F-35B Grounded

[marcos]

And I don't really see the point. The F-35B has always been a waste of money, and always will be.

 

Seems good to me, and if I recall they only gave lower range figures. Large tanks and relatively high bypass turbofan on a clean body is going to provide decent range.

 

 

 

 

Since when?

 

 

Stealth yes, that's a huge advantage along with the sensors and cooperative capability with other F-35's. On top of that it's no worse than current fighters performance wise.

 

 

 

With 2 F119's you would lose a plane as soon as a single engine went out on the vertical landing and probably on the short take off too. You'd also burn more fuel.

 

And where are you going to place these F119's to allow vertical maneuvers? 70,000 lbs of thrust won't go any good away from the cg.

Disagree with all the above. Most of which is just unsubstantiated argument. You've actually missed all the pertinent arguments for STOVL, like bad weather carrier operations where STOBAR and CATOBAR would be grounded, and faster turn-around times and higher mission rate.

 

The last point is ridiculous. If one engine goes out with the F-35B, you're screwed too and you can't even land on a conventional runway. You just fall straight from the sky. It's not like you could even glide with those dodo wings.

 

Wrt to CoG, you use thrust diverters. Hell of a lot simpler than a lift fan, more reliable and lighter too. You could also still play around with core size and BPR to get whatever low speed thrust you need.

 

Performance? TWR < 1.0. Wing loading > 100lb/ft2.

 

You should take a look at the 'burn more fuel' claim too, because from the stats I'm seeing, the F-35's range is very poor despite the decent fuel loads because of the small wings.

 

Clean body? It's a flying brick. The stealth and the sensor package are quite literally the only things it has going for it, but with the inability to carry the JSOW and JSOW-ER internally and poor range on the B, stealth is less of a real advantage too.

[Exorcet]

 

The last point is ridiculous. If one engine goes out with the F-35B, you're screwed too

Right, so adding an engine doesn't make much difference because increasing the probability of a crash when trying to go into a vertical maneuver. Doesn't sound like a good idea.

 

and you can't even land on a conventional runway. You just fall straight from the sky. It's not like you could even glide with those dodo wings.

You'd glide no worse than something like a F-15, so you would basically have the same margin to recover from the lack of engines as most fighters.

 

Wrt to CoG, you use thrust diverters. Hell of a lot simpler than a lift fan, more reliable and lighter too. You could also still play around with core size and BPR to get whatever low speed thrust you need.

Despite Boeing's X-32 being less reliable when it came to STOVL.

 

Performance? TWR < 1.0. Wing loading > 100lb/ft2.

Can you actual say something about performance rather than quoting near meaningless numbers?

 

You should take a look at the 'burn more fuel' claim too, because from the stats I'm seeing, the F-35's range is very poor despite the decent fuel loads because of the small wings.

Again, I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that only lower bounds on range have been released and the F-35 is an improvement over the fighters it's replacing.

 

Clean body? It's a flying brick. The stealth and the sensor package are quite literally the only things it has going for it, but with the inability to carry the JSOW and JSOW-ER internally and poor range on the B, stealth is less of a real advantage too.

Yes clean, once you approach transonic that's going to matter a whole lot as the F-35 won't have to deal with interference drag from hanging pylons and weapons.

 

I don't see how stealth is less of an advantage just because you can't carry stand off weapons.

 

I see no reason to think that its CD is significantly worse than similar aircraft, but if you want to substantiate your claims with some evidence, I'll change my mind.

[mvsgas]

Yes, quote from the article ....

“a failure to a propulsion fueldraulic line, which enables movement in the actuators for the STOVL’s exhaust system.”[unquote] Iv'e never heard the term "Fueldraulic" before.

Many engines use fuel as hydraulic fluid. For example the f100-PW-220 and the F110-GE-100 use fuel to move the CIVV/RCIVV or the IGV/VSV. Hte also use engine oil or any available fluid. Feuldraulic simply means to use fuel to perform hydraulic work.

[mvsgas]

I guess so. :)

The fuel goes to the HMU which meters and distributes fuel for burning and various control systems.

Do I remember wrong or does the F-18 actuate the exhaust nozzle with "fueldraulics"?

 

GE use engine oil to move the exhaust nozzle.

