FBW“/A-18 is incredibly silly given the Hornet is already a dog’s dinner when it comes to aerodynamic and kinematic performance”
Ok, now we’ve established you’ve no clue about aircraft performance. It’s also clear you didn’t read the rest of the posts. The F-16 and F-15 turn performance at 15,000 feet was posted by me.
“The same F-16 would have dropped any external fuel tanks prior to entering the turning engagement.
3. If this overworked example of an F-16 takes the option of jettisoning any A2G munitions, it then definitely has a superior kinematic performance to the F-35. Trading a mission kill for a possible outright kill.”
It’s also clear that though the suspected comparison sustained turn configurations for the F-16 and F-35 are all over this thread, you have not read them either.
Amega, It’s really not profitable to discuss this with you, you need to have some details, facts. I’ve posted them previously and you refuse to look at the acceleration charts et al. Or is it that you can’t read them?
FBWFBW, did you read what i wrote about sustained gs?
The Rafale test? Yes, would like your link, I keep getting the old article from flightglobal.
FBWThe basis that a clean F-35 with a power:weight ratio of nominally ~0.85 can achieve similar sustained turn performance to a fighter with a similar nominal power:weight ratio that first flew about 55 years ago…
The basis that the KPP for acceleration have been effectively scrapped for the -C variant…
The basis that such a short airframe with such a large internal volume is a serious fundamental obstruction to an optimal finesse ratio (regardless of what the wikipedia version of that equation may say for the uninitiated).
And we are back here again, sustained turn performance. Again, did you read those posts about this from 2 weeks ago when you posted this fallacy last time. You were wrong then, you’re still wrong, and still posting this tripe. Here’s the argument:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2110672#post2110672
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2110787#post2110787
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2110795#post2110795
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2110826#post2110826
But I’ll give you that the F-35c acceleration issue is real and serious.
FBWFBW – Have you thought of checking the data?
See pp2-3 of this document:
http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1—executive-summary—part-1_dista.pdf
It shows that external fuel increases range by 8 per cent even though it adds 30 per cent to the fuel load. Note that external fuel was dropped as a KPP for the F-35A/C around the time of this document, the reason being that it added relatively little to performance.
So what is happening? I’d be interested in any physically plausible explanations, other than the obvious: That operation above clean TOW has non-linear effects on aerodynamics and performance, due to both greater weight and reduced efficiency. That could manifest itself as more A/B use needed for takeoff and initial climb; slower climb; and lower initial cruise altitude. The principal culprit is probably the high wing loading calculated on net area (that is, the actual wings and not the body between them, which generates negligible lift at cruise).
If that’s the case, then external stores will have the same deleterious aero effects, but without adding fuel, so the range will drop off quite rapidly with any external load.
Low Observable, did you read my post? I think the point of it was the effect of external stores. The rule of thumb is roughly 50% of the fuel in an external fuel tank goes to offset increased drag. How is the effect of external fuel tanks on the F-35 different from any other fighter? I’ve seen the Norway info before, but considering the range of the aircraft on internal, it’s not surprising that adding the tanks yields only an 8% increase. As far as other external stores having a similar impact, USAF usage of the F-22 is probably indicative of how often this will be an issue. F-22 rarely flies with external loads (other than fuel tanks. The post I responded to was one of those one liner digs at the program that really aren’t useful on this forum. And is it really necessary for you to attack every post by those who might have a positive view of the program?
FBWErm…. I’d argue something nasty is happening to the aero efficiency long before you go hanging stores off it 😀
Erm… on what basis have you made this informed, well reasoned conclusion? Have you even looked at the impact on drag that external stores have? There was an excellent discussion several pages ago on this thread covering drag index, and some comparisons of how configurations affect the F-15’s acceleration and top speed. Again, even pylons have an effect. So, I’m going to say that an F-35 is going to be less draggy than most any other aircraft in similar configuration when going to war. But sure, if It makes you feel better the F-35 with it’s internal bays increasing volume will not be as slick as a Rafale et al. in an airshow.
FBWanks FBW, I’ll look up that “article about the life expectancy for an A-10 pilot over CENTAG during the cold war”.
One thing I will say, not being an expert or anything, is that the I’m somewhat weary of such reports. The USAF (and for that matter all U.S military services) can be very productive in criticism about a weapons system/platform they neither want or deems as needing ‘urgent’ replacing. As already mentioned the USAF has been hell bent on the demise and letter withdrawal of the A-10, even before it was built, let alone put into operational service. Hell they even pushed for the acquisition of their nemeses service – the USN’s LTV A-7F Corsair to replace the ‘specialised’ A-10. Even though the evaluation of both aircraft proved once again that the A-10 was the better aircraft for the job! The USAF has never wanted the A-10 purely and simply because it’s not a ‘fast mover’, supersonic or able to carry eight air-to-air missiles. The USAF tried pushing for a so-called ‘specialised’ attack/CAS variant of it’s once love child – the General Dynamics F-16 (you know the Light Weight Fighter Program, the USAF did all in it’s power and every sly of hand to burn, bash and bury for the sake of more hot rods – their ‘FX’ – the F-15 Eagle!!) – aka the General Dynamics A-16.
