FBWGoogle translated from: http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8771
No offense Loke, but you have got to use a little more sense with your sources. Look at the page and plug some of the information into google translate about who made this page, who funds it (advertising). This is the equivalent of the “editor’s” comments on Defense-aerospace. You keep linking to these negative articles on sites funded by the F-35’s competitors, complete with editors that make no bones about their bias.
And no, it is not a double standard, when I link and article from SLD info I make it clear that site is partially funded by L-M and have a definite positive bias. In no way is this a defense of Denmark’s evaluation (I think it is clear that evaluation used figures and assumptions to put the F-35 in the best possible position to win). We don’t need the bias opinion of a blog to discuss the Denmark study when the actual study is out there to read, interpret, and discuss.
FBWno, load like it says under the pic, note the objective 40 sec or below and note f-16 performance 41 sec,
after reality check it was decided to lower threshold and forget about objective altogether
Reality check, you’ve no clue what your talking about.
FBWWhere are you getting those numbers from? I have the HAF F-16 supplement and don’t see those there. They also don’t gel with what is available at elements of power here, http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic_22.html
For example, figure 17 at the above link lists your drag index of 100 config requiring 80 seconds.
Depends on the weights, going to have to look at the block 50 flight manual in a bit too. (not that Elements of power is wrong, it’s been some time since I’ve looked at this)
Edit (looked up the numbers again)
F-16 block 50 with DI of 50 GW 32,000 lbs acceleration:
mach .79 to mach 1.25= 50 seconds (figure B8-12)
From the chart
F-16 Block 50 with DI of 100 GW 34,000 lbs
mach .79 to mach 1.25= 68 seconds (figure B8-12) pg. b8-27
I think he (Elements of power) might have accidentally used the acceleration charts for the F-16 block 50 with CFT.
FBWIs it really a full fuel load? And do you remember if a full weapon load includes JDAMs? That would make the numbers a lot nicer.
Just for fun, a few F-16 numbers:
F-16C Block 50, acceleration from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach @ 30k feet:
Drag index 50, 30k lbs: 41.5 sec
Drag index 100, 32k lbs: 55 sec4 missiles and an empty center tank, full internal fuel: 29362 lbs and drag index 53, so in that configuration it takes probably a bit more than 41.5 sec.
6 missiles and 2 empty wing tanks, full internal fuel: 30763 lbs and drag index 107, so 55 sec are probably not far off.
I feel like this conversation happens every six months. It would appear that the acceleration spec is most likely based on an F-16 with a DI roughly 50 (as has been discussed here many times), but weight dependent (the objective acceleration spec was around 40 seconds for acceleration with 55 as threshold). When I get a minute today I’ll look at the block 50 manual as well. (edit- look at next page used the HAF F-16 block 60 GE-129)
The Bowman paper mentions no configuration for the acceleration spec, but Osley said
“The point to make about those is that that acceleration by the F35 is in a combat configuration. If you look at the legacy aircraft and we talk about comparable performance, a legacy aeroplane would require weapons and, obviously, external fuel tanks to be in combat configuration”.
His quote is significant because now he is talking about comparable configurations (weapons, fuel for equivalent combat radius).
The guy over at Elements of power did a good breakdown a few years back on the configurations at which the block 50 had better acceleration than the F-35A. Ozair posted it above.
FBW*If* those are the specs used officially for those acceleration numbers and as far as I am aware that has never been confirmed. Also we don’t know the aircraft’s loadout for those numbers. And expecting a mere five second difference between the F-35A and the F-35C with its larger wing and tail surfaces but same overall length? That was downright unrealistic.
Pilot comments about the F-35A say it accelerates better than an F/A-18 and that seems probable to me. I’ll try to dig up that interview where the test pilot compared the F-35C to an F/A-18E in a relatively clean configuration “no pylons, no tanks” were his words IIRC.
Of course the Super Hornet isn’t a very high benchmark to beat in terms of supersonic acceleration, but it shows that at least the F-35C won’t be any worse in that particular area.
Those are the specs for the “A” mentioned in AVM Osley’s testimony to Australian Parliament. That was based on end of life engine assumptions, with full weapon and full load. The performance of the “C’ is not particularly inspiring. People harp on the “B” compromising the specs for the other two. The reality is that the F-35A does match the spec for a similarly loaded F-16 (depending on DI), and the “B” is a performance step up from the Harrier.
The F-35C…. a single engined 34,500 lb fighter that does not conform to sears-haack fineness nor particularly good area ruling is not going to have very good acceleration. The F-35A has less drag and a better thrust to weight ratio than the other two variants. The F-15 is actually a draggy shape in the transonic compared to even the F-4, but it has far more power.
FBWDidn’t prevent the US from spending huge sums for the F-35’s development, typically at the expense of other types. The money that is spent on the F-35’s development alone exceeds the development costs for the Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon combined and it was furthermore spent over a shorter duration of time! Add the previous investment into the F-22.
That middle part is somewhat questionable, as the development costs of the three would have to be converted into CY values, not to mention the variation in how development costs are calculated. The Typhoon is a good example, the UK estimated the development costs of the program at 22 billion euros in TY 2012 values (and that was assuming the four partner nations had similar share of dev. costs figured into the program cost). The total program cost of the Rafale is estimated upwards of 46 billion euros in TY2013 values (development cost estimates range all over depending on what is included). Gripen development or accurate program costs are difficult to find…… Anyone?