[Meatwod]

There's a significant amount of risk calculations that go into the decission to ground a fleet becuase of quality escapes like this.

 

Things like this happen all the time in all military and commercial programs, but most them are negigible risk and don't make headlines.

 

Others have significant impact on air worthiness, but can still be mitigated by inspection or other means, which prevents the service from grounding the fleet.

 

Newer systems are always under tighter scutiny and unit cost makes the decission even more critical. A nozzle crunch on an F-15 doesn't even classify as a Class A Mishap, becuase the cost is low and the impact to OSS&E is minimal. However, the STOVL nozzle cost considerably more, so a similar failure would exceed cost threshold for a reportable MISHAP.

[marcos]

Right, so adding an engine doesn't make much difference because increasing the probability of a crash when trying to go into a vertical maneuver. Doesn't sound like a good idea.

No, wrong. With 1 of 2 engines gone you could potentially divert to a friendly land AFB, or attempt an emergency hook/net landing on a carrier. With 1 of 1 engines gone and stumpy wings, you fall out of the sky like a brick.

 

You'd glide no worse than something like a F-15, so you would basically have the same margin to recover from the lack of engines as most fighters.

Absolute BS. Wing loading isn't even comparable with an F-15. Love to see an F-35 land with one wing.

 

 

Despite Boeing's X-32 being less reliable when it came to STOVL.

No one suggested doing it with one engine.

 

Can you actual say something about performance rather than quoting near meaningless numbers?

Okay but don't be offended when I say that it will have dogfight manoeuvrability that's likely to be roughly on par with an F-4 or some other 3rd gen aircraft, or at least closer to an F-4 than an F-15.

 

Again, I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, that only lower bounds on range have been released and the F-35 is an improvement over the fighters it's replacing.

Nah, unless you mean that the F-35B has more range than a Harrier.:lol: The F-35C is roughly the same as an F-18E/F and it's inferior to a Rafale M. The F-35B is far worse still. The F-35A has less range than a Typhoon.

 

Yes clean, once you approach transonic that's going to matter a whole lot as the F-35 won't have to deal with interference drag from hanging pylons and weapons.

That must explain why its supercruise is still lower than a Rafale M or Typhoon and it maxes out at about Mach 1.6 clean. The B can't carry JSOW/JSOW-ER internally and no variant can carry a JASSM internally, so for an interdiction mission, the 'clean-body' argument doesn't fly and nor does the stealth argument really.

 

I don't see how stealth is less of an advantage just because you can't carry stand off weapons.

Then you're not thinking. Please think instead of making me type. Is stealth really an advantage if you have to sacrifice it to carry stand-off weapons, or use it but consequently have to go a lot closer to the enemy to complete the mission and potentially still be picked up by localised ADSs.

 

I see no reason to think that its CD is significantly worse than similar aircraft, but if you want to substantiate your claims with some evidence, I'll change my mind.

See fuel load vs range vs other aircraft. No, go look for yourself.

[Exorcet]

No, wrong. With 1 of 2 engines gone you could potentially divert to a friendly land AFB, or attempt an emergency hook/net landing on a carrier. With 1 of 1 engines gone and stumpy wings, you fall out of the sky like a brick.

 

Your fall like a brick assumption is baseless.

 

Yes with two engines, you can fly farther on engine out, but I was focusing on STOVL. Two engine STOVL means when your trying to V, or sometimes STO , an engine out equates a rolling moment and then a crash.

 

 

Absolute BS. Wing loading isn't even comparable with an F-15. Love to see an F-35 land with one wing.

Wings don't come off automatically when an engine fails.

 

And gliding is about L/D more than W/A (which is a pretty bad number considering that wing area is not directly proportional to lift)

 

 

No one suggested doing it with one engine.

How would two engines make the X-32 any better? The number of engines wasn't the problem. The problem was basically not having a lift fan.

 

 

Okay but don't be offended when I say that it will have dogfight manoeuvrability that's likely to be roughly on par with an F-4 or some other 3rd gen aircraft, or at least closer to an F-4 than an F-15.

If you're not saying anything I can't be offended. Everything the test pilots are saying implies F-16 like agility at least. You don't believe the test pilots? Fine with me, bu then what are you basing your performance estimates on? If it's wing loading and TWR you might as well go by how cool the plane looks.

