F-35 vs F-16

[mjmorrow]

In terms of air to air combat, I think it comes down to which plane is a better application of John Boyd's OODA loop. Which plane best allows a pilot to get inside the OODA loop of the pilot of the other machine? Which plane will best allow her pilot to observe, orient, decide, and act decisively, first and only? Which plane will best help a pilot kill the other, before the other can act or react? :thumbup:

[Cedaway]

F-35 vs F-16 = IPhone 6 vs IPhone 3:

It has the same role but F-35 get more functionality, stealth, electronic capabilities,... and cost much more, just like the Istuff...

Edited October 24, 2014 by Cedaway

[*Rage*]

And bends if you put it in your jeans pocket:)

[Hummingbird]

You can argue semantics all you want; the fact remains that both have leading- and trailing- edge lift enhancing devices. If you want to get technical, the F-35 also has leading-edge flaps rather than slats, as they are a drooped control surface rather than a sliding extension or similar. Technically, the same is true of the F-4: it has leading-edge flaps. Perhaps not automatic, but they're there, and as close to full-span as the ones on the F-16.

 

They are not semantics, the F-4's lift devices do not function in combat maneuvers as does the F-16's LE maneuver flap system, which is a big advantage for the F-16 and a big reason why the F-4 wouldn't stand a chance in a dogfight.

 

 

Yes, because external stores are a huge source of drag, and the F-35 won't have them hanging off. Nor will it require draggy drop tanks to manage reasonable combat radius

 

Yet according to others the F-35's fuel economy will be worse once it's loaded up with bombs...

 

Although more of the wing is covered up, the lift lost in that area is more than regained from body lift at high angles of attack when the lift generated by the wing begins to diminish because of flow separation.

 

EXACT same source as I had referenced myself; the fact is that the blending both loses and gains lift from different mechanisms- however, it is not a TRUE blended-wing aircraft, nor is it a lifting body. Either way, the F-35 has far more fuselage area to work with, and you STILL refuse to acknowledge that the F-35 has far more potential to generate fuselage lift than the F-16, simply because it has more fuselage area. You're happy to compare simple wing area to get "wing loading", but not to compare fuselage area to get "fuselage lift loading", because it would not fit your narrative. Yet somehow you're convinced that the tiny strakes on the F-16 generate more lift than the fuselage of the F-35, despite historical examples of aircraft flown on fuselage lift alone.

 

I suggest you look at the F-16's fuselage abit more closely.

 

Boxy fuselages, whilst definitely capable of producing lift, are not very efficient at producing lift, a blended wing lifting body design on the other hand is. Hence why the F-16 is considered a superior dogfighter to the F-15 despite the large desparity in wing loading and fuselage area.

 

As for the F-15 that was capable of flying without its left wing, again that was solely because of its electronic flight control system, without that it would've spun into the ground. The aircraft naturally also had to land at very high speed due to losing a large chunk of lift producing wing area.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Hummingbird

[Cedaway]

I figured out that someone would add this... And thought 'naaaa, that's too easy, they wouldn't dare...'

Morality, never assume or try to predict a reaction on the board ;)

[GGTharos]

They are not semantics, the F-4's lift devices do not function in combat maneuvers as does the F-16's LE maneuver flap system, which is a big advantage for the F-16 and a big reason why the F-4 wouldn't stand a chance in a dogfight.

 

In fact they functioned in combat maneuvers. That was their point. LEFs were not exactly a new thing in town.

 

Yet according to others the F-35's fuel economy will be worse once it's loaded up with bombs...

... Except it isn't. The only time it becomes similar is in a low threat environment. As a system, you'll probably be flying fewer F-35's than F-16's anyway, so overall fuel costs will remain similar. You get significantly increased capability instead.

 

Boxy fuselages, whilst definitely capable of producing lift, are not very efficient at producing lift, a blended wing lifting body design on the other hand is. Hence why the F-16 is considered a superior dogfighter to the F-15 despite the large desparity in wing loading and fuselage area.

The F-16 is a superior dogfighter for many reasons. Blended wing is a tiny part of the equation.

 

As for the F-15 that was capable of flying without its left wing, again that was solely because of its electronic flight control system, without that it would've spun into the ground. The aircraft naturally also had to land at very high speed due to losing a large chunk of lift producing wing area.

It was capable of flying without its left wing because the fuselage produces a lot of lift. There's no electronic flight control system, the CAS is hydro-electric. If the CAS can keep it stable, so can the pilot. The CAS is there to make things easier for the pilot - so this notion that the CAS was the only thing that saved the plane is BS.
Edited October 24, 2014 by GGTharos

[outlawal2]

Aaaaand once again how about we talk about the F-35 and leave the "My plane is better than yours " for another thread please?

