FBWT-50 uses alot more powerfull engines. and T-50 using far more composites in body than Su-35.
what is top speed of Thypoon since it use composites.
Does it matter? The Typhoon may have the highest current level of composites in its body design, but it is not considered a truly stealthy aircraft. Look at the limits of RAM that exist and you will see why a Mach 3 claim is simply pixie dust, and dumb to boot.
FBWIs F-16 range really that poor ?
According to Pierre Sprey: in A2A training which involve both F-15 & 16,
the fighter most commonly having to head for the tanker is the F-15
Your first problem is the source, and no, the F-16 range is not poor by single engine standards. It very much depends on mission profile and DI. That is the issue with lighter fighters. The F-15C’s range is good when not in mil or afterburner, considering that those two large engines have a 13,000+ lbs fuel load.
FBWSpot on… by further tweaking the numbers you can come to a conclusion that the Tu-22M-3 is an even better fighter than the F-35 because it has a much better acceleration, max speed and range when hauling 15 tons of bombs plus 50 tons of fuel. For shooting down the target you simply pass it by and then shoot it down with the 23mm cannon facing backwards.
Not spot on, silly.
There are no vague war loads to compare. A little leg work would answer your issues. You know the acceleration of the F-35 with: altitude configuration,weapons load. Now take some initiative and compare it to the F-16 drag index from the manual and you can see what everyone has been saying. You have the threshold F-35 sustained turn g at 15,000 feet ( notice I said threshold, because the previous non- weight optimized F-35 could sustain 4.9g at 15,000 feet), compare that at different weights to the F-16. Your vague complaints exhibit laziness, the numbers are out there and have been posted on this forum repeatedly.
You want to harp on the test report? Read the objective at the top of the report, it is cristal-clear. No-one outside of the most misinformed and partisan supporters of the F-35 would have argued that it would retain or regain energy in a high Alpha dogfight on par with the likes of the f-16, or F-15E. Does this refute the program claims of F-16 like manuverability? No. There are many different aspects that go into what defines the overall manuverability and agility of an airframe. The control laws can be eased for gains in pitch and yaw ( the main drivers of the test), the recommendations will be passed on to pilots that the F-35 does not regain energy in that regime well. That is the point of testing. Do I reject the report as some apologists do? No, the reports of the “fascist” control laws and anti-spin logic were avoidable. They should have decoupled the control laws of each of the three variants to not handicap the other two due to difficulties the “C” varient faced with buffeting and roll off. Second, the F-35 will be dependent on all-aspect ir missiles to engage in close combat, which are not scheduled for internal carriage. It does not have the E-M of comtemporarties and therefore requires the hmd, das, and a missile like the aim-9x to be effective wvr. How critical is WVR? You will always hear the “f-4 didn’t have a gun!” crowd make their case but in truth, since the Aim-9L made an appearance, getting WVR with an opponent is dicey and platform agility is not likely to improve kill loss rate.
Too lazy to look up the F-16 manual and drag index? Here is a comparison from a blog:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic.html?m=1
Don’t trust it? I don’t care, the numbers jive with what myself and others have posted when comparing the f-16 to the F-35 using the flight manual.
The major issue is: you seem to think that because the F-16 is nearing 40 that it’s performance is lacking. Nothing could be further from the truth. The newer fighters: F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35 can best it in some parameters. Notably the F-22 and Typhoon at altitude, the Rafale can outturn it at most any height. But decisively so, no. There is little to distinguish the performance of the 4th gen fighters from 4.5 or 5th that is not covered by pilot proficiency (in most scenarios,with the caveat: the F-22 et. al have improved at both the extreme right and left side of the flight envelope, high and fast and low and slow). Andraxxus has made this point again and again. The numbers do not lie, short of a liberal sprinkling of fairey dust, the alleged vast superiority of new fighters in performance is a myth.
Take the Swiss eval, the F-18 which is widely regarded as inferior to the F-16 as a pure fighter scored higher than the Gripen in OCA/DCA missions and near parity with the Rafale and Typhoon in some measurements. Why? Because there just Aint that much of a performance difference, especially when avionics play such a key role in effectiveness. So get off the high horse, do some research before making comparisons that are absurd.
FBWIIRC one of the structural retrofits to the earlier F-22s was strengthened vertical tail attachments. That limit likely no longer exists for retrofitted and newer airframes.