 

How about acceleration and turning performance. Things you can't know without drag for one thing, which is something TWR and wing loading don't take into account.

 

 

Nah, unless you mean that the F-35B has more range than a Harrier.:lol: The F-35C is roughly the same as an F-18E/F and it's inferior to a Rafale M. The F-35B is far worse still. The F-35A has less range than a Typhoon.

Again, these are probably lower bounds.

 

 

That must explain why its supercruise is still lower than a Rafale M or Typhoon and it maxes out at about Mach 1.6 clean. The B can't carry JSOW/JSOW-ER internally and no variant can carry a JASSM internally, so for an interdiction mission, the 'clean-body' argument doesn't fly and nor does the stealth argument really.

Tell me where you found its max supercruise speed rather than the Mach 1.2 lower bound, and then tell me why it's speed limited to Mach 1.6 rather than assuming the engine can't make the F-35 go any faster than that.

 

Also, how fast go Typhoons and Rafales go carrying a similar load to the F-35?

 

JASSM isn't the only weapon in existence.

 

Then you're not thinking. Please think instead of making me type. Is stealth really an advantage if you have to sacrifice it to carry stand-off weapons, or use it but consequently have to go a lot closer to the enemy to complete the mission and potentially still be picked up by localised ADSs.

If stand off weapons were the solution to everything, why even make fighters? Every airforce would have B-52's that carry JSSAM and AIM-54's and no other weapons.

 

What's the point of the Typhoon and Rafale if they're just going to carry cruise missiles?

 

 

See fuel load vs range vs other aircraft. No, go look for yourself.

You're going to have to prove claims you make. It's not my job. So as long as you don't provide that data yourself, it's a null point. Though I'll be nice and look it up later if I have time. While I'm there I'll probably find the source showing that the F-35 ranges are lower bounds.

[marcos]

Your fall like a brick assumption is baseless.

So it can fly with no engines and a 100lb/ft2 wing loading?

 

Yes with two engines, you can fly farther on engine out, but I was focusing on STOVL.

There's your problem. Is the enemy more likely to shoot an engine when you're taking off/landing or somewhere in between?

 

Wings don't come off automatically when an engine fails.

Didn't say they did but it scuppers your 'glide as well as an F-15' BS.

 

And gliding is about L/D more than W/A (which is a pretty bad number considering that wing area is not directly proportional to lift)

For a given Cl it is.

 

You're going to have to prove claims you make. It's not my job. So as long as you don't provide that data yourself, it's a null point. Though I'll be nice and look it up later if I have time. While I'm there I'll probably find the source showing that the F-35 ranges are lower bounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

 

2200-1600-2500km ABC

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

 

2900km

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

 

2350km

 

How would two engines make the X-32 any better? The number of engines wasn't the problem. The problem was basically not having a lift fan.

JFC, I give up. I have to type to explain even the most routinely obvious principles.

 

All your points are completely wrong I just can't be bothered to continue replying to this illogical, circle-jerk crap.

Edited January 30, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

So it can fly with no engines and a 100lb/ft2 wing loading?

Well since the wing loading barely matters, yes. It will glide with no engine.

 

 

There's your problem. Is the enemy more likely to shoot an engine when you're taking off/landing or somewhere in between?

Then why did you bother to focus on STOVL and carrier ops? Why not just flatly say that all single engine military aircraft are useless?

 

 

Didn't say they did but it scuppers your 'glide as well as an F-15' BS.

Not at all. The F-15 isn't gliding if it has engines and you've not provided a shred of support for your F-35 = brick idea.

 

 

For a given Cl it is.

Do you have the Cl?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

 

2200-1600-2500km ABC

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

 

2900km

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

 

2350km

I noticed the words "estimates" and "flight profiles" in all the sources Wiki used to provide range numbers for the F-35. So you could basically be comparing the F-35 range under worst possible conditions to EF and SH ranges under the best conditions. That doesn't look good for the latter two.

 

JFC, I give up. I have to type to explain even the most routinely obvious principles.

 

All your points are completely wrong I just can't be bothered to continue replying to this illogical, circle-jerk crap.

You couldn't bother in the first place. You've been unable to support a single thing you've said.

[marcos]

You couldn't bother in the first place. You've been unable to support a single thing you've said.

