The F-35 Thread

[Emu]

That rating doesn't mean anything without parameters.

It's certainly less useful without parameters but it does mean something, since NATO missiles will likely be rated against a fairly consistent benchmark.

 

No, it's not a fair chance of more propellant. It has the same mass as sidewinder, and having larger internal volume already implies a heavier airframe. Assuming you have savings in electronics, you might be able to implement a similar weight of propellant in ASRAAM.

You can get 'more fuel' in two ways, not mutually exclusive:

 

Lighter motor casing (possible but quite advanced), and higher fuel ISP. It's also possible that there is a significant reduction in electronics weight, but I don't see why that would be the case in comparison to sidewinder.

There is no datalink in ASRAAM and it has less fins and no TVC and associated actuators, all of which has weight - solid metal vs powder. It's also possible the dual burn fuel has a lower combined mass for the same overall kinetic energy output.

 

 

AMRAAM carries twice the fuel by mass that a sidewinder does. It also accelerates faster. ASRAAM has little wiggle room when it comes to mass though. Dual burn - ok, but duel burn is more efficient in all-boost in specific circumstances.

It weighs about 75% more, volume is 140% greater. Volume taken up by propellant however is likely near 3 times greater. Acceleration is broadly determined by rocket diameter/missile mass, so yes, but the same is true for ASRAAM on acceleration and propellant volume to a lesser degree.

 

Again, doesn't mean much. TVC is an enhancement for reducing Rmin. 50g load factor is great, but it's also one-turn-and-fall-out-of-sky.

TVC helps the missile turn slightly sooner after it leaves the rails, at speeds that aren't good for aerodynamic turning. ASRAAM uses a larger rocket diameter to accelerate faster and has enhanced body-lifting for manoeuvrability. It's no AMRAAM for sure, but it does extend range out to BVR. Missiles fall out of the sky when they lose energy, sure TVC reduces drag a little but also adds weight and how long does the motor actually burn for? A few seconds on an AIM-9? The AIM-9 has served well but the airframe is essentially an old design that's been polished a little over time. More recent SRAAMs have nearly all opted for a 160-166mm body diameter - ASRAAM, MICA IR, Python 5, R-73 etc.

 

[ame]https://web.archive.org/web/20150330104521/http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/asraam_background-1402652228.pdf[/ame]

 

Designed to out manoeuvre target aircraft in within visual range engagements and to allow launch at high off-boresight angles during such engagements; ASRAAM is a highly agile missile. The exceptional manoeuvrability is provided by a sophisticated control system using innovative body lift technology coupled with tail control.

 

ASRAAM’s maximum range is uncontested, and no other short-range air-to-air missile comes near to this capability, providing the ability to passively home beyond the limits of visual range and well into the realm traditionally thought of as Beyond Visual Range.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Emu

[GGTharos]

There is no datalink in ASRAAM and it has less fins and no TVC and associated actuators, all of which has weight - solid metal vs powder. It's also possible the dual burn fuel has a lower combined mass for the same overall kinetic energy output.

 

Right in the document you found - LOAL capability typically implies data-link as well as other electronics like INS/GPS. Having said that, data-link not strictly necessary but not having it can easily reduce Pk.

 

 

It weighs about 75% more, volume is 140% greater. Volume taken up by propellant however is likely near 3 times greater. Acceleration is broadly determined by rocket diameter/missile mass, so yes, but the same is true for ASRAAM on acceleration and propellant volume to a lesser degree.

Acceleration is not determined by rocket diameter - you can use it as a rule of thumb I guess, but that's not right. Even with ASRAAM you will get two different accelerations (boost-sustain grain).

Anyway, thanks for finding that document - it looks official (is it? :) ), and it says the things I'm interested in, ie: 'More propellant' which is the important part for making a big difference in range, and 'Lifting body' which is itself important.

 

Missiles fall out of the sky when they lose energy, sure TVC reduces drag a little

Definitely not. Reduction of drag requires a boat-tail, and ASRAAM has 'more' boat-trail than AIM-9X, which is part of why I keep saying it's a cleaner missile :)

 

but also adds weight and how long does the motor actually burn for? A few seconds on an AIM-9? The AIM-9 has served well but the airframe is essentially an old design that's been polished a little over time. More recent SRAAMs have nearly all opted for a 160-166mm body diameter - ASRAAM, MICA IR, Python 5, R-73 etc.

