garrya

Not bad, very few people able to back their words up on internet, so prob to that. You said you not working on F-35 program or Aero department, so would you mind telling us what are you working on ? radar ? missiles ? Secondly, earlier you said the issue with F-35 isn't agility but visual from cockpit. But as far as i know, F-35 has infrared camera to provide 360 degrees visual around the aircraft so how can that be the case ? You also said F-35 will not be good at CAS, so in that case what make F-16 , F-15E and A-10 superior to F-35 in CAS

Where is it ?

They flew at quite similar time though Mig-25 was entered service in 1970 F-15 first flew in 1972 Pierre Sprey didn't design anything AFAIK Source: Pierre Sprey, Oral History Interview by Jacob Neufeld, 12 June 1971, K.239.0152-969, AFHRA, 9, passim. , as cited in THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM, Marshall L. Michel III, 2006

There is just no way F-18 ASH can get RCS even remotely close to F-35. These pylons made perfect corner reflector, there are plenty of non serrated gap on the airframe, the round nose will tribute significant to creeping wave return.It also lack any radar absorbing structure that comparable to fibermat on F-35. F-18ASH may have good RCS treatment compare to F-15 or F-16.But it is far from approaching F-35 level

Ohh nooooooooooooooooooooo:cry: too bad

It does actually because burn through distance is proportional with RCS so stealth aircraft scale much better with jamming

Nice , please do that :D

I dont have exact data for that However, with something like wing tip AAM , i dont see why F-35 would suddenly has higher RCS than 4.5 gen fighter. Its base RCS is much lower. It also has canted pylon to reduce effect of corner reflecting. Logically speaking , it should still have lower RCS.

If we take that into account , shouldnt it favor F-35 even more ? since its acceleration time was taken at high altitude what is EES ?

Radar scattering graph will show you estimated RCS from various aspect.Not just the front. And why would F-35 carry weapon externally if stealth is needed ?

Radar scattering pattern of F-35 shape look somewhat like this ( without take into account RAM and RAS ) Radar scattering pattern of 4 gen F-16 (clean) looks somewhat like this. With weapon loaded and a bunch of corner reflector RCS will get much bigger Radar scattering characteristic of an AAM And before you brought up low frequency radar and what not , have a read first https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/radar-electronic-countermeasure/

Range wise , it among the one with longest range with internal fuel Top speed wise, F-35 is slower than most fighter. But its dogfighting capabilities is not bad. High alpha capabilities should give it very impressive ITR . Moreover , its acceleration in dogfight speed ( around Mach 0.6-0.95 ) is extremely good , better than most fighter aircraft ( including Su-27 and Su-35 ). Interesting analysis here : http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510 6 internal AAM at block 4 is not that bad That couldnt be more wrong.F-35 stealth capabilities is on par with F-22 and even slightly better http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/ http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx

You are right , sorry for ruining the thread

I mean physically only a small part of F-16 fuselage shaped like airfoil , the rest is like a tube because with EM chart i can measure CL but i dont know the AoA where aircraft achieve that CL value and we dont have either EM graph or CL graph for F-35 which make estimation even more vague Not really , Mirage only have similar ITR with Su-27 if they both carry 50% of internal fuel. However much like Typhoon vs F-35 comparision , Su-27 can carry alot more fuel than Mirage ,it wouldnt be much exaggeration to say a Su-27 with 50% internal fuel can fly as long as a Mirage with 100% internal fuel load. If you use the same percentage of fuel for both aircraft then practically speaking Mirage will stay on the air for half as long ,which i find very unfair ,if the situation was revert , it would be like using a Su-27 or F-35 with 25% internal fuel then compare them with Typhoon , mirage with 100% internal fuel There was a NASA study regarding vortex flow for F-15 too ( i posted it here before ) Nevertheless , i dont think F-35 vortex is that thin compare to F-16 F-16 single tail have problem with high AoA at high G ,AFAIK Su-27 doesnt have the same problem. So logically the only reason to lock its AoA at 24 degrees is because going any further is not beneficial or risk break the airframe ( which is unlikely ) Sorry that a typo , i was supposed to say " thus " but mis typed it to " thrust" Because 1) EM dont tell you at what AoA the aircraft make the turn ( so it not possible to conclude which styles of body lift is better ) 2) With CL value , you can calculate exact ITR at slightly different fuel load or weapon load while EM will only give performer metric at some fixed configuration Well no , but potentially , higher CL mean higher G load you can achieve , and that mean alot when you want to over G the aircraft and what not well , i dont guess , that what the pilot said , F-35 can accelerate in straight line as fast as an F-16 that unloaded . Of course only at subsonic speed. In X-31 test , F-15 , F-16 also shown much better vertical performance compared to F-14D Same can be said about F-35 body when looks at from behind. Kinda like a thick airfoil with an engine in middle And obviously it has lift from the tail fin as well while F-14 doesn't Because wing need to be able to provide lift at 0 AoA , but it very unlikely that you would turn at 0 AoA though

Regarding boxy vs tunnels fusalege , here is something from Johnwill again (one of his old post ). With his expertise in the field his guesstimate/speculation is far more accurate than anyone here

They can already do this , in fact F-35 has an internal DIRCM system too The moment you got this , speed and agility is irrelevance

You are talking like whole main body is an airfoil as in case of the B-2 , but in fact only a small part of it is. And how relevance is it if you turn at a high positive AoA ? which i already answered , Soviet tend to give CL and L/d ratio chart instead of EM chart. Regardless you can also measured CLmax from EM chart I dont think F-15C carry targeting pod. Moreover , we could not get any more vague than this. First , we assumed those aircraft carried 3 pod because of a subjective chart. Then we assumed altitude they tested those 3 aircraft. Now we start to assumed Glimit for sniper-XR targeting pod ? what next ? how about fuel load ? how about pilot experience with their AC, hell we dont even know how many degrees are though different to begin with by all mean , question is at what speed Typhoon wing loading is better than F-35 but not actually that much better practically speaking. F-35 with full internal fuel can fly even further than a Typhoon with 3EFT So we can assumed that an F-35 with 50% internal fuel will have around same combat radius as a Typhoon with 100% internal fuel. In such condition : F-35 wing loading will be : ( 13199 +8382/2)/ 42.7 = 407 kg/m2 Typhoon wingloading will be : ( 11000 +5000)/51.2 = 312.5kg/m2 From those value we have 312.5/407*100 = 76.7 , so different in wingloading is about 23%. Put weapons on and it will affect Typhoon more because it is a lighter airplane Now obviously neither me or you know the exact CLmax of Typhoon , but delta dont have CLmax that high , Mirage 2000 for example has CLmax of 0.9 Obviously the cannard of Typhoon would help improved CLmax , however due to location , it likely be more useful at supersonic rather than subsonic maneuver Another point is that Typhoon is also AoA limited at 25 degrees That first pic looks like vapor concentration when aircraft turn rather than vortex , all aircraft can produce those vapor when they do a hard turn For F-35 , the vortex shape can be seen reasonably clear Same for its cousion J-31 Yes , but the limit for Su-27 is where its CLmax located , go pass it and you are in a stall. Question is with AoA limit at 50 degrees of F-35 , we simply dont know where exactly is its CLmax ( cant be 50 because that simply too high ) At faster speed ( mach 0.8 ) , Su-27 AoA also limited to 20 degrees , thrust reduced its CL at that point to 1.45 Your whole argument has been centered around " this or or that looks like it has more optimized lifting body " but you still have not put up a single CL number to demonstrate how much more effective they will be ( especially considered at high AoA ,where there not that much different between an airfoil without LEF and a flat plate ) Not only that extremely vague , it also lead us go nowhere The thing is F-16 cannot reach 35 degrees AoA , not even at slow speed. in fact it cannot even reach 25 degrees AoA at 9 G regardless of speed. Even at slow speed , 9G turn instantly mean AoA limited down to 15 degrees , while at the same time Su-27 can go up to 26 degrees Much slower than F-16 which already slower than F-35 at dogfight speed , and F-35 also has a massive yaw rate I dont see how F-14 is a giant airfoil , the 2 engines are obvious no airfoil shape there, neither is the nose , So that left you with the middle section that looks kinda flat but then F-35has a massive flat area too. Then are age old questions regarding Vortex generators, how much CL will they improve?, then negative stability play a role too, both aircraft have massive tail but one counter lift while the other add up to it. Do they produce lift or not ? yes , regardless of looking boxy About L/W : majority problem with F-35 wingloading came from its massive fuel load , equalize mission profile and it looks much better. About L/D : there is not even a single curve that showed its L/D at the moment so any argument regarding that is guess work at best ( and a bad one because again there just no evidence to prove either way) About using high AoA to get a high ITR : that exactly how su-27 get its massive ITR as you can clearly sen in the table in the previous page ,about 9 degrees higher in AoA than F-16. And once again you dont know F-35 AoA limit at 9G yet and you also dont know ihow much is its CLmax or where that located. To sum up, had F-35 been that shitty in dogfight, i dont think that many pilot would prefer it in most set up