Bollocks.

Edited January 30, 2013 by marcos

[aaron886]

Actually no, I agree, you're not supporting your statements. You do that quite often on this forum, marcos.

[wilky510]

It's obvious from most of macros post from past and present that he doesn't like the F-35 (or any stealth aircraft for that matter), so arguing basically gets no where.

 

I'd wait until atleast IOC of the F-35 to see how it turns out, as of right now... it's not even worth comparing to fighters that are in active service.

[marcos]

Actually no, I agree, you're not supporting your statements. You do that quite often on this forum, marcos.

Well that's no surprise. You always hold Exorcet's hand and have done in the past too. Wouldn't surprise me if you had the same IP address.

 

One engine vs 2 engines vs survivability in case of engine failure/damage. That point is irrefutable. No, with one engine it's no longer STOVL, but you may still be able to perform an SRVL as you would with a fully-loaded F-35B even if the engine is working. You could also perform an emergency divert to a land AFB in many cases.

 

SRVL

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9DEBC990-61EE-4363-A5F4-CA4A63DFF6B3/0/desider_51_August2012v1_2U.pdf

 

Point regarding stealth and external weapon carry for interdiction was also valid.

 

It seems clear that the F-35 isn't getting nearly twice the range with nearly twice the fuel. I've provided figures but they just get brushed aside and I still get told that I'm not supporting my statements.

 

So really, when you're up against that, what's the point? I just get random statements back, the answer to which is obvious but I just get pissed off typing the obvious. I get faced with statements with no supporting evidence, I provide supporting evidence against them and then get told I'm not providing supporting evidence, so bollocks to it. You can't win that kind of argument, it's like someone saying , "well 1+1 = 3". Where do you go from there?

 

 

You like the F-35 and are completely blind to any short-comings, I get it, but maybe try pretending it's RCS is about 0.1m2 instead of 0.005m2 and see if you still think it's the best plane around.

Edited January 31, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

One engine vs 2 engines vs survivability in case of engine failure/damage. That point is irrefutable.

 

Only it started off as:

 

Funny that the Chinese, for all their alleged blind copying, weren't stupid enough to built a single-engined carrier plane.

 

Which is what I was arguing against, as I made clear. We already agree that a two engine plane has a better chance of making it back when losing an engine far from base.

 

Your extra engine does nothing for STOVL.

 

 

Point regarding stealth and external weapon carry for interdiction was also valid.

No, because the plane does not suddenly become unstealthy because cruise missiles don't fit inside. And why not tell me why small aircraft have any purpose if cruise missiles are the only weapons worth carrying?

 

It seems clear that the F-35 isn't getting nearly twice the range with nearly twice the fuel. I've provided figures but they just get brushed aside and I still get told that I'm not supporting my statements.

You simply take the range values and make them mean what you want them to mean. I tried confirming with you that the published range figures are only lower bounds, you wouldn't even answer. You could have lied for all I care, I wasn't going to check. Then you post Wiki range figures, where a F-18, clean minus two AIM-9's, manages to go 1275 nm. Then you say it has better range than the F-35 which may or may not be carrying a full load of weapons at an altitude not suited for max range to a combat radius that's essentially equivalent.

 

You also ignore the F-18's interdiction radius of 390 nm.

 

So really, when you're up against that, what's the point? I just get random statements back, the answer to which is obvious but I just get pissed off typing the obvious. I get faced with statements with no supporting evidence, I provide supporting evidence against them and then get told I'm not providing supporting evidence, so bollocks to it. You like the F-35 and are completely blind to any short-comings, I get it.

Yes the answer is obvious, you don't have much to say. You won't explain why the F-35 isn't agile ( OK you blamed wing loading and TWR, I told you why those are useless - and I didn't even mention that the F-35's WL and TWR isn't as far off from modern fighters as you're making it seem. The F-35A is in fact, by your standards, better than the F-16 and F-18). You don't explain why stealth isn't good enough for this or that, you just say that however stealthy the F-35 is (and you don't seem to know this) it's not enough.

 

It's also curious that the F-35 without stealth is:

 

a bad plane that nobody would want

 

But then the avionics are apparently good:

 

I can't help but sit here and suggest that an easier solution would have been to build a Raptor with larger weapon bays and folding wings for carrier use. Fit it with the cheaper to maintain stealth material and the F-35 avionics and design diverter nozzles for VTOL.

