pfcemI might be mistaken here, but the earlier weight figures given were all noticeabley lower than 13 t. So if this was the projected weight I question why a weight reduction was seen to be necessary and where the lower figures earlier stated did come from. Ok so far it has been said that the over weight was affecting the B model not the other ones. It looks like they have adjusted the weight afterwards and then “matched” the projected weight. Feel free to correct me on that.
Yes the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION weight was more of an issue for the F-35B than the F-35A & F-35C. AKA the F-35A & F-35C probable could have STILL meant their performance requirements at PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION weight but the F-35B could not.
They used same procedures used to obtain the POST-WEIGHT REDUCTION weights to determine the projected weight of AA-1. When AA-1 was completed it came in VERY close (as in within 0.5%) to projected weight. Even if the error is DOUBLE that of AA-1, we are still only talking about 1% error with the F-35A STILL being less than 27,000 lbs…
It does yes. Though ~M 0.4 for 3 tanks is not bad if you ask me and that is still a quite high speed for 3 tanks.
The point is that external tanks DO negatively effect performance.
But you can’t have all of that at the same time and there is the limitation, which shouldn’t be forgotten. In the end every solution is a compromise with pros/cons and you have to take into account the requirements and weight those different factors against each other.
Yes.
Just keep this in mind…If a F-35A takes off with say 18,000 lbs of fuel & burns 10,000 lbs of fuel reaching weapons release, then it does so with the rough (weight) equivalent of having emptied & dropped two 480 gal & one 330 gal external tanks (such as an F-16 would) BUT still has 8,000 lbs of INTERNAL fuel & at NO time was it hampered with the excess drag of those external tanks…nor were any weapons pylons unusable for weapons.
pfcemDefinition of CLEAN again?
Just to be clear here. Conformal missiles (wingtip or fuselage) installed is typically STILL considerd “clean”.
A “laymen” ‘definition’ would be nothing HANGING from the aircraft. As in NO PYLONS.
pfcemDropping EFT is not as common as you think, it’s valid only in tactical emmergency. What if you want to fight the following day, and you have another emmergency?
EXACTYLY!
And yes, I know that Flanker usual fuel load is 1/2 of max.
That is the GREAT part of having a large internal fuel capacity. YOU DON”T HAVE TO TAKE OFF WITH A FULL LOAD OF FUEL. But when you DO need all that fuel you don’t HAVE to ‘dirty’ up your aircraft with inefficient external tanks. With less than a full load of fuel the Flanker has AWESOME agility DESPITE its size & weight. The same will prove to be the case for the F-35…
pfcemFine and now we wait and see how much an operationally configured F-35 will weight in reality when development is finished.
AA-1 came within ~100 lbs (may have been ~125 lbs – the point is that it was VERY close) of its projected weight.
M 1.6 is the cleared speed, it might go even faster and max. speed without drop tanks is M 2.0 (limited by intake arrangement and structure/material).
So external tanks drop its top speed SIGNIFICANTLY…
We will see in the future.
Yes we will. 🙂
pfcemAGAIN you keep arguing in face of official documentation on a subject you can’t understand because you keep arguing instead of LEARNING.
If YOU don’t KNOW, it’s because you DON’t LISTEN boy. :rolleyes:
Why dont you inform yourself properly on the program for a starter instead of asking people to do your home work for you and THEN arguing that the much informed and official sources presented to you knows less than yourself anyway.
I’m NOT your nanny and doesn’t DO breastfeeding (wrong gender), all your bubling just show one thing for sure; you know too little to argue at all.
Now go and get it for us genius and SHOW US which were the original JSF Customers, WHICH aircraft they operated, how long before the second joined the programme and what set of requierement they actualy ADDED to those already existing?
Quit projecting YOUR faults onto others.
pfcemNOBODY EVER ASKED FOR F-35 TO BE CAPABLE TO FLY AT M 1.6 EITHER.
