FBWwing loading, just look for data (dimensions, weigth, any high schoolar can calculate that), it’s pretty clear (and don’t come back with some BS like “the whole fuselage counts”… )
as for “not cleared for combat”, well, it’s exactly what the commander of the first Marine squadron stated little before I posted that, simply copying him, when they received the aircraft at the time, and as the flight domain had not been cleared yet (in fact, it may very well be that even today it still isn’t cleared completely), it flew pretty much in gentle curves at most, by clear weather and not for too long as the system would need to be rebooted… but you obviously know better than him… try something else next time, “expert”…
Wing loading at loaded weight:
F-104 =105 lbs
F-35 =107 lbs
here I did the math for you, of course it never occurred to you that the F-35 carries 18,500 lbs of fuel, and the F-104 carries 5,822 lbs of fuel. One reason the USAF never adopted the F-104 in large numbers was it’s poor range. Quick quiz burn off 50% fuel and do those calculations again:
F-104 wing loading 50% fuel= 91 lbs
F-35 = 87 lbs (similar wing loading to Mig-29, F-16, etc)
Take it a step further, wing loading of some aircraft:
aircraft a- 49.6 lbs
aircraft b- 62.8
aircraft c- 77.4
aircraft d-88.3
aircraft f- 78.3
so, which one is the most maneuverable aircraft? If you answered A, you picked an F-106. Not exactly known as a turning machine (b- is a Rafale, c- flanker, d- f-16c, f- phantom) By your wing loading logic an F-4 is nearly equal to a Su-27? Case in point, F-16 has a high wing loading and turns at twice the rate of an F-4.
Obviously, you are an expert on interpreting maneuverability by numbers.
Or, maybe, we should not use wing loading when looking at modern fighters. And yes, the fuselage counts when looking at lift on modern fighters.
FBWBlah blah blah
[I]
The KPPS have been relaxed, some substantially, to make the aircraft meet “requirements”.http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf <<—- Note – NOT Lockheed presentation or the word of a politician.
The KPPs being based on that of a 30 year old fighter after its life weight growth into a relatively bloated machine.
Lockheed and its merry band of paid mouthpieces (aka test pilots) would have you believe the transonic performance is “excellent”… Unfortunately “excellent” doesn’t quite seem to cut it on the ‘ol stopwatch.
[/I]
Thank you, now this is where your thinking goes wrong “kpp based on 30 year old fighter after life weight growth”, The F-16 accelerates from .8 to 1.2 in around 30-35 seconds with wingtip amraams and 50% fuel.
The F-16 has excellent acceleration even for an older fighter.Here are the acceleration charts for the F/A-18C, I can’t find the chart I had on F-16, will look later (edit F-16 acceleration with amraams and 50% fuel is closer to 40 sec)
http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3724#page/1048/mode/1up , go to pgs. 1040-47.
The F-35 missed it’s acceleration goal by 8 seconds, good news? no. But it’s by no means slow.
The F-35 is not going to match a clean F-16, period. It’s acceleration was quoted as around 63 sec at 30,000 feet with full fuel and weapons.http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commjnt/fb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a/toc_pdf/Parliamentary%20Joint%20Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Affairs,%20Defence%20and%20Trade_2013_05_16_1947_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commjnt/fb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a/0002%22
When you start hanging anything more than a pair of air to air missiles on a fighter, the acceleration numbers are impacted, look back a few pages to the F-15 numbers on this thread. Even a centerline pylon impacts the acceleration. There are few fighters that can out accelerate a block 52, namely Eurofighter, F-22, Rafale, Su-35 (and hard numbers are not easy to come by on any of these)
Bottom line, the F-35 has acceleration numbers in line with the similarly equipped F-16 F-18, that’s the design goal. Stripped off, no way, the F-16 is a beast.
Ok, this is how it looks according to Elements of Power (a very thurough analysis).
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.se/2…ed-g-spec.html
– TU-22M
Yes, it is a very even handed analysis of the F-35. He did a good job of weighing +/- of the aircraft’s performance. You should read the whole thing though, he does not make the conclusion that the aircraft is a poor performer.
