FBWThe range from the particular mission for Norway gives a indication of the kind of range the plane is capable of. With a relatively light load the F-35 can reach 610nm if it flies most of the time at 30kf. It is not a 2000lbs JDAM but for the JDAM it would obviously be less. With AMRAAMs the difference would likely be small.
Absolutely, it does give an indication of it’s range and how does that range compare to contemporaries?
No on part two, the current performance on the KPP required specification ( 2 amraam, 2 2,000lb JDAM) is 609 miles (614 nmi est. 2015 SAR). . Don’t believe me? Look it up.
1 min of combat, is that a joke or what? All this sounds like a LM propaganda to fool idiots to think the F-35 can do a2a at 760nm. Won’t work for people with critical thinking skills. Like I said even if it can do it, it is a pretty useless figure with little operational utility.
Well, if it requires critical thinking then that excludes you. The point that L-M is making which ANYONE with critical thinking skills understands is that an F-35 with internal fuel offers exceptional range in AtA scenarios. Now think even deeper, what aircraft are still capable of maneuver and supersonic speeds with 3 EFT?
And BTW in my initial comment about the range I said that 760nm would be a bit of a stretch. If they had said 680nm or something like that I would have said ok probably.
So you are in possession of the F-35 flight test information that gives you insight that an aircraft that can fly 609 nmi cannot do 760nmi when flying above 30,000 feet without JDAM’s. In case one forgets, the Norway briefing also presented F-35 range on a surveillance mission (with 2 amraam) flying at heights of between 5,000 and 25,00 ft out to a range of 728 nmi.
And hum no I don’t think a fighter necessarily spends so much time in supersonic huh. But in some case when it is sent to intercept enemy planes yes it does and in that case the range would be a lot less obviously.
That is an interception mission profile, and yes range is obviously less. Then again, that was not what spud posted, as I said from post 1. You have selective reading as well as childish ideas.
1 min, you call that a CAP? AHAHAH! And what if the F-35 has to escape on afterburner because the enemy turned out to survive better than expected? lol I’d love to see what happens. Of course the F-35 is so good that it would never happen. 😀
What does CAP stand for? How would the requirements differ from say and OCA mission? Take a moment and pull your head slowly out of……
edit- added in SAR estimate
FBWFor example:- The Typhoon can go ~800nm with a 1 min combat at the end with 3 tanks, the 750nm figure quoted by Eurofighter is for a different profile and an additional 10 mins of combatloiter, now that’s not the profile the JSF is using. Why am I not surprised.
So using Lockheed math for equal combat time at 750nm you’d need 10 F-35 for the same single Typhoon mission.. Wow these tailored aircraft scenarios are dead easy….If you reverse the situation and have the F-35 do 10mins of combat then you start getting into the F-35 trailing the Typhoon on range, but 10 mins of combat in a F-35 isn’t going to end well for the fat slow kid, especially against a faster, higher flying foe that has more missiles.
Every single manufacturer is going to use a scenario that plays to the strength of their aircraft by comparison. Simply put John, which aircraft has a longer combat radius on internal fuel? Which aircraft could fly a cap mission to 750 nmi and be 9g capable throughout?
Btw, in what scenario do you see any aircraft engaging in a 10 minute air to air encounter? Cesar Rodriguez has three kills in three separate engagements and in two different conflicts- total time of engagements- around 90 seconds.
FBWThe only thing that’s breathtaking here is your dishonnesty. First of all note that the JSM is a light missile compared to a 2000lbs weapon, so the difference with an AMRAAM instead in terms of range would be small. And in that profile, most of the flight is done at high altitude, which is optimal of course.
Ok, first off you claimed you posted the F-35A KPP mission profile. I pointed out you did not, it is from Norway briefing for F-35A JSM mission. Next, you need to what different altitudes are classified as. What did I say “The entry and egress are at Med altitude for the KPP”- now look at the graphic you posted see where it says “egress at 25,000 ft, combat at 20,000 ft” those are medium altitude. Lastly, what does the AMRAAM have to do with JSM deployment? The F-35’s KPP is written for JDAM deployment. And again, the mix may differ from each variant, but they all include medium and high altitude.
Now if the speed is like mach 0.6, if it can really reach that range, what is the point of going to max range at mach 0.6 and returning to base immediately? If it is for CAP, that range is only to get to the patrol station where the tanker would refuel the plane, it doesn’t include time for an a2a fight, so there is really nothing to be impressed about.
You obviously didn’t read the link. First off, does not have to be mach .6, the optimal cruise speed could be .65, .7, .75,.85 whatever. The point is, flying a CAP mission involves High altitude and optimal speed to increase range (no matter what platform you are talking about) Notice where it mentions a minute of combat? So, no it is not just a matter of flying out to 750nmi, there is combat time involved.
