The F-35 Thread

[Groove]

Interesting comparision between Gripen and F-35. Unfortunately in Dutch but you will get it. Notice the lack of the towed decoy on the F-35.

 

http://www.refdag.nl/media/2008/20081210_spectrum_graphic.pdf

[eurofor]

Interesting. Sadly one has more to offer under the table than the other.

Edited December 16, 2008 by eurofor

[JaNk0]

Seeing it like this doesn't make the F-35 much better

[qrazi]

If some translations are needed, just ask... there are dutch people around... :)

[mvsgas]

Cool groove. Guys look at the difference in power of the engine WoW

[Groove]

Cool groove. Guys look at the difference in power of the engine WoW

 

Correct me if im wrong but isn't the F-35s engine the most powerful engine out there? (for fighters)

[tflash]

Yes, but the F-35 is still a fatty. With that weight, it will never be a racecar. The max flight height of 12.000 m. (about 40.000 ft) is not impressive either.

[Vekkinho]

Correct me if im wrong but isn't the F-35s engine the most powerful engine out there? (for fighters)

 

Yeah, and compare the consumption! It's in Brandstofgebruik line!

[Pilotasso]

F-35 has the most powerfull fighter mounted engine ever (F135 I believe) . Later on they will use an even more powerfull engine, the F-136 If Im not mistakened.

 

F-35 quoted thrust to weight ratio is modest but take in consideration the ammount of fuel it carries.

 

Overal dogfighting capabilites right now is a big mistery. Pilots say it will sustain turns better than the f-16 and has a better climb ratio. After that its pretty much unknown.

 

 

The only thing that realy stands out in this fighter to others is its stealth features and cockpit-pilot interface.

 

 

Comparing the gripen to the F-35 seems a bit unfair. the 35 is more on the F-18 class while the gripen is even smaller than the F-16.

 

The Gripen will have one small advantage though. It will be carrying the meteor missile long before anyone else gets to use it on the 35.

 

Gripen is a bit expensive but 35 is considerably more, plus there might be complications regarding maintaining the stealth skin. Not all users can take care of it lovingly. Many airforces end up with their planes with paint flaking and surface scratches, wear etc.

 

It also remains to be seen how much of the special features the americans will hold for just their own comparing to the export custumers.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Vekkinho]

Notice the lack of the towed decoy on the F-35.

 

Here's a pair of nice .pdf on towed decoys:

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/stellent/groups/sas/documents/asset/ale50.pdf

 

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97094.pdf

[Pilotasso]

Towed decoys on the 35 would attract unwanted atention the the plane defeating the whole point of being stealth.

[Vekkinho]

 

Gripen is a bit expensive but 35 is considerably more, plus there might be complications regarding maintaining the stealth skin. Not all users can take care of it lovingly. Many airforces end up with their planes with paint flaking and surface scratches, wear etc.

 

Not all users have enough money to maintain (take care of) it properly :music_whistling:!

[Ramstein]

As far as I know the USAF programs don't have any intentions of using the Canard Wings on Aircraft. I agree with not using them. It appears both the Europeans and Russians like the Canard wings. I find that they need too much fly by wire input for stability. The USAF fighters, even the F-22 and F-35 apparently can still Outmanuever aircraft that use the Canard.

 

But, since I am not a pilot (I have flown a piper cub) and a USAF Veteran, I have many hours in and around many aircraft and used to build stunt and combat scaled aircraft when I was youger. (up to 4ft. wingspan with 60ft. wire control and handles, these were before r/c control with engines). other than that, why is it that some countries use it and others don't?

Just asking...

:joystick:

[Bimbac]

Hello,

 

I think that delta + canard design is something specific to Swedish design features. Besides, one of the basic requirements made by Swedish Air Force was that planes should be STOL capable and the canard design is the best one to achieve this without compromising the aerodynamic smoothness and maneuverability. This design provides more lift, because both canards and wings both produce a positive (upwards) lift.

 

I'd like to correct your opinion about thinking that deltas with canards require some extra attention regarding fly-by-wire system; in fact, for instance on the Gripen, the canards work as a de-stabilizer in order to make the aircraft more maneuverable and responsive. If canards go afloat, the aircraft actually becomes naturally stable.

[Vekkinho]

All that F135 engine power made a noisy F-35, 4 times louder than a F-16:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Friesian_Councils_Fear_Arrival_of_JSF100016797.php

[Maximus_G]

If some translations are needed, just ask... there are dutch people around... :)

 

Prijs (geraamd)

Kale prijs 26 mln. euro

Totaalprijs 57 mln. euro

 

What's the "Kale", and what could be "Total" in this case?

