The F-35 Thread

[marcos]

A test pilot from Lockheed Martin claims that all three versions of the F-35 will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

 

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

I'm sure BAE SYSTEMS will race them for pinks if they want to continue talking shit.

 

LM lose, BAE get their company.:lol:

 

Last I heard all their transonic acceleration times had been increased by more time than it takes the Typhoon in total.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/

 

Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively.

 

I don't think it takes the Typhoon 43 seconds in total even with an air-to-air load.

 

I think someone at Lockheed is playing 'let's try recover from bad press'.

Edited February 8, 2013 by marcos

[GGTharos]

You don't it does, or do you know it does?

[marcos]

You don't it does, or do you know it does?

If you know physics, you know it's wrong. That simple.:doh: But I also know it's wrong although I can't reveal the exact figure.

 

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html

 

The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.

 

Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.

 

So that's 69 seconds now.

[GGTharos]

I know that a combat loaded F-15C requires approximately 70 seconds for that acceleration metric. A clean one requires about 50, though the weight is lower than that of an F-35 with half fuel plus weapons, and the TWR is higher.

 

I light of this, I'd say the 35 is doing just fine, but until the USAF gets their charts done, I would indeed be careful of Mr. LM.

Edited February 8, 2013 by GGTharos

[marcos]

LOL. Mr. LM can race us with his slow-ass plane anytime he likes.

 

And for the record I don't believe an F-35 would beat an F-15 clean or with an AA load, maybe dragging 3 tanks along too though (depends what you mean by combat load). However the Typhoon is faster than the F-15 anyway.

 

Mr.LM is a joker worried about the credibility of his aircraft's performance following recent articles.

[GGTharos]

It isn't beating a clean F-15, but it performs on par with a nominally combat-loaded F-15, which is 4x AIM-7, 4x AIM-9 and centerline.

[marcos]

It isn't beating a clean F-15, but it performs on par with a nominally combat-loaded F-15, which is 4x AIM-7, 4x AIM-9 and centerline.

And given that the F-15 already out-ranges the F-35 on internal fuel (like the Typhoon does), how is making it carry a centreline tank fair?

[GGTharos]

The centerline is part of the standard air to air configuration because it's actually needed; often you will see them with two bags as well. The F-15C does not outrange the 35 at combat speeds.

 

Edit: Just re-read the chart, it's CL pylon, without the tank. Even better for the 35.

Edited February 8, 2013 by GGTharos

[tflash]

Indeed, there is a case to make that F-35A can take over roles from F-15C.

[GGTharos]

Sort of. It won't be quite as good in top speed and acceleration, but for a fighter that was designed to server primarily as a striker, I'd say it's doing pretty darn well in the A2A arena so far.

[marcos]

So what is the centreline doing exactly?

 

I find it hilarious how some people are so trusting in its performance.

[Pyroflash]

I'm still waiting for an F-22C on a carrier. The fact that this is not going to happen makes me kind of sad.

 

In lieu of that though, the F-35 is not a bad aircraft. I'm not sure why so many people are convinced that no one will end up buying it. I am even less sure why some thing that it won't ever see production.

[GGTharos]

The centerline pylon lives there. On the centerline. It's mentioned because it modifies the DI, as opposed to 'clean' which means no pylons whatsoever.

 

So what is the centreline doing exactly?

 

I find it hilarious how some people are so trusting in its performance.

[marcos]

The centerline pylon lives there. On the centerline. It's mentioned because it modifies the DI, as opposed to 'clean' which means no pylons whatsoever.

If it's serving no function, evict it.

[GGTharos]

Thanks for the smartassery; the CL pylon is always there for a reason, and that reason is that F-15's rarely launch without the centerline tank.

 

That pylon is therefore very likely to be there when the pilot is flying it in combat, and he just might want to know the performance of his aircraft with that thing on.

[Exorcet]

And given that the F-15 already out-ranges the F-35 on internal fuel (like the Typhoon does), how is making it carry a centreline tank fair?

Again we still don't know without flight profiles.

[marcos]

LOL. F-35 fan-boys.

 

The F-15's combat radius is 1900+km. Ferry range with 3 tanks 5500km.

 

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=101

 

If the F-35's thrust-lift-drag figures were good enough to out-accelerate an F-15 or Typhoon in the transonic range, it likely wouldn't have such mediocre STR now would it?:lol:

[Cali]

Lol, F-35 hater

 

The ferry range is with conformal fuel tanks also, which added about 600+ gallons per CFT. I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it's over 600 gal. Another thing F-15C's don't use CFT, only the E models. Before anyone says anything, yes the C's can use them, but they don't.

[Mandrake5]

Hilarious, people damning the F35 on its supposed flight performance stats, while totally overlooking the fact that its 5th gen avionics, sensor suite and datalink are its real killer features.....

 

F35 doesn't need to surpass or even match the F15 (which it apparently does): war is not about top speeds or acceleration, its about information, information and information!

