The F-35 Thread

[Pilotasso]

2 things: Economic difficulties and no adversaries in sight.

[aaron886]

Pilots have been wearing the helmet mounted display on every flight. It's integral.

[mvsgas]

Pilots have been wearing the helmet mounted display on every flight. It's integral.

 

Where did you get that? Pilotasso was talking about the F-22 you know

[aaron886]

Ahhh I saw "F-35 thread" and naturally assumed we were on topic. Hehe. My bad.

[mvsgas]

He was answering my post. I was wondering if anyone seen an F-22 with AIM-9X

[Vault]

Why would the AIM-132 require to be carried externally only?

 

The UK F-35's internal weapons can only be launched from a trapeze whilst the ASRAAM can only be launched from a rail. It's the US trying to force us to purchase the 9X. We're buying a VLO multirole that even Lockheed admit that if it has anything hanging on it, it isn't VLO. It's almost comical. So not only do we have a multirole that has been aerodynamically compormised for the benefits of VLO, we also have no VLO. This is one of the reason's I've always been against the UK purchasing it. It's been compromised before it's even gone into service.

[GGTharos]

So not only do we have a multirole that has been aerodynamically compormised for the benefits of VLO

 

Really? What was compromized in terms of aerodynamics to achieve VLO?

[Vault]

Really? What was compromized in terms of aerodynamics to achieve VLO?

 

Air displacement. Higher pressures caused by the bigger airframe which result in more drag. Smoother profiles are more aerodynamic than angular one last time I checked.

[Pilotasso]

The UK F-35's internal weapons can only be launched from a trapeze whilst the ASRAAM can only be launched from a rail. It's the US trying to force us to purchase the 9X. We're buying a VLO multirole that even Lockheed admit that if it has anything hanging on it, it isn't VLO. It's almost comical. So not only do we have a multirole that has been aerodynamically compormised for the benefits of VLO, we also have no VLO. This is one of the reason's I've always been against the UK purchasing it. It's been compromised before it's even gone into service.

 

What are the other reasons?

[Vault]

There's nearly a trillion reasons why here http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

Combat effectiveness against other 5th gen airframes like the PAK-FA...

 

Price per unit...

 

Questionable performance...

[Pilotasso]

You can find many reasons why the F-35 perfomance is neither intended to be world beating nor inferior to legacy fighters. Sufice to say that in combat load the F-35 will have higher range, better manueverability and less drag than any F-16.

 

The Eurofighter will be UK's AA workhorse not the F-35, its faster and more manuverable. The F-35 role will be different albeit still with a strong AA capability. So the lack of ASRAAM is overrated since a VLO plane will want to avoid getting too close anyway. The AMRAAM will be hugely effective in anything but knife fights.

 

As for the PAK FA, its still a prototype. Much of its final capability targets are not yet even clear that will be reached in the defined schedule. Its not a full blown stealth design (so far at least) and its itself a cost effecteviness compromise. The Chinese didnt want it, the Indians do because they wont be getting anything from China anytime soon.

[GGTharos]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

 

There's nearly a trillion reasons why here http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

Combat effectiveness against other 5th gen airframes like the PAK-FA...

 

Price per unit...

 

Questionable performance...

[Vault]

You can find many reasons why the F-35 perfomance is neither intended to be world beating nor inferior to legacy fighters. Sufice to say that in combat load the F-35 will have higher range, better manueverability and less drag than any F-16.

 

Will it?. The UK's JSF wth external's is questionable in aerodynamic performance even against an F-16. That JSF is one big bird for a single engine fighter. Would love to see the performance charts. It has a much higher displacement. ;)

 

The Eurofighter will be UK's AA workhorse not the F-35, its faster and more manuverable. The F-35 role will be different albeit still with a strong AA capability. So the lack of ASRAAM is overrated since a VLO plane will want to avoid getting too close anyway. The AMRAAM will be hugely effective in anything but knife fights.

