FBWIt’s quite obvious where (or who) you coming from! 😀
Real quick, do you know what an SAR is, and who calculates those numbers? Google fast!!! Hint, the customer, not L-M or some imaginary horde of paid informants here to influence public opinion in Dijbouti to buy the F-35.
understand that a proper analysis to establish the current hourly cost requires knowledge of all the source costs used and the assumptions made.
– Congrats you just posted gibberish! What is a source code? What would it have to do with CPFH? Again quick answer…. Anyone ever realize that those who are most opposed to the F-35 program are the least educated in basic comprehension fighter aircraft and procurement? Run along Tony, I’m sure MSNBC or War is Boring will have a new “junk food for the brain” article for you to quote.
Edit- oops, thought your post said source code, not source cost. typing from airport. Seriously though, look up how CPFH are calculated. CPFH tend to be high at the start of a program, then dip as maintenance procedures, spares, operating procedures are developed, then rise again as an airframe ages. Basically, the cost projections are based on the current trends, trends that all show the F-35 CPFH going down. The actual number may be slightly high/low but based on the projections, the F-35 will fit between the F-16C and the F-15E (closer to the F-15).
FBWYour comparison is apples to oranges. You are trying to compare the cost of the F-22 made in a batch of 187 units with the pig prices projected to be made in thousands. If the only way to make the F-35 cheaper than a Raptor is to order a gazzilion of them, then you could have killed it right away and ordered a gazzilion of Raptors, instead..
Let’s do apples to apples and make an average cost of the F-35 from a similar batch of ~180 aircraft.. There you go with $142mil average price.
OK Msphere, you do understand the difference between APUC and PAUC? The APUC of the F-35 is lower as of now than the F-22 ever was. Now that says nothing on capability, or the shortsightedness that went into canceling the F-22. I think we can all agree that was in error. 60-90 more F-22’s produced would have been the preferable outcome with the least risk (though the F-22 is flawed due to software/hardware upgrade difficulties). No one I’ve ever seen post here has claimed that the F-35 could replace the high end air superiority capability that the F-22 provides, despite your repeated claims otherwise.
APUC- the F-35 (2015) in Constant year dollars, or then year dollars an F-35 is cheaper than the F-22 was while in production. So your point has no validity. A simple google of the DoD budget would have saved you from yet another embarrassing mistake.
PAUC- The F-22’s development costs are spread over 195 airframes, so yes obviously it skews the PAUC in favor of the F-35 provided that something close to the planned 3,000+ airframes are built. That does not change the fact that in 2015 dollars a single F-35 is cheaper to procure than the F-22 was.
FBWIf there was ever any doubt MSphere was willing to look like a complete fool to avoid admitting he is wrong ….
The last two pages are full of Msphere doing just that, then again…. At least he’s got some credible opinions on other threads. The two parrots he’s attracted are real gems for this forum.
FBWFirst, take your Prozac and cool down. With your frantic jumping you are only making the things worse.
Yawn.. Look..
The F-35 is kinematically neither a Raptor, nor a Concorde, T-50, not even a Rafale, we all know it and even another 1,000 pages of excited rant won’t change a thing about that.. Just get used to that, your life will be easier..
Not frantic at all, I find your flailing around amusing. Keep up the foolish posts, it is entertainment for the rest of us. The last part about the Kinematics is especially clownish, the F-35 is no Concorde, really? Here I thought it could carry 104 people from JFK to Heathrow at mach 2 in comfort. Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh God, not another fool asking for ITAR classified evidence
– there’s only one fool; the poster making claims based on assumptions. If your going to present yourself as a informed poster and present your opinions as fact, expect to be called out, period.
Edit- I apologize to any poster trying to read this thread and having to wade through the back and forth negative exchange. However, having to read through the muck one poster’s constant factually incorrect and high handed attacks on anyone who might have a slightly positive outlook on the F-35 is also tiresome.
FBWA stupid request, IMHO. Not only exact times were never released, they are most likely subject of ITAR. Do you always try to win your arguments by asking proofs which can put the other person behind bars?
First off I am not the one making claims I cannot back up so why are you making foolish comments that you’ve no proof of? I asked you that question for the simple truth, you’re B.S.-ing what you do not, cannot know. So? don’t make crap up.
