The F-35 Thread

[marcos]

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/2996/200yh.jpg

 

You need to use the right chart.

Wow. You added 2,000lb of fuel and the result is still the same. The F-15 can pull 9g across a far broader range of speeds.

 

EDIT: And the F-15 is clean and light vs a draggy and heavy 16.

What? The F-16 is at 26,000lbs. That's internal fuel only. It has 7,000lb of fuel, the F-15 has 9,000lb. The difference that 2,000lb makes is also minimal as you can see. Any other graphs?

 

If you check out the acceleration times, distance and fuel consumption between Clean and DI=50, there's very little difference at Mach 0.83. 2.5% extra fuel consumption. Not something that would explain away only sustaining 9g from Mach 0.82 to Mach 0.9 vs 0.72 to 1.02 for the F-15.

 

You said consider span and roll, I did, the larger F-16 would have a lower roll rate but be equal in sustained turning.

FFS. Shut up. At least find something to back up your claims other than the keys on your keyboard. I guess a 747 with really long wings must have a great roll rate.

 

Bit of a leap, especially since the 16 turns tighter.

Evidence?

 

I've dealt with the table.

Clearly not. Howabout you read the page before it instead of trying to change the subject.

 

Then why doesn't he say that? He does not say that the load is 50% fuel and weapons jettisoned, he says they vary but generally refer to a state around the mentioned condition.

So... that means nothing to you? This explains why you're still typing. You don't understand anything. You don't read, you just type.

 

Add in CEASAR and the F-35 is a hard sell as a fighter. But the EF would probably gain weight in the process.

But we're playing the 'if' game. And I reckon you could probably add space for internal AAM carriage next to the intakes without weight going up. You have to change the geometry of nearly everything though.

 

 

This started as a conversation about range - you were shit out of luck there.

 

Then an article revealed how the F-35 was failing wrt sustained turn rate.

 

Then you start comparing the F-16 with the F-15.

 

Seriously, just give up.

Edited February 4, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

Wow. You added 2,000lb of fuel and the result is still the same. The F-15 can pull 9g across a far broader range of speeds.

Oh didn't realize the fuel weight was different, but no the point was to put a turn rate chart with a turn rate chart.

 

But now going back yes, I've misread it, the F-16's is not sustained only.

 

 

What? The F-16 is at 26,000lbs. That's internal fuel only. It has 7,000lb of fuel, the F-15 has 9,000lb. The difference that 2,000lb makes is also minimal as you can see. Any other graphs?

 

The F-15 is 28,000 lbs empty.

 

7/19 = .37 or 7/26 = .27

 

7/28 = .25 or 7/35 = .2

 

9/28 = .32 or 9/37 = .24

 

So as you did with the F-35, you're putting more fuel in the plane you want to lose. And more drag in this case.

 

 

FFS. Shut up. At least find something to back up your claims other than the keys on your keyboard. I guess a 747 with really long wings must have a great roll rate.

I think you've misread?

 

 

 

Clearly not. Howabout you read the page before it instead of trying to change the subject.

?

 

 

So... that means nothing to you? This explains why you're still typing. You don't understand anything. You don't read, you just type.

Well, it does not indicate what exactly the F-35 is carrying.

 

 

 

This started as a conversation about range - you were shit out of luck there.

 

Then an article revealed how the F-35 was failing wrt sustained turn rate.

 

Then you start comparing the F-16 with the F-15.

 

Seriously, just give up.

It started with me replying to your post on thing that included maneuverability. You then tried backing out of maneuverability, OK, but then you didn't produce definite range figures for anything.

[marcos]

Oh didn't realize the fuel weight was different, but no the point was to put a turn rate chart with a turn rate chart.

 

But now going back yes, I've misread it, the F-16's is not sustained only.

 

The F-15 is 28,000 lbs empty.

 

7/19 = .37 or 7/26 = .27

 

7/28 = .25 or 7/35 = .2

 

9/28 = .32 or 9/37 = .24

 

So as you did with the F-35, you're putting more fuel in the plane you want to lose. And more drag in this case.

