marcos

Interesting choice of relocation.

This is all myself and others have been pointing out. Performance is there for a reason. It's still required even in the presence of stealth. Could be something to do with a low TWR and small wings. It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that a reduction in sustained turning performance, means a reduction in lift vs drag performance and consequently a likely reduction in range. For the benefit of Exorcet, also notice how the performance specification of the F-35C with the larger wings hasn't been affected as badly. 3rd gen manoeuvrability:

I appreciate that stealth is an advantage. The avionics are also reputed to be good but arguably no better than many 4.5th gen fighters are, or will be when the F-35 enters service. From what I'm seeing and from the links people are posting, it's struggling to get anywhere near the performance of the F-16, and the F-16 with conformal tanks probably has a better range too, whilst still maintaining a better TWR and wing loading figures. http://defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htm Additionally, I can take an AV-8B or GR9 and put it on a helicopter carrier or even a destroyer's helipad and take off with ordnance. I can't do that with an F-35B. I'm not discounting stealth but I'm also not happy with the apparent F-35 design team philosophy of 'nothing else matters except stealth' either. An SDB is all very well if you know where the mobile SAM is and it doesn't move. An SDB II can probably hit a moving target but in a time critical environment, having a missile that homes in on the actual source of the transmission is beneficial. Presumably that's why they spend $millions developing ARMs. Waiting a day for an SDB to glide down from 100km away only for it to be shot down by a Pantsir-S1 before it reaches the S-400 radar isn't very useful. Aside from the fact that I'm not entirely convinced that such a radar complex couldn't see an F-35 at that range anyway. A modern AGM-88E could be launched from low altitude based on GPS co-ordinates if a secondary source has picked out the target. And all published figures and maths suggest that a Rafale M or Typhoon would be able to carry those stand-off weapons further on internal fuel, especially with conformal tanks planned as an update. Regardless of stealth there's always a chance of being spotted by patrolling aircraft and I'm not sure an F-35 could handle that as well as either of the other 2 aircraft. Yes it has stealth for BVR but the other two have the Meteor, which will comfotably outrange an AMRAAM due to having ramjet propulsion and not having to carry oxidiser. WVR it's no contest. Whilst the infamous 'clubbing baby seals' document is known to be a hoax, in a WVR fight that really would be the case. Is there even a 4th gen US fighter that the F-35 could out-manoeuvre WVR? That's the problem though. 4.5th gen fighters can hold their own in today's skies, in some areas, even better than the F-35, and they're cheaper, and they're here now. By the time the F-35 is ready, most things will likely have moved to 6th gen. Stealthier 6th gen unmanned aircraft will conduct the high risk missions, co-ordinated by 4.5th gen fighters who will then mop up. For many people performance and cost are real tangible factors limiting effectiveness. Stealth is a large question mark. I could find a hundred different stories on radars claiming to be effective against stealth and other technologies such as IRST. Another feature of the stealth protagonist argument is the assumed 100% success rate for MRAAMs and an underestimation of closing speeds in A2A combat. E.g. the idea of an F-22 being able to pick-off 6 aircraft BVR is nonsense. An AMRAAM will not succeed 6 times in a row based on any available statistics but in training, they're not actually fired of course, so they don't have to. I don't poo-poo stealth and think the F-22 is a great aircraft despite its hiccups, but the F-35 seems mediocre in all areas besides stealth and that's being generous. I honestly don't understand the small wings. Why? Just why?

Nope. Read the whole thing carefully. If necessary, feel free to recalculate yourself using whatever fuel load you desire. And you've completely ignored the fact that at a typical range-extending cruising speed of Mach 0.8 or less, wave drag is insignificant, hence why civil airliner wing profiles are clearly not selected with wave drag reduction in mind. The vast majority of the lift is down to the wings: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/11014/airplane http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7h8lkwtRE0gAV.5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0bTNobWo2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0FDQlkwMV85OA--/SIG=14ub57cum/EXP=1359741861/**http%3a//www.southampton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%2520Design%2520Resources/Brandt%2520Introduction%2520to%2520Aeronautics/Ch4Wing%26Airplane.doc It's also apparent that the F-35 has a far larger fuselage with a rounded underbelly to accommodate the bomb bays and the extra fuel it burns.:D It's empirically obvious that it won't beat the Typhoon on L/D here either but if you offer evidence to the contrary in the form of mathematical proof, go ahead. Rubbish. It's dominant because maximum range is attained at subsonic cruising speeds where wave drag isn't a major factor as I've already shown.:megalol: Care to substantiate that? Because AR = b^2/S and the Typhoon's wingspan is only ~2% more than the F-35A/B's, whereas the area (S) is >20% greater.:megalol: Skin friction drag is proportional to area (not a square relationship like lift drag and Cl). Yes the Typhoon has larger wings but they are producing lift. The F-35's huge fuselage is not. In a cruising subsonic plane at optimal cruising speed, lift drag and friction drag are roughly equal. So mathematically, because lift drag is proportional to (mass/wing area)^2 or (wing loading)^2 and friction is only proportional to Area, you lose. Due to the F-35's large fuselage it's debatable whether it in fact has less skin friction without you providing mathematical proof, and even just based on wing area, the 20% difference isn't great enough to overcome the Cl^2 variable, which is greater by a factor of 2.1-5.1. Couldn't be arsed. Perhaps if you could have the courtesy to post some actual calculated facts in your next post rather than simply mentioning areas of aerodynamics that you demonstrate little to no knowledge of (and sometimes incorrect knowledge of), in a vain attempt to cast doubt on real calculations, widely recognised facts about the value of larger wings for extending range and published range figures which all seem to agree with each other and disagree with you.