[USARStarkey]

Aaaaand once again how about we talk about the F-35 and leave the "My plane is better than yours " for another thread please?

 

But that is literally the purpose of this thread.....hence the title F-16 vs F-35

[outlawal2]

But that is literally the purpose of this thread.....hence the title F-16 vs F-35

 

Please accept my apologies as I misread the heading and thought this was the purely F-35 thread.. :cry:

 

My mistake, and please continue with the debate!

[NineLine]

Please accept my apologies as I misread the heading and thought this was the purely F-35 thread.. :cry:

 

My mistake, and please continue with the debate!

 

Easy mistake, most participants are discussion the same things in the F-35 thread as well :)

[mvsgas]

You guys must have move some of this post or I am going crazy, I don't remember have this conversation from last night.

[USARStarkey]

Some quotes from Air-Forces monthly from their issue that was only about the F-35

 

 

""Performance wise, the F-35 with a full internal weapons load is comparable to a fourth generation fighter with no weapons at all."

 

"In terms of maneuverability, the F-35 will be cleared to a 50deg angle of attack, similar to the F/A-18 Superhornet with a load of 2 2000lb bombs or eight SDB inside."

 

"When I did supersonic testing carrying 2 2000lb bombs and 2 missiles, the aircraft had no trouble getting to supersonic flight, which is really quite and accomplishment. The F-16 chase aircraft was occasionally tapping the Afterburner just to keep up"

[NineLine]

You guys must have move some of this post or I am going crazy, I don't remember have this conversation from last night.

 

I think so, probably GG :)

[USARStarkey]

Maj Lauren J.W. Vije---"The F-35A turns like a heavyweight F-16, but climbs, descends, like a clean one."

[USARStarkey]

If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35′s, “It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there,” Flynn says. That applies even to the F-35 B and C models with their respective 7g and 7.5g limits. “You’re not going to see any measurable difference between the aircraft,” Flynn says. In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says. - See more at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/eglin-f-35-pilots-fly-tactical/#sthash.TSIFe1uJ.dpuf

[USARStarkey]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-382078/

[Exorcet]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-382078/

One thing about articles like this is, a very clear lack of technicality. Things like this:

 

"An aircraft with small control surfaces intended for stealth cannot produce such fantastical results in maneuverability; a little wing cannot produce a lot of lift period."

 

Are more or less useless comments.

 

There were some good points, but it's a lot like looking at air show videos sometimes. In either case I don't expect the F-35 to outperform the Typhoon in air to air agility, but if it manages to do that I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Hummingbird]

HBlP4cCRVmk

 

I made this video a while back showing turn rates at an airshow.

I'd just like to point out that even I still don't think that the F-16 is a better aircraft than F-22/18/35.

There is a lot more to an aircrafts combat capability than manoeuvring with no weight or drag on the airframe.

 

F-16 is a great old jet but it's from 40 years ago people. :)

 

One year there was the Su-27P at Avalon (the blue red white one that's stripped light for flying displays) and the F-16 demo team were so worried about looking bad they left their external fuel tanks on and did a low G performance and made numerous mentions of this in the commentary.

 

The RAAF refused to fly their F/A-18 solo demo that year for fear of looking bad.

 

It wasn't a fair comparison but Joe public would've gotten the wrong idea seeing basically an toothless flanker outperform operational fighters.

 

What that video showcases is the superior sustained turn rate of the F-16, as well as the excellent initial turn rate and high alpha nose pointing ability of the F-18 until it's disadvantage in T/W ratio kicks in and its turn rate plummits.

 

I also remember reading that the F-16 was the first fighter designed specifically to be capable of maintaining a 9 G turn until fuel runs out, and it's still one of few that can do this, the Eurofighter & Su27 supposedly being two others.

 

Anyway I simply do not believe that the F-35 will come close to either three of the aircraft in the video above in terms of turning ability. Looking at the aircraft and studying it's design I just don't see it happening.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

In fact they functioned in combat maneuvers. That was their point. LEFs were not exactly a new thing in town.

 

IIRC the F-4 only featured two small root mounted LEFs, the rest were slats, and AFAIK they were the only ones that operated automatically so to speak.

 

... Except it isn't. The only time it becomes similar is in a low threat environment. As a system, you'll probably be flying fewer F-35's than F-16's anyway, so overall fuel costs will remain similar. You get significantly increased capability instead.

 

We'll see.

