FBWGreat article halloweene, EO sensors should start to become standard equipment. Is the translation correct that there are two total DDM-NG devices per?
I guess I have two counterpoints to the systems of the Gripen and the Rafale being analogous to the EODAS. The AN/AAQ-37 of the F-35 has, in my opinion, a bit more utility. Other aircraft may have a similar EO sensor, but what about the algorithms and fusion engine to take full advantage. Will similar systems be able to coordinate a target track passing it off from radar to EODAS, or vice versa while assigning symbology to it so the pilot can keep track of multiple targets? Can the EO system be used for navigation? Does the Pilot still need NVG? EODAS is pretty remarkable, I find it surprising that some on this forum try to minimize the importance or tactical implications of such systems.
http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-35-and-advanced-sensor-fusion/
It was fully integrated from the start in the plan for the software and electronic defensive suite of the F-35 not added on. It can alert the pilot to a threat or target at greater distances than the actual resolution (detecting shape, heat source), the EOTS can be slaved to AN/AAQ-37 to positively identify a target/threat at long range. What is really going to be mind blowing is that NG has hinted that a flight of F-35’s may be able to fuse the data from the AN/AAQ-37 they act as one large sensor in the future.
FBWCourtesy of the speed limit, altitude limit, structural & heat issues, and abysmal sortie rate, F-22 Raptor never left IOC stage, and never will
Bold statement, also not in line with reality:
“For two years, the 1st FW has beaten ACC’s goal of achieving an 80 percent mission capable rate. The stealth features of the F-22 are constantly checked and refurbished to go to war anytime. With little prep time likely if called to a real-world conflict, the F-22 fleet has no “tiered” readiness, Huyck said.”
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/February%202014/0214raptor.aspx
Here’s more on the corrected oxygen issues and corrosion fixes:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/…/RL31673.pdf
The only references to a self imposed peacetime speed limit have mentioned maintenance issues with the Raptor’s “skin”, not vertical tail.
FBWFirst time I’ve heard of anyone being interested in the Typhoon for its ground attack capabilities! Politics, politics… but ultimately politicians decide what gets funded (and therefore procured). I guess the tack is that Italy has already ordered a large number of aircraft with ground attack capability, so why buy a load more? I’m confused about the idea of investing in the multirole, ground attack version of the Eurofighter. As there is no ground attack version of the Typhoon, does this mean financing earlier integration of A2G munitions? Financing integration of extra A2G munitions? Perhaps it’s just talk from politicians who know next to nothing about the Eurofighter and F-35.
I would say the latter, although they could be referring to tranche 3 strike capabilities. Italy probably won’t cut the F-35 program considering their industrial participation through the FACO factory. This kabuki theater seems to be going on with nearly every European F-35 customer, cut numbers, threaten cancellation, reaffirm commitment. Ultimately, in my opinion, the UK will procure their full amount, probably Norway, the rest will procure the F-35 at reduced numbers.
FBWRed Flag 2014- Participants RAF: Typhoons from 1 and 6 squadrons, Tornados IX squadron, E-3 8 squadron
RAAF- F/A-18 77 sqdn, wedgetail 2 sqdn
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-squadrons-begin-exercise-red-flag-27012014
http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123371623
FBWIf the g limit of 4.6 is not a structural limit,
-then what is the limiting factor of F-35, that prevent it from turning better than 4.6, at M0.8 & 15k ft ?
let me know when you understand the difference between a sustained turn and g limit.
don’t think a fighter will turn better, if it is loaded heavy to the point where it has the same wing load & t/w as F-35,
there will be a point were the plane falls through the sky, no other factors but lift and thrust can prevent that
and there you have a difference between a turn a fighter can sustain, and instantaneous turn. Yes, a fighter will trade speed, altitude for turn rate/ g’s. You forget Cd (drag), all those factors : weight, thrust, lift, drag, determine how many g’s can be sustained at a given altitude.
FBWOf course, it’s sustained g’s. DOT&E report clearly mentions that. But my sources must be worse than yours because there is no mention about M0.8 @ 15k ft there.
Was not referring to you when clarifying the sustain g spec-
If you are looking for altitude/speed in reference to the 4.6g sustained turn. You won’t find it in official DOT&E or any Lockheed program documents
There are three references to it:
The released figures from 240-3 config, the current production version is lighter
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html
Flightglobal- gives the baseline for comparison f-16 block 50 with 2 amraams
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-381683/
The Bowman paper uses the same alt/speed ( one link is being cranky)
https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rim…rs=enginespage
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html
It’s also important to remember two things, one this is the threshold requirement not a hard number, and all performance specs are based on degraded engine see:
“or any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today”- Burbage
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2106972#post2106972
FBWWe have to keep in mind the published g-limits are enforced to get the desired life-time from something.
Not a structural g limit, sustained turn. Instantaneous g higher on all (no data instantainous f-35)
FBWSorry typing from phone. If u click on my profile u can search my posts. Speed and alt are correct, there are conflicting reports on weapon load fuel state of 4.6g limit. Believed to be 50% fuel 2 amraams. This is sustained turn limit not structural g limit
FBWF-15 c clean 39,000lbs weight, 5.9g 15,000 feet. Halloweene, yes I can believe both eurocanard will top that. Weak argument there obligatory, at what weights and weapon loadouts are you comparing? What part of load limit at SL didnt you get, the sea level part?still sticking to your stand on the aerodynamic stability of the f-35?