I see you STILL fail to understand the basic concept of a KPP THRESHOLD…
Quite simply, if the F-35 did/does not MEET OR EXCEED an OPERATIONAL top speed of Mach 1.6 it would not have been selected or be accepted.
NO it wasn’t design to REPLACE anything it was designed around a SET of requierements which lead to design choices.
Here on earth is was…
And USAF was ONLY the second customer in terms of requierements which were already well defined by the Joint British and USN customers around Harrier II/II+ flight envelop including Operational ceilling which BTW is WAY lower than 40.000 ft.
No, the USAF is THE primary customer. Expected to aquire the greatest number of aircraft & who’s requirements were the PRIMARY driving force behind the JSF with USN & USMC varients adapting the USAF design to their requirements.
The USAF had a requirement to replace it’s F-16’s, the USN had a requirement to replace the F/A-18’s AND the USN/UK had a requirement to replace their Harriers. Three separate programs which it was decided in order to same developement costs were combined into a single program which became the JSF. You are FALSELY applying the PRE-JSF USN/UK Harrier replacement requirements to the F-35.
BUT if you want to play such childish games, the Typhoon’s origins can be traced back to a Jaguar replacement so by your convaluted thinking the Typhoon is LIMITED to Jaguar-like characteristics. 🙂
F-35 was NEVER requiered to be MULTI-ROLE, and de-facto it is designed as a STRIKE aircraft FIRST = OPTIMISED for the role with secondary A2A capabilties.
LOL
Replacing the F-16, F/A-18, AV-8 & A-10 (& if the incompetent DOD leadership has its way the F-15 as well)…and that is JUST in the US! How much more multi-role can you get?
Precisely and it is NOT Air superiority but STRIKE.
No, F-16/F/A-18 ‘like’ aero performance.
pfcemCare to provide the source?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007targets/Day1/Davisday1.pdf
That is one that is online…
They do increase drag yes, yet the question is how much in this particular case and is it going to affect the performance.
ABSOLUTELY it is going to affect the performance!
Why do you think people THINK it is so great to be able to ‘drop’ external tanks? And why do they make such a big deal of an F-16 chase plane with just ONE 330 gal external tank (yes I know they sometimes carry two external tanks)?
3 drop tanks and still M 1.6 capable, someting the F-35 has yet to demonstrate CLEAN!
What can still do Mach 1.6 with 3 drop tanks? How fast can it go WITHOUT drop tanks…
Trust me, just like all other performance parameters, the F-35 will EXCEED its Mach 1.6 top speed KPP THRESHOLD.
pfcemHere are a couple comparisons (didn’t even bother to do the area on the Rafale/F-35 comparison. The Rafale is obviously smaller. And Dwight on F-16.net tends to get carried away.) Of course you also have to consider the F-35 has an additional 10k thrust.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of doing my own.
As you can CLEARLY see, the frontal cross section of the F-35A is not much bigger than the Rafale (certainly no F-4 Phanton II as some have claimed). AND its footprint (length & wingspan) & wetted area are VERY close.
Note that the Rafale is considered to be on the small side of the latest 4th (some call tham 4.5) generation ‘medium weight’ fighters…
So as you can CLEARLY see, the F-35A is in fact NOT that big. I think too many fail to realize just how ‘small’ the F-16 is even compared to the Rafale, Typhoon, Mig-29 & F/A-18.
Put another way, the F-35A IS in the same general size of the Rafale & Typhoon while being ‘only’ a bit more than 2,000 lbs heavier than the Typhoon & Mig-29…BUT has more thrust than ALL of them & carries >18,000 lbs of fuel (plus its typical weapons load) INTERNALLY.
Sorry but ain’t no F-105 or A-7.
pfcemI posted this in another thread but it applies here as well.
—
From the Australian Department of Defence Defence Materiel Organisation.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/index.cfm
8 January 2009
In his article of 7 Jan 09 in the Australian Financial Review (AFR), Dr Dennis Jensen MP, Member for Tangney:
Maintains that Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) advocates continue to cite security restrictions to largely avoid answering questions about JSF capabilities.
