simdude97that is only partially true. you see this is what happened
Raptor = Dinosaur after Jurassic Park
Raptor = Bird of Prey after Jurassic Park II.:diablo:;)
Why are people having trouble with this. It cannot be more clear.
Raptor = Bird of prey.
simdude97If I had the choice between this and the F-22, (I refuse to call it the “Raptor”, stupid frikin name, named after a dinosaur, stupid things they were, ruled the earth for 150+ million years & couldn’t invent an I-pod)
raptor
noun
any of numerous carnivorous birds that hunt and kill other animals
So much for dinosaur.
Does anyone think it would’ve been better to drop the JSF programme and continue with the F-23 programme?…
No. The F-35 is the early 21st century version of the F-16. The YF-23 beautiful aircraft that it is was rumored to be more of an interceptor type aircraft with less LO and less maneuverability than the F-22. The Raptor was thought to be the better all around aircraft. In any event the F-23 would not be exportable either.
simdude97Rafales needs the Mirage 2000 to designate targets only to fire GBUs. It operated already with (INS GPS guided) AASM last year, which is the Rafale’s main AtoG weapon,
This thread is not about Rafale and I really don’t wan’t to get off track HOWEVER IT IS A FACT THAT Rafale is not cleared to release any A2G munition that requires targeting such as LGBs. It is a fact that none of the pros including the French ones feel comfortable having the Rafale perform A2G in a combat situation on it’s own and at night or in adverse weather yet. I expect that to change one day but that day is not here yet and the only reason why it is being brought up is to correct you.
Good homework, pitty about the flaming material on A2G capabilties;
See above. It’s not flaming, it’s fact and I only brought it up to correct someone who needlessly brought Rafale into the discussion. Frankly it’s time to drop the Rafale from this conversation as it is off topic.
You can´t compare EF with F-35 or F-22 as the design has to fulfil different criteria.
BINGO! You win the prize. That is exactly why Typhoon is useless. It is pretty much a pure air superiority fighter . That mission has very much decreased in importance over the last 20 years. What these smaller air forces really need is a jack of all trades fighter that cen do everything well. Sure Typhoon will perform well against today’s A2A threats, but how does it do in 20 years? Can it really perform CAS well? Does it do interdiction well? Can it self escort…etc. Maybe it will be able to do some of these things reasonably well but at what cost for the upgrades? They already cost well over $100 million each and that is without an AESA.
My apologies – quite right, I definitely had that one backward. Pulse Doppler it is. Nevertheless it would be a strong contender for the title of most advanced non-AESA in anyone’s books I would have thought.
And you would have thoght wrong again. CAPTOR is nothing more than an updated version of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI.24_Foxhunter
So, yeah it’s the most advanced version of an obsolete type of radar. Ever wonder why everyone is trying so hard to develop AESA radars for fighters?
simdude97Because the talk was about american types. And a reduced frontal RCS was indeed part of the design. If you like it or not. No one says it’s stealth, but LO treatments are obviously applied and the reduced RCS has been taken into account (s-shaped intakes, semi conformal weapon stations, “smiling intake shaping…). Add the generally compact airframe, composites and RAM coatings and materials and you get a fairly low frontal RCS. RF control has been taken into account as well.
Without an LPI radar like the APG-79 and carrying external stores this supposed (yes it has not been proven) greatly reduced RCS is about as useful as teets on a bull.
All fighters today are red-lined at 30 AoA or even below by software.
The name of the game is carefree handling.
Really? Just like just about every other modern fighter has as well. Nothing new here. In fact I would not doubt it if the F-18’s carefree handling was even more carefree than Typhoons. As for limited to 30 degrees AoA, again you are wrong.
“With wings level in an effort to demonstrate the E/F’s resistance to departure from controlled flight, I simultaneously put in full right lateral stick and full left rudder. This abrupt cross-control input had no discernible effect, the aircraft remained rock steady at 35 degree AoA.