Lastly, don’t label me with those who make unreasonable claims about the F-35 being able to outperform x or y. It is what it is, a strike fighter. What aggravates me, are blanket statements about F-35 performance that are untrue, or flatly absurd like this : “you have G limitations, acceleration limitations… you name it, it has it… just like every modern fighter, only lower…”
FBW@ Toocool_12f
So here’s my posts on the f-35 (find one piece where I’ve made an unsubstantiated claim, other than an opinion): then shall we look at your claims?
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2106972#post2106972
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2097764#post2097764
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2100104#post2100104
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2100875#post2100875
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2094937#post2094937
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2094533#post2094533
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2094744#post2094744
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2094806#post2094806
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2)&p=2094449#post2094449
Here’s some of your informed commentary:
[QUOTE]”it has higher wing loading than the F-104… (not to speak of eurocanards or, if you prefer US references, any more or less modern US design). Somehow, I have some difficulty associating that “feature” with an aircraft supposedly considered as a “good dogfighter”…”
“considering that as of today the F-35 isn’t even cleared for combat, it is inferior to an F-4… the only thing we have now are promises by LM…”
[/QUOTE]
Well done……
Before you go popping off about doing research on claims about F-35 performance… do yourself a favor and do some yourself. Thanks
FBWFBW, his claim is fully supported by plenty of reported data in this very thread… all you need to do is read it… it’s been posted and if you really want to know, do your research yourself. Asking repeatedly for the same data all over again until the other guy gets fed up of loosing his time on research just for you to reask for the same “proof” some 10 pages later again, gets a bit boring. You have G limitations, acceleration limitations… you name it, it has it… just like every modern fighter, only lower…
And I’ve refuted it time and again. I’ve read the reports. I’ve done the research, and that is why these claims are pure B.S.-
“You have G limitations, acceleration limitations… you name it, it has it… just like every modern fighter, only lower…”
and saying it over and over does not make these claims true. Your right, there are pages and pages of claims, and very little to support them one way or another. I’m not claiming the F-35 to have world beating performance The F-35 having F-16 to F-18-like performance has been fully supported in these very pages, in other words: FIGHTER PERFORMANCE. So go ahead which performance criteria would you like bring up again? acceleration? g-load?
FBWYeah, like I’m going to bother providing a full breakdown of the F-35s limitations, why they exist and what effects they have on its combat performance.
On an internet forum. For free. When I’ve a billion and one other things to do.
Get real.
If you don’t have the ability to figure them out for yourself, that’s not my problem.
Yeah smart move, because you and i both know all you have are the same tired suppositions that have been repeatedly dismissed as conjecture or lies. I’ve have figured this out, your comments can be dismissed as having no basis, as can most blanket comments about any fighter’s performance. Any time you feel like you have the time to make any more absurd comments, come back i’d love to hear them.
P.S.-funny how you had time to make a unsupported claim, but no time to defend it.
FBWAmega500
If the pilot’s reaction time of a few tenths of a second were a serious obstacle, then the F-35’s limited kinematic envelope is a much more substantial problem.
Explain why you think the F-35 has a limited kinematic envelope? In what portions of it’s envelope is it limited, what are those limitations? Surely, blanket statements like this should have data to support them.
FBWGood to know Mupp, well the peoples with “heightened emotions” should stay out then, they are not forced by anyone to read or post here. Some of them didn’t even touch the subject of aviation, just plain trolling or going on about their “oh i know it better” and ultra-nationalistic crap. I don’t have more time now for a longer reply to some of the stuff posted above (aviation wise), maybe tonight.
Just as there are plenty of topics out there regarding all kinds of hypothetical airforce evolution or what-ifs, this is also is one of them. If it “strikes a chord” with some characters, that doesn’t mean because of their “sensitivity” it should be closed. Why? Shutting peoples with different opinions, is this what we do now? For the last time, anyone who doesn’t like this theme, just STAY AWAY!