There was also a proposal to change the rocket motor (and possibly the missile airframe) - the AIM-9X Block III modification, to extend range. But it was cancelled, and it is expected that AIM-9X Block II can achieve a BVR-ish range with the help of lofting profiles. It won't get there as fast as an ASRAAM and won't go as far though given the above data.

 

I expect the Block III type program to be re-started when someone gets the budget back on track, but you never know.

[Hummingbird]

Agree that F-18 have bigger LERX , but i dont really see how this body

is any less boxy than this one

 

How is are pictures from that angle ever going to show you the actual shape?

 

How about some shots from this angle to make you understand:

 

If you still can't see the difference then I can't really help you.

 

the wing of F-18 create alot of lift , but come alot with it is alot of drag as well

 

There's nothing particularly more draggy about the F-18's wing other than the fact that its longer, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here. With pylons of course it becomes more draggy, but the same applies to the F-35.

 

 

F-35 carry significant amount of internal fuel , a F-35 with full internal fuel can reach the range similar to F-18 , F-16 with 2 bags atleast , when fueld to reach similar distance , i dont think there would be much different between F-16 and F-35

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28906

 

Thing is that in certain roles those bags will be dropped upon contact, or not carried from the start at all. It is in these roles that the F-35 will likely struggle by comparison, at least in traditional WVR combat.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Tirak]

How is are pictures from that angle ever going to show you the actual shape?

 

I have a similar question about you posting images of aircarft performing different manuvers in different atmospheric conditions and claiming you can understand the vortex interaction from that.

 

With pylons of course it becomes more draggy, but the same applies to the F-35.

 

I'm having a hard time figuring out how an F-18 is supposed to fight without pylons...

 

Thing is that in certain roles those bags will be dropped upon contact, or not carried from the start at all. It is in these roles that the F-35 will likely struggle by comparison, at least in traditional WVR combat.

 

So are we comparing like configurations or no? An F-18 without bags is an F-18 not going far, so to maintain comparison, an F-35 would fight at less than a full tank, which only improves its TWR, allowing it to accelerate faster, further improving its combat performance given its "Turn Burn Turn" combat style.

[Hummingbird]

I have a similar question about you posting images of aircarft performing different manuvers in different atmospheric conditions and claiming you can understand the vortex interaction from that.

 

??

 

I'm having a hard time figuring out how an F-18 is supposed to fight without pylons...

 

There are four missile stations available that don't require pylons. i.e. the F-18 can carry 4x AMRAAMs + a disposable centerline fuel tank.

 

The proposed addition of conformable fuel tanks will also increase range for little gain in drag.

 

So are we comparing like configurations or no? An F-18 without bags is an F-18 not going far, so to maintain comparison, an F-35 would fight at less than a full tank, which only improves its TWR, allowing it to accelerate faster, further improving its combat performance given its "Turn Burn Turn" combat style.

 

I am again talking about certain roles, for example short range fast intercepts. The F-35 even light will still be aerodynamically hampered by its shape, where'as the F-18 can drop its centerline tank and become essentially clean to take advantage of its better optimized shape.

 

Again though I am talking about the F-35 A & B here, not the F-35C which as I mentioned might very well best the F-18E in almost every way.

[Hummingbird]

Swiss F/A-18C's with a fast intercept load out (note the two extra low drag wing mounted AMRAAM pylons):

 

In this configuration the F/A-18C is said to be a better performer than the Super Bug. After dropping the CT the T/W ratio is even going to be at or greater than 1:1.

[Tirak]

There are four missile stations available that don't require pylons. i.e. the F-18 can carry 4x AMRAAMs + a disposable centerline fuel tank.

 

This is incorrect. The F-18 has 2 hip stations and 2 wintip sidewinder rails. The wintip rails cannot carry the AMRAAM. Compared to the Block V F-35, which has 6 internal amraam stowage, this is a severe disadvantage.

 

The proposed addition of conformable fuel tanks will also increase range for little gain in drag.

A proposal not seriously entertained by the US Navy for the same reason the US Air Force doesn't use them on their F-16s. If we want to go with fantasy considerations, the F-35 will carry lasers.