I'll let you off with that since I hadn't finished my post. Now please re-read the rest.

This equation is nonsense. Why you're relating F=ma to a force not in the direction of acceleration I have no idea. If we're talking about a turn. Lsin(theta) = mg Lcos(theta) = mv^2/r tan(theta) = mgr/mv^2 L = mg/{arcsin (arctan[mgr/mv^2])} In level cruise: L=mg (approximately) Cl = 2L/(Density*Wing Area*v^2) Therefore large wing area = smaller Cl Cd = Cd0(M) + k(M)(Cl^2) So you're shit out of luck son. It's a squared term and you already lose out on mass too. An F-35A with full internal fuel weighs 40% more than a Typhoon, so L is 40% higher. The Typhoon's wing-loading is 62% that of an F-35A, so that puts the Cl at 2.26 times that of a Typhoon. Therefore Cl^2 is 5.1 times higher. The typical variance in k for a fighter* is about 50% (0.14 to 0.21) at M=0 to M=0.75 so that won't correct it. So let's gauge a ballpark value for Cl: L=(47750/2.2)*10*10 = 2170454N Cl = (2*2170454)/(1.225*42.71*300^2) = 0.922 Say k = 0.16 at 300m/s kCl^2 = 0.136 Values of Cd0 for fighter aircraft* at 300m/s vary from 0.01 to 0.018, so the term is small in comparison. kCl^2 is the dominant value in the drag equation and with a 50% variance in k you can't counteract a 5.1 deficit in Cl^2 incurred by excessive weight and poor wing area. Even assuming the planes are empty for argument's sake, Cl^2 is still 2.14 times higher for the F-35, which can't be counteracted by k varying between 0.16 and 0.2 at 300m/s. The delta sweep of the Typhoon is also better for wave drag due to the Area Rule. There ends your case regardless of whether you continue typing or not.....:music_whistling: *Jet Propulsion p183 ISBN 0 521 596742, Nicholas Cumpsty, Chief Technologist Rolls-Royce, Professor of Aerothermal Technology at University of Cambridge and director of the Whittle Laboratory 1989-1999

This perfectly illustrates the futility of this conversation. I'm just constantly correcting outright BS. F-35A: 47,550lb/460ft^2 = 103lb/ft^2 F-35B: 45,800lb/460ft^2 = 100lb/ft^2 F-35C: 54,550lb/668ft^2 = 82lb/ft^2

Want one of these.

Great helicopter side-mounts GAU-19 LR-30 (30x113mm)

It's ~85% of $2.431tr http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-to-gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp but that's gross debt not net debt, which is about 63.6% I think. Page 99 (bottom) http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/junebudget_complete.pdf The MRA4 is right there if they can be arsed to buy it. As of about June 2009 the only design changes going through were lumbar support for seats and crap like that. There are no major technical problems with the aircraft.

So is that really 6 new Type 45s, because there are already 6? There's also already 2 Astute Class submarines. So is it 7 more or 7 in total?