This issue is, you don’t really know what you are talking about. I’m sure by the sound of your posts that you assume that fighters are flying along at mach 1.5 all the time in afterburner. Do everyone a favor, go look up “USAF mission planning” “mission profile”, google the from the Brazilian fighter competition to see the CAP mission graphics, then come back when you are not talking rubbish.
FBWYou’re kidding or what? Even if it can do 760nm it doesn’t mean much, it could hardly use its afterburner at that range. Unless it does its a2a mission without using its afterburner I don’t see the point.
Why would the F-35 have a flight profile so different that it would make such a big difference, that makes no sense. The only possibility like I said is that a few minutes of air combat are included in the a2g profile.
Well, Hotshot all I can say is that you have not idea on how these mission profiles are flown. Most include a very short piece of “combat time” including maneuvering and use of afterburner. Other than that, they are flying CAP missions at optimal speeds and altitudes. That is as true for the F-35 as the Rafale, F-22, or most every other aircraft with the exception of the Mig-31.
Here‘s the mission profile for the CTOL. Most of the mission is done at high altitude.
Fortunately I’m here to call your bull**** AHAHAH!
Your ignorance is truly breathtaking. Read what I wrote, they all have different mission profiles. The graphic you posted is from Norway briefing for JSM mission, not the F-35A mission profile for the KPP requirements. But as all, there are portions flown at High and Med.
The fact that you think you “got me” with that is indicative that you’ve no idea on how altitude impacts range on any mission profile.You really have no idea what you are talking about. Most every mission profile will include high altitude parts at optimal cruising speeds. When you see most aircraft’s “combat radius” listed, they are a mission flown at optimal speeds and heights, unless mission profile is specified (Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi, High-Med-High, etc.)
All CAP missions have a significant portion flown at optimal altitude. And yes, like all fighters, part of the mission profile would be flown at optimal speed, might be mach .6, .7 or whatever.
Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which
all the aircraft: took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a
minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.
Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n
miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen
502 n miles.
Edit- original link on Scribd is dead
FBWThe F-35 is supposed to attack at high altitude, so… maybe the strike profile includes a few minutes of dogfight on afterburner…
Again, talking without knowing what you are saying. Each variant has a different KPP mission profile and the ALL include combat time. The f-35’s includes ingress and egress at medium altitude.
But in an interception mission when the F-35 flies all the way to target on afterburner it is certainly a lot less.
Which would be true of any interception profile, but that is not what Spudman’s graphic is referring to.
FBWThe F-35 being stealthy it might be able to use subsonic a2a tactics to lower it IR signature in some cases.
Would a weight reduction of 8% with no reduction in drag lead to a range increase of over 20%? That sounds like a stretch.
Little to do with weight, AtA and AtG mission profiles are completely different. The F-35A’s observed mission profile KPP performance is 609 nmi, so having a 760 nmi range at Hi-Hi-Hi is no stretch.
FBWThe rafale was delayed because of funding issues, not because of technical issues. The decision was made to replace the crusader ASAP with a french plane instead of the F-18 so it was extremely urgent to field the rafale M. The rafale is a pretty cost effective program, considering how much it cost to develop and field, and also considering that there was a naval variant.
.
You just might want to rethink that, look at the program costs for the Rafale and divide by the number of “planned” airframes. The F-35’s program unit costs are below that of the Rafale as of now (only going to go down too), so your claim is dubious at best……
The Rafale is what it is, an excellent fighter and a jobs/ prestige program for France, the one thing it has not been, cost efficient.
FBWDon’t confuse aquisition costs with total program costs for aquiring, operating, mantaining, training, support, over a 30-40 year lifetime.
Right now, the F-35A is roughy 12-13 million more expensive. That gap will be considerably narrower by the time any Shornet contract begins to deliver.
Then one has to consider, a 25 year old design with inferior performance to one about to IOC. Which one is the prudent investment?
FBWThat doesn’t make any sense.. You don’t buy a fighter delivered in ~2018 and costing $120mil ea. as an interim solution for a fighter delivered in ~2019 and allegedly costing even less… if we are to believe the Danish figures.. where’s the motivation here?
What is really amazing…. The Liberals decried the Harper government’s decision to purchase the F-35 with comments like, “Government deception, sole sourcing the fighter replacement without competition”, and “Government taking action without the proper debate….transparency”, etc. Now, they are doing the same thing, under the guise of an “interim” solution.
Just can’t see the logic in this. It will be interesting how the Canadian public reacts to the costs of this “interim purchase”.
The acquisition costs of the F-35 and Shornet are close. The operating costs? The F-35’s are going down (but still comparable with an F-15C, the Shornet’s O&M costs per hour were 11,000 in 2014 (compared to the 17,000 for the F-35A). Ironically, Australia’s E/F’s are more expensive to operate than their legacy Hornets. The same will most likely be true for Canada to operate a small fleet of Shornets.
