F-35B Grounded

[marcos]

29300/18900 = 1.55

 

460/300 = 1.53

So the F-16 is still slightly better even at empty than the F-35A. What about the F-35B? What about a TWR comparison against the F-16?

 

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.

Big difference between carrying 6 180mm wide Brimstones weighing 648lb in total and 6 500lb GBUs or 6 Mavericks 305mm wide and about 3000lb in weight. With even smaller weapons like SABER and Viper Strike the affect of an effective CAS payload on drag is even smaller. And the Typhoon has 2 engines and a cannon with far better range and effect too as an aside.

 

Could you repost it then?

This is the problem. You don't read and understand stuff, which is why you're still posting and my responses are now merely cursory.

 

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

 

So in SUMMARY:

 

1) Ignore published range figures;

2) Ignore published engine SFC figures;

3) Ignore calculations showing a gigantic difference in lift drag;

4) Ignore calculations and reasoning showing how CfA won't compensate for this;

5) Ignore the fact that the affects of wave drag will only have minor affects on cruise speeds and virtually none on maximum range;

6) Ignore the fact that reports show the F-35 to be failing to meet its threshold STR specification that is also dependent on L/D (the same spec. that the range figures were drafted against);

7) Ignore the fact that scholars have deemed that threshold spec. unacceptable; and

8) Post no counter figures or reasoned calculations;

9) Ignore linked reports; and

10 Continue posting

Edited February 3, 2013 by marcos

[Exorcet]

So the F-16 is still slightly better even at empty than the F-35A. What about the F-35B? What about a TWR comparison against the F-16?

And the difference between the 35/16 is much smaller than the 15/16. And since wing loading isn't lift there is plenty of margin for the 35 to run rings around the 16. Again you like to take things and imply they show a result that they don't. Don't forget that 1000 lbs of weapons is going to hurt the F-16 more than the F-35 since its lighter.

 

The F-35B will be worse of course, but you don't need to do any convincing to get to me believe that it should not exist. Though worse wing loading is still not worse performance.

 

TWR is more difficult since we don't have good thrust figures. We have sea level static thrust and TSCF, but that's only interesting during takeoff.

 

Big difference between carrying 6 180mm wide Brimstones weighing 648lb in total and 6 500lb GBUs or 6 Mavericks 305mm wide and about 3000lb in weight. With even smaller weapons like SABER and Viper Strike the affect of an effective CAS payload on drag is even smaller. And the Typhoon has 2 engines and a cannon with far better range and effect too as an aside.

Why not 12 Brimstone?

 

But good point on a smaller operations.

 

This is the problem. You don't read and understand stuff, which is why you're still posting and my responses are now merely cursory.

 

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

I mere didn't remember which source that was. I saw that chart.

 

It still does not really telling us what conditions the F-35 is in when hitting these numbers, except for sustained mil g and the last bit on max g which apparently states that the plane can strike targets 500 nm away on 60% fuel (JDAM's? AMRAAM?, empty ext tanks?), unless I'm interpreting that wrong.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Exorcet

[marcos]

And the difference between the 35/16 is much smaller than the 15/16. And since wing loading isn't lift there is plenty of margin for the 35 to run rings around the 16. Again you like to take things and imply they show a result that they don't. Don't forget that 1000 lbs of weapons is going to hurt the F-16 more than the F-35 since its lighter.

Umm no. The F-16 has an advantage over the F-15 in some dogfight situations, not because of better STR but because of have less inertia (18900lb vs 28000lb). The F-35 is heavier than both aircraft and has poor wing loading and a large fuselage cross-section.

 

The F-35B will be worse of course, but you don't need to do any convincing to get to me believe that it should not exist. Though worse wing loading is still not worse performance.

For equal inertia, it nearly always is. If the F-16 weighed as much as an F-15, but its wing loading was unchanged, it wouldn't prevail in any situation.

 

TWR is more difficult since we don't have good thrust figures. We have sea level static thrust and TSCF, but that's only interesting during takeoff.

It's fairly indicative for designs of the same type though.

 

Why not 12 Brimstone?

Why not 12 500lb bombs = 6000lb vs 1320lb worth of Brimstones or 120lb of SABERs or 360lb of rocket-boosted SABERs, or 480lb of Viper Strikes. CAS loads are becoming more effective and less significant in terms of their affect on performance. Gone are the days of using 500lb munitions to take out tanks (unless the EPWII is your only qualified A2G weapon, then it's 1000lb a time and you take out the entire street too).

 

It still does not really telling us what conditions the F-35 is in when hitting these numbers, except for sustained mil g and the last bit on max g which apparently states that the plane can strike targets 500 nm away on 60% fuel (JDAM's? AMRAAM?, empty ext tanks?), unless I'm interpreting that wrong.

It does if you read carefully and thoroughly. It also mentions that it's unlikley to make a good CAS aircraft and why.

[Exorcet]

Umm no. The F-16 has an advantage over the F-15 in some dogfight situations, not because of better STR but because of have less inertia (18900lb vs 28000lb). The F-35 is heavier than both aircraft and has poor wing loading and a large fuselage cross-section.

Inertia? With enough force you can make any mass move as fast as you want. Inertia is overcome by aerodynamics. I don't think the above makes much sense.

 

It also implies that the F-22 in comparison to the F-15 would have to be as good as the F-35 is to the 16.

 

 

For equal inertia, it nearly always is. If the F-16 weighed as much as an F-15, but its wing loading was unchanged, it wouldn't prevail in any situation.

A scaled up F-16 would have scaled up control surfaces and body that would produce scaled up forces and the same agility.

 

 

It's fairly indicative for designs of the same type though.