What we do have, however is the pilot’s quote that it takes forever to reach M1.6 and only at the cost of depleting almost all fuel. That shows us the ballpark region of how effortlessly the F-35 of whatever version can get there.. I don’t need to know more than that to make my opinion..
I rest the case
And more Msphere prevarication! The quote from the pilot was about the F-35B as I stated about three posts ago. Are you so dense that you still don’t get that the F-35 A,B,C have different: weights, drag, in the case of the “B” less thrust which may; based on the dark magic called physics lead to: different acceleration times, speeds at alt? So when you pull a quote about the F-35B from the pilot stating that the aircraft used a Rutowski profile to reach top speed, you realize how dumb you sound applying that to the F-35A? They have very different acceleration times through transonic, different KCAS limitations due to: the “B” weighing 3,000lbs more, having 2,000lbs less thrust, different drag (for god’s sake look at a picture).
Just give it up, the hole your digging is getting deeper and deeper.
Your case proves your clueless and worse, disingenuous.
FBWSo you admit that I do understand mach number and height, after all? 😉
OK, you have ranted enough, now we can finally get back to the original topic which is not whether the the F-35 is M1.6 rated but how useful that speed figure will be? As I have said, once-in-a-lifetime attempt, then get back to subsonic.. Congratulations!!!
Well Msphere, again your going to ASSUMPTIONS, and my post was not a rant (i.e. a bunch of meaningless words and suppositions like the majority of your posts) but an actual attempt to teach to you (in an admittedly not very kind way) that you were wrong and why.
Yes, the F-35 is fat and slow and nothing you have shown here has indicated otherwise. The max speed of M1.6 (or 1.67 if you wish) alone is nothing stellar, the acceleration to that speed is painful, the range at that speed is almost zero.. What is it good for, then?
Ummm, yes I did just show you. I just showed you that M 1.6 is not the aerodynamic limit for the F-35A which means? It will be able to accelerate to m 1.6 and beyond if it were not software limited. Second, the acceleration times through the transonic are similar to an f-16C with a DI of around 50. So, your wrong and double wrong.
But since you decided to post this:
the acceleration to that speed is painful, the range at that speed is almost zero
perhaps you would be so good to give us all the time to accelerate to mach 1.6? And actual numbers for the range at that speed? I’m not expecting an answer as you don’t have one. Just showing you’ve no idea what your talking about. In the end, you have nothing but wrongheaded opinion, I’ve backed up what I claimed.
FBWWhile I do think F-35 has comparable/better turn performance to clean F-16, or acceleration comperable to F-16 @ drag index 50 or so, top speed of F-35 is really unimpressive;
F-16 @ drag index 100 can go M1.7. Possible loadouts are;
2x370gal + 1×300 gal EFTs + 4 AIM-120s (DI=100), or
2xMk-84 + 4x AIM-120 + 300 Gal fuel tank (DI=95), or
4xMk-84, (DI=99)Only if we equip F-35’s heavilest internal payload to F-16 and add 600 gal fuel tanks;
2xMk-84 + 2xAIM-120 + 2×600 Gals = Drag index 119, F-16’s top speed drops to around M1.58 and we can say F-16 is slower than F-35.However with lighter armament, F-35 cannot go faster than its already clean state, but an F-16 will go much faster (top speed @ DI=50 is M1,87. example payload at this drag index include “6xAIM-120” , “2×370 Gal tanks” , “4xAIM-120+ 300 gal tank” etc)
That is, if we are talking about high altitude speeds. F-35 will possibly go M1.1+ at S/L when clean, but an F-16 @ DI=100 cannot even go supersonic at sealevel.
Reasonable analysis:
One thing, what is the GW you are using for the F-16 in those DI configurations? At 20,000lbs or even 24,000lbs, the top speed is somewhat theoretical because the aircraft it bingo fuel. I don’t see the F-16 on the chart with a DI of 50 reaching Mach 1.87 with any fuel and or weapons (being anything below 24K pounds)
I’ve got it just over mach 1.8?
edit- ok, I see, pulled up the DI 50 with CFT chart first.
FBW700 kts (KCAS) is exactly M1.05 at sea level. The rest of your rant was, again, not worth reading, save your fingers next time.
