F-35B Grounded

[GGTharos]

Turns out they're not even KPP's. They're just nice-to-have's. And that's why they were relaxed.

 

The goals are against an F-16 with 50% fuel and 2 AIM-9s, most likely (but not necessarily) otherwise clean. Nice to have.

 

Not only have the objectives been missed but the threshold has been failed.

Edited February 1, 2013 by GGTharos

[Phantom88]

....and in the meantime The Lockheed Martin Propaganda Machine keeps Churning

[aaron886]

[marcos]

Turns out they're not even KPP's. They're just nice-to-have's. And that's why they were relaxed.

 

The goals are against an F-16 with 50% fuel and 2 AIM-9s, most likely (but not necessarily) otherwise clean. Nice to have.

So it's less manoeuvrable than an F-16.

[marcos]

Great minds think alike?

Go back and read. You've already been proven wrong.

 

That hasn't been proven anywhere

Yes it has.

 

you just happen to have range figures that correspond to unknown flight profiles and weights that are bigger for non F-35 aircraft, well except the ones that's aren't bigger but you don't really consider.

Which just happen to be less than for the Typhoon/Rafale. But of course Lockheed didn't state the 'maximum' maximum range did they.:lol:

 

That's also TSFC, not fuel consumption, so if the F-35 is less draggy

Which it isn't as already shown.....

 

and needs less thrust to cruise,

Which it isn't as already shown.....

 

it could use less fuel even if it had a high TSFC.

Which it doesn't as already shown.

 

Yeah, the plane just happens to carry more fuel than the competition, but opponents somehow turn that into a bad thing.

It needs it - that's the bad thing.

 

About the only con I can think of is that the F-35 can't simply press Jettison to shave off a few thousand pounds of weight like you can with wing tanks, but then the F-35 wouldn't suffer from the drag of wing tanks or the threat of being seen first which negates the need to drop anything.

 

0.01m^2 at 90km

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irbis-E

 

F-35 - 0.005m^2

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

 

1/R^4

 

= detection at 75-80km with single source fighter radar.

 

PAK FA uses an updated version of that radar and is said to have an RCS below 0.01m^2

 

Assuming the F-35 radar is as good, it can detect the PAK FA at 90km but the missile radar can't. All in all both aircraft will get missiles off on closing.

 

As for more powerful, mult-source ground radar, well.... Maybe the F-35 will need some performance after all.

[marcos]

Fixed.

 

 

[tflash]

Hello Marcos,

 

As I see it, performance tables on F-35 today are not so relevant since the test aircraft have not opened yet the full flight envelope and there are still limitations on AoA, altitude, speed etc. The simplistic theories of wing area etc are also of limited use since the blended, lifting body design of F-35 is the result of way more complex computational models.

 

To me, all evidence points out that:

 

- a combat-loaded F-35 will have comparable to if not better performance than a clean F-16/F-18 class fighter while offering considerably more range;

 

- it will see those 4-gen fighters first so no need to fight physics to "get into their six"

 

- the F-35B beats the Harrier in all relevant aspects by a large margin, whether it is payload, range, speed, manoevrability, avionics, ease-of-flight, etc ... and with some good luck the UK will even have a carrier for it!

 

And do you really think the test programme is running that much worse than that of V-22, NH-90, A-400M, Tigre etc. ?

[GGTharos]

It'll do just as well if you put it at the same fuel level as the F-16. Or when the F-16 straps on some weapons. Silly conclusion, especially given that it outperforms the F-16 in the AoA parameter even if we're not putting weapons on the F-16.

 

So it's less manoeuvrable than an F-16.

[marcos]

It'll do just as well if you put it at the same fuel level as the F-16. Or when the F-16 straps on some weapons. Silly conclusion, especially given that it outperforms the F-16 in the AoA parameter even if we're not putting weapons on the F-16.

Like a Boeing 747 will do just as well if you put the same fuel load on an F-35?

[GGTharos]

I don't see where the 747 is even in danger of coming into this conversation.

 

Bottom line, the F-35 will be a great fighter, and that's all there is to that.

[marcos]

Hello Marcos,

 

As I see it, performance tables on F-35 today are not so relevant since the test aircraft have not opened yet the full flight envelope and there are still limitations on AoA, altitude, speed etc. The simplistic theories of wing area etc are also of limited use since the blended, lifting body design of F-35 is the result of way more complex computational models.