I am again talking about certain roles, for example short range fast intercepts. The F-35 even light will still be aerodynamically hampered by its shape, where'as the F-18 can drop its centerline tank and become essentially clean to take advantage of its better optimized shape.

You base this assumption on which models? As far as I can tell, you have an awful lot of confidence for someone judging aerodynamics based on airshow pictures. Do you have some computer models to back up these claims?

[RoflSeal]

Do you have some computer models to back up these claims?

 

His youtube comment level physics.

 

I stopped taking him seriously when he said the F-16 was more efficient then the F-35A because the F-35C needed a larger wing; and F-16 would only need a beefier landing gear to operate from carriers. A ridiculous comment considering the F-16 lands at a much higher AoA then the Hornet (13 degree vs 7 degrees, you probably wouldn't see the deck in an F-16) and still a higher approach speed (150-160knts vs 130-140knts [weight dependent obv). F-16 lands too steep and too fast for carriers, if you need reinforced gears, wings and bulkheads, that just further increases landing speed.

Edited March 9, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Hummingbird]

This is incorrect. The F-18 has 2 hip stations and 2 wintip sidewinder rails. The wintip rails cannot carry the AMRAAM. Compared to the Block V F-35, which has 6 internal amraam stowage, this is a severe disadvantage.

 

My mistake on the wing tip rails, I guess I was thinking abit too much in relation to our F-16 load outs. But the Swiss and Finnish operate the F-18 in this way (2x amraam + 2x sidewinder + CT), with the optional addition of two low drag amraam pylons.

 

A proposal not seriously entertained by the US Navy for the same reason the US Air Force doesn't use them on their F-16s. If we want to go with fantasy considerations, the F-35 will carry lasers.

 

Conformal fuel tanks are real and being used by other nations.

 

Why would you ever compare that with lasers?

 

You base this assumption on which models? As far as I can tell, you have an awful lot of confidence for someone judging aerodynamics based on airshow pictures. Do you have some computer models to back up these claims?

 

We are all making assumptions in this thread as no'one has any aerodynamic research paper on either aircraft. So what's your point? Are we not allowed to express our opinion, is that it?

[probad]

We are all making assumptions in this thread as no'one has any aerodynamic research paper on either aircraft. So what's your point? Are we not allowed to express our opinion, is that it?

The difference being while most try to ground their speculation based on logic, you base your speculation on superficialities. It seems doubly absurd when you make your assertions with such conviction.

Edited March 9, 2016 by probad

[Hummingbird]

His youtube comment level physics.

 

I stopped taking him seriously when he said the F-16 was more efficient then the F-35A because the F-35C needed a larger wing; and F-16 would only need a beefier landing gear to operate from carriers. A ridiculous comment considering the F-16 lands at a much higher AoA then the Hornet (13 degree vs 7 degrees, you probably wouldn't see the deck in an F-16) and still a higher approach speed (150-160knts vs 130-140knts [weight dependent obv). F-16 lands too steep and too fast for carriers, if you need reinforced gears, wings and bulkheads, that just further increases landing speed.

 

You can make anything sound odd when you cherry pick things out of context like that, but that seems to be your thing.

 

What I said was that the F-16 would need a beefier landing gear, strengthened overall structure and a new slotted flap design. With the latter the landing AoA & speed would be reduced significantly.

[Tirak]

Conformal fuel tanks are real and being used by other nations.

 

Why would you ever compare that with lasers?

 

Conformal Fuel Tanks are not supported on the F-18 used by the US Navy, nor from a very brief search, on the F-18s of any other country. Therefore, they are not relevant to this conversation. Once again I believe you're confusing the F-16 with the F-18, as there are currently several countries who fly F-16s with conformal fuel tanks.

 

We are all making assumptions in this thread as no'one has any aerodynamic research paper on either aircraft. So what's your point? Are we not allowed to express our opinion, is that it?

Then please clearly state that your statements are your opinions based solely on your uninformed feelings, and not based on any sort of real critical analysis of the aircraft, as you make many claims and state them as fact, and not the opinionated assumptions that they are.

[Hummingbird]

The difference being while most try to ground their speculation based on logic, you base your speculation on superficialities.

 

Really?

 

Look at the logic then: Why did they need to increase the F-35's wing area by a massive 40+% to make it carrier capable? Why wouldn't a flap re-design suffice?