 

I don't know how that F-22 is going to glide any better considering it would be heavy and would have more sharply swept wings. The original NATF's from both Lockheed and Northrop went with different planforms for naval operations.

 

Anyway, of course no one here knows how stealthy the F-35 actually is, but that's the thing, no one knows. I could sit here and claim it's invulnerable, but I don't make things up.

 

 

I don't think the BVR advantage will play out as well as it does in training with 90-100% simulated success rates for AMRAAMs and WVR a Rafale M will f*ck an F-35.

Because the real wars that the Rafale has been in give it a leg up on air to air combat compared to only simulated F-35 combat.

 

And then let's take the leap and assume you were right - why just jump out of the thread? The least you could do is explain things to people who don't get it. Half of my posts go unanswered.

 

 

but maybe try pretending it's RCS is about 0.1m2 instead of 0.005m2 and see if you still think it's the best plane around.

 

You basically get a F-16 then. I also don't recall many people saying the F-35 is the best around. The F-22 is almost certainly a better air to air aircraft. The EF-2000 probably beats the F-35 when it comes to raw performance too, and it has the Meteor. I already said I hated the F-35B, and this will probably always be the case. The A and C are good planes though that have a lot going for them. The B itself even with its short comings isn't easy to dismiss either, but the Marines should have found their own plane instead of getting in the Air Force's and Navy's way.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Exorcet

[marcos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

 

2200-1600-2500km ABC

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

 

2900km

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

 

2350km

Supporting evidence.

 

I noticed the words "estimates" and "flight profiles" in all the sources Wiki used to provide range numbers for the F-35. So you could basically be comparing the F-35 range under worst possible conditions to EF and SH ranges under the best conditions. That doesn't look good for the latter two.

No supporting evidence.

 

You couldn't bother in the first place. You've been unable to support a single thing you've said.

Hypocrisy.

 

Actually no, I agree, you're not supporting your statements. You do that quite often on this forum, marcos.

Hypocrisy +1.

[marcos]

Only it started off as:

 

 

 

Which is what I was arguing against, as I made clear. We already agree that a two engine plane has a better chance of making it back when losing an engine far from base.

 

Your extra engine does nothing for STOVL.

Except that the extra thrust could make it a proper VTOL. And in an emergency situation you make do. There may be options other than a STOVL landing.

 

No, because the plane does not suddenly become unstealthy because cruise missiles don't fit inside. And why not tell me why small aircraft have any purpose if cruise missiles are the only weapons worth carrying?

It becomes a lot less stealthy because the geometry is no longer controlled. A similar thing can happen with a jammed bomb-bay door.

 

Did I say that other weapons don't have a role? I'm looking at a situation that might actually require a stealth aircraft here. E.g. penetrating a high-tech air-defence system of peer rival, where a key target has a strong local air defence. You want to slip past the general air defences but there's no way of getting close enough to the target to drop a JDAM or LGB without being seen.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

You basically get a F-16 then.

Of course you do. Like the F-35 could ever manoeuvre as well as an F-16. And if you remove the 'stealth' from an F-117? An F-18 perhaps?:lol:

Edited January 30, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

Supporting evidence.

You took the best case range, which I guess might not be that bad, but it's not even a combat load. Two AIM-9's.

 

We don't what the range numbers for the F-35 correspond to. So basically, as I said, the F-35 in the worst conditions could basically be on par with the F-18 in the best.

 

 

No supporting evidence.

It's in the links you posted. Go to the range figures and pull up the sources.

 

"

Program officials had previously estimated that the aircraft, unrefueled, would be able to strike targets 690 nautical miles away.

The report says the shortfall is caused by increased use of engine bleed air and fuel capacity issues "that are not yet fully known."

"This estimate is based on preliminary data," the report reads, and more testing will reveal whether it is close to the truth."

 

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110512/DEFSECT01/105120304/F-35-s-Range-Falls-Short-Predictions

 

 

So for one, these are estimates and not final

 

 

 

"the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be extended to 613 nautical miles"

 

 

http://insidedefense.com/201203012392003/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/pentagon-waters-down-difficult-to-achieve-jsf-performance-requirements/menu-id-926.html

 

 

For two, the plane isn't by default flying in it's best conditions

 

 

And for three

 

 

"

 

 

• Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission[114]"
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

 

 

And I guess for four, notice the word "could".