Hey. I don't give a shit whether the F-16 is better than the F-15 or not. You brought it up. I've forgotten what it even has to do with the F-35. Probably nothing. I've already pointed out that a drag index of 50 makes little difference to drag, certainly not enough to explain the massive chasm for the sustained 9g speed range:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1668499&postcount=164

 

If you don't like the graphs, find your own. Don't see why I should do all the work. You made a statement saying the F-16 has better STR, back it up. I've posted the best graphs I can find, showing that it's most likely another fallacy on your part.

 

I think you've misread?

Nope.

 

 

 

 

Well, it does not indicate what exactly the F-35 is carrying.

Says it's generally based around a fuel state of 50% post weapons release. I take that to mean that that's the case unless it specifies otherwise.

 

The fuel levels and payloads at which maneuverability is calculated differs for each variant but generally focuses on a post-weapons release payload and fuel state at 50% of the required combat radius. Figure 3 below lists the specific maneuverability requirements and shows the differences among the variants.19 The most notable differences are related to the USAF requirements for the CTOL JSF. The USAF includes a threshold requirement for a 9.0 G capability at 60% fuel and no air-toground ordnance remaining. In addition to the high-end requirement, the USAF also provides for a more realistic scenario of high altitude, large payload performance. The CTOL must have the capability of performing a 30 degree bank turn while still maintaining a 1000 foot per minute climb at 30,000 feet with a combat loadout of two external fuel tanks, two external JDAM, two internal JDAM, two internal AIM-120 missiles, and a fully loaded gun.

 

Now note how the table has specific sections for the CTOL. Coincidence.

 

Top 2 rows of table 15,000ft. Last one - sea level. It's fairly intuitive if you think.

 

 

 

It started with me replying to your post on thing that included maneuverability. You then tried backing out of maneuverability, OK, but then you didn't produce definite range figures for anything.

I was trying to avoid another circle jerk where you ignore everything and also trying to avoid leaving the range argument, which you'd already lost.

[GGTharos]

I believe he said the F-16 turns better, not that it has a better STR. Given that F-16's tend to whoop up on F-15's in WVR, and that most BFM is won with turning, the STR/ITR/TWR combination available to the F-16 for this job is somehow better than what is available to the F-15.

 

If you don't like the graphs, find your own. Don't see why I should do all the work. You made a statement saying the F-16 has better STR, back it up. I've posted the best graphs I can find, showing that it's most likely another fallacy on your part.

[marcos]

I believe he said the F-16 turns better, not that it has a better STR.

Yeah he did but we've lost a post in the transition. If not, why is he arguing with my first post on this page?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1668365&postcount=1101

 

he also said this:

 

You said consider span and roll, I did, the larger F-16 would have a lower roll rate but be equal in sustained turning.

 

Not sure what he's even talking about anymore really.

 

I started with the premise that the F-15 has better STR but the F-16 has better roll response and less inertia for changing direction quickly, which would include instantaneous g but more specifically how fast it reaches that instantaneous g.

 

Given that F-16's tend to whoop up on F-15's in WVR, and that most BFM is won with turning, the STR/ITR/TWR combination available to the F-16 for this job is somehow better than what is available to the F-15.

It's lighter and can change direction faster due to lower inertia and faster roll response. I've already mentioned that.

Edited February 4, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

Hey. I don't give a shit whether the F-16 is better than the F-15 or not. You brought it up. I've forgotten what it even has to do with the F-35. Probably nothing. I've already pointed out that a drag index of 50 makes little difference to drag, certainly not enough to explain the massive chasm for the sustained 9g speed range:

 

The F-16 vs F-15 comparison was to go back to wing loading to show it's not be all/end all in maneuverability since that's pretty much your reasoning for hating the F-35.

 

And it's not a drag index of 50. It's a drag index of 50 with a bit more fuel in a smaller plane (and at one altitude - sea level)

 

 

If you don't like the graphs, find your own. Don't see why I should do all the work. You made a statement saying the F-16 has better STR, back it up. I've posted the best graphs I can find, showing that it's most likely another fallacy on your part.