T-50’s vertical tails are smaller, so buffeting as Jo Asakura pointed out would not be as severe.
The obsession with the top speed of the F-22 or the T-50 seems a bit moot.
The F-22 would not operate much above Mach 2 in any case. It’s RAM (as with the case of most types of RAM, lose efectiveness the hotter they get). From a research paper I recall on developing a stealthy AAM, the limits for carbon based RAM is at or around Mach 2 depending on altitude, heat. Newer types are effective at higher temps but I doubt they are fitted to the F-22. Even the latter F-22’s that were fitted with a version of the coating developed from the F-35 had to have the coating modified to cope with the higher temps/speeds of the F-22.
Unless CNT becomes readily used in aircraft construction, I would not bet on the F-22 ( with canopy, coating restrictions) or the T-50 having an operational speed much in excess of Mach 1.9-2.1.
FBWwell, it was proposed by prime minister of Australia more specifically
True, had they serious intent of ordering the “B” in the first place they would not have modified the Canberra class to preclude the possibility. The humanitarian, assault missions took precedence over using a small fixed wing complement.
FBWJust today Australia announced they will not buy the F-35B. I guess the Aussies are smarter than the fools in the Pentagon.
Australia was never buying the F-35B. It was speculation. They are buying the F-35A. With the first one soon to roll out.
FBWNo
Double no, they are all different and not hi-hi.
FBWCareful there, look at the mission profile in that image, “Hi-LO-LO-HI”. The known combat radii of any JSF version was always presented in a “HI-HI” flight profile, a very diferent thing.
Cheers
That is incorrect, the F-35 range specifications are not hi-hi. They were altered from what was believed to be hi-lo-lo-hi to some mix of high, med, and different for each variant.
FBWFBW: Isn’t it easier to just admit you were wrong ?
Huh? Read through my posts. Unlike u, I don’t make absurd claims not based on evidence. You don’t have a conception of aircraft performance metrics, so you read a test report with the eye of a novice. How’s that claim that the F-35 is not an unstable design because you don’t see it wobble treating you? Yeah, think I’ll stick to the actual facts rather than your interpretation of them, thanks.
P.S. I’ll post some of the F-15 flight test write ups so that maybe, just maybe you and others understand the purpose of those tests.
FBWHave to say, it has been amazing reading the overreaction to the test report on this forum.
First off, the purpose of the test pilot was not to extol the virtues of the aircraft but identify issues, weaknesses, and make recommendations. The test was departure resistance and AOA/pitch response in BFM. Not some “balls out” play to your strengths dogfight as evidenced by the setups. Speeds from: 440 to 380 knots- mid to low energy at check away.
Pitch and yaw reponse-JPO and one of the test pilots had already alluded to any over dampened FCS had left some agility on the table because of transonic roll off, buffeting and wind drop encountered during testing ( especially on the “c”). The FCS control laws dictate the agility allowed in modern unstable designs ( yes the F-35 has negative stability just as all new fighters despite the comical utterings of Obligatory and others). Hence there is room for an easing in the control laws that would improve pitch and yaw rates as the buffeting ect. were less extreme than testing had suggested (at least for the “A”) The test report mentions the anti-spin logic forcefully negating the pilot imputs, not allowing for the use of offensive/defensive high alpha maneuvers. This can be tweaked, wether the clients feel it is imperative to do so is another matter. They may just leave the control laws alone for now as there are far more important software hurdles to cross.
On the matter of E/M, given the speed at the start of the tests, there is no way the pilot was making overall claims about the suitability of the aircraft to “dogfight” in all scenerios. His comments should not be surprising, an F-35 using high AOA and yaw at relatively low speeds is going to bleed energy, and not regain it as well as the two fighters mentioned. The F-15E has an absurd T/W ratio, and the F-16 was designed as an energy fighter, and does not go to high alpha in any case. There was no way that the F-35 would be an energy fighter on par with those two, I stated that myself. The F-35 has shown a good corner speed 370knts/9g/15,000ft. So it will have a good first turn. And it will bleed energy. What will be a disappointment is if the FCS is not tweaked for better pitch, roll, and yaw for as it loses speed: better responsiveness on those axis would provide a offensive look.