FBWThe F-35 at Block 3F provides essentially a similar weapons capability though it is limited to either LGBs or INS/GPS guided munitions, though it includes stand-off capable glide weapons such as the JSOW-C1 and SDB I. Even at Block 3F, however, the F-35 won’t be capable to perform the full range of missions that are being performed by its predecessors, which puts the often put forward argument of “Typhoon or Rafale not being FOC due to the lack of this or that” into a perspective
Would you clarify this? What are you referring to? The limited weapon integration? 3F certainly offers a more complete mission set/capabilities than the tranche 1 block 5 or F2 standards did when first introduced (both some two years after IOC ).
FBWLol but its around the same dimensions as a F-16
point being what?
FBWI figure combat configuration is the mentioned 60% fuel load, no bombs. As you would expect midway into a mission. Full fuel would mean accelerating to supersonic speed straight from the tanker. I tried to use an F-16 configuration which is close to that, i.e. empty drop tanks, full internal fuel and A/A missiles. F-16 has the advantage there.
Now if we’re talking A/G and the F-35 is carrying bombs, it’s another story. Even after the F-16 has dropped its bombs, pylons and pods are still there. Advantage F-35.As mentioned EoP uses Block 52 0.79 to 1.25 numbers. In fact their comparison is the reason I started to do my own using correct numbers. 😉
Again look at my post #1861. He did extrapolate, but it would appear that he used the F-16 block 52 with CFT numbers in error.(my assumption based on the numbers he used-look it up, it fits)
As for the 60% fuel no bombs, you are mistaken. The Bowman paper explicitly states that configuration is for the sustained g spec. There is no mention as to the load out for acceleration spec, yet the very specific comment from AVM Osley is telling, he is not talking about 60% fuel with an AAM load.
If we compare those two, the legacy aeroplane with fuel tanks and weapons on it, if we take a fourth generation fighter, typically an F16 or an F18, in that configuration it would take substantially longer than 63.9 seconds. If you took a 41⁄2 generation aircraft it actually could not accelerate to supersonic in any time over that 0.8 to 1.2 range with a combat configuration of external tanks and weapons.
Your assumption is accurate that the F-16 will have better acceleration, but not by much (assuming a DI of 50) The “c” weighs 20,500 lbs empty. Add on the centerline pylon, four wing pylons (minimum), countermeasures, and full drum of 20 mm and you are talking 22,500 lbs without fuel or weapons. Now add in the internal fuel and empty tank (400lbs) plus 2 to 4 aams and 32,000 lbs is about the minimum.
Edit- read back and saw that some assumed that EoP used block 52 acceleration numbers, that is possible too. When I looked at the block 52 (CFT) supplemental that seemed to fit his extrapolated mach .8 to 1.2 numbers as well, going to guess that the CFT will have more of an impact than the different engine. Will e-mail for a response.
FBWThe Danish “competition” was undertaken by the military was it?
The problem with your assessment is that you are conflating political decision(s) into that being a military assessment. A common mistake on these pages.
No, the political decision is the one to procure the aircraft, the recommendations and evaluation of the capabilities are from the military. The support from the air forces of all of the above mentioned are overwhelming. Here is a little exercise for you. I would like you to find one, just one, general officer from the above nations that has not voiced support for procuring the F-35.
FBWThis is essentially what a lot of those with less than overall favourable assessment of the F35 as a platform for airforces other than the US have been saying for some time.
Yet those with a more favourable view have consistently denied and challenged peoples legitimate concerns.
The problem with your assessment is that it the opposite of those qualified in said air forces. Forget the competitions, in every case: Korea, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Norway- the military has been overwhelmingly in support of the F-35. The least informed: bloggers, journalists, some members of the public have been overwhelmingly in the negative.
FBWDid you look carefully at that blog? ALL THREE of the competitors are having ads — yes there is also an ad from LM there.
The writer of that blog is taking great pride in being critical of all the competitors — if anything he is considered to be more positively biased towards the F-35 than the other two, he has had a lot of positive news and articles about the F-35 and has been very critical of SH and Typhoon.
You say “it is clear that evaluation used figures and assumptions to put the F-35 in the best possible light to win” — actually several very active posters here seem to disagree on that and seem to believe the assessment was unbiased.
I did take note of that, I also read through the past posts. And yes, I do think that the blog has a bias.
As far as the evaluation, people can think that it was fair and balanced, or complete falsehood. It is really irrelevant considering that Denmark was part of the F-35 program. There was little doubt that the F-35 was favored by the military.
Newsflash to all those “shocked” that the evaluation favored one competitor over others, this happens all the time. Anyone who thinks the MMRCA evaluation was completely fair and balanced is equally naïve, or the F-X III competition, and on and on. The Swiss evaluation was really one of the more balanced competitions, and yet the least qualified candidate ended up “winning”.
Sign In
