pfcemAll three models are 9G rated. The B and C models may be limited to 7.5 due to the environment they operate in, not because the airframe cannot do it. But really, what is the sense when you have a helmet mounted sight and off bore sight missiles that can pull 30gs. What does that extra amount of g get you?
Exactly.
As for your poor rearward visibility, I suggest you do some research on DAS. It won’t matter. The designers threw out the book because they are using technological advances such as stealth, LPI radar, internal weapons carriage, HOBS, and all aspect integrated sensors to a degree never done before.
ditto
It’s not that the Typhoon is such a bad plane, it’s just that it is yesterday’s plane.
I will take it one step further.
It’s not that the Typhoon is not an excellent 4th generation fighter well capable of doing what it is/was intended to do for many years to come, but no matter how you try to spin it, it is still a 4th generation (or 4.5 generation if you believe in the whole .5 generation crap) fighter & fighter technology has moved on 5th generation fighters.
The intoduction of the 4th generation F-15, F-16 & F/A-18 didn’t make the 3rd generation F-4 any LESS of a 3rd generation fighter (or if you prefer, Mig-29 & Su-27 vs Mig-23 & Su-21) but it simply could not compete in capability/technology…same is true for the intoduction of 5th generation fighters vs 4th generation fighters.
pfcemCan the F-35 pull 9g when supersonic as the Typhoon can? and for how long. This is one of the main performance marker for the typhoon and the reason for the new G Suit.
Almost certainly. The airframe of the F-35 is more than likely STRONGER than that of the Typhoon, the F-35 has almost exactly the same amount of both military (dry) & afterburning (wet) thrust as the Typhoon and has control surfaces MORE than large enough for good supersonic maneuverability.
I know I am late into this tread but I do believe that the F-35 is too much of a compromise in order to gain its stealth characteristics.
WHAT COMPOMISE? The F-35 can carry as much fuel internally as any “competative” 4th generration fighter can with three external tanks, is AT LEAST as maneuverable as as the F-16 & F/A-18 it is replacing and has the most advanced radar/avionics/ESM available.
It is too advanced and costly for low intensity conflicts and to limited for High intensity.
The F-35 isn’t meant for low intensity conflicts.
PLEASE, PEOPLE! STOP FAULTING WEAPONS SYSTEMS FOR NOT BEING WHAT THEY ARE NOT & WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE!
Yes its electronics will be amazing but its payload is too small especially the STOVL variant.
Sorry, but two PGMs & two-four AAMs is pretty much standard loadout for light/medium fighters these days. And don’t forget that the F-35 will be able to carry eight ‘250 lb’ SDB in place of the two 2,000 lb JDAM. Not to mention other weapons (including stand-off ‘cruise’ missiles) being developed specifically for internal carriage by the F-35 & the stealthy external carriage pods/weapons…
With hard points it loses stealth. What will it possible face in the 2020’s
LESS stealthy, not non-stealthy. No matter what payload you desire/need, the F-35 will be more stealthy than any ‘competative’ 4th generation fighter.
Stealthy UCAVs are a better bet for day one operations supported by platforms such as the F/A-18E, Typhoon or Rafale.
Stealthy UCAVs capable of true strike missions are DECADES away, not years.
pfcemIn the strict sence, of course there will be a small penalty in weight/drag with the stores, however the difference of such a load is very small. Such that it allows the Typhoon to still SC at mach 1.3 etc…
No, it is NOT small. If it weren’t no aircraft designer would have EVER bothered with internal payload capabilities.
:mad:No! how can you not comprehend this. The statement exclaiming it flies like an F-22 and F-16 is extremely, extremely vague! It can mean alot!. You are just simply ignoring even LM have exclaimed for the last 10 years it will not be a dog fighter, where as Eurofighter have designed the fighter to be the most agile in the world. Franky arguing that point is moronic.
Again, he DID NOT say the F-35 flies like a F-16 but like a F-22.
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor– which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said. The aircraft flies in “large measure like the F-22, but it’s smaller, and stiffer” than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.
With all you “guaranteeing” knowledge and all that…..I assume you have seen EF going vertical straight after takeoff with 4 amraam, 4 asraam, and 3 tanks? I think not.
No I have not. I have seen 4 AMRAAM & 2 ASRAAMs but NO external tanks.
And guess what, the F-35 can carry as much fuel INTERNALLY as a Typhoon can with three external tanks. 🙂
I dont know why I got into this thread, there is simply no point, with such biased people as you around.
Because you are a religious zealot & the Typhoon is your god – or at least you ARE acting like one…
Frankly the F-35 testpilots would be laughing 😀 at this thread so far.
Yes they would, they would be laughing at you.
pfcemThe larger stabs may improve performance at a/g loads i.e. with targeting pods, but I don’t think they add anything at typical air to air load. At least that’s what I know. If it were different, why wouldn’t GD design the F-16 with larger control surfaces from the start.
