FBWWell the F-35 being produced in the three digits by now and by Year End will go IOC.
It even performed an breathtaking transocean leg.
Surely at the nearest airshow it can show us some impressive stuff?
Doubt it, most likely the majority of the F-35’s airshow performance will (probably) consist of those slow speed tail slides, failing leaf stalls, hammerhead turns common in F-18 Super Demos. They wow crowds, but are just boring.
What happened to the days of the high speed passes and aggressive maneuvers like old F-16 displays (though I’ve seen a Typhoon demo that fits the bill).
The red bull planes can put any combat aircraft to shame, as they don’t actually need to carry equipment, loads, or perform a mission. And that is about the utility of airshows.
FBWWhat percentage of the time will F35 operators hang weaponry underwing (through choice or because they cant get their weapons into the bay)?
It is just something I wonder, because I think the F35 will spend a lot of time in a Very Observable configuration rather than the S400 beating one which is the basis of most of the pro-arguments here (and note I am neither pro or anti).
If the USAF operations with F-22’s are a guide, F-35A will probably fly “clean wing” the majority of the time. F-35B’s operating for the USMC might have more flexibility. As for non-US users, it would depend on operations.
FBWwell, sorty, I took wiki cited fuel capacities, 8t-something internal for the f-35, 11,4t for the rafale including external tanks, and ferry ranges compared, ~2000km for f-35 and ~3700km for the rafale…
So you identified your own failing on this one, obviously you realize this is complete B.S. Seriously, have you been reduced to the old T word? Should all just skip over your posts as many do with another serial garbage poster on this forum?
Ok, anyway we are done with the whole “double the range with 40% more fuel” misinformation. As is the case with most F-35 criticisms, long on supposition and brochure figures, short on practical and informed knowledge.
FBWah, and FBW, 8t + 40% goes a bit above 11t… that is somewhat more than the small and sleek underbelly supersonic tank… but, then again, if you can’t grasp that, one can’t blame you for believing a truck can win a formula 1 race
Ah, toocool:
F-35 18,400lbs internal fuel= 9T+
Rafale 10,600 lbs internal+ 3 2000L eft (10,150 lbs)= 20,750 lbs
15% more fuel
#math is hard
As for the rest of your post, it shows that you’ve managed to be on this forum for many years without grasping much about modern fighter performance, and that is being charitable.
Edit- please don’t try to come back with the Rafale can carry 5 Eft (3 2000L and 2 1250L) there is a reason that is not considered an air to air load out.
FBWWith 40% more fuel, big chunk of it hanging outside, the Rafale has almost twice the range.. so, either your engine us really poorly designed, or you have the aerodynamics of a brick… or both
This too, is incorrect. What are you using to compare range?
The Rafale has a maxium air to air profile range of 930nm with three EFT (2000L), or around 900nm with a minute of combat.
That means the Rafale is carrying 21,000lbs of fuel (rounded).
The F-35 has an max air to air profile range of between 673nm (on internal fuel for a surveillance mission based on Norway briefing) to 750+ nm air to air mission with a minute of combat (based on 2009 report-with the caveat that this may be based on the old requirement with 2EFT). Regardless, the F-35A would fly roughly 700nm with 18,300lbs of fuel on a similar profile as the Rafale Brazil graphic.
So, I ask you where is twice the range? The Rafale carrying 15% more fuel will fly roughly 30% further. No one said that there is not a penalty to a large internal fuel capacity, but adding 3 2000L EFT to an aircraft the size of the Rafale? That is not free of penalties.
FBWone funny thought.. it will struggle un airliner interception, but how about a simple cessna? for sure, it will be fast enough to catch it, but will it be able, with its huge wingload, to slow down enough to stay with it?
Wow……just wow.
First off, TooCool, you of course have some numbers to support this idea that the F-35 would have difficulty intercepting an airliner? Such as climb rate, acceleration numbers throughout such an interception profile?
The second part, huge wingload huh? What are the F-35’s stall speeds?
The usual crew armed with unsubstantiated opinions rather than evidence and understanding are at it again.
FBWOf course we don’t know GE is part of the NG bid, but this suggests that a variable bypass engine was on the table for the bomber.
That is interesting. Looking at the released artist rendering, the B-21 is obviously a subsonic design. If the requirements included a variable bypass turbofan, there are several possible reasons including: The use of VCE technology to reap benefits in fuel economy in the low transonic regime, or using twin engines with enough dry thrust for takeoff, acceleration, and dash performance.
FBWBut first someone will have to design & build a VTOL stealth aircraft. Who will do that?
F-35B can take off vertically. The STOVL requirement was 550ft (10knt wod) now 600ft KPP with full fuel and 5,500lbs payload. Obviously, considering the VLBB requirements, it can take off vertically with some weapons and fuel (in an emergency)- obviously not enough to fly a significant distance.
FBWWell, good to know that U.S. politicians are not the only ones that give campaign promises lip service:
32.9 million annual payment- allows them to stay in, and bid on contracts. Bargain, that’s about 3 days of US strikes against ISIS.
And frankly, Canada staying in the program has little to do with their industrial participation and work share for the near future, those are firm commitments and contracts. Their ultimate decision will most likely impact any future contracts for Canadian aerospace firms however.
FBWWhy? It is projected to keep falling in price, and should be at a quite affordable level by 2020-2022. Or are you thinking about the noise level and the noise tests?