 

The F-16 is a superior dogfighter for many reasons. Blended wing is a tiny part of the equation.

 

Absolutely, the LERXs & LEF's are another reason.

 

It was capable of flying without its left wing because the fuselage produces a lot of lift. There's no electronic flight control system, the CAS is hydro-electric. If the CAS can keep it stable, so can the pilot. The CAS is there to make things easier for the pilot - so this notion that the CAS was the only thing that saved the plane is BS.

 

Now you're just deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying. I think we can agree that without the CAS the pilot would've been in serious trouble and might very well not have landed the aircraft.

 

We also both agree that the F-15's body generates lift, however as I'm sure we also agree not as efficiently as a blended wing body design.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Hummingbird

[pyromaniac4002]

Now you're just deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying. I think we can agree that without the CAS the pilot would've been in serious trouble and might very well not have landed the aircraft.

 

We also both agree that the F-15's body generates lift, however as I'm sure we also agree not as efficiently as a blended wing body design.

 

I think you need to take another look at that whole IAF F-15 wing-off incident. You don't think the instant they collided and took the wing off it spun out of control? Well, it did. The pilot recovered it. CAS had nothing to do with it. CAS would probably be more of an impediment to recovery rather than an aid. Electronic flight aids aren't some kind of witchcraft that can just fix all your airflow woes, they only act according to predetermined situations. Flying without one of your wings is hardly an anticipated mode of flight.

 

Besides that, you can have as much fancy computer flying as you like, it doesn't make lift appear out of nowhere. The point of involving this story in this discussion is to illustrate that body lift can account for a lot more than you think. It's not unreasonable to think it plays a significant part in the F-35's case. Pointing to high wing loading or the combination of flaps, slats, or leading-edge root extensions as the end-all, be-all of maneuverability is ridiculous.

[Basher54321]

 

I made this video a while back showing turn rates at an airshow.

I'd just like to point out that even I still don't think that the F-16 is a better aircraft than F-22/18/35.

There is a lot more to an aircrafts combat capability than manoeuvring with no weight or drag on the airframe.

.

 

 

Yes it is no basis for comparison, unless you know the velocity, fuel weight and whether the pilot is actually attempting a max turn, it doesn't tell much at all..............

[GGTharos]

You also need to know the fact that there are performance restrictions imposed by USAF airshow rules (Max G, Max AoA, etc.)

[Basher54321]

 

 

Now you're just deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying. I think we can agree that without the CAS the pilot would've been in serious trouble and might very well not have landed the aircraft.

 

We also both agree that the F-15's body generates lift, however as I'm sure we also agree not as efficiently as a blended wing body design.

 

Thought it was good of him to give you some understanding of the issue.

[Basher54321]

Some quotes from Air-Forces monthly from their issue that was only about the F-35

 

 

"When I did supersonic testing carrying 2 2000lb bombs and 2 missiles, the aircraft had no trouble getting to supersonic flight, which is really quite and accomplishment. The F-16 chase aircraft was occasionally tapping the Afterburner just to keep up"

 

 

 

 

This last one is a tad ambiguous - considering nearly all chase jets have been old F-16Ds with tanks you would fully expect it to out accelerate a PW-220 B42 D model with tanks if F-35A accelerates like a clean B50!

Edited October 26, 2014 by Basher54321

[SFJackBauer]

HBlP4cCRVmk

 

I made this video a while back showing turn rates at an airshow.

I'd just like to point out that even I still don't think that the F-16 is a better aircraft than F-22/18/35.

There is a lot more to an aircrafts combat capability than manoeuvring with no weight or drag on the airframe.

 

F-16 is a great old jet but it's from 40 years ago people. :)

 

One year there was the Su-27P at Avalon (the blue red white one that's stripped light for flying displays) and the F-16 demo team were so worried about looking bad they left their external fuel tanks on and did a low G performance and made numerous mentions of this in the commentary.

 

The RAAF refused to fly their F/A-18 solo demo that year for fear of looking bad.

 

It wasn't a fair comparison but Joe public would've gotten the wrong idea seeing basically an toothless flanker outperform operational fighters.

 

Excellent video - you cannot clearly see the performance difference at around 0:06, where all of three are pulling 9G. Then at 0:10 you can see that the G-load for the F-18 has decreased to 7.42G, while the Raptor continues at 9 and the F-16 has decreased just a little to 8.5G. But if you continue the video, at 0:17 the Raptor pilot turns off the thrust vectoring accidentally (you can clearly see, if you zoom in with a specialized software, that he was going to scratch his mustache but his hand knocks the TVC switch) so this gives the lead to the F-16.