Hypothetically in future when DEW are more common , speed and agility would be kinda useless

ECM would favor aircraft with lower RCS

No i didnt , dont try to put words in my mouth , i said aircraft fuselage generate 0 lift at 0 AoA ( because i assumed you referred to their body) You still dont get the point , point is when they give CL for an aircraft it not just the airfoil alone , as you can see the reference area included the part inside the body that doesnt have airfoil shape at all. All these body lift are represented by CL, CLmax value About the picture , same one for F-35 can be draw I dont think F-15 would be affected much by targeting pod , F-16 may be. Then there are altitude , and fuel factor as well (technically speaking F-35 need half as much internal fuel to stay in the air for similar amount of time as F-16 , F-15C , however in exercise they are likely fully loaded with fuel ) Can only be concluded with further info regarding CLmax better than nothing , and the intensity is similar to vortex device on Typhoon Mig-29 LERX create very weak vortex too , doesnt stop it from being a decent dogfight aircraft the only pic of F-14 with vortex that i saw is when it at some where around 40-60 degrees AoA , F-35 chines can generate vortex at much shallower AoA Iam not talking about Sukhoi with TVC , iam talking about normal Su-27 , with AoA limiter at 26 degrees AoA while AoA limiter of F-35 is at 50 degree AoA It is the same case for Su-27 and its CLmax of 1.85 , its AoA is 9 degrees higher than F-16 , yet you dont have problem with that both aircraft can go to very high AoA , but the question is where their CLmax located ( at what AoA )IF F-35 CLmax is at 27 degrees AoA then going further than that is unnecessary. Take for example Su-27 CLmax is at 24 degrees AoA so going any further doesnot help at all. On the other hand, for F-16 airframe CL max is at 35 degrees AoA , if it can go past 15 degrees AoA it can have better ITR Obviously using ITR will slow you down , but F-35 has very powerful engine and can accelerate very good at subsonic speed unlike F-14 I honestly dont see how F-14 body and wing bend in any better than F-35 , moreover , you dont really have any number to show how much more effective that sort of body would be , especially consider aircraft will turn at an AoA There are loads of lifting body that doesnot look like airfoil at all F-35 STR is limited mainly because it is very heavy and carry load of fuel

Actually come to think of it , probably possible to estimate F-35 CL since its ITR at7G is close to F-16 at 8G (assuming we talking about 10K altitude here ).Though there probably inaccuracy due to fuel load. Then there is this weird 28 degrees/second pedal turn that affected by G limit