Tbh, other than the “soft” FCS laws, didn’t see anything in the report that was particularly surprising. After reading the last several pages on this tread, it is obvious that some posters are unaware of the purpose of flight test, simply want to bash what they still don’t grasp, or ignore the strengths and weaknesses of the fighter by painting too positive or too negative a picture based on a flight test excerpt.
FBWWhat it comes down to is people readily accept US equipment/training performing well…..but when a scenario comes up that for particular reasons shows the US to be a crappy supplier….mental gymnastics to justify it.
Stop being so defensive FBW. Iraq has had a poor experience with US weapon deliveries and training. America is not perfect at everything it does.
Not being defensive, realistic. Do you really think that any nation could speed up training competent pilots? I don’t have that “US equipment is the best” attitude. I really don’t think that it makes a difference whether the fledgling Iraqi air force is flying Mig-29’s, F-16’s, Su-27, or whatever. The human capital is the limiting factor right now, not equipment. I don’t think that US ground equipment such as the M-1 are the right weapons for Iraq. Former Soviet equipment was designed for a conscript army that was not expected to have the experience or training that some of the more maintenance intensive US weapons require. So yes, T-72 tanks and Kornet missile (the design of which started in the soviet era) are probably more robust and user friendly.
Aircraft are different, it may take a generation to train and develop an operation doctrine for the new Iraqi air force. If pressed, yes I would say that the US has more extensive facilities and support for training foreign air forces. They have an infrastructure and history through the FMS, IMET, Joint training programs: Singapore, Gulf nations, Euro-Nato Joint training, Taiwan, the list is endless. Moreover, the air forces that have engaged in these programs are largely competent and capable.
And to clarify the above statement I made about not repeating the previous errors, I would not say that the former Iraqi air force was inept or lacking in bravery, some of those pilots had extensive combat experience in the Iran-Iraq war, they were not novices. The doctrine and tactics were set up largely on Soviet lines put a heavy emphasis on GCI and were tactically rigid, robbing the pilots of initiative and adaptability. I believe that was even stated by Russian officers when talking about reforms implemented in the Russian military in recent years.
So no, I don’t think that handing over F-16IQ’s without doing the requisite training is particularly constructive. As for the rest of Iraq’s experience with US weapon supplies and training, if they are unhappy with the weapons supplied, buy whatever. But there is no silver bullet when it comes to training effective pilots.
@JSR
That previous Iraki airforce were using French radars including AWACS and most probaly some Euro based training aircraft. It has nothing to with Russia.
That is tremendous revisionist history. Sorry, but that is completely untrue. They had both Soviet advisors and French training. Interestingly, as they began to adopt to French training, they improved.
https://books.google.com/books?id=LVjhy7I2lDAC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=soviet+advisors+with+Iraqi+air+force&source=bl&ots=N2CtXYSEPU&sig=WE4bhj91aHdBUeYh6srT4TktVts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ybqMVeP1GMHugwSc14Ag&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=soviet%20advisors%20with%20Iraqi%20air%20force&f=false
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a217255.pdf
For those interested this was the Soviet comments, press releases, and analysis from GWI:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm
FBWI think my complaints about the “US trained and equipped iraqi armed forces” are shown to be true day after day…
whilst 200 Old Type-69s and T72s seem to soldier on and operate quite effectively against ISIS (total “cost” post 2003 maybe $100M?)… the M1 abrams that they spent SEVERAL BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on have a pathetic 30 tank availability rate. Oh and the tanks are maintained by “US contractors” for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS per annum so you can’t even blame the “iraqi untermensch” on that low availability.
Depot level maintenance is different from the constant field maintenance that a tank like the M1 requires, that is up to the crew. And I don’t think that the M1 was a good choice for Iraq. Russian tanks are engineered “soldier proof” and require less skill to maintain on the part of the crew. Can’t blame the contractors training the crews for their poor performance. Hard to use a tank effectively when the crew bails. Won’t even comment on the whole “undermensch” thing, it is more a reflection of your perceived inferiority complex than any views I have.
he F16s with the “vaunted” (and suitably expensive) training and “quality” here we are.. refuse to deliver, give us antique armaments, and the “crews” are crashing it despite being in training in the ‘high quality american! not inferior russian!” training…
“base preparation” …. the Yugoslavs built a great big superbase… and the US contractors painted a few of the HAS and added some rolling metal shutters from a DIY store… yours for $1Bn!
on a “bang for buck” there is simply no comparison. Except for a few items (like the KingAir 350 ISR planes) the US stuff by an large is simply too expensive with poor training and support at horrendous cost and very low availability.