Remains sceptical about Defence’s reporting of JSF costs.
Supports Air Power Australia (APA)’s recent assessment that the JSF is not as stealthy as claimed and can therefore not perform the missions for which it is designed.
Argues that the JSF’s reliance on its networking capabilities is flawed.
In response:
Defence has never claimed that the JSF contains “secret capabilities, the fundamentals of which are not known in the public domain”. Specific performance details of JSF capabilities are, however, highly classified and tightly controlled to protect US technology and avoid compromising a key defence capability.
Defence JSF cost estimates have been consistent and accurately stated throughout our involvement in the JSF Program. Defence’s New Air Combat Capability Project estimates have been based on official US JSF Program Office estimates plus considerable levels of contingency to cover acknowledged cost risk. Confusion remains in sections of the community, however, because there is no simple JSF project cost description as costs are dependent on what elements are included, the currency used, the exchange rate applicable and the reference year.
APA’s analysis of the JSF’s stealth characteristics is flawed based on a number of incorrect assumptions, simplistic modelling, lack of operational analysis and lack of knowledge of sensitive performance information.
Dr Jensen’s statement that ‘networking also requires transmission of data, and any transmissions can be detected and tracked, compromising the stealthiness of the transmitting platform’, is fundamentally incorrect. Read more here.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/re…rvey7jan09.pdf
***
21 February 2007.
Program Manager, New Combat Capability Project, Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey, responds to an article suggesting claims that the United States would not sell Australia the F-22 Raptor are bizarre. (The Age, 20 February 2007, p13.) Read the full letter
pfcemAbout 2 t more empty weight for 1.2 t more thrust… That leaves out other aerodynamical factors such as wing loading.
No, ~2000-2500 lbs heavier depending of what source you believe on the weight of the Typhoon.
As for thrust:
F-35
28,000 lbs dry
43,000 lbs afterburner
Typhoon
27,000 lbs dry
40,500 lbs afterburner
It’s 2 t less than the specification stated on LM official website which is 29300 lb (13318 kg) for the F-35A.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html
THAT IS PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION WEIGHT!!! God I wish they would update their crap.
Post weight-reduction weights:
F-35A
26,664 lbs
18,307 lbs internal fuel
F-35B
29,695 lbs
13,400 lbs internal fuel
F-35C
29,996 lbs
19,145 lbs internal fuel
Even AA-1 (a PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION airframe) is ‘only’ ~29,000 lbs…
Loading 2 SRAAM + 4 MRAAM has almost not impact on performance. Droptanks have some impact, but it is said that the aircraft loaded with 4 x ASRAAM, 4 x AMRAAM and 2 x 1000 l tanks can be flown throughout the flight envelope with almost no degration in performance. (Statement has to be set in relation however).
But external tanks can be dropped, IF required. The F-35 will have to carry its structural weight and volume all the way at any time.
LOL
Even EMPTY drop tanks add MORE than enough drag to decrease performance.
And you have it BACKWARDS. The Typhoon HAS to carry inefficient, draggy drop tanks that take up weapons stations in order to carry enough fuel for MOST missions. The F-35 OTOH was designed with enough internal fuel capacity to NOT have to carry external tanks.
pfcemLordAssap,
Stop flooding with nonsense that has NOTHING to do with my comments.
The simple fact of the matter is that the F-35A is ABOUT the size of the Rafale (frontal cross section, footprint & wetted area) & NOT, as some have tried to pawn off on people, the size of the F-4 Phantom II.
