
Contractor: Lockheed-Martin, Boeing
Power Plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners and two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles.
Thrust: 35,000-pound class (each engine)
Wingspan: 44 feet, 6 inches (13.6 meters)
Length: 62 feet, 1 inch (18.9 meters)
Height: 16 feet, 8 inches (5.1 meters)
Weight: 43,340 pounds (19,700 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 83,500 pounds (38,000 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms); with 2 external wing fuel tanks: 26,000 pounds (11,900 kilograms)
Payload: Same as armament air-to-air or air-to-ground loadouts; with or without 2 external wing fuel tanks.
Speed: Mach 2 class with supercruise capability
Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with 2 external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)
Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)
Armament: One M61A2 20-millimeter cannon with 480 rounds, internal side weapon bays carriage of two AIM-9 infrared (heat seeking) air-to-air missiles and internal main weapon bays carriage of six AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles (air-to-air loadout) or two 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAMs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles (air-to-ground loadout)
Crew: One
Unit Cost: $142 million
Initial operating capability: December 2005
Inventory: Total force, 91

Point of Contact
Air Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 130 Andrews St., Suite 202; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or 757-764-5007; e-mail: [email]accpa.operations@langley.af.mil[/email]
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

WHY do to continue to insist on flooding the forum with crap?

And by the way, that is a hopelessly outdated/inaccurate (as in general/nonprecise) “approved for mass consumption” factsheet.

BUT even with that…

35,000-pound class MEANS >35,000 lbs
Mach 2 class MEANS >Mach 2
More than 1,850 miles MEANS >1,850 miles
Above 50,000 feet MEANS >50,000′

SAY YOU. Perhaps to hide the FACT that you don’t KNOW what DESAIGNED MACH LIMIT, supersonic DASH and M 1.5 means?

I am quite aware of what DESIGNED MACH LIMIT, supersonic DASH and M 1.5 means.

M 1.6 is NOT the KPP THRESHOLD as you imply but the DESIGNED Mach Limit.

On earth Mach 1.6 is a JSF KPP THRESHOLD.

The USAF ONLY came second into the programme which was initiated more than TWO years previously by USMC and RAF/RN.

FALSE: AGAIN; ONLY ADDING SUPERSONIC DASH ANDINTERNAL WEAPON BAIES.

Numbers doesn’t MEAN they wrote the specs in the first place and they didn’t, they just added Mid-Supersonic DASH and internal weapon baies to the already existing ones which included Operational ceilling similar to that of Harrier II+.

No. The JSF was the accumulation of a USAF F-16 replacement program, a USN F/A-18 replacement program AND a USMC/UK Harrier replacement program. ALL three programs had begun prior to accumulating into the JSF.

And this is NOT “FALSELY applying” it is programe and specification evolutions, primary role and specs didn’t CHANGE…

Yes it is.

The JSF was the accumulation of a USAF F-16 replacement program, a USN F/A-18 replacement program AND a USMC/UK Harrier replacement program. NOT the USAF & the USN joining the USMC/UK Harrier replacement program & accepting the USMC/UK Harrier replacement program specification/requirements as their own.

No “childish” games here simply my knowledge of the WHOLE of F-35 Politico-industrial history vs your cut-down internet version…:D

Quite the opposite as you CONTINUALLY prove.

The BAe Hawk 200?

LOL! In the strike role boy!!!

This doesn’t MEAN a LWF replacement, can YOU tell the difference between the TWO?

LOL.

Not JUST the strike role, ALL ROLES ALL AIRCRAFT IT WILL REPLACE PERFORM!

Which is the most imprecise way to fool newbies like yourself into thinking it was designed like one, obviously they perhaps need your $ to pay for the US part of the programme, not mine.

No, a simple way of describing what the JSF is EXPECTED to be.

And you skiped the STRIKE role part of the F-16/F/A-18 ‘like’ aero performance, it’s in A2G confiruration that the F-35 is optimised not A2A as were the LWF designed and Optimised.