“as the AoA peaked at 59 degrees. This large pitch reserve available at such low airspeed, will be useful shouls the Super Hornet pilot find himself in a close range visual flight.
The aircraft stabilized wings level at 48 degrees AoA”
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2000/2000-1%20-%200086.html
Rafales equipped with AASM are already providing CAS over Afghanistan
Indeed this is the second time Rafales deploy to Afghanistan. It is also the second time Rafales need to fly only in daylight and have Mirage 2000s do target designation.
Rafale may not be a finished product but no matter lets rush it in theater to make a point. At least they don’t need American approval to sell it overseas.
simdude97Waste of time? Nope!
“it will never be a true multi role aircraft like the F-35 or Super Hornet”
Who said?
Can a F-35 or Super Hornet carry six GPS/Laser Guided Bombs, six AAM’s and a centre line fuel tank on a mission? Or even four Laser Guided Bombs, two drop tanks, six AAM’s, LDP on the centre line hard point for that matter?…Look it up, it can.
Can it carry them internally? Can it carry ANY useful war load internally? No.
It’s a fine aeroplane, never heard any pilots or airforces complain about it or it’s future. Pretty much says it all really doesn’t it.
Originally Posted by simdude97 View Post
Hell, it can’t even be exported without Uncle Sam’s approval.
If it was a real issue (i.e. if there was any realistic prospect of the USA withholding consent for exports to anyone the UK, Germany, Italy & Spain want to sell to) the US components would be replaced by non-US components pretty damn quick. And if W. European countries imposed the same rules as the USA, I think you’d find the USA would be having to ask their permission for exports of a lot of major US weapons systems.
It is a fact that there is significant US content in some very advanced systems on the plane. If it where so easy to replicate it would not have taken the UK close to a year to be able to export the plane to SA after the investigation into BAE bribery was dropped in the UK. They where still waiting on approval from the US.
Maybe it’s a fine aeroplane for airshows and wowing the fanboys but other than the home market and the fact that the Saudis have a history of buying from (and being bribed by) BAE it has to date not won one competition in which it has been entered. The fact is as a warplane it’s nothing special and very expensive.
It is a fact that it is not yet fully developed. T3 may or may not happen and even if it does the plane will still lack the ability to carry it’s weapons and all of it’s fuel internally. It will still lack a fully developed and mature AESA. It will still lack DAS and it still will not have the network centric capabilties that the F-35 will have.
Sure it’s a good fighter now. What happens in twenty years. Even the Super Hornet has a more robust and fully developed avionics and sensor suite.
simdude97You and Scooter are clearly examples of the later. I have already posted official numbers on F-35 from http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf on page 3 that says 728 nm combat radius for F-35A with external fuel
Then if you compare that to the Gripen NG presentation you posted before yourself: http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf on page 6 says 1300 km combat radius for Gripen NG including 30 min on station which would be equal to at least 1500 km or 800 nm combat radius with external fuel
This means that a fighter half the size of F-35 would have a clearly better range. And then you have to remember that Gripen is STOL and if you want to operate F-35 from the same airbases as Gripen can you have to go for the STOV version which has an inferior range compared to Gripen NG.
It seems to be a strong indication that there is significant penalty for stealth in terms of range/payload.
Let me see. Page 3 of the source you cite states F-35 on internal fuel has a combat radius of 673 NAUTICAL miles. INTERNAL FUEL ONLY. That equals 1246Km. Combat radius always includes time on station so what is your point? The F-35 has greater range clean. Obviously your source uses 728 Nautical miles for radius with external tanks. I suggest you use a bit of common sense and realize that it is a typo. 18,000 pounds more of fuel in external tanks is going to get ANY plane more than an additional 55 Nautical Miles of radius.
For guidance on the F-35’s true combat radius with external fuel you can simply look at it’s unrefueled range and cut it in half. That give or take 15% is going to be the true combat radius. I will give you another hint. The F-35A carries 18,000 pounds of fuel internally and can carry another 18,000 pounds externally.