I said it's typically taken as being the better WVR fighter. Any mention of a definite better STR was only the result of misreading the chart.

 

 

Nope.

Then how are you disagreeing with me when I'm agreeing with you?

 

You said more size = less roll right? That's what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

Says it's generally based around a fuel state of 50% post weapons release. I take that to mean that that's the case unless it specifies otherwise.

Well that still doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

Now note how the table has specific sections for the CTOL. Coincidence.

 

Top 2 rows of table 15,000ft. Last one - sea level. It's fairly intuitive if you think.

 

 

 

 

I was trying to avoid another circle jerk where you ignore everything and also trying to avoid leaving the range argument, which you'd already lost.

Then where is the range for either the F-35 or EF-2000? You produced neither. You did some math on a F-35 wing disconnected from the rest of the plane but somehow pulling all the weight would do against a EF-2000 wing doing the same.

[GGTharos]

I think you're arguing too much - there's really not too much to talk about.

 

The things at issue are (AFAIK) the F-35's range, and its maneuverability.

 

 

Here's the thing, to deal withthe F-15/F-16 thing first of all, yes, inertia is 'a' thing, but it necessarily requires acceleration (TWR) + turn rate to take advantage of. If you can just turn quickly but you burn all your speed, you've just gained angles that you're about to lose because typically slower speed = slower STR (and the slower you go, the more ITR margin you lose as well).

 

On the point of drag index having no effect - it will, as you hang weapons on the thing you'll get a double whammie of DI + weight reducing your performance. Looking at acceleration alone is okay-ish, but beyond this you have to come to terms with payload limitation and the fact than in A2A that F-16 will end up with low DI unless it wants to get beat up on (min, the low DI is simply a secondary consequence of getting rid of certain stores).

 

It's fine to look at charts etc, we all do it, most of us are armchair jockeys - but even then it's all about what you do with this information, rather than this circle-jerk of F-35 this or F-35 that.

 

The point here is that the F-35 isn't going to be terribly inferior to the 16 when combat loaded, and it can tae advantage of the range it has better than a non-stealth aircraft. The question isn't 'can it fly like a UFO', the question is 'can it do the job it's supposed to do, and how well can it do the secondary job?'.

 

In antithesis to the F-16, the F-35 was not conceived as a lightweight fighter. It's really ok if it gets outperformed in some parameters by a clean F-16. Instead, it is conceived a heavyweight strike fighter that brings the entire offensive inventory of 'I'm invading your airspace and there's nothing you can do about it' with it, designed to counter the most modern threats, existing or predicted, and to give its pilot unparalelled SA while taking it away from the other guy.

 

And once more, getting back to an often quoted statistic of 'most planes are shot down by an unknown shooter', this once more works out in favor of the 35, even against the F-16 in BFM (assuming a realistic tactical setup instead of a fair one).

 

You need enough maneuverability to finish a fight in about 45-60sec in BFM. After that things are likely end badly for everyone involved.

 

 

And Exorcet, you too. You guys need to get off the numbers and look at the big picture; there's a reason why the F-35 is not and will not be a failure, and the numbers y'all are looking at ain't it.

 

Yeah he did but we've lost a post in the transition. If not, why is he arguing with my first post on this page?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1668365&postcount=1101

 

he also said this:

 

 

 

Not sure what he's even talking about anymore really.

 

I started with the premise that the F-15 has better STR but the F-16 has better roll response and less inertia for changing direction quickly, which would include instantaneous g but more specifically how fast it reaches that instantaneous g.

 

 

It's lighter and can change direction faster due to lower inertia and faster roll response. I've already mentioned that.

[Exorcet]

 

The point here is that the F-35 isn't going to be terribly inferior to the 16 when combat loaded, and it can tae advantage of the range it has better than a non-stealth aircraft. The question isn't 'can it fly like a UFO', the question is 'can it do the job it's supposed to do, and how well can it do the secondary job?'.