A ‘typical air-to-air’ load for the F-16 was initially envisioned was something like 4 Sidewinders. Once operational, it was realized that it was much more typical for them to carry a heavier load than that.
Problem is, what’s the exact weight of the Block 60?
~7400kg A model (or 7100kg for early models)
~8700kg Block 50
For the Block 60, figures go up to 10000kg. The CFTs are about 900lbs or 410kg so that alone doesn’t make much difference. But your 9150kg seems a bit low.
Empty weight for the Block 60 is ~20,500 lbs (~9300kg).
Comparison:
F-16A: 10700kg take-off weight, 1.01 TWR, 382kg/m2 wing loading
F-16E: 12750-13600kg take-off weight, 1.16-1.08 TWR, 455-486kg/m2 wing loading
So TWR did improve by 7 to 15%, wing loading increased by 19 to 27%.
Even in the best case, the increase in TWR is less than the increase in wing loading. Is that enough to maintain agility? Don’t think so.
Everything is static of course, so real numbers may look completely different.
Anyway, sustained turn rates are the same anyway because both are 9g airplanes. 😉 Some flight envelope graphs would be interesting to see which can sustain 9gs over a larger flight envelope.
Sorry but the days of simple wing loading as an accurate measure of maneuverability are long gone…
pfcemF-35 is not known for being aerodynamic….at all.
Only by those who clearly have much to learn about aerodynamics.
Too big bulky wide crosssection, with no aero opts(not stealthy).
LOL
The F-35 is about the size of a Rafale (and yes I am talking about frontal cross-section as well as footprint)…
That big engine and the topspeed of 1,6 mach and a high landing speed tell tales of that….
Mach 1.6 is just the KPP THRESHOLD (aka the MINIMUM top speed acceptable)…
Dont think its optimised for high exaust velocity either. More optimised for lots of airmass for the lift.
It is optimized for transonic cruise…
That makes the engine less suitable for the hispeeds. The day you have a high torque diesel engine in formula 1, is the day i believe you can combine the both worlds.
..not that your analogy has ANY bearing of jet engine/aircraft performance…
Audi D10. 🙂
Not Formula 1, but then again the rules for Formula 1 do not lend themselves to anything BUT the engines they have.
pfcemThe power demand of the F-35 is given by the the F-35B to allow vertical landings with some load left under most circumstances. The pre-production examples are not heavier in general. Most of the time those were not flown with a typical weapons-load nor with full internal load. Some examples are not even equipped fully. See the ammunition of the gun, flares a.s.o. f.e. 😉
Could you PLEASE try to keep up. AA-1 was built prior to the weigtht reduction program & as such weighs about as much as the production F-35B & F-35C will. It HAS been flown with a weight simulated load representative of a typical combat mission load for the F-35A.
pfcemScooter, combine the typhoon with HMS, HOBS missiles and it most certainly will. The load of 4 amraam, 2 asraam, and a centre fuel tank does nothing to the typhoons performance as it is so powerful initially, seriously it does not noticeably effect anything.
What ARE you smoking? Or drinking, or what ever it is you are doing to cause you to lapse into some kind of dream state where the laws of physics no longer apply.
Supersonic speeds is where the EF is believed to dominate, and reading the article saying the F-35 at high subsonic behaves like a clean F-16 block 50, well then that again supports my argument.
No it does not.
It DOESN’T say the F-35 behaves like a clean F-16 Block 50, it says it behaves like a F-22 (except in the post-stall flight regime) – no big leap there given the similar overall design & flight software…
What is important to note however is that a F-35A when carrying a warload (weigth simulated in this case) of two 2,000 lbs JDAM, two AMRAAM & ~14,000-15,000 lbs of fuel (at least at take-off, a few thousand pounds of fuel could have been burned off at the point of comparison – BUT this is true for the F-16 chase planes as well) accelerates & maneuvers as well as (or better than) a clean F-16 Block 50.
I GUARANTEE that a Typhoon with such a load (which would require 3 FULL external tanks) could not hope to do the same.
😀 how do you know, you are simply just second guessing! We know the performance of the typhoon is massively superior to F-16/15/18’s, and as the F-35 has been likened to the F-16, we can second guess the typhoon will have a superior performance advantage. True, all we can do is second guess at the moment, but there is a hell of alot of evidence going in the typhoons favour, a lot more than the F-35.
Try again…
To try and give you one example. How come a typhoon with a sinlge tank, 4 amraam, 2 asraam can SC up to mach 1.3 and a clean F-35 appreantly cannot. (the typhoon is not clean here btw :rolleyes:)
Sorry, but the ‘fact’ that a Typhoon with 1 external tank, 4 AMRAAM & 2 ASRAAM can supercruise @ ~Mach 1.3 makes it MORE THAN apparent that the F-35 can supercruise at a similar speed. 🙂
pfcemThe only advantage the Typhoon has is in unit cost………..Clearly, not in capability and maybe not even in cost to maintain and operate.
No, the unit cost of the Typhonn is HIGHER than it is for the F-35.