Very good, google is your friend. It’s obvious that you were not referring to max speed at SL, nice try. Too bad you didn’t understand mach/altitude conversion when you posted this:
700 kts is not M1.6, it’s hardly M1.2.. I was talking about max. speed…
Now, the F-35 A and C are 700 KCAS rated and the “B” is 630KCAS. Now how can they all be rated for mach 1.6? hmmm, thinking cap on MSPHERE!
The A model has a requirement to exceed the speed of sound at sea level. It also achieves mach 1.6 at the lowest altitude (30ish k feet). With me? The C and the B fly at higher alts to reach the required mach 1.6.
For the “A” it’s around 25-30k feet, which means that when I’ve said that the “A” model has exceeded Mach 1.6 in testing, a bright bulb would have realized that the F-35A has the potential to fly faster than mach 1.6 at higher altitude, or they have flown the aircraft faster than 700 KCAS at test altitude. Either way it shows that the “A” model does not “struggle” to reach top speed as you claimed. Is it electronically limited to 700KCAS (edit- or mach 1.6 depending on which comes first at alt) at all altitudes though it has shown potential to either exceed mach 1.6 or 700knts? That is the million dollar question.
SO when you say that the F-35A is fat and slow, it shows you have but a rudimentary understanding of mach speeds, and aircraft performance in general. The F-18E achieves it’s highest mach at 35,000ft, the F-16 roughly the same.
FBW700 kts is not M1.6, it’s hardly M1.2.. I was talking about max. speed…
..
HA HA HA, sorry I took you for someone who had a basic understanding of aircraft and flight. OK, I stand corrected, you are just a pretend know it all that does not understand mach number and height.
Carry on with your anti-F-35 diatribe, you’ve been exposed.
FBWI am not talking about staying supersonic.. I am talking about flying at M1.6 (or 1.67)..
I have never claimed it cannot. I have claimed it can but it’s completely useless, anyway..
Umm, but you were talking about staying supersonic so you are lying again:
Msphere’s quotes:
“The top speed of M1.6 for the F-35 is every bit as hypothetical as the M2.5 figure for the F-15. In reality, the F-35 will spend 98% of its flight time at subsonic speeds because any attempt to cross the transonic region results in significant range penalty and it takes you forever to achieve that speed.”
Basically you mix opinion in with the obvious. Every fighter suffers a range penalty for supersonic flight. You have exactly ZERO evidence that the F-35A cannot maintain the 700kt operational speed limit for a significant distance or time. The F-35:
takes forever to reach that speed
In fact, considering that we know the F-35A’s transonic acceleration, we can prove that your comment is 100% B.S.
Msphere’s other quote:
“Funny how you managed to turn the coat completely just because the F-35 has turned out to be a slow pig..”
Again, opinion. Despite the obvious that there is really NO operational speed differential between an F-35, and an armed F-16/F-18 you make comment based on your belief, no verifiable fact.
The rest of the post is not constructive or worth commenting.
Of course not, because you made a lame excuse about the Swiss eval. being in “the mountains” as if somehow that discredited the idea that the F-18 was competitive with the newer fighters.
Again, stop making foolish claims and I won’t have to point out where you went wrong….. again.
FBWI have never put the max. speed figures in doubt. I have clearly said they are roughly as representative as the M2.5 figure for the F-15. You will try it once in a lifetime for a dash of ~50 miles while depleting almost all fuel and then nicely get back to your subsonic speeds where the F-35 belongs. Yes, including the A.
Again with the equivocation. First off, we KNOW that the F-35A can stay supersonic for more than 50 miles:
“The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners. (AFM November 2012)”
We also know that the F-35A is limited to Mach 1.6 as it has exceeded that Mach in testing. So, based on what? Looks? you’re assuming that the aircraft would struggle to reach that speed?
Yes, I agree the top speeds of most fighters is theoretical because fuel burn makes reaching top speed impractical. The thing is, there is not a single shred of evidence that the F-35A would not, could not achieve and hold it’s planned speed of Mach 1.6.