[GGTharos]

The JSF uses a 48000lbs engine. That, coupled with a nominal combat load that puts it in the 45000lbs class, gives it a better TWR than an F-15C. This only gets better when the aircraft sheds some fuel and gains even more in TWR. In a turning fight, it fights in a clean configuration, thus making its effective TWR even -better- because it doesn't suffer from stores drag.

[Maximus_G]

The JSF uses a 48000lbs engine.

It's "40.000+ lbs" officially. Do you refer to some new data?

[GGTharos]

Yes. I refer to some new data. It's 48000lbs. :)

[mvsgas]

I think we have all learn while flying in Black Shark, that just because an aircraft can carry "x" amount of weight (fuel or weapons) it does not mean that it should. I try to fly in Black Shark as light as possible so the Helicopter is easier to handle and fly, I am sure the F-35 would do the same. What I mean is, F-35 may be able to fly fully loaded, and it may be a 48000lbs (give or take) aircraft, but it does not mean that it will carry all that weight in combat, all the time and during the entire flight.

[Maximus_G]

Yes. I refer to some new data. It's 48000lbs. :)

Would you kindly provide an actual reference, and not just saying that you're doing it?

[Pilotasso]

As far as I know the USAF programs don't have any intentions of using the Canard Wings on Aircraft. I agree with not using them. It appears both the Europeans and Russians like the Canard wings. I find that they need too much fly by wire input for stability. The USAF fighters, even the F-22 and F-35 apparently can still Outmanuever aircraft that use the Canard.

 

But, since I am not a pilot (I have flown a piper cub) and a USAF Veteran, I have many hours in and around many aircraft and used to build stunt and combat scaled aircraft when I was youger. (up to 4ft. wingspan with 60ft. wire control and handles, these were before r/c control with engines). other than that, why is it that some countries use it and others don't?

Just asking...

:joystick:

 

Russians and europens do not "like canards". The cannards found on deltas and Su-30 derivatives achieve totaly different goals.

 

Canards on the flanker were there when they used analog fly by wire, and only for pitch, they served as stabilizers. the latest Su-35 had the cannards deleted for the use of digital FBW with superior response and precision. As for the canards on the deltas they are there for both relaxed (unstable) digital fly by wire setups and for turning authority adding lift instead of downlift.

 

 

F-35 maneuverability is much a mistery right now so I find your speculation of the 35 agility vs eurocanards to be completely unfounded. If the manufacturers hold their promise to make the 35 as agfile as the F-16 then I would say the contest woul be very much even.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Ramstein]

Russians and europens do not "like canards". The cannards found on deltas and Su-30 derivatives achieve totaly different goals.

 

Canards on the flanker were there when they used analog fly by wire, and only for pitch, they served as stabilizers. the latest Su-35 had the cannards deleted for the use of digital FBW with superior response and precision. As for the canards on the deltas they are there for both relaxed (unstable) digital fly by wire setups and for turning authority adding lift instead of downlift.

 

 

F-35 maneuverability is much a mistery right now so I find your speculation of the 35 agility vs eurocanards to be completely unfounded. If the manufacturers hold their promise to make the 35 as agfile as the F-16 then I would say the contest woul be very much even.

 

 

I never said the F-35 is more maneuverable than the F-16. In fact the F-35, and before that the F-22 blew the F-16 handling away. They literally fly circles around the old F16. But the F16 is no slouch. Just different roles to play.

 

**I was only asking why some countries use the Canard and other don't. I was watching some test flight and dogfight videos where I watched the F-22 and F-16 matched up over Nevada in dogfights. (nothing about the Canard wing here).

 

But, when matching planes with the Canard wing against those without the Canard wing , I found the Canard wing taking too much effort for trim and handling. Though, adjusting the Canard wing for Air to Ground Weapons (extreme close up A-G fighting and support) seemed to hold an advantage (This is in LockOn:FC), but other than that it just took to much work to find the stable sweet spots.. but a computer would do all that work in fly by wire.

 

These are my thoughts on what I have seen and experienced. That's all.

:joystick:

[VireVolte_tigrou]

Gripen has lost novergian contract...

 

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

 

F-35 : 1 | Gripen : 0

[eurofor]

Gripen has lost novergian contract...

 

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

 

F-35 : 1 | Gripen : 0

Pretty old news. It was no surprise, we know who Norway likes to be in bed with.

 

Politics : 1 | Specifications : 0