The F-35 Thread

[Svend_Dellepude]

There is something about the amount that we are not told. Somebody knows something. My spidy sense tells me that this is going to get expensive.

[Fer_Fer]

There is something about the amount that we are not told. Somebody knows something. My spidy sense tells me that this is going to get expensive.

 

its a very long shot from the 151 million a pop that the Dutch have to pay for the F-35, so some skepticism about the price is more then warranted

[Seaeagle]

Hehe I was more thinking along the lines of all the new nations that are getting the F-35 combined, not just Denmark, because pretty much all of them are switching from a defensive to an offensive fighter which I think Russia might be abit concerned about :)

 

Yeah good point - I didn't think of it in the larger picture :)

[Seaeagle]

its a very long shot from the 151 million a pop that the Dutch have to pay for the F-35, so some skepticism about the price is more then warranted

 

Is it quite that much though? - IIRC the Dutch paid some 4.5 billion euro(~ $5 billion) for 37 aircraft, which means a unit price of some $137 million.

 

Anyway, I believe the difference has to do with when they are going to be delivered - i.e. a fair chunk of the Dutch airframes will come from "LRIP"(Low Rate Initial Production) batches for which production costs are higher than(what is expected) for the larger "full production" batches later on.

 

Delivery of the Danish aircraft is scheduled to begin from 2021 - i.e. would come from "full production" batches, for which the "fly-away" unit cost is expected to be some $85 million.

 

But we will see... :)

[Pilotasso]

meanwhile in the Nerthelands:

 

w3tstUYGS_8

 

first time I have seen them been pushed hard.

[Emu]

 

 

"...The mission data files (MDFs) generated in the U.S. labs are sensitive because they are essential to the aircraft’s stealth characteristics. They include information that allows onboard software to build a so-called “blue line” flightpath that avoids exposing its less-stealthy viewing angles to hostile radar. This process is based on a highly detailed model of the aircraft’s radar cross-section against all known threats and at all aspect angles.

 

The MDFs also include target models that the sensor system uses to fuse radar, passive electronic and electro-optical signals into a single set of target tracks...."

 

https://news.vice.com/article/what-is-the-pentagons-multi-billion-f-35-jet-actually-supposed-to-do-1

[Pilotasso]

uno más

 

Jez31XaWn6I

[Svend_Dellepude]

In the low speed pass the F-35's AoA is much bigger than the F-16's! They are not really built for low speed I guess.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

In the low speed pass the F-35's AoA is much bigger than the F-16's! They are not really built for low speed I guess.

 

Not really. It means it's probably going slower than the F-16 during the pass. Which means it's controllable at a lower airspeed which means it performs better at lower speed. Kind of how the hornet can hold a much higher AOA and remain controllable at lower speeds.

[ФрогФут]

In the low speed pass the F-35's AoA is much bigger than the F-16's! They are not really built for low speed I guess.

F-16 is limited to 25 degrees by FBW. F-35 - 50. Though it maintains higher AoA at same speed as 16, it can slow down much slower, because of such limits.

[Hummingbird]

Not really. It means it's probably going slower than the F-16 during the pass. Which means it's controllable at a lower airspeed which means it performs better at lower speed. Kind of how the hornet can hold a much higher AOA and remain controllable at lower speeds.

 

They're flying side by side...

[HiJack]

Guys, the aircraft is still in development. Wait til after 2022 to judge it. Just enjoy the show for the moment, right?

[Svend_Dellepude]

As hummingbird said. Side by side.

What i meant was: Flying next to an F-16 it was quite surprising to see the difference in AoA at the same airspeed. Could be that the F-35 was fully loaded with fuel and the -16 empty. What do I know...

To me it said something about the weight contra lift on F-35. But maybe there is not too much to judge from.

Also in the flyby's it looks a bit heavy turning.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Didn't actually watch the video, but very well. I stand corrected Hummingbird.