AND people complain about the F-35’s weight while ignoring that it isn’t much heavier than a Typhoon (or Mig-29) while having slightly MORE thrust. Yet they have no trouble believing in the Typhoon’s ‘legedary’ agility…
Note I am NOT saying that the F-35 has the same ‘airshow aerobatic’ agility of a CLEAN Typhoon BUT there IS misconception out there as to the actual size & weight of the F-35 as it compares to its ‘competitors’ (which then leads to the misconception of its agility/performance). In COMBAT CONFIGURATION (& at the speeds & altitudes air combat most often occurs at) it is in fact quite competative…
pfcemLOL! As it says the wing span is about the same for both, but with a simple ruler I can see that on the distance from wing tip to middle of the Rafale is set longer than for the F-35 on the PS picture. The image is a hack, and still F-35 has bigger frontal area.
Try measuring to the WING TIP instead of the launch rail…
And the POINT is that it is not much bigger than the Rafale.
pfcemSorry mate you still are confusing yourself to knots.
No YOU are the one confucesd. Mach 1.6 the a KPP THRESHOLD, not a ‘do not exceed’ speed limit.
The simple fact is that many fighters are CAPABLE of exceeding their stated max speed (at least for a short time).
USAF only requierements weren’t for MORE than M 1.5 originaly…
Always been designed for this role YES and around Harrier II+ performaces in it.
WRONG: Original customers for the JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER were always the RAF/RN and USN. = HARRIER II/II+.
Keep on dreaming. The JOINT strike fighter (JOINT meaning USAF & USN) was an accumulation of USAF, USN & USMC requirements to replace the F-16, F/A-18 & AV-8 respectively. The F-35A is the BASE design, with the F-35B & F-35C being adapted from it (of course the F-35A is still a bit of a compromise to ALLOW said adaptationa while retaining as much commonality as possible).
= Replacing an aircraft doesn’t MEAN designed like one, YOU still CAN’T grab LWF requierements were totaly DIFFERENT as for, Maximum AND Operational Ceillings, Turning rates, Instantaneous AND Sustained at 20.000 AND 40.000 ft.
Good God man. NOBODY EVER SAID THE F-35 WAS DESIGNED LIKE AN F-16 or F/A-18 or AV-8!
BUT the JSF WAS designed to do what the F-16, F/A-18 & AV-8 do AS WELL OR BETTER than the F-16, F/A-18 & AV-8 do.
This M 2.0 capability you keep thinking of, trying to get F-35 designed Mach limit for a KPP THRESHOLD is in reality 1.8.
Typical BS by people like you.
I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ANY MACH 2 CAPABILITY!
pfcemThe whole thing is optimised for lower ceiling and speed than the F-16 which never was a “real” M 2.0 design.
Wing profil.
Wing plan.
Sweep angle (Critical Mach).
Frontal Area (Cross Section).
Inlets. (Pressure recovery Limit).
Engine. (Maximum output/Ceiling)
😀
LOL
NOBODY EVER SAID THE F-35 WAS DESIGNED TO GO MACH 2. :rolleyes:
What it WAS designed to do is REPLACE the F-16. NO muti-role fighter spends much time above Mach 1 much less Mach 1.5. So the F-35 was designed for best performance in the flight regime it will spend the most time in. That DOES NOT in any way mean that it was not designed to be capable of >Mach 1.5, just that it would not be very efficient there.
pfcemThis is the one I like…
Note that these were originally posted by dwightlooi at f-16.net.
I am thinking of doing a top/bottom view & perhaps even side views myself. I bet MANY will find it a shock to see just how close the F-35A & Rafale are in size…
Not to say that the F-35A is as “sleek” as a CLEAN Rafale but I HAVE noticed people who do have a misconception about the actual size (frontal cross section, footprint & wetted area) of the F-35A. They ALSO have a misconception about its weight, which is ‘only’ ~2000-2500 lbs (907-1134kg) greater than the Typhoon (operational empty weights)…which ain’t bad, in fact it is REMARKABLE, for an aircraft that can carry two 2,000 lb JDAM (or eight ‘250 lb’ SDB) + two AMRAAM + 18,000+ lbs of fuel INTERNALLY! Oh, & did I mention it has slightly greater UNISTALLED RATED thrust (both dry/military & wet/afterburner) than the Typhoon. 🙂
Sign In