Because: 1. The “B” and the “C” have achieved the speed despite being (in the case of the “B” 3,000lbs heavier, with 2,000lbs less thrust, and a large drag inducing hump). 2. It has achieved top speed with full weapons and even opened weapons bay at said speed. 3. It has exceeded the 700kt/mach 1.6 operational speed in testing by 10% (and we don’t even know if that is the aerodynamic limit (simply because they are only testing to operational limits +10% safety margin)
You have nothing, not a shred of proof otherwise.
That was discussed to death few years ago.. You might not have been here, I don’t remember… Swiss eval, especially the A-A component is very specific, much of that happening in Axalp mountain range. The extreme proximity of steep mountains renders much of what we expect to be a decisive factor (sensor range, EW, RWR) quite irrelevant, while other factors like nose poiting ability, agility, controllability, radar scan rate, lock-on stability etc. play a much larger role than with the same aircraft fighting high over the Sahara desert. It’s quite impossible to evaluate these results without having the weighing of the individual factors at hand and I personally do not like to use Swiss results for anything, even if Rafale was declared the winner..
OK, this might be the most foolish thing you’ve said. Yes, I was here, and posted the eval (as did a few others). You do realize that the Alps don’t even reach 20,000 ft? The DCA and OCA testing is not going to be low altitude, nor is air policing. Simple fact is, the evaluation flies in the face of your foolishly held beliefs that there is a massive performance difference between the 4+ gens and older fighters, or the F-35 for that matter that impacts operational effectiveness. The simple fact is, there isn’t.
Even if there was a huge performance gap, that’s not the critical factor in operational effectiveness: the radar, EW, IDASS, MMI, etc, are what determine and effective combat aircraft. If they held the Swiss eval. tomorrow, I would expect very different scores as all three of the European entries have matured and corrected deficiencies.
Yaaawn.. wake me up when you’re finished, please..
You have displayed a strong streak of let’s say… cross Atlantic bias, which is fine, there are more than a few members who seem to have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to products from a certain nation. It is galling to watch a member blur fact and opinion yet call others names. Maybe check the bias and stick to verifiable information or at least express dubious claims as opinion.
FBWI have already shown you.. It was on 12th April 2015 in the F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2015). You were given an exact quote and instead of admitting you were wrong you have started to play a smarta$$. So typical… You’re not worth more of my time.. Continue living in denial, I could not care less.
Utter foolishness, the only quote on the F-35 reaching 1.6 using the Rutowski maneuver was regarding the F-35B/C as I said ( the “A” model has exceeded mach 1.67 in testing). Your posts are crap, find information or stop posting the same old discredited garbage. I’ve posted the acceleration times and comparisons at least 10 times. Sorry you can’t read an flight report graph, nor can you be objective. As for denial, that is your perpetual state as tactics and technology have moved beyond your surface understanding of air combat. I agree, don’t waste your time. Stop posting incorrect garbage conclusions and I won’t have to correct them. Till then, every foolish opinion post that you write, I will continue to point out your logic fails.
From FlightGlobal article:
An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards. The kinematics are basically F/A-18C-like, though that was apparently exactly what was expected….
Again Swiss report, how did the F-18C stack up? Silence…..
Note- watch Msphere try to wiggle out of another fail, as I clearly stated “except for the “B” version. Just another addition to the legion of errors MSphere makes in an attempt to label everyone who puts holes in his bias. Then he can always fall back on the always popular “fanboy and L-M paid poster” crutch to cover his failure to grasp that one does not have to “love” the F-35 to see that unreasoned irrational negativity toward a particular aircraft colors his every post.
FBWFunny.. In that logic, would make 30mm that much better then.
Is the new gun a rotary gatling type or a singel barrel gun?Something smells funny here.. for years I have witness pro US guys chanting about the awesome rounds/per minute of the 20mm on F-16 and that this was allways preferable over the 30mm singel barrel gun on SU/Russian jets..
So.. a change of heart?
God I hate that whole pro-US vs. crap, interjecting arguments from one poster onto an entire nationality. There are two different arguments- heavier shells vs rate of fire. Obviously there is going to be a trade-off when you are comparing a heavy single barrel cannon to a lighter multi-barrel. A single hit from the larger caliber or a rain of shells from the lighter faster firing cannon which may ensure multiple hits.
The F-35’s equalizer has both a heavy shell and a high rate of fire, similar to the Gsh-6-30 (though the soviet gun had a higher cyclic rate of fire and a heavier shell).