Had you presented the idea as a hypothetical without the Anti-U.S. diatribe, you might have had your wish without the backlash. Instead you displayed your insensitivity to people’s nationality, ignorance of the U.S. You would be better viewing the U.S. as a it is a diverse mix of people, culture, and ideas not unlike the EU. I have more in common culturally with Canadians whom I live near, than Texans, who share different political views, ethnic backgrounds, way of life. There are 300+ million people living here, rather than vilify a nation whose politics you don’t agree with, try learning a bit before bashing an entire national identity. Mistrust of the U.S. is high in Europe right now, but nothing lasts forever, and the ties: economic, cultural, and political are far stronger and more reciprocal than you grasp, obviously.
FBWTime to get off the “stealth doesn’t work cause radars can detect them” train of thought. Anything that can shrink the engagement envelope is a major advantage to the attacker, period. A cruise missile costs upwards of 1 million dollars and does not allow the flexibility of destruction of pop-up threats and targets. A JDAM costs 25,000 and can be released from 15 miles away, SDB 40,000 dollars and 60 miles away.
“This difference between invisibility and low observability has led to a great deal of confusion, and many reports that given radars somehow offer special advantages in detecting the F-117A. Virtually all of these reports are wrong to the extent they are based on the idea that the F-117A cannot be detected by radar under a variety of different conditions.44 This difference between low observability and invisibility also explains why the F-117A sometimes used help from jammer aircraft — although such assistance was not vital and no strikes were canceled when such support was not available”.
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/941015lessonsgulfiv-chap07.pdf
@ TR1
S-300PMU-2 + VHF radars + various passive detection means + advanced anti-PGM SHORAD = dead F-35s or failed mission
Speaking of over-hyped? SAM/IADS have shown repeatedly in every air campaign that they cannot ensure airspace denial against a prolonged attack. They can cause attrition to the attackers and represent a force in being (provided you turn air-defense radars off and on and move assets), but they have not ever shown the ability to influence the outcome. I’m doubling down on the F-35, T-50, J-20, F-22, B-2 against any nation trying to defend it’s airspace primarily with SAM’s without a competent air-force to effect area denial of the support assets -E/W, tankers, AWACS.
@ DJCROSS
Look back at NATO’s 1999 air operations against the Serbians in Kosovo. Mighty NATO wasted thousands of munitions on decoys, yet when the Serbs withdrew, their armored forces were intact. It was an abject failure by NATO after claiming hundreds of Serbian assets destroyed.
The Bosnian Serbs who immigrated to my hometown would disagree, they were saved by NATO intervention. The air war (and any war) was a political act. It was successful in preventing the Serbian army from moving their armor/ artillery. They hunkered down and survived, but a look at a map would show that the air war was largely successful in it’s aim.
FBWSorry, buddy, as a customer, I have to know the cost of the whole program BEFORE I make a decision. Ever heard of a term fixed price offer?
All the charts you are showing me is for LM’s own accountants to help them make a final quote. Me, as a customer, do not have to waste my time reading the charts, I just want to know what the birds (incl. support and all) will cost me to purchase in the given timeline. Am I being clear?
Not to get into the middle of this debate but there are prices out there that give an indication what customers are paying for:
Japan 4 F-35’s with (2) training simulators, (2) extra engines, and additional equipment= 756 million, of which the aircraft make up 128 million each. These are 2016 delivery aircraft (matches the amounts spudman quoted for 2016 on previous page). Total contract expected to be 7+ billion dollars (42 aircraft)
http://japandailypress.com/japan-goes-ahead-with-f-35-fighter-jet-purchase-015655/
South Korea is paying 7.7 billion + for their 40 F-35 aircraft, no breakdown of what is included.
Point is all contracts are going to include spares, simulators, the ALIS hardware needed for the maintenance network. The Japanese and Korean contracts are for a similar number of aircraft, and one would assume by the similar 7+ billion dollar contracts, similar support and maintenance. The numbers work out to 190+ million per aircraft for the whole package. As I stated previously, look at the MMRCA deal still to be inked, 20+ billion and rising (break that down by airframe and the F-35 contracts don’t seem so otherworldly). It would be useless to simply look at a snapshot like flyaway price by year, it’s just not how defense contracts work.
