The F-35 Thread

[GGTharos]

Actually this speed would be realistic with a real world internal loadout. While an internal loadout reduces your TWR, it won't reduce your top speed much. External equipment on the other hand is just a drag.

 

The question is what speeds the F-35 is capable of achieving with "real-world load-outs", in both cases, internal weaponry only and with external load-out? I guess the 1.53 mach test has been done with an aircraft not fully loaded with fuel and with no weapons.

[tflash]

So, it doesn't really supercruise and reaches ... 1.53 at 39.000 feet. With an 125kN engine! I'm impressed, really.

[Pilotasso]

test pilots say it will be able to cruise supersonically, plus the engine is about twice the power you mentioned. :)

 

Power is not everything. The plane wont supercruise at mach 1.5+ because of high bypass ratio design compared to the F119 version even though the later rated thrust is less than F-35's F135.

[tflash]

test pilots say it will be able to cruise supersonically,

 

I just referred to the quote above:

 

The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain.

"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air."

 

Technically, that ain't supercruise. As long as you need afterburner, it won't get you far.

 

plus the engine is about twice the power you mentioned. :)

 

I'm referring to dry thrust.

 

Power is not everything. The plane wont supercruise at mach 1.5+ because of high bypass ratio design compared to the F119 version even though the later rated thrust is less than F-35's F135.

 

True. In this sense the F-35 is much more optimized for good acceleration and performance throughout the flight envelope, much less in top speed or high speed/high alt cruise, where it is a little draggy itself.

 

Much more important would be some info on its specific fuel consumption, I guess for an airplane build in the thousands that will do many missions and flight hours, that will be a crucial factor.

[mvsgas]

F-35 Flight Test Update 5

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=75

[mvsgas]

Closer than most would like... just my guess here.

[tflash]

F-35C first catapult launch

 

F-35C first catapult launch:

 

[GGTharos]

Technically, that ain't supercruise. As long as you need afterburner, it won't get you far.

 

That's because they re-defined supercruise in order to make it a buzzword. Both the SR-71 and F-104 were quite capable of supercruise for example.

 

The question is, does what the F-35 does qualify as 'cruising'?

 

True. In this sense the F-35 is much more optimized for good acceleration and performance throughout the flight envelope, much less in top speed or high speed/high alt cruise, where it is a little draggy itself.

 

It's optimized for subsonic/trasnsonic performance. If it was 'optimized throughout the flight envelope', mach 2 speeds wouldn't have been an issue. It's a limitation of the particular engine construction, as well as the inlets. The engine diameter is quite large. Notice that this is exactly the trick used for high-endurance subsonic aircraft.

[Cali]

F-35's grounded now.....don't know how long.

 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/08/defense-f-35s-grounded-after-ipp-fails-080311/

[Snoopy]

I've got a feeling with all the budget issues the F-35 is going to end up being like the F-22 and the actual number we have in the inventory is greatly lower than the original plan.

[nscode]

yeah. like one of each :D

[Pilotasso]

that would be alot of coffin nails in lockheeds military aviation future. Too costly and too harmfull for that countries interests. I dont see the F-35 being a backstage fighter. At most they will postpone the buildup in numbers rather than cutting them down drastically.

[Cali]

We won't know what's going to happen until it happens, we can speculate all we want.

[mikoyan]

I'm with Pilotasso this is not going to be an f-16 replacement; it is too costly; just put it simple; extrapolate how many f-16 have been lost around the world due to pilot error and accidents and replace f-16 to f-35; then calculate the costs! I know the f-35 is supposed to be safer and less complex to maintain; but you can't eliminate mishaps out of the equation. I wonder if the Air Force made the math correctly.

I think that they need to develop a less complex version for export. The cost of the f-35 will limit its sales and people would look elsewhere. China is eager to sell their new jets; also don't forget the Grippen and the revitalized Rafale.

Why it cost so much to build these airplanes; I tend to think that aircraft manufacturers charge too much for their jets; maybe is the cost of the labor? I saw a video about American Airlines maintenance practices; and it showed that mechanics are opting to build some parts of the airplanes themselves instead of buying original parts; one example is the cone on the tail section of the md-88s; instead of buying new ones; the make them from composite materials because it cost way less than buying it from Boeing.

Is it a project management issue? why most of this project end up over budget and delayed.

Isn't there clauses that protect the buyer if the manufacturer fails to reach the project goals?

[mikoyan]

I also forgot to say; Lockheed is also working in too many military programs; it is like putting all the eggs on the same basket; what if one project gets cancelled? it would most likely affect the company capacity to deliver results in other projects; was't that one of the main reasons why the yf-23 was not chosen against the raptor. Look they are even building the hummer replacement!

[Cali]

Every jet at the time it's being built has come under problems. The cost has also been high on them also, it's the price of technology. A-10's cost a ton of money when they were built, so did F-16's and lets not even talk about F-15's cost a problems. I wonder how much has China spent on that big turd of a jet they have?

[rextar]

Every jet at the time it's being built has come under problems. The cost has also been high on them also, it's the price of technology. A-10's cost a ton of money when they were built, so did F-16's and lets not even talk about F-15's cost a problems. I wonder how much has China spent on that big turd of a jet they have?

 

Dont think china are in a debt of $16.2 trillon

[MoGas]

I wonder how much has China spent on that big turd of a jet they have?

 

And what even works on the jet, who knows, if this is just the purpose to make noise in the west. The west in the past got panic and started to counter it, whatever it was, with heavy costs, what we see now.....

 

Maybe a other way, of damaging you, driveing you in the mess with heavy costs, what results in low numbers, and weaks you on the longrun..

[RIPTIDE]

I wonder how much has China spent on that big turd of a jet they have?

Not much. Officially their military budget is what, $70bn pa? ALso, I guess much of whatever they have in it, is helped along by industrial espionage sourced from both yankee and ruskie.

[tflash]

I agree that we shouldn't overestimate the development problems. There are in fact very few mishaps until now in the F-35 programme.

 

Indeed, remember the heated discussions about F-15 cost, and the many mishaps with "widowmaker" F-104 and in the early days F-16, that just kept falling out of the sky.

 

But I do not believe for a minute that F-35 will ever reach the projected sales. My guess is the order will be cut in half over the whole production run. They have plenty of time for this, and in fact this is what has happened to the orders for the previous and current fiscal years.

 

We just need less tactical fighters in the mix than before. Today, when a tactical fighter drops a single bomb, a few dozens of people are watching it real-time from other airborne or remote assets. It's not really you and your wingman any longer.

 

Cost is more of a problem today because you have to pay everything in advance due to the high integration. You could buy 3th/4th gen airframe relatively cheap and then just keep upgrading them. Upgrading an F-35 isn't supposed to be that easy.

[Groove]

Please stay on topic everybody.

 

Thank you.

[tflash]

Is there any news on the plans to modify the bays of F-35A so that it can hold 6 Amraam missiles? It's an old rumour but I read it again in AFM september 2011 issue 282 p. 60. A quick Google search learn you it has been discussed on F-16.net already years ago.

[hitman]

Dont think china are in a debt of $16.2 trillon

I dont think we are in a debt of 16.2 trillion dollars either.

[tflash]

Very nice study photo to compare the F-35C and Super Hornet:

 

 

Just as the Super Hornet is my current favourite, I like the F-35C lines very much; I find it most balanced of the 3 JSF variants, with ist larger wings.

[Pilotasso]

yeah, it comes to mind wheres the affordable F-16 replacement looking at that photo.