 

What logical explanation is there for this? I see only one.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Tirak]

This is for you Hummingbird, since you don't seem to understand what actually went into the F-16N

 

The V-1600 was an overall larger aircraft than the F-16A, some three feet longer, with a fuselage stretched both forward and aft of the wing. Length was 52 ft. 4 in. overall, with wingspan increased more than two feet to 33 ft. 3 in. The wings were also increased in chord, with larger flaps, growing to 369 square feet in area. Likewise, the horizontal tail was wider, with increased area, and also lacked the anhedral of the F-16’s stabilators. The forward fuselage was flattened and broadened, its contours changed, and a refueling probe retracted into its right side. Interestingly, the canopy would have pivoted forward like the F-35’s does today. The landing gear was considerably beefed up, adding a twin nosewheel arrangement with catapult bar, and of course an arresting hook. Key parts of the aircraft structure were beefed up. A pulse-doppler radar for beyond visual range capability was added, the attendant AIM-7 Sparrow missiles mounted on pylons beneath the inner wings. Sidewinders were also to be mounted beneath the wings, on pylons farther outboard. Making the necessary changes to allow the F-16 to operate at sea meant the V-1600 had a three-foot greater wingspan and was almost three feet longer than an F-16A. The structural and other changes added nearly 3,000 pounds to the empty weight of the aircraft, and increased the maximum takeoff weight over the F-16A’s by 10,000 pounds, from 35,400 to 44,421 pounds.

 

The V-1602 was the greatest departure from the F-16A. With the heavier GE F101 engine, the V-1602 also had a redesigned and reconfigured wing, and the fuselage was widened behind the wing to the same width as the leading edge extensions ahead of it. Wing area was 399 sq.ft., with a span of 38 ft. 11 in., and the aircraft was 53 ft. 11 in. overall length.

 

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/v-1600-the-carrier-capable-f-16-that-wasnt/

[RoflSeal]

You can make anything sound odd when you cherry pick things out of context like that, but that seems to be your thing.

 

What I said was that the F-16 would need a beefier landing gear, strengthened overall structure and a new slotted flap design. With the latter the landing AoA & speed would be reduced significantly.

 

And you add weight, add complexity with more complex flaps, just saying you add and change stuff and abracadra it now works on carriers is not how it works.

 

Do you really think LM engineers and their subcontractors didn't think about this? They just went "herp derp, we just need bigger wings!"?

Edited March 9, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Hummingbird]

Conformal Fuel Tanks are not supported on the F-18 used by the US Navy, nor from a very brief search, on the F-18s of any other country. Therefore, they are not relevant to this conversation. Once again I believe you're confusing the F-16 with the F-18, as there are currently several countries who fly F-16s with conformal fuel tanks.

 

I mentioned the F-16 because you did. Anyway just because the F-18 isn't currently being operated with conformal fuel tanks doesn't make them any less real or relevant. Boeing are suggesting them for a reason.

 

Then please clearly state that your statements are your opinions based solely on your uninformed feelings, and not based on any sort of real critical analysis of the aircraft, as you make many claims and state them as fact, and not the opinionated assumptions that they are.

 

:megalol: Why don't you start by stating the same then?

 

For those who've studied and understands aerodynamics to some basic degree there are some visibly obvious things that will stick out, these are all we can then comment/express our opinion on, and that based on what we've read on the subject. That's all I'm doing, I am not stating anything as fact when it comes to the F-35.

[probad]

You can make anything sound odd when you cherry pick things out of context like that, but that seems to be your thing.

Cherrypicking seems an integral part of the F-35 discussion, most issues of contention inevitably turn out to be arguments focusing solely on a single criteria without regard to its relevance in the big picture (or more often the case, its irrelevance).

 

I'm just saying accusing people of cherrypicking really isn't saying much here.

For those who've studied and understands aerodynamics to some basic degree there are some visibly obvious things that will stick out

I really disagree with this, F-35 is already way beyond basic aerodynamics. We moved past the point where aerodynamics were obvious several decades ago, otherwise we wouldn't need supercomputers to be crunching all the forms. There was a time when variable geometry was the order of the day to get the flight envelope needed. There was also a day when long thin interceptors were the standard. All these days have come and gone. Simply trying to argue that something must be true because that's how it was done in the past just isn't good enough because there's a little thing called innovation.