Crazy fact time. It was actually planned to deliver something that size via ICBM: The UR-500 ICBM prototype was later refined to become the Proton launch vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UR-500

Nope but I do know that it's range per lb of fuel isn't great even when the engine is working relative to any number of 4th and 4.5th gen aircraft including, as examples, the Typhoon and Rafale, and I've shown this with published figures. The difference between the F-35C and the F-35A wrt range also shows the importance of wing area/loading*. The F-35A and B have very poor wing loading figures and the C's is mediocre. So I feel I have enough information to make a valid inference on its gliding capabilities. *If you look at the F-35C, it has a 15% longer range than the F-35A despite weighing almost 20% more and having <8% more fuel load. I posted it with supporting evidence. You then disagreed with nothing but conjecture. The altitude that makes the figure look best for export I'd imagine. The problem is that I used to run by that same argument in the past too, however it falls down because the F-35 simply doesn't go as far with 1000lb of fuel as an F-15/16/18/22/Rafale/Typhoon. A case shown by the fact that a Typhoon has a better range with 11,000lbs of fuel than an F-35A with 18,000lbs of fuel. Those are the figures we have at the moment. If they can be shown to be wrong with supporting evidence, then fine, but please don't come back with nothing more than conjecture and hypothesis. It doesn't really completely ignore drag though and if you weren't so hopelessly out of your depth you'd realise the strong correlation between wing loading and drag during any manoeuvre. Cd = Cd0(M) + k(M)Cl^2 Cl = 2L/(Density*Wing Area*v^2) So the smaller the wings, the higher the required lift coefficient and the greater the drag. Sure wing design has an impact on lift vs drag, but you'd can't seriously expect it to overcome a situation of 100lb/ft^2 vs 60-80lb/ft^2. And that's why I think the currently available figures on range are probably correct. If you look at the F-35C, it has a 15% longer range than the F-35A despite weighing almost 20% more and having <8% more fuel load, because it has bigger wings. Hopefully that should exemplify the affect of wing loading in a way completely unbiased to the F-35. Overly simplistic statement. The Cl changes according to what is required during flight at any time via AoA adjustments. The variables are the Cd0 and k, which will change with wing design as well as Mach number. This, in summary, is mathematically why I'm inclined to believe the figures currently published. Intuitively I also suspect that Lockheed wouldn't sell the F-35 short by understating its range - that's just bad marketing. The other main reason being the high BPR required to achieve the necessary thrust with a single engine formerly based on a design with only 80% of the low speed thrust. IN SUMMARY: My statements regarding range are based on hard facts about known wing loading figures and published figures for range, which are both in agreement with each other. Your counter statements are based on hypotheses about unknown wing parameters (that you can't even provide an order of magnitude mathematical argument for) and the fact that you believe Lockheed may have understated the range of a plane they're trying to sell on the global market. Conversation is over.

You probably have the same IP address as Exorcet, because whenever he trolls, you're always there too. I post 'maximum range' figures with supporting evidence, I then get told that those range figures could be pessimistic/optimistic/different without any supporting evidence. You see the problem with that? During the Cold War, such wings were referred to as 'defector proof' for a reason.

Cali, I'm sure in can 'glide' too, just not very far and don't blame me for everything over one disagreement. Despite the F-22's mishaps, it's a stealth fighter that still does everything an F-15 can do, and more, and better. The F-35 is a less stealthy plane with modern avionics granted but it falls short of other 4th/4.5th Gen fighters in almost every other aspect of performance because of the tiny wings and low TWR. It's range is still 'respectable' because it carries far more fuel than the aforementioned but in the past people have argued that the poor(ish) TWR was down to the high fuel load. But heck, it needs that fuel load to achieve 'respectable' range. Will it really have good WVR combat performance with small wings and low TWR? I'm just being objective. I realise that national pride is at stake for some people and that they'd argue its magnificence even if it were a turd with wings for that very reason (not saying it is though, just a point). If there's honestly nothing you would change about the F-35 then fine but I object to being called a 'troll' just for disagreeing and pointing out some short-comings.

So afraid I'm sticking with this as my ultimate response: Bollocks.

This is why I give up with you. No TWR doesn't account for drag. That's where wing loading comes in but the F-35 doesn't have great wing loading either, so it's double screwed. Show me a glider with small wings. This is just tedious. I guess next you'll claim a magical wing design that has a great Cl so wing loading is irrelevant right?

Supporting evidence? Low altitude? E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon Combat radius always depends on altitude. Maximum range doesn't because it's stated at optimal altitude.

Except that the extra thrust could make it a proper VTOL. And in an emergency situation you make do. There may be options other than a STOVL landing. It becomes a lot less stealthy because the geometry is no longer controlled. A similar thing can happen with a jammed bomb-bay door. Did I say that other weapons don't have a role? I'm looking at a situation that might actually require a stealth aircraft here. E.g. penetrating a high-tech air-defence system of peer rival, where a key target has a strong local air defence. You want to slip past the general air defences but there's no way of getting close enough to the target to drop a JDAM or LGB without being seen. Of course you do. Like the F-35 could ever manoeuvre as well as an F-16. And if you remove the 'stealth' from an F-117? An F-18 perhaps?:lol:

Supporting evidence. No supporting evidence. Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy +1.