The only advantage the Typhoon has is CLEAN flight performance.
pfcemNow, opening offer, would anyone like to counter the points mentioned? Because atm, they Typhoon looks like a better plane in many more situations then the F-35 does.
They have already been countered.
It is complete & utter BS.
No matter how you want to try & spin it, the F-35 will without a doubt enjoy a significantly better kill-loss ration over any significant opponent/threat then the Typhoon could ever hope to.
pfcemScooter I must say you have a certain resemblance to Star** however with the F-35. Talking about performance, physical performance, the Lightning does not come close to the Typhoon.
A CLEAN Typhoon with say 5,000-6,000 lbs of internal fuel certainly has a performance advantage over a F-35 with say 9,000-10,000 lbs of internal fuel [about a half load for each] BUT load a Typhoon & a F-35 with a similar COMBAT LOAD & the performance advantage (what ever little remains) is all but irrelivant.
pfcemTo operate missions with external stores the much cheaper F-16 is still good enough. 😀
A new F-16 isn’t much cheaper than a F-35.
And unlike a new F-16 or ANY other 4th generation fighter, the F-35 is MUCH more survivable when you need it to be…
pfcemOK, the E has lots of thrust so at least the acceleration must be very high.
But thrust alone doesn’t compensate for lift. While thrust to weight/drag is better, lift to weight is much worse.
Thrust allows you to maintain speed which is required to maintain lift…
And the stabs got enlarged to compensate for less instability.
The stabilizers got enlarged to compensate for less instability at greater loads. When you put stores on the F-16, the center of gravity moves forward, reducing its instability – so larger stabilizers are required to maintain agility/maneuverablity.
Well, I read stories about earliest A vs. Block 50 comparisons and there they were judged about equal with the A “lighter on the nose”, probably meaning better instantaneous performance.
😉
Block 60 is in another league with probably better characteristics in some areas, but worse in others. So saying performance is the same is not true. I’ve never said it’s bad though. It isn’t.
Remember your above comparing early F-16s vs Block 50….
Compared to the Block 50, the Block 60 is ~1,000 lbs heavier (empty) with ~1,250 lbs greater military (dry) & 3,000 lbs greater afterburn (wet) thrust.
pfcemIt appears that the only people who believe in the $58 million firm F-35 flyaway cost are determined LM supporters unwilling to be swayed by any of the evidence and pointers to the contrary.
No, that is the price the US DOD is quoting & HAS quoted to its partners (such as Australia, Canada & Norway). Every other price you see anywhere is eaither NOT fly-away cost for partner nations or not in constant (FY2008) dollars…
As far as Norway is concerned, its intention to wait until 2014 to sign a contract does mean that it has a period of grace in which it can scrap its choice should a re-evaluation show that the F-35 would be far, far more expensive to procure and operate than the doctored figures in the first evaluation would leave the Norwegian public and parliament to believe.
Actually, waiting until 2014 to sign may vary well result if Norway paying a higher price & possibly having to “go to the back of the line” & wait while nations which had previously signed get their orders filled 1st.
pfcemsignatory,
The fly-away price for the F-35A quoted by the US DOD to Norway (as well as Australia & Canada) is $58.7 million, exchange rates & other associated costs change to actual total cost but fly-away price is STILL $58.7 million (unless/until the DOD changes it).
The numbers in the USAF budget documents are THEN YEAR DOLLARS, not constant dollars & such (unless you adjust the then year dollars to what ever constant dollars you wish to use & but then that is the USAF costs, NOT export customer costs – it is pretty clear that the US DOD plans to ‘subsidize’ the cost to export customers through higher US costs) are NO indication of what it costs an export customer.
pfcemLM says targeting pods don’t affect performance.* LM says CFTs don’t affect performance. LM says increased weight doesn’t affect performance. BS.
You cannot seriously believe that this
[image remove to save space]
is as agile as this one
[image remove to save space]
Something you appearantly are unable to grasp…
The F-16 Block 60 has 19,000 lbs of military (dry) & 32,500 lbs of afterburning (wet) thrust vs 14,600 & 23,800 respectively for early F100-PW-220 F-16s.
Without getting too techincal, the lighter weight of earlier F-16s provides some instantaneous ‘agility’ advantage over later F-16s BUT the greater thrust of later F-16s allow them to hold their own in sustained ‘agility’.
The F-16A Block 1 is the most agile F-16.
Not true. Block 0, 1, 5 & 10 F-16s had smaller horizontal stabilators than Block 15 & later F-16s…
Compared to the Block 50 f.e., both have about the same kinetic performance, but the F-16A is more nimble. The Block 60 is much the same with further reduced agility.
No, earlier F-16s do not have the same kinetic performance of later F-16s.
Again, the lighter weight of earlier F-16s provides some instantaneous ‘agility’ advantage over later F-16s BUT the greater thrust of later F-16s allow them to hold their own in sustained ‘agility’.
Sign In