Edited March 9, 2016 by probad

[Hummingbird]

This is for you Hummingbird, since you don't seem to understand what actually went into the F-16N

 

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/v-1600-the-carrier-capable-f-16-that-wasnt/

 

F-16N?

 

Did a 40% increase in wing area figure into that paper project? I don't see that mentioned anywhere.

 

Also take a look at the difference in empty weight between the F-35A & C. Are you going to suggest that such a modest increase in weight necessitates a 40% increase in wing area?

 

The proposed F-16N at least gained a noticable weight increase to justify any increase in wing area...

Edited March 9, 2016 by Hummingbird
corrected a two typos

[Tirak]

I mentioned the F-16 because you did. Anyway just because the F-18 isn't currently being operated with conformal fuel tanks doesn't make them any less real or relevant. Boeing are suggesting them for a reason.

 

Lockheed and Raytheon have suggested Laser integration on the F-35. That has just as much relevance to this conversation.

 

 

 

:megalol: Why don't you start by stating the same then?

 

Please point out my unsubstantiated claims.

 

For those who've studied and understands aerodynamics to some basic degree there are some visibly obvious things that will stick out, these are all we can then comment/express our opinion on, and that based on what we've read on the subject. That's all I'm doing, I am not stating anything as fact when it comes to the F-35.

 

I've been waiting for you to make this argument. When the US was attempting to create its first supersonic interceptor, they started running into a problem. Their engine was powerful enough, their plane made with swept wings, but no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't quite get past the transonic barrier. It was a huge conundrum because everything they thought matched up properly with what they understood about aerodynamics at the time. But then one of the engineers had an epiphany, and redesigned the aircraft in a more 'coke bottle' shape. The reason for this, was something known as the Area Rule, it had been preventing them from breaking the transonic barrier due to the drag spike that occurs in that region. By redesigning the aircraft, they took advantage of aerodynamic reactions that occur at higher speeds, to help slip their plane past the transonic barrier.

 

My point in this little reminder is, you can't judge an aircraft by glancing at an air show picture. The math behind this is extremely complex, and even if you think you understand what you're looking at, like the engineers designing that interceptor, it is entirely possible that forces are at work that you don't understand. Show someone who only knows little about aerodynamics an aircraft made with the area rule in mind and he will question as to why it is so lumpy, after all, an elementary understanding of aerodynamics without knowledge of the area rule leads one to believe that the best shape is a cone and cylinder, but this is rather obviously not the case now, since we understand the phenomena at work.

 

So please, stop assuming you understand about these plains from pictures with no context, it's getting rather annoying when you do.

[Hummingbird]

Lockheed and Raytheon have suggested Laser integration on the F-35. That has just as much relevance to this conversation.

 

Have they demonstrated any version of this? Are they going to soon? The answer to both is no.

 

Conformal fuel tanks are real and being used on aircraft, lasers are not. There is no comparison.

 

 

I've been waiting for you to make this argument. When the US was attempting to create its first supersonic interceptor, they started running into a problem. Their engine was powerful enough, their plane made with swept wings, but no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't quite get past the transonic barrier. It was a huge conundrum because everything they thought matched up properly with what they understood about aerodynamics at the time. But then one of the engineers had an epiphany, and redesigned the aircraft in a more 'coke bottle' shape. The reason for this, was something known as the Area Rule, it had been preventing them from breaking the transonic barrier due to the drag spike that occurs in that region. By redesigning the aircraft, they took advantage of aerodynamic reactions that occur at higher speeds, to help slip their plane past the transonic barrier.

 

My point in this little reminder is, you can't judge an aircraft by glancing at an air show picture. The math behind this is extremely complex, and even if you think you understand what you're looking at, like the engineers designing that interceptor, it is entirely possible that forces are at work that you don't understand. Show someone who only knows little about aerodynamics an aircraft made with the area rule in mind and he will question as to why it is so lumpy, after all, an elementary understanding of aerodynamics without knowledge of the area rule leads one to believe that the best shape is a cone and cylinder, but this is rather obviously not the case now, since we understand the phenomena at work.

 

So please, stop assuming you understand about these plains from pictures with no context, it's getting rather annoying when you do.