FBWOnly static acceleration at low speeds where engine power plays a more significant role than aerodynamics. The more to transonic you get, the more of a pig the thing becomes.
The top speed of M1.6 for the F-35 is every bit as hypothetical as the M2.5 figure for the F-15. In reality, the F-35 will spend 98% of its flight time at subsonic speeds because any attempt to cross the transonic region results in significant range penalty and it takes you forever to achieve that speed.
Well, seeing as how I’ve posted the acceleration times and top speeds multiple times proving that your full of crap. Let’s reverse it. Show me how the F-35A won’t achieve it’s mach 1.6 top speed (P.S. we aren’t talking about the “B” version here which has less thrust, more weight, and a big hump for the lift fan), you have nothing but opinion.
BTW, what the hell is static acceleration in this case? We aren’t talking electronics. I’ll assume your referring to the rise in wave drag at trans sonic. Again, can you eyeball to what degree the F-35A is worse? We can assume it will be a bit draggy as fineness ratio is rather poor. To what degree? You can B.S. all you want, but in reality the F-35 cruises both higher and faster than the F-16 according to Norwegian pilots who’ve flown it.
FBW4+ Gen fighters like Rafale match or surpass the F-22 in terms of sensor fusion, there is nothing exceptional in there.. The F-22 only has two virtues over its peers – that is RCS and speed.. nothing else..
Unsubstantiated B.S., prove it, or shut it. There is NO evidence of that, in fact there are factors that suggests otherwise. While there is no doubt about two advantages the Rafale has: the Rafale’s software is easier to upgrade, and newer hardware is easier to integrate on Rafale.
But all the defensive sub systems are not integrated, read DDM-NG, frankly I don’t think that there is anything to suggest that the MDPU of the Rafale is any more advanced than the CIP(s) of the F-22. I don’t think you, or I are in a position to assess to what degree either is superior or inferior. The F-22 was built around the idea of integrated, embedded sensors, linked to a CPU. The Rafale has seen modular upgrades to achieve a level of sensor, data fusion. Different approaches, you are in the know their level of equality/inequality? The Rafale and the F-22 are contemporaries, both have been upgraded, only one is for export (therefore marketed).
Complete nonsense. The F-22 was and is all about speed.. Practical speed values combined with range, not a theoretical M2.5 achieved once in a lifetime for a dash of 50 miles.
No, it was not all about speed. Otherwise, agreed the F-15 does not have a usable speed comparable to the F-22. The F-15 is faster on paper.
Another nonsense.. It wasn’t that far off when you guys were all about how release SC speed provides increased kinetic range for the weapons, thus expanding the No-Escape-Zone. You were one of them claiming that the F-35 would use the same advantage.. Funny how you managed to turn the coat completely just because the F-35 has turned out to be a slow pig..
Hmmm, slow pig. Acceleration comparable to an F-18C or a F-16C with a DI of 80, nope not slow. Top speed mach 1.6 comparable to an F-18C and a whopping .15 mach slower than an armed F-16C. Not slow.
The difference between the internet crowd “mine is .5 mach faster, and 2 degrees rate of turn better” B.S.ers, and operational reality is best represented by the Swiss report. The old, slow F-18C was rated a near equal, or better in some missions than the 4+ gen fighters your touting. I remember your quoting that the F-16 level of performance is obsolete, yet the F-18C which is a lesser fighter than the F-16 was VERY competitive in the Swiss evals. The truth hurts, huh.
See, no matter how many times people post the actual data from fight manuals, no matter how flawed your logic is shown to be, you look at the F-35 and assess fat=slow. You have this impression that 4+ gen fighters are a massive performance leap over the F-16, F-15, M2000, Mig-29. They are not, the advantages are slight. It is their avionics, their software that make them superior
Every modern fighter today is/will be designed with maximum possible information gathering/processing/sharing. That is a must, not a virtue.. The F-35 will possess no advantage here..
First part very true, second part, very untrue. Listen you can ignore the pilots who are telling the public the quantum leap that the F-35 represents in regard to data collection, sharing, processing. You can ignore that that the aircraft has 4x the software of any other aircraft flying. But then it’s your opinion vs. facts.
Sign In