 

 

Hypocrisy.

Not really, for the most part I've just been showing the problems with your claims and not trying pass things off proven fact. Though when you refused to acknowledge my question on F-35 range I did get lazy. Now I did claim some things, like gliding being affected by L/D or TWR not taking being useful because it doesn't account for drag. But these are obvious. If you want to explain them though, fine.

 

Except that the extra thrust could make it a proper VTOL. And in an emergency situation you make do. There may be options other than a STOVL landing.

Only if you could get that thrust to right places. Both the Harrier and X-32 needed the engines mounted near the center and it came at the cost of not being able to go supersonic for the former and being rather bulky and probably having less than ideal balance in the latter. It also looked like the 32 had worse packaging, but I'm not quite sure how big the bays were exactly compared to the F-35. I also don't remember the fuel capacity.

 

And again yes, the twin engines are safer in some cases, but once you commit to any V maneuvers two engines may become more dangerous than one. The probability of a failure for an individual engine is the same. When you have two engines, you have two individual engines and thus double the chance of a failure. If your plane can't stay upright, not even ejection seats will save you.

 

 

It becomes a lot less stealthy because the geometry is no longer controlled. A similar thing can happen with a jammed bomb-bay door.

 

But they're not going to be carrying cruise missiles everywhere. And then they do, they're probably far enough away to not care so much about stealth. So basically, they're either stealthy and "up close" or far away and safe regardless. The F-35 can do both of these. The EF-2000 can't.

 

Did I say that other weapons don't have a role? I'm looking at a situation that might actually require a stealth aircraft here. E.g. penetrating a high-tech air-defence system of peer rival, where a key target has a strong local air defence. You want to slip past the general air defences but there's no way of getting close enough to the target to drop a JDAM or LGB without being seen.

That's an assumption then, that there is no way of not being seen. You're basically saying stealth is useless. Why is the F-22 a better candidate when it wastes even more money on stealth when it would just use cruise missiles?

 

How about this, imagine the situation above where the F-35 side decides to attack air defense first (does not need to be with F-35's, can even be with cruise missiles). There is some partial success, now there are gaps in the air defenses. You've taken out some of the big, obvious targets. Now you need t worry about smaller more mobile ones and fighters that CM's aren't as adept at hitting. Would you rather going in with a F-35 with slim chances of being found unless you choose to engage, or something like EF's or Rafales that are likely to be found at some point and will probably require additional forces for cover?

Edited January 30, 2013 by Exorcet

[marcos]

You simply take the range values and make them mean what you want them to mean. I tried confirming with you that the published range figures are only lower bounds, you wouldn't even answer. You could have lied for all I care, I wasn't going to check. Then you post Wiki range figures, where a F-18, clean minus two AIM-9's, manages to go 1275 nm. Then you say it has better range than the F-35 which may or may not be carrying a full load of weapons at an altitude not suited for max range to a combat radius that's essentially equivalent.

Supporting evidence?

 

You also ignore the F-18's interdiction radius of 390 nm.

Low altitude?

 

E.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

 

Combat radius:

Ground attack, lo-lo-lo: 601 km (325 nmi)

Ground attack, hi-lo-hi: 1,389 km (750 nmi)

 

Combat radius always depends on altitude. Maximum range doesn't because it's stated at optimal altitude.

Edited January 30, 2013 by marcos

[marcos]

Not really, for the most part I've just been showing the problems with your claims and not trying pass things off proven fact. Though when you refused to acknowledge my question on F-35 range I did get lazy. Now I did claim some things, like gliding being affected by L/D or TWR not taking being useful because it doesn't account for drag. But these are obvious. If you want to explain them though, fine.

This is why I give up with you. No TWR doesn't account for drag. That's where wing loading comes in but the F-35 doesn't have great wing loading either, so it's double screwed.

 

Show me a glider with small wings.

 

This is just tedious.

 

I guess next you'll claim a magical wing design that has a great Cl so wing loading is irrelevant right?

Edited January 30, 2013 by marcos

[marcos]

So afraid I'm sticking with this as my ultimate response:

 

You couldn't bother in the first place. You've been unable to support a single thing you've said.