No I did not.

HERE> OPTIMISED FOR AIR-TO-GROUND LETHALITY.

WITH AIR-TO-AIR LETHALITY SUPERIOR TO THE F-16 & F/A-18!

It is only when compared to the “in a league of its own” F-22 that the air-to-air lethality of the F-35 appears lacking.

Doesn’t look like LWF requiered specs to me.

As for what specs means, ask the guy responsible for those of LWF and FX (F-16 and F-15)…

BECAUSE THE JSF IS INTENDED TO BE SO MUCH MORE THAN THE LWF WAS!!!

Simple task. USING ACCURATE INFO (as opposed to the FALSE info the “fighter mafia” use to try & fool people into believing that the F-22 & F-35 are inferior to the F-15 & F-16).

Better yet, save yourself the trouble & just listen to those who have actually flown them & KNOW the actual relative performance rather than some ‘calculated’ prediction of performance.

Stop making a damned fool of yourself, it is quiet obvious that you are lacking SO MUCH elements on the programme that you hardly can comprehend its role and the meaning of the word OPTIMISED in the first place.

You are the one making a fool of yourself.

Aircraft performances are resulting from Requiered Specs and deisng features, not requiered numbers or the FACT that the original role of the aircraft they replaces have changed…

Requiered Specs and design features which are expressed in KPP THRESHOLDS & similar such MINIMUM goals/requiremnets, not MAXIMUMS.

Please dont bother me any longer with Wilkipedia’s stories, i got enough of Jane’s yearbooks at my disposal and TONS of docs on the subject including the programme requierement of the time (go dig them on the internet for a laugh)….

Meaning i can tell who knows about it and who does not, you DONT.

LOL

That is true, but I don’t think it was the true question here at all.

Yes it is. The FALSE statement was made that external tanks did not effect performance.

It’s more about how much is the performance degraded and if it is still sufficient or competitive from a performance (not RCS) point of view.

More so than if the amount of fuel needed to abtain the same range/combat radius was carried internally.

The main question raised here was how much does the AAMs degrade performance and in certain configurations for advanced designs the drag and even RCS penalty is almost (read not 100%) neglicable.

Actually I don’t think anyone has said that AAMs ALONE degrade performance all that much (unless of course we are talking about A LOT of AAMs)…

On the opposite site the airframe has to be more voluminous and feature all the support structure, hence being more draggy and heavier. Once the fuel is used up the aircraft still has the weight and drag penalty all the time, it’s like not being able to drop external fuel tanks when their fuel is used up, of course in a smaller scale.

Except the drag & weight for internal fuel isn’t nearly as significant as some have made it out to be. It takes comparatively little increase in size (frontal cross section, wetted area), & thus weight/drag, to “create” a rather significant increase in internal volume.

So basically both assessments a right from a certain point of view.

Sure but sufficient internal capacity is MORE right than HAVING to carry additional fuel externally.

That and the stronger optimation for strike missions means the F-35 is not a high performance aircraft like the F-22 or Eurofighter.

You need to listen to the comment being made by test pilots…

Nonetheless I think the F-35 will hold its own in AA due its combination of stealth, the argueabley most advanced avionics suite, most comprehensive sensor suite and SUFFICIENT performance etc.

SUFFICIENT performance as in as good or better than a CLEAN F-16 &/or F/A-18…

In the end it’s the balance of all factors which determine the effectiveness of the aircraft in certain areas, something most people forget about when philosophise about such things.

Agreed.

And in MOST areas, the F-35 enjoys at least SOME (if not a MAJOR) degree of superiority over ALL ‘comparable’ 4th generation ‘medium weight’ fighters.

The days of pure aero perfomance (such as top speed) being THE determining factor are LONG gone & even there the F-35 is NOT nearly as “bad” as some want you to believe.