I'd really be more than interested to see any of the mathematical theory behind this if anyone can present but simply referring to it doesn't make a very good case.

 

To me, all evidence points out that:

 

- a combat-loaded F-35 will have comparable to if not better performance than a clean F-16/F-18 class fighter while offering considerably more range;

Where on Earth do you get that?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1666429&postcount=122

 

The JSF must further possess high angle of attack (AOA) capabilities "similar in nature to (or better than) the F-18C. 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.

 

The CTOL model calls for a threshold of 1.0 Mach at sea level. This requirement is for internal stores only and falls short of the capability of an F/A-18 with external stores.

 

- it will see those 4-gen fighters first so no need to fight physics to "get into their six"

 

Avionics and stealth technology are inherently defeatable; in the end it will always be important to outperform your opponent.

 

While there can be some debate over the exact definition of a fifth generation fighter, the following is generally agreed upon: "fifth generation fighters combine new developments such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise, stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness."34 Clearly the JSF can only claim two of these characteristics: stealth and interoperability through avionics. Other platforms such as the F/A-18 E/F that possess two "fifth generation" capabilities but lack stealth have been coined "4.5 generation" fighters. Without the unproven effectiveness of stealth, the JSF becomes a slower version of the legacy fighters it is attempting to replace.

 

- the F-35B beats the Harrier in all relevant aspects by a large margin, whether it is payload, range, speed, manoevrability, avionics, ease-of-flight, etc ... and with some good luck the UK will even have a carrier for it!

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1666429&postcount=122

 

The airspeed requirements are highly inadequate. They barely provide the performance of an F/A-18 and fall well short of the F-16. They are, of course, vast improvements over the AV8B and A-10, but that is hardly an argument for success when referring to a "next generation" fighter.

 

And do you really think the test programme is running that much worse than that of V-22, NH-90, A-400M, Tigre etc. ?

They appear to be finished.

 

The JSF team learned from the F/A-18 and F-16 that preserving room, power, and cooling for growth and modifications could prove invaluable in the future. The ORD called for this preservation, as well as a hardware and software architecture that would be "modular and scalable to allow ready and affordable insertion of new technologies" with a minimal testing requirement.61 The program appears to be coming up short in the area of future growth.

 

A look at our newest single engine fighter, the F-16, raises questions about engine reliability. In fiscal year 2007 the F-16 had a mishap rate of 3.18 per 100,000 flight hours with thirteen Class A mishaps. Of the thirteen Class A mishaps six were due to engine failure. Although this number is a ten year high, it demonstrates the danger of the single engine design. It must also be noted that the previous high mishap rate of 3.85 per 100,000 flight hours was reported in 2001 and was also attributed to a rash of engine failures.

 

Loss of life is clearly the most important concern, but operational costs must also be considered. Each F-16 lost costs taxpayers $21 million whereas a single JSF could cost upwards of $121 million. When factored into the overall cost of the program, losses due to engine failure could have a significant impact. It is irresponsible to assume that technology has advanced enough in recent decades to eliminate the problems inherent with a single engine fighter.

 

Although it is understandable that some concessions would have to be made in the name of affordability, the services may have come up short on basic design, performance, weapons, and dependence on low-observable/stealth technology.

Edited February 2, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

Which just happen to be less than for the Typhoon/Rafale. But of course Lockheed didn't state the 'maximum' maximum range did they.

We don't know.

 

 

Which it isn't as already shown.....

 

 

Which it isn't as already shown.....

 

 

Which it doesn't as already shown.

No, you never even mentioned fuel consumption. You did bring up a drag estimate for each plane flying without weapons after topping off from a tanker (but left out wave drag) though. But again, that's of limited relevance.

 

 

It needs it - that's the bad thing.

Only nothing out there says this, so I don't know where it comes from.

 

The SH has worse WL for a given fuel fraction and worse TWR too, but you're fine with this despite it indicating that range isn't a straight L/A calculation. At least with the numbers we have which are ambiguous.

 

 

 

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

30 dB is both .005 and .001 m^2 some how.

 

 

 

Like a Boeing 747 will do just as well if you put the same fuel load on an F-35?

Well no the 747 isn't a high performance fighter.

[marcos]

We don't know.

Yeah, the range will probably be even less when it reaches active service.

 

No, you never even mentioned fuel consumption.

You sure?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1666401&postcount=119

 

 

You did bring up a drag estimate for each plane flying without weapons after topping off from a tanker (but left out wave drag) though. But again, that's of limited relevance.