Firstly, even a tube body would generate lift if you put it at an angle to the air stream ( so technically speaking , all body of all aircraft can generate lift when they turn at an AoA , question is how much ) Secondly, if CL was given to airfoil , they would give you name of airfoil as well (AFAIK F-16 use NACA 64A-204 ) Thirdly, the reference wing area included the part inside the body as well, it not just the area of the wing alone ( if you dont believe me , go ahead and measure wing area with tips and chord).The references wing area is meant to be used with CL of aircraft Again ,all F-16 , F-35 , su-27 has leading edge devices that improve their lift coefficient.The problem with F-15 is that it lack devices to improve CL, so that limit its ITR . The problem of F-16 is that the single vertical rudder loses effectiveness at high AoA , so it cant take advantage of airframe high lift coefficient when perform high G turn. And that limit its ITR. By contrast, Su-27 has LERX , LEF which give it much higher CL than F-15 .Its double rudders also loses effectiveness at much higher AoA than F-16s , so it has higher CL when performing high G turn. As a result Su-27 has much higher ITR than both F-15 and F-16. On to F-35 , it features all LEF , LERX, negative stability ( which would contribute decent amount of lift with its big tail ). It also has ability to manage high AoA well ( even better than Su-27 in this aspect ) .So there is no reason to conclude that it doesnt have good ITR. You can argue that Su-27 is a more optimum lifting body , but if F-35 can maintain higher AoA in a turn , it likely that will compensate for that too. How is F-14 lifting body any better than F-35 one ?? because it looks more flat ? , what about effect of vortex generator device ? You cannot possibly know that , there is simply not enough evidence, you dont know what AoA that F-35 can hold when it reach 9G , you dont know what will be its CLmax . It impossible to concluded that it cant reach same ITR level of Su-27. Even if you assume that airframe of F-35 will have less CL than Su-27 when they are at the same AoA because it is less optimized . How can you be sure that F-35 doesnt use slightly higher AoA to compensate for that ?

When they give CL , CLmax value for aircraft. Those are value for the whole body rather than just the airfoil .The table is simple , first line is Mach , second one is AoA , third one is respective lift coefficient. If you dont believe me , feel free to post in Russian part of ED forum ( https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=199 there loads of Russian-speaking member there) And F-15 is somehow closer to F-35 because of what ??? Moreover , we are talking about CL and ITR here , so only factors that increase lift is important to me ( aka LEF , LERX , Negative stable ). The whole point of my comparison wasnt to show that F-35 will get the same ITR as Su-27 , it is to show that maintain more than 15 degrees AoA at Mach 0.8 is possible ( 20 degrees in case of Su-27 ), and a slight different in AoA can increase CL significantly , so there is no reason to believe that F-35 cant have better ITR than F-16 at dogfight speed. I wouldnt really call it an EM graph since you dont know the SEP , but it fine , that graph work for me too. If you look at the highest curve ( i already high light important parts in red ) when Height is 200 meters ( aka sea level ) speed is 600 km/h (aka 0.49 Mach ) then Su-27 ITR is just over 30 degrees/second , which is exactly the value i calculated for you earlier

Which is why the table give both max AoA and CL value in respect to speed No, body lift already been taken into account in the CL and CLmax value ( those are CL of the whole aircraft , not just the airfoil). Why else do you think CLmax of F-15 so much smaller than F-16 and Su-27 value ? How is is it any poorer than your comparison with F-15 ? F-15 lack LERX , LEF , negative stability . On the other hand , those features all appeared on F-16 , Su-27 , F-35. Another feature that Su-27 share with F-35 is the fact that they both have extremely long range with internal fuel load. With that being said the bottom line is to show that AoA of 20-22 degrees can be hold at Mach 0.7-0.8 which result in much higher CL than at 15 degrees Soviet aerodynamic booklet of Su-27 doesnt give EM like the Western one , they give CL instead