FBWHalf of what you have written I did not quite grasp :). It’s possible that you are correct, I don’t know.. but for me, a regular F-35A stays limited to 4.6g and that is a language I do understand.
Just to be clear, you do understand that 4.6 g threshold is for .8 m at 15,000k. Not the airframe limit for sustained g at SL? F-16 is limited to around 6.5 g in clean 50% fuel at same speed alt.
FBWNonsense claim to stay polite. The F-104 had never a range issue which was similar to the much later F-16. The USAF had a problem with the size of the F-104 and the limitations by that for size of external loads, like AAMs. The intended path was from the F-105 to the F-111, when the F-110/F-4 saved the day of the US-forces.
Your claim that the wing-load of the F-35 is no problem is correct.
Sometimes you can only go by what information you find:
“The Zipper’s small size also caused serious problems in the intercept role. For bomber interceptions, the fuselage could not carry enough fuel for long-range interception missions. In fact, without external fuel tanks and refueling, which were impossible in an interception mission, the Starfighter’s range was a mere 300 miles. The F-104 could reach B-52s at 45,000 feet 150 miles away. – See more at: http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/lockheed-f-104-s…“
” result was the F-104, a fighter that overemphasized rate of climb and brute speed. Intended as a point defense interceptor, range was sacrificed for rate of climb. Range, however, could be extended using external tanks and in-flight refueling. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/f-104.htm
USAF was not interested in a short range interceptor in the 1950’s, F-16 different era different mission.
FBW@Obligatory-
No, wing loading is still relevant, only other factors that affect maneuverability also need to be accounted for, such as negative stability & thrust vectoring, and long momentum arm as on EF, none of which is present on F-35
,
With regards to the bombers, they are no doubt referring to relaxed stability, it is counter productive for a subsonic a/c to be unstable, with regard to range
You were in error, don’t compound it.
@ Amiga500
-“Few” fighters can out accelerate a block 52… after which you proceed to name every new fighter built in the last 20 years apart from the Subpar Hornet.
Four fighters, of which there is little known about the acceleration at various altitudes for each in hard numbers, other than pilot testimonials and marketing brochures ( and they are all lies, or wait, just Pilots who’ve flown the F-35 lie, and LM, right?). To what degree are any of them superior to the f-16?
So, in conclusion, the rest of the world is moving ahead and the F-35 is stagnating.
None of this even touches the sustained turn rate issue.
–
I suppose I could tell you to actually look at the F/A-18 acceleration charts to compare where the F-35 with full internal fuel and weapons compares to a F/A-18 carrying two aim-9, two aim-7, but I’d probably get back, “x aircraft can accelerate from .8 to 1.2 in 25 seconds”, with no mention of weights or loadout. I suppose I could bring up the Swiss eval, where the F/A-18’s they flew scored highly in air to air compared to the newer aircraft, or that the F-16 is about to get another contract order despite its “30 year old bloated design”. Of course all of these thing show that F-16- F?A-18 like performance is still relavant, but I have a feeling I’m wasting my time.
As far as this goes, “None of this even touches the sustained turn rate issue”. Read the link that Tu-22m posted from elements of power, it does as good a job in breaking down the one data point as possible. You can’t tell what the F-35’s corner speed is, at what altitudes/speed it has a 9g maneuvering envelope, how different loadouts affect the turn rate, or g’s available, because it’s not released. Again I would not claim, based on what is known, that the F-35 is the equal of some of those 4+ gen aircraft that were built as the ultimate energy-maneuver fighters. By the one point of information out there, the F-16 F/A-18 like performance still holds true.
FBWI don’t always estimate center of gravity in relation to lift, but when i do, i do it by looking at website pics,
there is no indication that F-35 is unstable.
Those would be examples of factors that affect agility, others more obvious is FBW & relative thrust vs weight
One problem there, where is your refutation of the F-35 being an unstable design. Attempts to score points do not detract from your error. BTW, I will trust a paper presented for an aerodynamics class at Virginia Tech using the data they had from LM over your opinion any day. So, go find a single shred of information saying that the F-35 is an aerodynamically stable design.
And here:
“The F-117 fighter, B-2 bomber, the F-22 advanced tactical fighter and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are the latest examples of even more evolutionary designs of U.S. military aircraft to utilize DFBW. Each aircraft is inherently unstable, but they all display individual design, maneuverability, and flight characteristics that could not have been achieved without the benefits of DFBW.” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2001-02-DFRC.html#.UvB1uKUmZZg
Suppose NASA is wrong too.
FBWNo, wing loading is still relevant, only other factors that affect maneuverability also need to be accounted for,
such as negative stability & thrust vectoring, and long momentum arm as on EF, none of which is present on F-35
Hmmm, negative stability?
“•The A/B configuration is estimated to be 19.3% unstable and the C configuration 9.6% unstable.” http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/F35EvanS03.pdf
I’m going to say your claim is incorrect considering the AOA testing already completed, the F-35 like nearly all fighters post f-16 has relaxed longitudinal stability. The EF does not have thrust vectoring (not sure you intended to include this).
FBWOnce again, wing loading comparison is totally irrelevant.
Specially with wing body smoothed junction.
Agreed
Sign In