 

In antithesis to the F-16, the F-35 was not conceived as a lightweight fighter. It's really ok if it gets outperformed in some parameters by a clean F-16. Instead, it is conceived a heavyweight strike fighter that brings the entire offensive inventory of 'I'm invading your airspace and there's nothing you can do about it' with it, designed to counter the most modern threats, existing or predicted, and to give its pilot unparalelled SA while taking it away from the other guy.

 

And once more, getting back to an often quoted statistic of 'most planes are shot down by an unknown shooter', this once more works out in favor of the 35, even against the F-16 in BFM (assuming a realistic tactical setup instead of a fair one).

 

You need enough maneuverability to finish a fight in about 45-60sec in BFM. After that things are likely end badly for everyone involved.

 

 

And Exorcet, you too. You guys need to get off the numbers and look at the big picture; there's a reason why the F-35 is not and will not be a failure, and the numbers y'all are looking at ain't it.

 

There is definitely more to the value of the plane than numbers, yes.

 

The EF-2000 is a better "fighter" than the F-35 and it seems everyone here agrees. I still think the F-35 holds the advantage in air to air though when you look at it from wider perspective.

 

But that really wasn't why I jumped into the original thread in the first place. The claim that the F-35's agility is 3rd gen is fairly weak at this point. The range question is open because there is so little in specifics. We could take the 50% fuel, no bombs figure as 100% truth and still not know the flight profile.

 

I think this has been a good discussion (in parts) and I appreciate Marcos' input. Good points were certainly made. There was really no need to discuss this and it won't have much impact on the F-35, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be discussed.

 

Though if it's only being considered disruptive now then I have no problem just ending it.

[aaron886]

I wish this thread would get back to cool pictures, videos, and factual updates on the F-35 instead of repetitive heresay and masturbatory egotism.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2013 by aaron886

[marcos]

I think you're arguing too much - there's really not too much to talk about.

Well it takes 2 to argue and I think I presented my case better - something reflected by the fact that the subject was changed by Exorcet.

 

The things at issue are (AFAIK) the F-35's range, and its maneuverability.

It was until Exorcet changed the subject and tried to make the rather perverse case that the F-16 being better than the F-15 and the F-22 being better than the F-15, would make the F-35 better than them all, or something along those lines. Even though the F-35 was neither wing loading, nor inertia going for it.

 

Here's the thing, to deal withthe F-15/F-16 thing first of all, yes, inertia is 'a' thing, but it necessarily requires acceleration (TWR) + turn rate to take advantage of. If you can just turn quickly but you burn all your speed, you've just gained angles that you're about to lose because typically slower speed = slower STR (and the slower you go, the more ITR margin you lose as well).

But if you can get out of trouble, or get a kill, before your energy is lost, that's all that matters. Hence why the F-16 can perform well against the F-15 in dogfights despite worse STR. A seasoned F-15 pilot would probably try use the STR to make the F-16 climb whilst turning, burn off excess energy and take it into thinner air.

 

On the point of drag index having no effect - it will, as you hang weapons on the thing you'll get a double whammie of DI + weight reducing your performance. Looking at acceleration alone is okay-ish, but beyond this you have to come to terms with payload limitation and the fact than in A2A that F-16 will end up with low DI unless it wants to get beat up on (min, the low DI is simply a secondary consequence of getting rid of certain stores).

Well now, I didn't say it had no effect. I suggested that the effect of a drag index of 50 (most likely 1 or 2 drop tanks) seemed to have little affect on drag because the acceleration figures were virtually the same as was the fuel consumption. The weight for the turn graph was also 26,000lbs, so those tanks were empty. They were probably factored in because the F-16s fuel load is so small without external tanks. If anyone can present evidence showing that the F-16 has a better STR than the F-15 clean then I'm eager to see it, but for now the evidence isn't there.

 

It's fine to look at charts etc, we all do it, most of us are armchair jockeys - but even then it's all about what you do with this information, rather than this circle-jerk of F-35 this or F-35 that.

We've looked at more than charts. We've looked at specifications, opinions on specifications and specification non-compliances.