And provided figures for near empty too, which still favoured the Typhoon... and then invited you to re-calculate with any fuel load you liked. And yes, wave drag was of limited relevance at a max. range sub-sonic cruising speed.

 

Only nothing out there says this, so I don't know where it comes from.

Except the drag calculations already mentioned.... and the SFC figures.... and Lockheed's own preliminary range figures.

 

Combat radius can be viewed as adequate. The numbers certainly provide a capability to outperform current fighters and do so using only internal fuel. That being said, it is naïve to assume that the JSF will operate in that configuration. With tankers as a limiting factor for any campaign, it is reasonable to assume that planners will quickly opt to add external tanks and stores to increase the range and weapons payload for the JSF. The effect of this will be twofold: the already low raw performance of the JSF will be degraded and, more importantly, the LO/stealth capability will be essentially eliminated.

 

The SH has worse WL for a given fuel fraction and worse TWR too, but you're fine with this despite it indicating that range isn't a straight L/A calculation. At least with the numbers we have which are ambiguous.

 

 

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

30 dB is both .005 and .001 m^2 some how.

Order of magnitude and they probably didn't know how to work out what dB 0.005 is.

 

Well no the 747 isn't a high performance fighter.

And an F-16 doesn't weigh 30,000lb empty!!! You see my point?

[Exorcet]

 

 

You sure?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1666401&postcount=119

That's TSFC, and it's a single number, so like those sustained g numbers, it only applies at a point.

 

And if I recall the source for that number is not even available any more. I also wonder how accurate it was in the first place.

 

 

 

And provided figures for near empty too, which still favoured the Typhoon... and then invited you to re-calculate with any fuel load you liked. And yes, wave drag was of limited relevance at a max. range sub-sonic cruising speed.

I told you, no values would make those equations equivalent to range or maneuver performance. Even going back to your source on k, the estimates are from 25 years ago. And "future" is quite vague.

 

As for wave drag, fighters are trasnsonic, not strictly subsonic. M_DD is going to place an upper limit on cruise velocity. If you can hold your L/D at a higher V, you're going to go farther on a given amount of gas.

 

Now we both agree that the EF is probably a better high speed plane, looking at the plane itself (and to make sure it has not been forgotten, my bet has been on the EF as a better plane in terms of raw agility/acceleration performance) but it's penalized by external stores. 4 Meteor and 2 ASRAAM aren't bad. When you start loading tanks (as you'll need to to match the F-35's fuel fraction) and bombs, the EF is going to take a hit.

 

Without a transforming plane you need to pick an area distribution for a specific Mach number. If your plane is going to have things coming on and off all the time, you might also need to pick one or a handful of its configurations to really optimize for. If everything goes inside, your job is simpler and your plane is always in the optimum configuration for wave drag.

 

 

 

 

Order of magnitude and they probably didn't know how to work out what dB 0.005 is.

Or the number(s) could just be wrong. Though it's honestly not unfair to use .005 as the RCS, no one knows the RCS. It is unfair to pin the RCS at .005 though, because no one knows the RCS.

 

 

And an F-16 doesn't weigh 30,000lb empty!!! You see my point?

No I don't. As far as range goes, ln(mi/mf) As far as performance goes, F=ma. The actual amount of weight isn't relevant.

 

OK it's not that simple, and things can't be extrapolated as linear forever. But linear is pretty good within bounds. The F-16 is 30,000 lbs. The F-22 is 60,000 lbs. They both seem to be good planes. The F-35 falls in the middle, so it doesn't seem extraordinarily heavy to me. Actually as far as empty weight goes F-22/F-15 ~ F-35A/F-16. The F-22 doesn't carry as much as its predecessor, but has comparable [static] thrust. The F-35 carries a lot more fuel than its predecessor but is slightly behind in terms of [static] thrust.

[marcos]

That's TSFC, and it's a single number, so like those sustained g numbers, it only applies at a point.

 

And if I recall the source for that number is not even available any more. I also wonder how accurate it was in the first place.

Like you do with all numbers.... and calculations.... and reasoned argument.

 

I told you, no values would make those equations equivalent to range or maneuver performance. Even going back to your source on k, the estimates are from 25 years ago. And "future" is quite vague.

So ignore drag calculations, ignore quoted SFC, ignore quoted range figures, ignore University studies on performance..... or just ignore you. Given that the development cycle of a fighter from concept to commission is about 15-20 years, that should give you a clue. The Typhoon (EAP), YF-22 and YF-23 were all in the pipework in 1987.