 

You're not listening it seems:

 

1. I am not stating anything as fact about the F-35.

 

2. I am only expressing an opinion based on the information available.

 

3. If you don't believe that most aircraft ever designed are the result of many compromises to achieve a certain end goal then you're fooling yourself.

 

Atm you're making a case that the F-35 is aerodynamically perfect based on new groundbreaking discoveries within aerodynamics that weren't known ~10 years ago (the age of the last book on the subject I own).

What is that if not a rather bold unsubstantiated claim?

[Tirak]

Conformal fuel tanks are real and being used on aircraft, lasers are not. There is no comparison.

 

No, they are not. There is no F-18 in military service today that is operating with conformal fuel tanks. The only F-18 that does is the boeing demonstrator, therefore, CFTs on F-18s is a completely irrelevant point, lest I bring up the ABL to equal your demonstrator status.

 

 

 

1. I am not stating anything as fact about the F-35.

 

You are writing your statements in the imperative form. "The F-35 will be at a disadvantage" ect. This is a statement of fact in the English language.

 

2. I am only expressing an opinion based on the information available.

 

Your "information" is air show pictures with no context as to atmospheric conditions, altitude, speed or actual AoA of the maneuver. Your "information" is worthless to make comparisons on maneuverability.

 

3. If you don't believe that most aircraft ever designed are the result of many compromises to achieve a certain end goal then you're fooling yourself.

 

Explain where I stated this.

 

Atm you're making a case that the F-35 is aerodynamically perfect based on new groundbreaking discoveries within aerodynamics that weren't known ~10 years ago (the age of the last book on the subject I own).

What is that if not a rather bold unsubstantiated claim?

 

I make no such claim, I am criticizing your claims of fact by stating that you do not have complete information, nor can you given your position, and I point out that to attempt to claim legitimacy is disingenuous at best.

[probad]

I think the aerodynamics book you own isn't going to have the lowdown on whatever it is they cranked out the F-35 with haha.

 

It could have saved China a lot of time and effort if it did.

Edited March 9, 2016 by probad

[NineLine]

The difference being while most try to ground their speculation based on logic, you base your speculation on superficialities. It seems doubly absurd when you make your assertions with such conviction.

 

I am trying to give you guys a little freedom here, but if you start attacking each other and each others opinions I am gonna have to pull this thread over. Discuss the F-35, and anything relevant to the F-35, I'll let the comparisons to other aircraft as long as they dont get carried away (because obviously Frogfoot enjoys it too and I cant ban him :P)

 

Please play nice. Save the fighting for in sim.

[Hummingbird]

No, they are not. There is no F-18 in military service today that is operating with conformal fuel tanks. The only F-18 that does is the boeing demonstrator, therefore, CFTs on F-18s is a completely irrelevant point, lest I bring up the ABL to equal your demonstrator status.

 

 

 

 

 

You are writing your statements in the imperative form. "The F-35 will be at a disadvantage" ect. This is a statement of fact in the English language.

 

 

 

Your "information" is air show pictures with no context as to atmospheric conditions, altitude, speed or actual AoA of the maneuver. Your "information" is worthless to make comparisons on maneuverability.

 

 

 

Explain where I stated this.

 

 

 

I make no such claim, I am criticizing your claims of fact by stating that you do not have complete information, nor can you given your position, and I point out that to attempt to claim legitimacy is disingenuous at best.

 

 

Tirak you're jumping at single words it seems, because if you read my posts you'll see that I don't mention anything as fact anywhere, infact I make it abundantly clear that its my opinion/belief and then I try to explain why. To quote myself:

 

"I really don't believe the F-35 will ever be able to match the F-16 in sustained turn rate, infact I believe the disparity will be rather large.

 

Perhaps it'll be able to match an F-18 (the C might even best it), we'll see, but considering that the Hornet will do 10 deg/sec sustained at 15 kft with no less than three bags I really doubt it."

[Tirak]

Further down the page is where you start running into trouble, when you start declaring characteristics of the F-35's wing and body design based on... well nothing.

 

I am again talking about certain roles, for example short range fast intercepts. The F-35 even light will still be aerodynamically hampered by its shape, where'as the F-18 can drop its centerline tank and become essentially clean to take advantage of its better optimized shape.

Emphasis mine. The fact is, you don't know that, and stating it in the imperative form indicates you make the claim as a statement of fact, and that's where you run into trouble.