Crashes? shocking… Why do you think the Iraqi pilots need a trainer? That is exactly the reason that the process is taking so long. It takes years to make pilots effective. Crashes are going to happen, the learning curve is steep. The F-16 has an excellent availability record, but again without trained pilots they are shiny, expensive metal.
let us compare that to “uncle vladya” who quietly take in and properly train Iraqi crews in a record time… who then fly thousands of combat missions before losing the first helicopter (to an advanced MANPAD, unavoidable), deliver weapons and munitions and “true turnaround” in capability in record time and at “reasonable” expense.
Yeah that training was evident in the previous Iraqi air force. Again not a reflexion of any perceived US superiority in hardware. The Iraqi’s can probably buy better equipped fighters from Russia, or where ever. The training supplied by US is world class, but it takes time. Even if Iraq took delivery of those F-16’s tomorrow, they would be useless. And they will be useless for quite some time, maybe 2-3 years from now you will feel differently.
KORNET missiles… Iraqis order them, russians come to Iraq and train crews IN THE FIELD and then… bang… 120 VBIEDs destroyed by that one anti tank company in hamrin hills alone (the russian contractors were up in the hills with them). real transformation in capability at minimal time. Imagine Iraqis trying something like that with USA… there’d be 10x newspaper articles for every weapon delivered at 10x the cost and the “contractors” somehow will completely screw up the training and maintenance, take their checks and shout about the “dumb arabs” from afar.
I’m sorry you feel there is a bitter racial undertone to all this, some of my friends, including a couple who served in the special forces training Iraqi commando battalions do not espouse those views.
FBWF-15 IRST Northrop’s new entry: Openpod
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-unveils-openpod-as-usaf-seeks-f-15-irst-413022/
FBWMore on the F-22 HMS saga…. at this point it would be nice if they just pull the trigger on this:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-improved-day-night-f-22-raptor-helmet-by-413962/
FBWIraqi Minister of Defence visiting Balad Air Base where the final preparations for the induction of the F16 are taking place.
as we can see the “$1Bn for infrastructure and the lifecycle support for US contractors” actually translated to….
-reusing Iraqi HAS that the Yugoslavs built in the 1980s and just painting them and adding some cheap metal gates (as opposed to the heavy blast proof steel doors that the shelters had originally…
-Reusing the old ATC tower…. (maybe fit a few computers and terminals and some backup power).
-reusing the existing runways and taxiways… (oh a spot of low cost resurfacing, but the base concrete remains the same).Sure they probably added a few bits of maintenance tools and diagnostic tools, fueling and arming bits…
Yours for a cool $1Bn. Most of the money naturally went on making sure that the americans are kept in with imported Texas Burgers, burritos, security guards at $10,000 per day, monthly first class R&R to Dubai etc… actual “stuff” the Iraqis got is probably about $70M worth.
Seriously…. You complaints about the F-16IQ deal disregard the fact that:
The Iraqi air force training, support, and logistics infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from scratch. What you don’t see in the deal is that A LOT of what the the US/IQAF is trying to avoid is a repeat of previous errors. Training and maintenance take time and money. Sure, buy from Russia or China. They will gladly sell hardware at low prices, up front. What does that leave you with? Billions of dollars in hardware without the experienced pilots, maintainers, spares, are worthless. The experience with the Iraqi M1’s is instructive, one of the safest and advanced tanks has been largely useless in service due to poor training, motivation, and lack of maintenance (the M1 is a maintenance hog, probably not the best choice for a military trying to get it’s feet underneath it).
Dozens of Mig-29’s, FC-1’s, Mi-28’s, or whatever may look like a good deal, but the training and support are the key piece needed to make them effective. You can argue about the lack of cutting edge weapons being made available, but there is no doubt the the US training and support for those F-16’s will be top notch and make for a more effective deterrent than buying the best, or cheapest fighters in world but lacking what the US has offered. Perhaps those in charge of the Iraqi air force learned that lesson from the previous experience with Russian supplied training and support, and realized that building an effective air force is more than shiny new jets at low prices.
Sign In