The F-35 would have a snowballs chance in **ll in Switzerland. Especially if the voters have a say. It would be viewed as an offensive weapon system, anathema to Swiss defense doctrine. Even IF the F-35 APUC by 2020 is comparable with the Gripen E/F, the operating cost won’t be.
I can just imagine the Swiss voters asking themselves why they need a LO strike fighter for DCA and air policing.
FBWThat is exactly why embedded systems like EOTS, EODAS or OLS-35 don’t make much sense.. A podded version is much easier to replace..
You missed the part about air forces still using first generation AN/AAQ-14. Targeting systems are expensive, podded or not. They do not simply get replaced as a newer version is released. I doubt that an external IRST or targeting pod has a significant cost advantage in either developing or integrating an internal system.
Because that is the cheapest you can do to increase your combat capability… Low hanging fruits.
..
Absolutely not, Each AESA upgrade to the F-15C fleet is roughly 8 million dollars. Replacing the F-15C’s F100-PW-220 engines with -229 engines would cost the USAF roughly 7 million dollars. Which one did the USAF choose?
We can take the Typhoon as another example, the AMK modifications offer a substantial improvement to close in maneuverability, can be added to existing airframes, and is likely, quite affordable. So far, there has been zero interest. Adding CAPTOR-E? That has been the focus of making the Typhoon appealing for the upgrade/export market.
FBWThis shall not be a redesign rather than a completely new system. In some way it indicates what I have been thinking a while a go – that the EODAS and EOTS can be matched, even surpassed using today’s technology.
Well, awhile ago that was not necessarily true. EOTS and EODAS when designed a decade and a half ago, were revolutionary. That is why there is an advanced EOTS planned for block 4. Besides, the question is “Is the EOTS still able to perform it’s function effectively”? And lastly, there are still air forces using LANTIRN AN/AAQ-14, Russia did not replace the OLS-27 on their Su-27’s as the -35 was introduced. Air forces don’t have the funding to constantly replace their inventory as new technology becomes available (only to surpassed by a newer/upgraded IRST or Pod)
This does put to rest the old argument that the EOTS, being an internal IRST/Targeting system, would be difficult if not impossible to replace/upgrade. Seems that there are already two systems that will be a “drop-in” replacement.
If Rafael has a similar system, then others can have it, too.. Investment in electronics and sensors is only able to provide a short lasting advantage. A superior platform and/or numbers are still the key to long term supremacy.
Then I ask you, why do forces focus on software and hardware updates over new/modified airframes, or engine upgrades? Because the investment in electronics and sensors provide the critical advantage. An F-15 with the AN/APG-63(v3) or -82 and EPAWSS is still a first class air superiority fighter despite being surpassed in airframe performance.
That’s why I have said – platform is everything…
That is perfectly wrong. Would anyone argue that even a T-50 platform equipped with a NO19 radar and 1980’s RWR be competitive? I get it, you seem to think there is this great gulf in performance between various 4th, 4.5, or whatever gen platforms. The numbers suggest otherwise, not to mention, the differences are not as critical as increasing sophistication in software and sensors.
FBWUhh no. Not even close. Unless you were American of course, but the world is a slightly bit larger than that. It was always US centric to an extreme.
Uhhh yes. It is obvious you did not visit there during the years prior to 2010-2009 if you think otherwise. That, or you prefer enthusiast opinions of aircraft over aircrew talking about their aircraft and experience. But, to each his own. I’m not defending the current iteration of the site, and this is significantly OT.
FBWf-16.net is the nest of the most ignorant and arrogant US/West ‘hooray-patriots'(i.e. fanboys) – a marvelous home for myriads of misconceptions and misinformation.
Most of the above is largely accurate. There are some posters who still infrequently post that have operational experience and a wealth of avation knowledge: johnwill (an engineer of the F-16 design team), That_engine_guy, Hornetfinn, Gums, etc. Not to mention the former posters (before the big OPSEC uproar 5-6 years ago) included: F-22 pilots, Israeli pilots, active and former F-16 pilots, who were posters there at one time.
These days, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff (as on any forum), there is no doubt that today it is filled with (ahem) overzealous types. Several years ago there was no question that forum was THE aviation forum with the most posters who were active military pilots, maintainers or former pilots, crew, etc. Since 2008, active military have disappeared from or curtailed posting on F-16.net and other forums.
FBWWhat is your source for Saab’s cost estimates at roughly 80 million?
If anyone had a more accurate cost for a FY17 Super hornet I would like to know
The quote was from 2012 Defense News.com article “Sweden’s Possible Gripen Cut Prompts Force Capability Fears” (which apparently was not archived on their site) therefore I am unable to bring it up, I quoted it here:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116825-Saab-Gripen-amp-Gripen-NG-thread-3&p=2218979#post2218979
You can read the entire article here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/swedenas-possible-gripen-cut-prompts-force-capability-fears.44128/
The Swiss air force commander expressed this:
Swiss Air Force Commander Markus Gygax said in an interview……Each new Gripen E/F class jet is worth less than $100 million dollars per basic unit, Gygax said. He could not comment on how much of the 3.1 billion franc project cost would go to Saab.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-28/saab-closes-in-on-swiss-gripen-deal-as-sweden-guarantees-timing
Though his cost estimate may have been lost in translation, or including aspects of the proposed contract outside of basic flyaway cost.
Sign In