 

But HiJack, no, it is not still under development. Not by the definition of the word. If you were to think of an anology of writing a paper, under development would mean the paper isn't complete. That the body of the paper still needs work. The F-35 has been developed. It's in its proof reading stages now. Last year it reached IOC (initial operating capacity) and as of this month 3 USMC squadrons have been stood up. Clearly foreign partners are receiving aircraft and the USAF has started accepting aircraft. What's happening is, like every other airplane in existence, one it starts getting produced more bugs are discovered. They'll be documented and sent in for study, a fix, if any are necessary will be produced, and the existing jets will be retrofitted and the new ones will have the fi off the floor. That's not development. Most aircraft undergo this type of upgrade cycle throughout their life time. Like I said, proof reading.

 

Now, what confuses the casual observer is that the USN hasn't started accepting aircraft. The reason is, from the get go, the Navy said it wouldn't accept any jets until software update 3F, I think it is, might be J, but I'm fairly certain it's F. Is released. And that is supposed to happen at the same time that the jet reaches FOC, (Final operational capacity [side note, which I think is a bogus term, but that's besides the point]). And that hasn't happened yet. The software for 3F is still in the developmental stages, yes. But to call the entire airframe under development because it doesn't have software for functionality for weapons and sensors that don't exist yet is a bit of a misnomer. Point being, if you want to say the jet is under development until at least all the US services accept their aircraft, then we'll just have an "incomplete" aircraft taking the fight to the enemy until the Navy hops on board. But they are weighing options against the Advanced Super Hornet.

[Capn kamikaze]

As hummingbird said. Side by side.

What i meant was: Flying next to an F-16 it was quite surprising to see the difference in AoA at the same airspeed. Could be that the F-35 was fully loaded with fuel and the -16 empty. What do I know...

To me it said something about the weight contra lift on F-35. But maybe there is not too much to judge from.

Also in the flyby's it looks a bit heavy turning.

 

No, you're pretty much on the money there, the F-35's wing loading is higher, so at the same speed it will have to fly at a higher AoA to achieve the same lift.

 

The thing is as was mentioned earlier, the F-16 is limited to 25 degrees, the F-35 is twice that, meaning it can stay in a turn at a lower speed, and it will probably have a much higher instantaneous turn rate, which is more important than sustained turn rate, as it's more likely that if you're in an F-35 in a close in dogfight you'll want to put your nose on the target, or at least near to on target, and fire off a 9X with the HMS, and in that case you're not looking for sustained turns, but a sharp instantaneous turn to just point the nose and fire.

 

That said, the F-35 is not going to be a slouch in sustained turn rates either, it is very low drag, due to it carrying weapons internally, where the F-16 is all external.

[Pilotasso]

Your ditching the energy conservation out of the equation which just as important in favour of pure AOA tolerance. Anyway all this is academic based in speculation. All I want to see is a credible testimony of pilots facing F-16's and Eurofighters in guns only mock engagements to get a better idea. ;)

[Svend_Dellepude]

No, you're pretty much on the money there, the F-35's wing loading is higher, so at the same speed it will have to fly at a higher AoA to achieve the same lift.

 

The thing is as was mentioned earlier, the F-16 is limited to 25 degrees, the F-35 is twice that, meaning it can stay in a turn at a lower speed, and it will probably have a much higher instantaneous turn rate, which is more important than sustained turn rate, as it's more likely that if you're in an F-35 in a close in dogfight you'll want to put your nose on the target, or at least near to on target, and fire off a 9X with the HMS, and in that case you're not looking for sustained turns, but a sharp instantaneous turn to just point the nose and fire.

 

That said, the F-35 is not going to be a slouch in sustained turn rates either, it is very low drag, due to it carrying weapons internally, where the F-16 is all external.

 

Totally with you.

But I still would like to see how long time it can dogfight an F-16 for before it runs out of energy.

[Capn kamikaze]

I don't think it would, the F-35 will tend to keep its speed up while turning because it isn't generating as much drag as the F-16...

 

Its induced drag at high AoA will be higher, but it won't be at high AoA's all the time, if it kept to the same limit as the F-16 of 25 degrees it will only have fractionally more induced drag, but it has the advantage ALL THE TIME of not generating as much form or skin friction drag due to it storing all weapons internally if configured for stealth.