 

The point here is that the F-35 isn't going to be terribly inferior to the 16 when combat loaded, and it can tae advantage of the range it has better than a non-stealth aircraft. The question isn't 'can it fly like a UFO', the question is 'can it do the job it's supposed to do, and how well can it do the secondary job?'.

And that's what we've looked at.

 

In antithesis to the F-16, the F-35 was not conceived as a lightweight fighter. It's really ok if it gets outperformed in some parameters by a clean F-16. Instead, it is conceived a heavyweight strike fighter that brings the entire offensive inventory of 'I'm invading your airspace and there's nothing you can do about it' with it, designed to counter the most modern threats, existing or predicted, and to give its pilot unparalelled SA while taking it away from the other guy.

Hence why I can't for the life of me understand why Exorcet brought the F-16 up.

 

We all know the F-35 has stealth and avionics but how much does that remove the need for traditional fighter performance?

 

And once more, getting back to an often quoted statistic of 'most planes are shot down by an unknown shooter', this once more works out in favor of the 35, even against the F-16 in BFM (assuming a realistic tactical setup instead of a fair one).

That came from studies where 1 plane would get a free shot at 1 plane. Meanwhile, in stealth protagonist world, we have delusions of a half-dozen consecutive BVR kills from 100km against Gen 4.5 fighters.

 

You need enough maneuverability to finish a fight in about 45-60sec in BFM. After that things are likely end badly for everyone involved.

None more so than the F-35.

 

And Exorcet, you too. You guys need to get off the numbers and look at the big picture; there's a reason why the F-35 is not and will not be a failure, and the numbers y'all are looking at ain't it.

That reason is very much theoretical at this stage. Which is why it's a big bet to sacrifice everything else for it. And of course the need for external carry is also an issue wrt that 'big picture', ref. range etc.

[marcos]

The F-16 vs F-15 comparison was to go back to wing loading to show it's not be all/end all in maneuverability since that's pretty much your reasoning for hating the F-35.

Yes but it's proven nothing because the F-35 has none of the handling advantages that the F-16 has.

 

And it's not a drag index of 50. It's a drag index of 50 with a bit more fuel in a smaller plane (and at one altitude - sea level)

Err... no. You showed a graph of an F-15 with 9,000lbs of fuel and the F-16 has 7,000lbs. The difference in STR was massive. 9g over 4 times the speed range.

 

 

I said it's typically taken as being the better WVR fighter. Any mention of a definite better STR was only the result of misreading the chart.

Well at least you're actually reading things now. If only you could read them correctly. perhaps if you can't understand such a graph and post incorrect equations, you should read more and type less.

 

 

Then how are you disagreeing with me when I'm agreeing with you?

 

You said more size = less roll right? That's what I said.

It's what you say now.:smartass:

 

Well that still doesn't make it true.

No. They wrote it for a laugh.

 

Then where is the range for either the F-35 or EF-2000? You produced neither. You did some math on a F-35 wing disconnected from the rest of the plane but somehow pulling all the weight would do against a EF-2000 wing doing the same.

Well, given that you couldn't understand the F-16 turn graph, it's no wonder my explanation was lost on you.

[Blaze]

I wish this thread would get back to cool pictures, videos, and factual updates on the F-35 instead of repetitive heresay and masturbatory egotism.

 

I completely agree. :)

 

WPx1A5Rsg10

[marcos]

That is a nice video.

[aaron886]

Well it takes 2 to argue and I think I presented my case better - something reflected by the fact that the subject was changed by Exorcet.

 

You can't be the "good guy" after all that...

[marcos]

You can't be the "good guy" after all that...

If I had a duplicate user account I could.

 

 

Anyway. F-35As over Eglin

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/LockheedMartinVideos

 

2/5/2013 - EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- Increasing capability is becoming routine for the F-35 Lightning II team.

 

The 58th Aircraft Maintenance Unit produced a four-turn-four for the 58th Fighter Squadron flying Jan 31.