I can’t help but wonder, with the USAF always using the analogy that given aircraft can’t survive the modern threat of modern generation air defence systems like that of the Russian’s and PRC, then why haven’t they completely and utterly neglected the SEAD and ECM role and mission?
regards Pioneer,
I would direct you to the Elements of Power Blog about some of these claims ( that guy should be paying me royalties for how much I’ve been linking to him lately, (joke). Really, his blog is topflight as he worked on some of these projects and has interesting and informed perspective)
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/search/label/CAS%20Myths here is the A-10 link (hate war is boring but….) http://www.warisboring.com/2013/01/21/life-expectancy-of-a-cold-war-a-10-pilot/
It’s a good read, not just because I agree with his views, mostly because they are informed, researched, and documented. Lastly, there is a defense media bias, the A-10 and F-16 are and have been media darlings for years. GWI proved that the “informed” media were very wrong. The f-16 was largely a disappointment, the A-10 was successful in a very limited role. The true superstars were the F-111, and the F-15. Both were throughly trashed by defense commentators for years. The F-111 really never got credit for it’s outstanding performance. The F-15 did get a measure of redemption, you should read some of the commentators “opinions”on the F-15 during the 80’s. I’m old enough to remember the whole “F-15 is an extravagance, it’s too big, too complex, too reliant on technology to work, we NEED the F-16 and it’s close-in dogfighting”. Alas, those forces are still at work, and still fighting the war over southeast Asia that ended in 1972.
FBWI remember in 4th grade (1978) my class took a field trip to Davis Monthan AFB where my Dad worked at the time. (He was an A-7 pilot) one of the neat things we did was we got to sit in the cockpit of an A-10. Something special for an 11 year old! I’m 46 now………..my point being…..that plane is OLD!
yeah, I remember sticking my fingers in the 30mm gun at a commander’s day airshow at Griffiss AFB when I was younger. Somewhat of amazing to think the majority of the USAF inventory was built when I was a child. And yes, it is time for some changes. I wouldn’t want to fly on an airliner as old as those F-15’s, A-10’s that populate ACC.
FBWWord has it that the first Pak-Fa was handed to the air force for trials. Seem premature with only 6 test articles yet complete?
http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-TOP-first-flight-model-of-sukhoi-pak-fa-delivered-to-russian-air-force-4529774-NOR.html
http://www.brahmand.com/news/New-stealth-fighter-prototype-delivered-to-Russian-Air-Force/11922/1/17.html
FBWWell yes it was designed to supercruise. As you liked interesting comparisons, i’ll give you a good link. It is in french, but automatic translation should help u
http://www.air-defense.net/journal/book/m88-vs-ej-200Rafale Mach top speed is near mach to 2.1 (refs soon on ottawa etc). Operational speed is 1.8.
M88 pressure ration is 24.5, core temp is 1850 K. SFC 0,8 kg/daN.h
i guess data are sea level.
But everything you stated is also valuable for F35 claimed performances….
EJ2000 certainly has a higher bypass ratio, M88 is closer to the F-414. As far as the F-35, you won’t see me claiming F-35 performance is geared toward high and fast, I know better. Sometimes, I think there is overgeneralization on this thread. Just because I defend the aircraft as being as capable as advertised and in some ways revolutionary, does not mean I am blind to the faults of the program, or design limitations.
I find some of claims of detractors of the F-35 on the thread to be absurd, and I’m going to point them out.
FBWThere is adequate information on the F119 out there, if you care to do research and investigate facts.
I have, there are numbers, I’ve posted them on this thread. They are not official. For instance bypass ratios quoted range from around .2-.35. As far as investigating facts, I make a point to before I post. Bottom line, I’m sure the right numbers are out there, the information in official docs is limited for the F-119 as opposed to F-414, EJ200, M88.
FBWThere are also issues for F35 in Canada, first of all being slow, with no supercruise capability over a huge territory.
Are we really back to this? Let’s recall that the operational speeds of an F-35 differ not at all from the legacy aircraft it is replacing. Even the nominally Mach 2.4 F-15 is restricted to roughly mach 1.8 when configured for anything over the 4 conformal missiles. Rafale’s 1.8 mach top speed (clean) is not tactically superior to the F-35’s mach 1.67 will full internal and armament. Supercruise, sigh, there is one fighter with tactically significant supercruise. Yes, the Rafale can exceed mach 1 on dry thrust (along with the f-106, Eurofighter, clean F-16). Does it cruise efficiently? ( I don’t know sfc at military power, do you?) At what altitudes/speeds? This has a huge effect on the overall drag/ wave drag. Was the M-88 designed as a supercruising engine? It certainly has a low bypass ratio, but pressure ratio, core temp? On both, the M-88 is rather ordinary for modern turbofans. It would be great to compare M-88, EJ-2000, to the F-119. Unfortunately, solid information on the F-119 is difficult.
FBWAnd a Mirage III hit 14g… Point is 11g is a setting, not an override. Regularly used during demos.