For the Raf alone, the equivalent program acquisition unit costs are higher than the current program acquisition unit costs for the F-35 (and the F-35’s have been adjusted downward with each successive lot). The development costs will not seem so steep should the program stretch into the 2030’s (as planned) with anywhere near the expected total production.
Program acquisition costs are a bit more accurate as they include: development, construction =+ assembly line, engineering changes, upgrades, production, support. In this, there is no doubt that the Program cost of the F-35 is higher than the three combined, but considering the numbers produced + to be produced, the F-35 program unit cost (TY 154 million, BY 2012 134 million) is currently estimated below the Raf and Typhoon.
FBWDamn guys it’s called a drag chute or brake chute, but certainly not parachute.:angel:
Indeed it is sir! Apologies for the lexicon faux pas.
FBWLittle operational gain my butt lol.. Why do they want to add a parachute if they don’t want to reduce the landing distance? The reversers were removed from the ATF to save money.
Leave off the “lol” and all the other foolishness in your posts and actually make an attempt to learn before spouting off about things you’ve no idea about. The thrust reversers were eliminated for several reasons of which money was not one.
Now go and look up why the ATF program removed the requirement.
Second, yes, as I said a parachute to reduce landing distances is much more practical and economical. That’s one reason you commonly see them, and not thrust reversers like you claimed. (on fighter aircraft, obviously commercial aircraft are a different story)
200-300lbs is not much considering it would increase the survivability of the plane. Well Worth the invesment, at least if the plane is to be used in places with many strips of roads to operate from.
That is not the only concern and 200-300 lbs is a massive amount of dead weight to add to a project with tight weight tolerances.
And it is easier for the aircraft to operate with reversers than parachutes. There is no time to waste to fold the parachute.
This is just plain stupid. So, you are postulating that it is easier to add thrust reversers than a parachute? You really need to think, research, and then think again before you post.
FBW.
I think it could have been a good idea to give the F-35A the ability to operate from short strips of roads, with thrust reversers maybe. Thrust reversers are more practical than parachutes. Especially for the european theater where a STOL plane would have had a lot of roads to operate from.
This is just completely false. Thrust reversers are heavy and complex. Adding thrust reversers to the F135 would have added 200-300lbs of extra weight to the rear of the aircraft for little operational gain. Parachutes are far more practical and economical in the long term. There was a good reason why thrust reversers were removed from the ATF requirements once the impact on other parameters became clear.
FBWThe F-35C has poor speed and acceleration. Without a stovl variant the plane would have been designed differently, it would probably have been longer and with a reduced cross section. But I guess you’re probably one of those who think the STOVL variant didn’t have much impact, which is ridiculous.
This is completely muddled. The issues the “C” has are less related to the STOVL constraints imposed by the “B” and have far more to do with the massive increase in drag from the extra 200+ sq ft of wing area and 2 1/2 tons of extra weight.
FBWLM certainly didn’t invest in the Yak for the fun of it. They were working on the JSF and they saw the potential of that design. Without the experience of the Yak, probably they couldn’t have made the JSF that way.
How utterly wrong you are….
But keep going it is good comedy.
FBWIn Western hemisphere, Gripen. If we exclude F-16.
Still a beefed up F-15 like SA or better may still be worth the penny for some Nations, even if it exeed $100 mil.
It can still do better parameter on some areas that the F-35 cannot.Word of advance, stop moaning about key pub.
If it is so bad, just leave.
Word of advice, I never complained about key pub- just not butt hurt about f-16.net like you are. I just don’t post there much. Maybe it’s not your place to tell other posters that don’t share your views to go to another forum.
FBW^^ I believe this is where the concurrency plays its part.
The F-35A is still far from (combat)ready.
Baaaaaahhh, wrong answer. Concurrency costs (est.)are included. F-35A’s IOC is this fall, and will be quite capable in 3i configuration, though with limited selection of weapons.
FBWIf you guys^^, are looking for a forum where everyone is singing the LM halleluja song, then you clearly Come to the wrong forum. Now back to F-16.net you go. Should be a lot more pleasing..
If the F-35A partners are paying $103 mil a pop w/engine.
How much more are US gonna pay for it.. to cover R&D cost?
Ah, yes because clearly you are an informed, balanced poster, representative of the best of key pubs….
Lot 8 are roughly 95 million, or 108 million with engine (URF 100.6 million). What don’t you look instead of spouting off, the answers are right in front of you. The Gross weapon system cost in 2016 is 126 million.
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150309-005.pdf
The 2015 SAR estimate for PAUC was roughly 129 million across the three variants. It is important to note that the program acquisition costs have been going down (not up as some postulate).
Look at the trend over the last few production lots. Exactly what aircraft do you think a user can procure for under 100 million in FY16 dollars?
FBW, India choosing S-400 even though PAC-3/THAAD availabe to them etc …..
THAAD has not been offered, nor did India inquire about purchasing the system. There was some interest in the PAC-3, India was briefed on the system and participated in some BMD simulations with U.S. That was as far as it went.
Addition- I don’t believe there is a contract in place for the purchase of the S-400 system by India. There has been talk for the last two years. Anyone know the status of this?
Sign In