 

My bet would be that that advantage in form and skin friction drag would outweigh the temporary induced drag while turning hard overall.

[Boagrius]

Your ditching the energy conservation out of the equation which just as important in favour of pure AOA tolerance. Anyway all this is academic based in speculation. All I want to see is a credible testimony of pilots facing F-16's and Eurofighters in guns only mock engagements to get a better idea. ;)

 

I'd question even the relevance of this for operationally meaningful insights into the F35's kinematic capabilities. BFM gunfight performance, I dare say, is not a particularly informative outcome in the current and emerging air warfare domain.

 

With 360 degree spherical missile cueing via EODAS coupled with ever more capable HOBS missiles (AIM9X, AIM120D, SACM) I strongly suspect all this obsessing over BFM capabilities misses the VASTLY more important fact that the F35's "playbook" is probably going to call for dealing with WVR engagements in a totally different way to any aircraft that came before it. It's like evaluating the combat effectiveness of a modern infantryman based on their ability in hand to hand combat... :wallbash:

Edited June 16, 2016 by Boagrius

[Hummingbird]

I don't think it would, the F-35 will tend to keep its speed up while turning because it isn't generating as much drag as the F-16...

 

Its induced drag at high AoA will be higher, but it won't be at high AoA's all the time, if it kept to the same limit as the F-16 of 25 degrees it will only have fractionally more induced drag, but it has the advantage ALL THE TIME of not generating as much form or skin friction drag due to it storing all weapons internally if configured for stealth.

 

My bet would be that that advantage in form and skin friction drag would outweigh the temporary induced drag while turning hard overall.

 

It all very much depends on what load out the F-16 is carrying. In the video the 16's were carrying two or three fuel bags and yet they were still flying at a noticably lower AoA.

 

In a turn most of the drag you'll experience is lift induced (Cdi), thus the aircraft that has to pull the least AoA to achieve the same lift to weight ratio has a big advantage.

 

Therefore I don't believe the F-35 will stand much of a chance against the F-16 in a sustained turn fight, esp. not if the F-16 is carrying a quick response intercept load out.

 

PS: 25 deg AoA is much more than you will be pulling in a max sustained turn.

[Boagrius]

It all very much depends on what load out the F-16 is carrying. In the video the 16's were carrying two or three fuel bags and yet they were still flying at a noticably lower AoA.

 

In a turn most of the drag you'll experience is lift induced (Cdi), thus the aircraft that has to pull the least AoA to achieve the same lift to weight ratio has a big advantage.

 

Therefore I don't believe the F-35 will stand much of a chance against the F-16 in a sustained turn fight, esp. not if the F-16 is carrying a quick response intercept load out.

 

PS: 25 deg AoA is much more than you will be pulling in a max sustained turn.

 

I think you might be extrapolating too much off a single low speed pass here. Hell, even

looks a little "nose high" compared to the F16 it's flying next to:

 

 

Bottom line: we don't have the EM diagrams for the F35... they're classified :smilewink:

Edited June 16, 2016 by Boagrius

[Svend_Dellepude]

 

I think you might be extrapolating too much off a single low speed pass here.

 

Could be..

Still there was a very noticeable difference in AoA between the -16 and the -35.

 

And besides, I have to pay for the darn thing!! :D

Edited June 16, 2016 by Svend_Dellepude

[Boagrius]

Could be..

Still there was a very noticeable difference in AoA between the -16 and the -35.

 

And besides, I have to pay for the darn thing!! :D

 

So do I - I'm Australian :smilewink:

[Tirak]

Welcome to the cool kids table :P

 

[Capn kamikaze]

You don't know if those tanks were full or empty, if empty then they don't really weigh a lot, the F-35's is all internal.

 

In a turn most of the drag you'll experience is lift induced (Cdi), thus the aircraft that has to pull the least AoA to achieve the same lift to weight ratio has a big advantage.

 

That isn't the only thing going on in a turn, it's obvious that induced lift, and induced drag increase, but the question is whether that increase is enough to make the F-35's overall drag higher than the F-16's overall drag.