Yet another revelation for you. The range figures given for F-35 are with two 2000 lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs, in other words, air to ground. The range figures given for gripen NG are with 4 AMRAAM/Meteor and two IRIS-T/AIM-9X. Do the math.
simdude97Wrong. Maybe someone is resistant to official data. 😀
3510 kg clean is 2500 km versus 8380 kg clean is 2200 km
add 2200 kg ext. +ETs to compensate for that, you are still above that with the F-35 with 2200 kg internal weaponsload. To generate a 610 nm AR the F-35A is in need of ETs too. The installed thrust of the F-135 and the much higher empty equipped, none is surprised from that result. Stealth has a “price”. 😉
None does question the value of stealth, but please spare us of such overoptimistic flight performances. That is no strong point of the F-35 for shure.
Wrong Sens. The published spec on the F-35 is clear. 610nm combat radius (that means with reserves by the way) with two 2000lb JDAMs and two AMRAAM without external tanks. It’s all pretty straight forward.
Note F-35A range with internal fuel is ~1,200 Nautical Miles. Then right below, combat radius >590 NM. No external tanks.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm
This one is even clearer.
https://www.teamjsf.com/jsf/data.nsf/public/A13E2CA36841699F85257465004…
The fact is if you use external tanks the combat radius is going to be almost twice as great for the F-35 as the Gripen NG. I don’t know how much clearer this could be.
Scooter, sometimes you just have to present the facts and then move on if people cannot accept them. This is one of those times.
simdude97Now, i cant read Dutch but my guess is that Op interne brandstoftank means internal fuel, which would mean Gripen NG has ~14% longer range then F-35 Lightning II.
Whatever are you talking about? Combat radius according to Saab with EXTERNAL TANKS is 1300Km for Gripen NG.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf Page 6
Combat Radius for F-35 Internal Fuel ONLY is 1110+ Kilometers. Use tanks on the way to the target area and you can just about double that amount.
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA%20Conf%20-%20JSF%20Program%20Brief%20-%2026%20Sept%2006.pdf Pg 26
simdude97You’re the most worthless person around here. You’re polluting every thread of the forum with brief comments that do nothign but add to your post count.
You are the most bitter person. You just cannot accept the fact that a jet designed with all the lessons learned from the F-22, with 250 billion dollars of development, made by the largest military indusrial complex in the world that will be produced in the thousands can somehow be far superior and cheaper than a warm over of a lightweight fourth generation fighter built by a small nation with major components from the US and a production run that may if it is very lucky to reach 200. You are bitter now that two European air forces have concluded such an obvious fact that any lucid person would see it. It is you who are one of the people who are dragging this forum down the tubes.
simdude97Celldar? You have to be kidding. This forum really is a joke. Goodbye.
simdude97Ok, honest question from a F-22 fanboy…Has anyone outside the DOD looked into dectecting a F-22 with IR or something of the sorts when the F-22 is supercrusing? JW, im sure there have been “studies”, I was wondering if there was anything more definitve than that.
And, as a side note, the range of the F-22 came up…Does anyone really have any idea? IM jw, i hear so many differnt numbers being plodded about its almost pointless to pay attention to any of them, unless they say the F-22 has a 900 mile range supercrusing….I think we could all agree thats BS, but then who knows…
According to the air force the F-22 has a 1,850 mile ferry range with two external tanks. In this configuration the F-22 is carrying a total of 26,000 pounds of fuel. Without the tanks the F-22 carries 18,000 pounds internally. Obviously this is not going to be linear since removing the drop tanks removes drag but if you do the math then the F-22 has a range of around 1100 nautical miles or put another way a combat radius on internal fuel of over 550 nautical miles.
The old Lockheed Martin F-22 site
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html
Estimates the combat radius as 310 nautical miles + 100 nautical miles in super cruise for a total of 410 nautical miles. Surely 200 nautical miles of super cruise is significant.
simdude97That doesn’t change the fact, that the JSF is not designed for the air/air role (that is even more pronounced on the Boeing model).