 

As for wave drag, fighters are trasnsonic, not strictly subsonic. M_DD is going to place an upper limit on cruise velocity. If you can hold your L/D at a higher V, you're going to go farther on a given amount of gas.

That's must be why airliner wings are clearly selected primarily for the reduction of wave drag, with it being such a major component at subsonic cruising speeds.

 

Now we both agree that the EF is probably a better high speed plane, looking at the plane itself (and to make sure it has not been forgotten, my bet has been on the EF as a better plane in terms of raw agility/acceleration performance) but it's penalized by external stores. 4 Meteor and 2 ASRAAM aren't bad. When you start loading tanks (as you'll need to to match the F-35's fuel fraction) and bombs, the EF is going to take a hit.

You won't need the tanks to match the F-35's range at all (see everything discussed to date) and bombs are usually only a problem for half the sortie, on the way home the Typhoon has the advantage. The F-35 can't drop its excess fuselage.

 

Without a transforming plane you need to pick an area distribution for a specific Mach number. If your plane is going to have things coming on and off all the time, you might also need to pick one or a handful of its configurations to really optimize for. If everything goes inside, your job is simpler and your plane is always in the optimum configuration for wave drag.

That hasn't seemed to help LM's designers so far. Sustained turn rate is just another side of the L/D coin.

 

Or the number(s) could just be wrong. Though it's honestly not unfair to use .005 as the RCS, no one knows the RCS. It is unfair to pin the RCS at .005 though, because no one knows the RCS.

Like the quoted SFC and the quoted range? Or like the threshold performance specification?

 

No I don't. As far as range goes, ln(mi/mf) As far as performance goes, F=ma. The actual amount of weight isn't relevant.

So weight an important aspect in aviation?:megalol:

 

OK it's not that simple, and things can't be extrapolated as linear forever. But linear is pretty good within bounds. The F-16 is 30,000 lbs. The F-22 is 60,000 lbs. They both seem to be good planes. The F-35 falls in the middle, so it doesn't seem extraordinarily heavy to me. Actually as far as empty weight goes F-22/F-15 ~ F-35A/F-16. The F-22 doesn't carry as much as its predecessor, but has comparable [static] thrust. The F-35 carries a lot more fuel than its predecessor but is slightly behind in terms of [static] thrust.

Perhaps you might like to compare the F-22 and F-35's wing loading and also the cross sectional area of the fuselage. An F-16 weighs 18,900lb empty an F-35 weighs 29-34,000lb. Suggesting that the same fuel load for each makes the comparison fair is ridiculous.

[Exorcet]

Like you do with all numbers.... and calculations.... and reasoned argument.

Only if they are used incorrectly.

 

 

So ignore drag calculations, ignore quoted SFC, ignore quoted range figures, ignore University studies on performance..... or just ignore you.

I very much promote the opposite, but I do think that false conclusions should be ignored.

 

Given that the development cycle of a fighter from concept to commission is about 15-20 years, that should give you a clue. The Typhoon (EAP), YF-22 and YF-23 were all in the pipework in 1987.

Yes, though the F-22 didn't fly until '97 for example, and the F-35 came even later.

 

Maybe you think I'm trying to say it's all non sense. I'm not, I'm just pointing out where there is uncertainty floating around.

 

That's must be why airliner wings are clearly selected primarily for the reduction of wave drag, with it being such a major component at subsonic cruising speeds.

Well there isn't much reason to sweep them if wave drag doesn't matter. But no, it is the airfoil shape that primarily takes care of the wave drag issue.

 

Like I said before you don't just arbitrary assign a cl to your wing, you pick an airfoil first - one that's right for whatever it is you're trying to do.

 

 

 

and bombs are usually only a problem for half the sortie, on the way home the Typhoon has the advantage. The F-35 can't drop its excess fuselage.

Bringback isn't unheard of. You won't necessarily use every single round of ammo on a mission (which actually also brings up the issue of trim drag). You may also need to loiter, perhaps for a significant amount of time, before actually making an attack.

 

 

That hasn't seemed to help LM's designers so far. Sustained turn rate is just another side of the L/D coin.

Well it might explain how a plane with a heavier load out is out performing planes with lighter ones. Agreed on L/D.

 

 

Like the quoted SFC and the quoted range? Or like the threshold performance specification?