Btw, in interception configuration (4AAMS + 1 supersonic 1200L), roll rate is 270°/S;ground level, 350 kts
.
Point is, what is the utility of 11g? There are good reasons to limit most FCS to 9g.I doubt 11g on the rafale is a “setting”, the FCS may allow momentary 11g overrides, that really isn’t unique. Also, “pulling g” in a turn is less likely to damage or overstress airframes, the worst over g’s come from loaded rolls, pitch up.
Have you ever watched the video of the F-15 pilot pulling 14+g trying to avoid a ground collision? Even with new g-suits, pulling g is exhausting and disorienting. Think about the new HMS/HMD helmets, a 5 pound helmet feels like 45 pounds in a 9 g turn. The obsession with “g” is not shared by pilots. There was a great article I can no longer find written by an F-15 pilot. In it, he described how he and the older, more experienced pilots would prefer to fight in the vertical, rarely pulling over 5g. Younger pilots would quickly try to turn for “max” g and quickly tire and disorient themselves.
FBWWith no disrespect my friend. But after 12 years of COIN warfare in the Ghan, I guess it will be very easy to overlook the fact that the A-10 is a specalised tank killer. I grant you the Afghan-type COIN warfare the U.S./NATO has been bogged down in is over, as both organisations wake up and smell the roses, that whilst the West was chasing boogy men under the title of “War on Terror”, the rest of the world had moved on back to the emphasis of ‘conventional warfare’. It’s my opinion that the likes of the A-10’s tank-killing capability – spacifically with its Avenger cannon will still be required by U.S. ‘ground forces’ to steem and compensate for the enevitable force cut’s that has to compensate for the past 12-years adventure! As much as I believe that UAV like Global Hawk might be able to replace the venrable Lockheed U-2/TR-1. I can not say the same for your assesment of UAV’s being able to replace the A-10 in either COIN, to say nothing of tank killing!
Regards
Pioneer
A-10 cannot operate in anything other than a permissive environment, there was a great article about the life expectancy for an A-10 pilot over CENTAG during the cold war, it’s worth a google. IADS have only gotten better, the A-10 cannot be expected to, and will not survive in a near-peer conflict such as the one you are implying. In GWI, A-10’s were restricted to within 30 miles of the Saudi Kuwait border, the one mission they flew over Republican guard forces (60 miles) resulted in two losses and seven damaged aircraft. In truth, with the advent of JSOW (even without the specialized anti-armor bomblets) and SDB-II, the ability to break up a massed attack by armor is better achieved with standoff munitions. As far as COIN, there is little doubt which is effective in both cost and loiter time, it’s UAV’s. There is a great graphic that was taken down by the DoD last year that showed drone strikes are up hugely, 1/3 of all munitions dropped were by drones. Lastly, CAS, 80% of CAS missions over Afghanistan were flown by fast movers or bombers, that leaves 20% to A-10’s, AC-130’s, and rotary wing. Biggest reason? B-1B’s can cover large distances quickly, have massive ordinance loads, and loiter time in hours, not minutes. Again, hate to see it go, but it is the least valuable aircraft for modern warfare in the inventory.
FBWGoing, Going, Gone… Hate the idea of it on a sentimental level, but the utility of maintaining the fleet is lessening. First, I hope we avoid any more conflicts where an aircraft where the A-10 is relevant- read Afghanistan. (or any conflicts at all) Second, if there is any class of aircraft that can be replaced most effectively by a UCAV, it is CAS aircraft.
FBWFBW – The claims that somehow the NG will be a quantum leap above the C are specious at best.
I’m sure you’re right. It only has a new engine (with the world’s best T/W), entirely new avionics (from sensors to displays) and a seriously modified airframe.
A much improved aircraft to be sure, but how does the NG differ from what all other manufacturers of legacy fighters are doing:
F-15 Silent Eagle- AESA, IRST, DEWS, F-100 229 engine (or F110-132, new cockpit, etc
F-16 Block 60/61- AESA, AN/ASQ-28, ALQ-168, F110-132, FalconEdge, etc
Advanced Super Hornet- IRST, Spherical missile warning system, engine upgrades, new cockpit etc
SU-35
The list goes on…. Funny thing, manufacturers want to keep their products relevant for as long as possible. BTW, I’m a fan of the aircraft, it offers great capability for the price. Again, what it is not, even according to SAAB is equivalent to the F-35, or any other clean sheet Fifth gen (hate that term). I understand that you find it impossible to miss any opportunity to bash the F-35, you’ve posted your objections to the aircraft many times on this thread. I would agree with you if your argument was based on the poor management of the program, software delays, cost and concurrency issues. Where the arguments against the F-35 begin to falter is when they turn to technological sophistication, and performance. Every single air force that has committed to the project has commented on how the aircraft represents a shift in capability. There is not a single customer backing out and considering the Gripen NG to be an equivalent competitor. Even in Canada, SAAB was basing it’s argument for being an alternative with the caveat of a possible split buy between the Gripen NG and the F-35 (Canadian Parliamentary minutes are available)
Sign In