You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. One of the stated (by DOD) design objectives was to give it an A2A capability second only to the F-22.
Problem are the requirements. E.g. the B version resulting in an overpowered engine for the striker role (said before that I would dump the afterburner if I’d buy it as a striker), on the other side it provides a lot of power, but that chunk of rotating metal will not be very responsive in air/air combat.
What ever are you talking about?
Also looking at the F-35’s frontal area, the rather step increase in cross-section plus the plump ass, taking into account what is known about the wing and the assumed engine characteristic I doubt it will be a good supersonic performer, or even that it will go through transonic very easily. It’s Fatty Short, which will make it a good striker, but a mediocre fighter.
And you came to this conclusion by looking at the plane? You cannot be serious?
The rest of your post is just more nonsense. Sorry pal you lost me on the “looking at the F-35s frontal area” bit.
simdude97Oh, I would disagree on many fronts. Really, in some ways the F-35 is more advance than the F-22. Yet, the Raptor has one major strength that the F-35 is lacking. The F-22’s ability to Super Cruise at speeds over Mach 1.5. This in itself is a great asset and a big advantage. Of course no other fighter has that ability combined with Stealth. …Of course the big question for the F-35 is first can it Super Cruise and if so at what speeds and for how long? If, I was to “speculate” I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Lightning Super Cruising around Mach 1.1 to 1.2……….that combined with its very generous internal fuel. The F-35 should be the very capable performer almost on par with the F-22!:
My “guess” is the F-35 is about ~90% as capable as F-22 in Air Superiority Role. Yet, vastly more much capable as a Striker………
The F-22 due to its size has the superior radar. It also is expected to have better high altitude (50-60K) performance and tactically (M1.5+) significant super cruise. All three of these characteristics are vastly superior to anything currently flying.This on top of a multi spectrum LO airframe.
What the F-35 has that the F-22 does not is better (other than the radar) sensors, a better MMI, better counter meaures, better networking, and a larger weapons bay that will be cleared for larger load outs and a greater variety of weapons. Do not be surprised to see F-35 cleared to carry 6 or 8 AMRAAMs internally. LM has stated it can be easily done. Obviously it could carry 12 or 14 right now if you mounted them externally and they may well do that in certain situations. Use some (stealthy) f-35s as shooters and the rest of the squadron load up as missile carriers. That is how the Navy is going to do it.
As for 90 percent as effective as the F-22, I am not so sure. More like 75 percent but that still is far better than anything else flying. One of the goals of the program was to produce an aircraft second only to the F-22 in A2A. There is nothing known about this aircraft that suggests that this will not be the case.
simdude97All points well taken and I thank you for them, however all I was trying to do was to reply to Over G who was stating that the F-16 was a bomb truck. It was not designed as such. The F-35 to me looks like it has been built around the air to ground scenario first and the (notwithstanding considerable) air to air capabilities are secondary in that philosophy. Wing area, relatively poor rearward visibility and apparent g-limitations on the “C” variant all tell me that the designers did not start out thinking about air to air first. Typhoon simply put was.
Which is the better obviously remains to be seen.
Cheers
All 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?
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. It’s not that the Typhoon is such a bad plane, it’s just that it is yesterday’s plane.
simdude97What do you claim a common sense is your guessing to stay polite.
Sofar I never red an official claim about the supercruise capabilities of the F-22A.
It is Mach 1,5+, but not related height (=atmospheric conditions) nor the related flight-time is given. At the demanded mission profile it is ~200 nm in super cruise or ~13 minutes.
To do so, the F-22A has a special inlet-system and outlet-system for supersonic speeds. To overcome the “hill” of drag in the transonic region in the most fuel economic way, the F-22A will use the burner. 😉
But everyone is free to enlight us with the related links. 🙂
See about inlet-system:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5779189/description.html
Sorry, I forgot to give the link.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199
See the “af.mil” part of the link. Thats the USAF. It doesn’t get any more official than that.
Sign In