The same goes for all of them pretty much, but you have been using them as if they weren't ambiguous at all.

 

 

Perhaps you might like to compare the F-22 and F-35's wing loading and also the cross sectional area of the fuselage. An F-16 weighs 18,900lb empty an F-35 weighs 29-34,000lb. Suggesting that the same fuel load for each makes the comparison fair is ridiculous.

 

Like the F-15/F-16 comparison, the F-22 is better in WL and TWR than the F-35. But the F-16 is regarded as more agile than the F-15, or at least on par. The 16 has the advantages of relaxed stability and perhaps more body lift which can't be ignored if you want to try to make an accurate comparison.

[marcos]

Only if they are used incorrectly.

Are you referring to your first attempt to introduce them that was wrong and wrong used.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1665644&postcount=82

 

 

I very much promote the opposite, but I do think that false conclusions should be ignored.

Like you'd know - see above.

 

Yes, though the F-22 didn't fly until '97 for example, and the F-35 came even later.

The YF-22 flew in 1990.

 

Maybe you think I'm trying to say it's all non sense. I'm not, I'm just pointing out where there is uncertainty floating around.

Very little. The real uncertainty surrounds the future of the plane.

 

Well there isn't much reason to sweep them if wave drag doesn't matter. But no, it is the airfoil shape that primarily takes care of the wave drag issue.

Yeah, I'm sure nobody on the Typhoon project knew about supercritical aerofoils developed in the 1960s.

 

Like I said before you don't just arbitrary assign a cl to your wing, you pick an airfoil first - one that's right for whatever it is you're trying to do.

Actually you choose your planform first and optimise it while working through aerofoil design. This is the stage that the F-35 went wrong at. Wrong planform. Nothing could go right from there.

 

Bringback isn't unheard of. You won't necessarily use every single round of ammo on a mission (which actually also brings up the issue of trim drag). You may also need to loiter, perhaps for a significant amount of time, before actually making an attack.

For a CAS mission yes but not for interdiction. Talking about A2G loads here since they're biggest. Neither plane makes a good CAS plane.

 

Well it might explain how a plane with a heavier load out is out performing planes with lighter ones. Agreed on L/D.

Urrr, it isn't though. Are you actually reading the thread and the links?

 

The same goes for all of them pretty much, but you have been using them as if they weren't ambiguous at all.

They're all pointing in the same direction with no counter-figures. What else am I supposed to determine? That they're all wrong.

 

Like the F-15/F-16 comparison, the F-22 is better in WL and TWR than the F-35. But the F-16 is regarded as more agile than the F-15, or at least on par. The 16 has the advantages of relaxed stability and perhaps more body lift which can't be ignored if you want to try to make an accurate comparison.

That's all nice but the F-15 still kills the F-16.

[GGTharos]

Only in BVR.

 

That's all nice but the F-15 still kills the F-16.

[Exorcet]

Are you referring to your first attempt to introduce them that was wrong and wrong used.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1665644&postcount=82

Yes actually. Gravity was not accounted for correctly.

 

 

 

The YF-22 flew in 1990.

And the redesign flew in 1997.

 

 

Very little. The real uncertainty surrounds the future of the plane.

There's quite a bit when you keep leaving out terms and only consider simple models of the aircraft (like wings being the only source of lift).

 

 

Yeah, I'm sure nobody on the Typhoon project knew about supercritical aerofoils developed in the 1960s.

I'm sure they do, but you asked about airliners. On fighters, they have to worry about external stores and making tradeoffs, unless there are no external stores.

 

 

Actually you choose your planform first and optimise it while working through aerofoil design. This is the stage that the F-35 went wrong at. Wrong planform. Nothing could go right from there.

What's wrong with the planform? From what you've said so far, I can only guess that the problem is it's not a delta since deltas tend to win when it comes to WL.

 

 

For a CAS mission yes but not for interdiction. Talking about A2G loads here since they're biggest.

True.

Neither plane makes a good CAS plane.

I don't know about that.

 

 

Urrr, it isn't though. Are you actually reading the thread and the links?

Yes.

 

 

They're all pointing in the same direction with no counter-figures. What else am I supposed to determine? That they're all wrong.

Determining the approximate error bars would be nice.

 

 

That's all nice but the F-15 still kills the F-16.

Well, being better at BVR is an advantage yes, but the F-16 is apparently turning with the F-15 despite worse wing loading. Actually I think the F-4 beats the F-16 in wing loading.