FBWThis is a departure for the Japanese, dipping the toe in the waters of military exports.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/27/us-mhi-f-35-export-idUSBREA0Q0C920140127
FBWApart from the bulkheads, the generator, lift fan clutch… etc etc etc
The B model issues with door hinges and driveshaft are well documented, nothing new there. The report also goes into the modifications being done on the Wasp class etc. in preparation for the B.
Overall, I would say that the DOTE report is general positive. Two issues remain unsolved which may impact performance: transonic roll-off and buffeting, and the afterburner limitations.
For all of the scrutiny that the B model gets, my biggest concern is the c. Gained more weight while the other two lost weight or were essentially neutral. It escapes reason why the C comes in at a whopping 5,500+ lbs above the A model. Look at other aircraft with a navy and airforce model:
Rafale C: about 21,000 lbs Rafale M- 22,500
F-4 E:29,500 F-4J:30,770
Granted the F-35 has a larger wing, still.
FBW@FBW: The laser currently has some clear disadvantages and will have for some time. A self defense missile OTOH will have better capability to beat multiple incoming threats and it wont be as sensitive to atmospheric conditions as well as stabilisers.
Using a hit to kill system will make the probability of a hit very small since the target is so tiny and fast, a shape charge will produce a kill cone that is more likely to actually hit the target. Think of the charge as being similar to a claymore.
Yeah proximity fused warheads, I get your thinking. GaA laser fuse millisecond reaction times. There are actually proposals for both (HTK and fuzed weapons)for the U.S. army:http://defense-update.com/20130820_raytheon_ai3_c-ram.html , http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martins_EAPS_Completes_Successful_Miniature_Hit_To_Kill_Interceptor_Flight_Test_999.html
I specifically said h-t-k for this reason: I was thinking along the lines of the CUDA, not sure if smaller ir missiles like the IRIS-T could be cued on a target and launched in time. Most have a range >10 miles. That would give a reaction time of 12 seconds or less. And that would be best case scenario of picking up the AAM either at launch or when it goes active. This of course applies to radar guided missiles.
Of course, how far away a missile like the AMRAAM goes into terminal mode is likely less than 10 miles and classified. Something along the lines of the Cuda with its longer range and forward control motors might have the agility needed. (really is an interesting weapon concept)
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/…/cuda-update-more-revelations.html
If we are talking short range ir missiles, really only an autonomous system would have the reaction time. The defensive system ThNDR to be fitted to the F-35 is not meant to destroy the missile, just confuse the ir seeker.
FBWYeah. The F-16 was an economic option done right. Build your baseline, keep it simple, make it useable, then incrementally add capability.
F-16 blocks 5-15 underwent extensive mods throughout their career. The MLU program was a near total rebuild with: aircraft stripped down to frame, tested for structural integrity, new avionics, cockpit displays, radar mods, inlet modifications on some. In other words, it was cheaper than new F-16s, but fairly extensive and expensive. The idea of concurrency, should it work out as planned, it that the software of the LRIP F-35s can be upgraded to later blocks with little to no structural/hardware mods.
http://www.dapss.com/MRA/MRAdata/MRAF16Acx.htm
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=23
FBWWith the developments underway, the need for a anti-missile missile will be redundant on aircraft. Air to Air missiles are physically small, fast, agile. Most likely it would have to be a hit to kill system, very challenging. These offer more promise and are nearly ready for primetime:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130916/DEFREG02/309160010/Northrop-Unveils-F-35-Missile-Protection-System
http://defensetech.org/2013/10/30/contracts-awarded-to-develop-laser-pods-that-shoot-down-missiles/
FBWAnd well needed too, as clearly it has been the U.S. that has been a threat to Europe for the last hundred years, going so far as to stage a hostile invasion in Normandy, France on June 6, 1944. A well written post worthy of the best education that can be gleaned from internet conspiracy university. Remember, DONT read books- the internet is always right!
Sign In