 

"The pilots flew four F-35As in the morning and the maintainers performed routine maintenance for airworthiness after landing. Then the crew chiefs 'turned' them around so the four jets could be flown in the afternoon," said Col. Andrew Toth, the commander of the 33d Fighter Wing and one of the aviators in the formation.

 

That was the first F-35 four-turn-four at the wing. Following up the successful flights, the team did the same Feb. 1 with a four-turn-two. During the Jan. 31 training flights, the pilots were using their advanced radar systems to track F-16 "adversaries" over the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Additionally, the maintainers had spare F-35As ready to go in the event of any issues in flight proving their ability to prepare the Air Force's newest fighter jet for basic pilot training.

 

While turning jets and flying multiple aircraft in formation is standard operations at an established flying training unit, for the 33d Fighter Wing, it was another step forward to self-sufficiency. Subsequently, it boosted morale.

 

"It was good to pull that off last week knowing recent weather can cancel flights," said Senior Master Sgt. Eric Wheeler, the production superintendent with 58th AMU. "I can't control the weather...everything else I control. The jets took off without any issues, the pilots flew their scheduled times. They all landed safely and the aircraft downloaded correctly."

 

Unique to the JSF, the downloaded data is inputted into the autonomic logistics information system that tracks the health of the jet in a computer based diagnostics and logistics system.

 

Contracted logistic support by Lockheed Martin is steadily giving way to 58th AMU crew chiefs as the Airmen become more proficient in maintaining the F-35A. LM will continue to support other variants and international partners.

Edited February 6, 2013 by marcos

[Invader ZIM]

I always liked this video illustrating the JSF's EO DAS system, when you consider the scenarios presented in the video, and couple this EO DAS with the Radar system, you can start to see the multiplier these planes could gain on the battlefield.

 

I'm not a fan of the JSF being an A-10 replacement, but I can see where this new aircraft is able to supplement the F-22 force and provide additional firepower when needed.

 

Video showing some of the avionics:

 

 

EO DAS system overview:

 

 

AN/APG-81 AESA overview:

 

 

Seeing this public info, you can see with a little imagination that these systems have huge advantages, even without considering stealth.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[Mandrake5]

I always liked this video illustrating the JSF's EO DAS system, when you consider the scenarios presented in the video, and couple this EO DAS with the Radar system, you can start to see the multiplier these planes could gain on the battlefield.

 

I'm not a fan of the JSF being an A-10 replacement, but I can see where this new aircraft is able to supplement the F-22 force and provide additional firepower when needed.

 

Video showing some of the avionics:

 

 

EO DAS system overview:

 

 

AN/APG-81 AESA overview:

 

 

Seeing this public info, you can see with a little imagination that these systems have huge advantages, even without considering stealth.

 

Thanks for the links......wow this thing will be truly formidable; no wonder certain governments have resorted to trying to hack its secrets, guess they know that's their only chance to defeat it!

[Python]

Great pictures Marcos. I can't get my head around the F-35's reputation of being ugly? I think its a fine looking machine...

[Mandrake5]

Great pictures Marcos. I can't get my head around the F-35's reputation of being ugly? I think its a fine looking machine...

 

+1

 

F35 is badass :gun_smilie:

[Blaze]

Fekkin' gorgeous piece of engineering. :)

[wiltzu]

According to 100% genuine intel the machine's meant to appeal with it's feminine features i.e. curvy contours & inverted high heels.

[marcos]

SPEAR looks like a good SEAD weapon:

 

[Invader ZIM]

Yea, and not just for the JSF, it's a British development, you can see the .pdf for the system here, it appears to have 16 of those miniature cruise missiles on a Typhoon, and 8 can be carried internally by the JSF.

 

http://www.mbda-systems.com/products/air-dominance/spear/29/

 

Interesting, I had not heard of this system before, learned something new. :)

[marcos]

Looks like the Israeli Delilah.

Except a third of the weight and about half the length and diameter even without including the wingspan, and with MWR/INS/GPS/semi-active laser multi-mode guidance.

Edited February 7, 2013 by marcos

[swift]

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/