[marcos]

Yes actually. Gravity was not accounted for correctly.

Tut-tut. And my calculations - spot on.

 

 

And the redesign flew in 1997.

Your point? Nothing major has happens in aerodynamics to completely discredit 1987 estimates on future fighter value for k and Cd0. The F-15/16/18 had been out for a long time. All of which out-perform the F-35 ironically.

 

There's quite a bit when you keep leaving out terms and only consider simple models of the aircraft (like wings being the only source of lift).

The fact is that the wings do generate the vast bulk of the lift even for modern fighter designs.

 

I'm sure they do, but you asked about airliners. On fighters, they have to worry about external stores and making tradeoffs, unless there are no external stores.

And the fact is that airliners do not have wing design planforms focused on wave drag and it's not a major factor at maximum range cruise speed (M~0.8). The Typhoon and the F-35 will both have excellent design wrt offsetting the drag divergence Mach number. Neither aircraft would cruise above that number to achieve maximum range. So even if it was different, the impact on maximum range wouldn't be large because the cruise speed would just be adjusted marginally to avoid drag divergence. Case dismissed.

 

 

What's wrong with the planform? From what you've said so far, I can only guess that the problem is it's not a delta since deltas tend to win when it comes to WL.

Too small. Plain and simple. F-22's - not such a problem.

 

True.

Smaller and smaller bombs are being developed for CAS all the time too, so loitering won't be such an issue.

 

I don't know about that.

Especially not the F-35 reference the report from the AIR UNIVERSITY I posted. Read that?

 

Yes.

Clearly not.

 

Determining the approximate error bars would be nice.

Go for it, if you've got any figures.

 

Well, being better at BVR is an advantage yes, but the F-16 is apparently turning with the F-15 despite worse wing loading.

Really, because the F-15 STRs are way better according to graphs already posted.

 

Actually I think the F-4 beats the F-16 in wing loading.

It does but way poorer TWR and pig.

[Cali]

F-16's are better in a turn fight then 15's.

[aaron886]

Depends on how it's employed and how it's loaded, of course.

[Cali]

Depends on how it's employed and how it's loaded, of course.

 

That's coming from talking to real pilots. But, everything comes to how they are loaded.

[marcos]

Only in BVR.

I guess WVR the F-16 has less inertia - not something the F-35 can lay claim to.

Edited February 3, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

Tut-tut. And my calculations - spot on.

Now if only you could use them.

 

 

 

Your point? Nothing major has happens in aerodynamics to completely discredit 1987 estimates on future fighter value for k and Cd0. The F-15/16/18 had been out for a long time. All of which out-perform the F-35 ironically.

Who is trying to discredit those figures? It's simply not clear how accurate they are for modern aircraft.

The fact is that the wings do generate the vast bulk of the lift even for modern fighter designs.

And that still doesn't tell us how much is due to the fuselage and how much is due to the wings.

 

 

And the fact is that airliners do not have wing design planforms focused on wave drag and it's not a major factor at maximum range cruise speed (M~0.8). The Typhoon and the F-35 will both have excellent design wrt offsetting the drag divergence Mach number. Neither aircraft would cruise above that number to achieve maximum range. So even if it was different, the impact on maximum range wouldn't be large because the cruise speed would just be adjusted marginally to avoid drag divergence. Case dismissed.

Neither will cruise at M_DD, but the one with a high M_DD may be able to cruise faster.

 

 

 

Too small. Plain and simple. F-22's - not such a problem.

Well the lift is supplemented by the fuselage, and apparently the F-35 comfortably matches the F-16 in terms of plane per wing.

 

29300/18900 = 1.55

 

460/300 = 1.53

 

As long as we're not talking about F-16E's which have a lot more stuff crammed into them.

 

Smaller and smaller bombs are being developed for CAS all the time too, so loitering won't be such an issue.

They still need to go outside the plane, and the trend seems to be to carry the same bomb load, just divided into a smaller number of bombs. So for a given target the reduction in drag after dropping a bomb is smaller (but trim drag is not impacted as strongly) and with more bombs you're able to strike more targets, which might require more flying.

 

 

Especially not the F-35 reference the report from the AIR UNIVERSITY I posted. Read that?

Could you repost it then?

 

 

 

 

Really, because the F-15 STRs are way better according to graphs already posted.

I don't recall seeing a F-16 plot in here, but I did come in late.

 

 

It does but way poorer TWR and pig.

What does "pig" mean?