Bollocks.

[Exorcet]

Supporting evidence?

You posted it, as I said in my last post.

 

 

Low altitude?

So what altitude is the F-35 flying at?

 

This is why I give up with you. No TWR doesn't account for drag. That's where wing loading comes in but the F-35 doesn't have great wing loading either, so it's double screwed.

WL doesn't accout for drag either.

 

WL and TWR, at least the values you're using, are also wrong as soon as the jet engine turns on. They burn fuel, the plane gets lighter. Should a problem arise, the pilot can dump weapons and fuel to lighten the plane.

 

And if we take the F-16 and F-35 and give them similar fuel fractions

 

F-35: ~11000 lbs fuel

F-16: ~9000 lbs fuel

 

1000 lbs weapons

 

F-16 TWR = ~1

F-35 TWR = ~1.03

 

(Sadly, I can't find one of the 10000000 other posts where I used the exact numbers, but basically the numbers you're citing show the opposite of what you say).

 

 

I guess next you'll claim a magical wing design that has a great Cl so wing loading is irrelevant right?

The wing loading is irrelevant already for the most part. What matters is acceleration and turning performance, but that's harder to find or figure out. WL and TWR can be used to approximate performance, but they aren't very good. You can't get acceleration without force and those two ignore drag, so when you plug into F=ma you're basically making wild guesses (on top of not knowing the exactly weight of the plane when it's maneuvering or the thrust it's making at speed/altitude).

 

What I can say is that the F-35 planform does not have large sweep, which is generally good for the lift slope. I don't know the airfoil so who knows what the cl is, but we could probably look to other fighters for an idea. But then be left lost as to what the body lift is.

 

Show me a glider with small wings.

 

Show me a fighter with glider wings. Also note that gliders go for AR more than area. Area is backed out from weight once you know what airfoil you're going for. AR is for efficiency. And basically gliders are so far up on AR compared to fighters, you can't make a point, because all fighters are bad compared to gliders. The SH, a fighter with a very good AR, has an AR about 10 times less than some gliders. That's an order of magnitude. The F-35's AR isn't 100 times less. And of course, gliders don't go supersonic because there wings are terrible for that, so it's a good thing the F-35 doesn't have glider wings or it would fly as you describe. Going back to the SH, an AR of 4 seems to be partially responsible for it being one of the slowest fighters around.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Exorcet

[aaron886]

Well that's no surprise. You always hold Exorcet's hand and have done in the past too.

 

No, actually the only names I pay attention to in this forum are the trolls. That's you, not Exorcet. I'm afraid you're compensating.

[Cali]

Marcos, I'm sure the F-35 can glide just fine. Depending on altitude and your speed, will determine how far you can glide. The F-16 glides like a brick, but it can still deadstick a landing if need be. I'm sure the F-35 is no different. Now I see why that guy was upset with you in the other thread.

[swift]

Interesting read about the decision to reduce the performance specifications for the F-35: LINK

[marcos]

Marcos, I'm sure the F-35 can glide just fine. Depending on altitude and your speed, will determine how far you can glide. The F-16 glides like a brick, but it can still deadstick a landing if need be. I'm sure the F-35 is no different. Now I see why that guy was upset with you in the other thread.

Cali, I'm sure in can 'glide' too, just not very far and don't blame me for everything over one disagreement.

 

Despite the F-22's mishaps, it's a stealth fighter that still does everything an F-15 can do, and more, and better. The F-35 is a less stealthy plane with modern avionics granted but it falls short of other 4th/4.5th Gen fighters in almost every other aspect of performance because of the tiny wings and low TWR. It's range is still 'respectable' because it carries far more fuel than the aforementioned but in the past people have argued that the poor(ish) TWR was down to the high fuel load. But heck, it needs that fuel load to achieve 'respectable' range. Will it really have good WVR combat performance with small wings and low TWR?

 

I'm just being objective. I realise that national pride is at stake for some people and that they'd argue its magnificence even if it were a turd with wings for that very reason (not saying it is though, just a point). If there's honestly nothing you would change about the F-35 then fine but I object to being called a 'troll' just for disagreeing and pointing out some short-comings.

Edited January 31, 2013 by marcos