[marcos]

Found this over on F-16 forums and it just makes perfect sense.

 

(see figure 2):

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html

 

Surely you can see why I'm dubious. The Typhoon has a huge TWR, it can pull 9g from Mach 0.6-1.2 at SL and can do Mach 1.2 at sea level. The F-35A has a TWR<1.0, isn't specified to pull 9g above mach 1.05 (even in the specification it's failed to meet) at SL and is stuck at Mach 1.0 at SL. So how can it's transonic acceleration be better than the Typhoon? It's nonsense.

 

You see what he's saying. The F-35 performance specification limits it to Mach 1.0 at SL (worse still for B and C) versus Mach 1.2 for the Typhoon. So how the hell can it be faster from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2? It can't even complete the task at some altitudes.

[marcos]

Lol, F-35 hater

I'm sorry that's not the case. There's just a wealth of people that become blind to mathematical reasoning when they see a stealth plane in matt grey.

 

This doesn't mean that the F-35 is bad, it just means that it's a performance compromise. 3 variants in one, designed to deliver with 2x2000lb JDAMs and several AAMs, whilst maintaining stealth.

 

It's clear that with that design, it can't also match the 'near clean' performance of other fighters built without compromise.

 

 

Hilarious, people damning the F35 on its supposed flight performance stats, while totally overlooking the fact that its 5th gen avionics, sensor suite and datalink are its real killer features.....

 

F35 doesn't need to surpass or even match the F15 (which it apparently does): war is not about top speeds or acceleration, its about information, information and information!

Well mostly agree. The F-35 is about stealth and avionics. There's no need to make these bullshit performance claims. The same publication suggested that an F-22 without HMS would struggle against 3rd Gen fighters WVR a few days back.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-22-raptors-need-helmet-mounted-cueing-system-to-take-full-advantage-of-aim-9x-381748/

 

Everything they say is therefore null and void and the fact an F-22 and Hornet pilot are dubious about their claims on F-35 performance bolsters my position on it.

 

Performance is still relevant but it was a secondary design concern and less important than a strike without being seen.

 

All the people saying 'F-35 hater' are actually 'Typhoon/Everything not F-35/F-22 haters'.

Edited February 9, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

LOL. F-35 fan-boys.

 

The F-15's combat radius is 1900+km. Ferry range with 3 tanks 5500km.

 

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=101

 

And it requires twice the F-35's fuel load. Once more, without flight profiles (and well the lack of > signs) range numbers become significantly less meaningful.

 

 

It's clear that with that design, it can't also match the 'near clean' performance of other fighters built without compromise.

Which isn't a big deal because a clean 4th gen fighter is dead vs a F-35 short of running away (if I can find the F-35 so it knows when to run).

 

Arming one probably won't help the odds much and if the F-35 is less agile than whatever it is fighter, it won't be by much.

[marcos]

And it requires twice the F-35's fuel load. Once more, without flight profiles (and well the lack of > signs) range numbers become significantly less meaningful.

Reading never a strong point? Combat radius - 1900km. That is not with 3 tanks. Probably just the centreline tank.

 

Which isn't a big deal because a clean 4th gen fighter is dead vs a F-35 short of running away (if I can find the F-35 so it knows when to run).

 

Arming one probably won't help the odds much and if the F-35 is less agile than whatever it is fighter, it won't be by much.

We're talking about range and acceleration here, let's not get into how the limited stealth and AMRAAM capabilities of the F-35 will perform against PIRATE and CAESAR.

 

It may have okay(ish) manoeuvrability at close range but until the AIM-9X comes out (post-2017), it has nothing capable of being cued off-boresight by that expensive helmet.

 

At the end of the day I have the fact that the F-35 can't break supersonic at sea level to back up my claims on acceleration. You have the word of a discredited, sensationalist publication.

[tflash]

Maybe we are just not confounding pocket calculator/wikipedia reasoning with advanced aerodynamical computing ?

 

The DoD has a slightly different approach as yours: there are still thousands of test points to be accomplished in the F-35 programme, and at the moment, to give one example, the complete flight envelope has not been cleared yet and a performance assessment has not been made.

 

Add to this that in current designs, software is a key factor in performance. I remember a software update that gave Swiss or Finnish F/A-18C aircraft higher AoA capabilities and better turn performance. Or a software update that allowed for fuel consumption reduction on F-18E/F.

 

So while you made up your mind using card game data, engineers are still performing thousands of tests to assess true performance of the aircraft, knowing that even when it goes operational that will not be the end of improvements.

Edited February 9, 2013 by tflash

[GGTharos]

I'm looking at the fuel flow rates for the F-15A/C right now. There's absolutely no way for it to have a combat radius anywhere near 1900km on internal fuel plus centerline, no matter how hard you try.

 

The F-15's combat radius is 1900+km. Ferry range with 3 tanks 5500km.