 

The JSF will be used by the carrier force to protect itself from A2A threats, infact it's more probable that the JSF will encounter A2A than the Typhoon. If there's a war on the other side of the world the JSF will be there first. I thought the Typhoon's mainstay medium long range A2A will be the meteor when brought into service?.

 

As for the PAK FA, its still a prototype. Much of its final capability targets are not yet even clear that will be reached in the defined schedule. Its not a full blown stealth design (so far at least) and its itself a cost effecteviness compromise. The Chinese didnt want it, the Indians do because they wont be getting anything from China anytime soon.

 

Still a prototype but a very potential adversary, especially an export version. It's rumoured to of been designed to counter the JSF and not the F-22.

[aaron886]

Air displacement. Higher pressures caused by the bigger airframe which result in more drag. Smoother profiles are more aerodynamic than angular one last time I checked.

 

I lol'd. :D

 

Let's get this straight... the F-35 is aerodynamically sound. The stealth-shaping it employs is not particularly draggy... in fact it's less-so than many current generation fighters. If you're referring to the total frontal area of the F-35, that's form drag. Every aircraft has that problem. By comparison to other aircraft, it is not excessive.

 

Consider:

 

 

 

In fact, the F-35 is very smooth. One of the greatest contributions to drag (particularly more important at higher airspeeds) is parasite drag... The F-35 has a very uncluttered exterior, vis other fighters you are comparing it to.

 

Another type of drag is interference drag, caused by angular surfaces creating turbulent "interference." (Maybe what you were trying to refer to?) Another problem that will be less pronounced on the F-35 than current-generation fighters. (Like the F-16, for example.) That recognizable trapezoidal frontal area is less draggy than, say, the frontal profile of the Su-27. The underslung intakes of the Flanker for example, will begin to create pronounced interference drag at higher mach.

 

I haven't yet heard a single argument that makes me believe for a moment the F-35 will not be maneuverable to a degree required. Do you truly believe that 20 years of learning from the previous generation of fighters has just been glossed over in the creation of the F-35? Are you so technophobic and unwilling to accept something because it looks foreign to you that you think the F-35 is some kind of step backwards? It boggles my mind how people come up with this stuff...

 

You know, I think the actual problem is some kind of cultural phobia... Maybe that "Made in the USA" sticker is your problem, because fact clearly is not. :thumbdown:

Edited September 15, 2011 by aaron886

[GGTharos]

The JSF performs like a clean F-16 Block 50 while combat loaded. This fact brought to you by the F-35's chief test pilot. You have the option of calling him a liar, of course ;)

 

 

Will it?. The UK's JSF wth external's is questionable in aerodynamic performance even against an F-16. That JSF is one big bird for a single engine fighter. Would love to see the performance charts. It has a much higher displacement. ;)

 

Because as far as export aircraft go, countering (non-exported) F-22's is just too bleeping expensive :)

 

Still a prototype but a very potential adversary, especially an export version. It's rumoured to of been designed to counter the JSF and not the F-22.

[Pilotasso]

Also its silly to expect an F-35 to be superior to PAK-FA in every way given that they are of different classes of aircraft. The F-35 is a multirole aircraft whereas the PAK-FA is an air superiority fighter (the stuff the russians are saying about it competing with either the RAPTOR or the F-35 is marketing but in all reality is misleading).

 

The PAK-FA will be admitedly faster, will probably trade blows with the F-35 in everything else. In my book thats not to bad for a smaller and cheaper plane.

 

it would be like expecting the use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter in face of an F-15 or Su-30.

 

The PAK FA will be purchased by larger contries (or those with no scruples as how they spend their income like many usual russian custumers) and the F-35 will be affordable by medium sized countries.

 

Regretfully smaller countries with weaker economies have no affordable replacements in sight. :cry:

[Vault]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

 

F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius.

 

Under what parameters were those assesments made?.

[Pilotasso]

Test pilots said the F-35 can cruise supersonically just not beyond mach 1.5 like the raptor with a normal combat load. The F-16 is barelly supersonic (or better transonic) in clean configuration. It wont with weapons.

 

The part about T/W ratio is ammusing since the F-35 has a much larger fuel fraction. Meaning, just dont fill it all up and it will be higher than f-16's.

[GGTharos]

Probably the kind that matter in combat. I have no reason to disbelieve them just because some peeps decided to get all negative on the JSF. The problem aircraft has been the B. Any accusations leveled at the A and C by certain persons has been done, AFAIK, without any more access to material to said aircraft than you have. To give you an idea, the one measure of performance I found somewhere indicated turning ability at fairly heavy load just shy of that of an F-15C with a combat load, which is expected (the F-15C is a TWR monster).

 

Under what parameters were those assesments made?.

Edited September 15, 2011 by GGTharos

[Vault]

The JSF performs like a clean F-16 Block 50 while combat loaded. This fact brought to you by the F-35's chief test pilot. You have the option of calling him a liar, of course ;)

 

 

I'm not calling him a liar. He fails to mention thrust to drag ratios though. ;) physics dicates they're going to be alot higher than a clean F-16 because that big bird sure does displace alot of air compared to the F-16. He doesn't mention the UK version with externals added onto it. He fails to mention wing loading and turn performance and he's a company man with alot to lose. Infact he doesn't really mention much except thust to weight ratio. Not very convincing and he's definitely picked his words and parameters carefully.

[Vault]

Probably the kind that matter in combat. I have no reason to disbelieve them just because some peeps decided to get all negative on the JSF. The problem aircraft has been the B. Any accusations leveled at the A and C by certain persons has been done, AFAIK, without any more access to material to said aircraft than you have. To give you an idea, the one measure of performance I found somewhere indicated turning ability at fairly heavy load just shy of that of an F-15C with a combat load, which is expected (the F-15C is a TWR monster).

 

Naa, they'll be the kind that matter to sales. They always are. Money talks.

[aaron886]

The JSF performs like a clean F-16 Block 50 while combat loaded. This fact brought to you by the F-35's chief test pilot. You have the option of calling him a liar, of course ;)

 

LOL... thank you.

[Vault]

I lol'd. :D

 

Let's get this straight... the F-35 is aerodynamically sound. The stealth-shaping it employs is not particularly draggy... in fact it's less-so than many current generation fighters. If you're referring to the total frontal area of the F-35, that's form drag. Every aircraft has that problem. By comparison to other aircraft, it is not excessive.

 

Let's get this straight. The F-35 is a compromise between aerodynamic efficiency and VLO. Any object that moves through air has to displace it's own volume at any given time. The bigger the object the bigger the displacement. The bigger the displacement the higher the surrounding air pressure which equals drag or as you like to say "draggy".

 

Consider:

 

In fact, the F-35 is very smooth. One of the greatest contributions to drag (particularly more important at higher airspeeds) is parasite drag... The F-35 has a very uncluttered exterior, vis other fighters you are comparing it to.

 

yeah about as smooth as a bag of spanners. The most aerodynamic shape known is the tear drop. The leading edge has no angular surfaces.

 

I haven't yet heard a single argument that makes me believe for a moment the F-35 will not be maneuverable to a degree required. Do you truly believe that 20 years of learning from the previous generation of fighters has just been glossed over in the creation of the F-35? Are you so technophobic and unwilling to accept something because it looks foreign to you that you think the F-35 is some kind of step backwards? It boggles my mind how people come up with this stuff...

 

You know, I think the actual problem is some kind of cultural phobia... Maybe that "Made in the USA" sticker is your problem, because fact clearly is not. :thumbdown:

 

Lolz @ made in the USA sticker. What part of multi-nation do you fail to understand?.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Vault

[GGTharos]

One look at a flanker or an F-15 is all you need to fail your argument.

 

Let's get this straight. The F-35 is a compromise between aerodynamic efficiency and VLO. Any object that moves through air has to displace it's own volume at any given time. The bigger the object the bigger the displacement. The bigger the displacement the higher the surrounding air pressure which equals drag or as you like to say "draggy".

[Vault]

One look at a flanker or an F-15 is all you need to fail your argument.

 

I don't do cryptic sentences, please be more specific.