Well, it's not doubt a good quick method to compare say F-35A vs B or C, but beyond that, less so.

 

 

Why not 12 500lb bombs = 6000lb vs 1320lb worth of Brimstones or 120lb of SABERs or 360lb of rocket-boosted SABERs, or 480lb of Viper Strikes. CAS loads are becoming more effective and less significant in terms of their affect on performance. Gone are the days of using 500lb munitions to take out tanks (unless the EPWII is your only qualified A2G weapon, then it's 1000lb a time and you take out the entire street too).

Yes weapons are smaller, but the payload might not be.

 

 

It does if you read carefully and thoroughly. It also mentions that it's unlikley to make a good CAS aircraft and why.

Now I see what's going on here. The link above the image is not the same as the image. I thought you initially posted a link then put in an embedded image for clarity. I'll have to go read it. Sorry about that.

[marcos]

Inertia? With enough force you can make any mass move as fast as you want. Inertia is overcome by aerodynamics. I don't think the above makes much sense.

Because you don't understand physics. Consider a change in direction as well as moving in one direction only. Also consider the affect of wingspan and wing load distribution on roll rate.

 

BTW - The Typhoon and F-35 have approximately the same wingspan and the Typhoon's wing load is centred nearer the fuselage due to the delta shape. It's roll rate is unparalled. So this doesn't help you much.

 

It also implies that the F-22 in comparison to the F-15 would have to be as good as the F-35 is to the 16.

If you spend all day typing instead of reading then yes, it will imply that, even though the failure to meet the F-16-derived specification proves otherwise.

 

A scaled up F-16 would have scaled up control surfaces and body that would produce scaled up forces and the same agility.

Nope. Doesn't work that way. That's like saying a scaled up 2 ton F1 car could perform as well as a current 600kg one.

 

Well, it's not doubt a good quick method to compare say F-35A vs B or C, but beyond that, less so.

No, it's still a fairly good method used extensively during the Cold War to evaluate enemy fighter designs. You just don't like the result.

 

Yes weapons are smaller, but the payload might not be.

Why wouldn't it be? I can take out the same number of vehicles with the same number of far lighter, far smaller weapons. It's not like an F-35 could even carry more than 12 Brimstones internally anyway. The B might not even manage that.

 

Now I see what's going on here. The link above the image is not the same as the image. I thought you initially posted a link then put in an embedded image for clarity. I'll have to go read it. Sorry about that.

Yup. Very long document criticising the short-comings of the specification that the F-35 can't even meet.

[Exorcet]

Because you don't understand physics. Consider a change in direction as well as moving in one direction only. Also consider the affect of wingspan and wing load distribution on roll rate.

So you meant moment of inertia. That doesn't really have an effect on sustained turns.

 

With roll, you're changing the lift on the outer sections of the wings and zero lift angle of attack. The lift will grow with area to combat the weight so initial roll acceleration is kept, but you'll reach zero lift AoA faster for a given roll rate because of the extra span increases tangent velocity.

 

So you lose roll rate but not sustained turning.

 

 

 

Nope. Doesn't work that way. That's like saying a scaled up 2 ton F1 car could perform as well as a current 600kg one.

With enough power and enough downforce you'll hit the same cornering g and acceleration (ignoring limits of the tires). The transients will be different though, so the heavy F1 would be slower through something like S turns.

 

 

No, it's still a fairly good method used extensively during the Cold War to evaluate enemy fighter designs. You just don't like the result.

The result is the F-35 is the same as the F-16. But as those are two different planes, I'd hesitate to use wing loading to support that, even if the numbers say that should be the case.

 

 

Why wouldn't it be? I can take out the same number of vehicles with the same number of far lighter, far smaller weapons. It's not like an F-35 could even carry more than 12 Brimstones internally anyway. The B might not even manage that.

Yes, but you could take out more vehicles with more weapons.

 

 

Yup. Very long document criticising the short-comings of the specification that the F-35 can't even meet.

 

I took some notes while reading it:

 

Cites F-111, ignores F-4

 

Admits lacking data (classified info)

 

Still doesn't give definite info on load/performance

 

Says F-35 is better than gen 4 in range/payload

 

Ignores point of SDB in CAS

[Cali]

If the F-16 would of been built like it was suppose to, it'll destroy the F-15, hands down!

[marcos]

 

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/7035/f15str.png

 

http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7667d1184402615-f-16c-sustained-turn0.gif/

 

Just in case curiosity got the best of you (see blue line, SEP=0):

 

Edited February 4, 2013 by marcos

[marcos]

If the F-16 would of been built like it was suppose to, it'll destroy the F-15, hands down!

And if the Typhoon was stealth.....

[Groove]

Dear A2A experts, please tone down this discussion a little bit.

Thank you.

[aaron886]

Would love to know where you got that data, Marcos.

[marcos]

Dear A2A experts, please tone down this discussion a little bit.

Thank you.

Could you please undelete my post taking out whichever bits you deem inappropriate.

 

If I post anything inappropriate it's because I've got a guy with no supporting evidence just hacking keys.

[marcos]

Would love to know where you got that data, Marcos.

The brown line is roughly where the the F-35's zero SEP is.

[marcos]

Inertia? With enough force you can make any mass move as fast as you want. Inertia is overcome by aerodynamics. I don't think the above makes much sense.

 

It also implies that the F-22 in comparison to the F-15 would have to be as good as the F-35 is to the 16.

 

 

A scaled up F-16 would have scaled up control surfaces and body that would produce scaled up forces and the same agility.

 

 

 

Well, it's not doubt a good quick method to compare say F-35A vs B or C, but beyond that, less so.

 

 

 

Yes weapons are smaller, but the payload might not be.

 

 

 

Now I see what's going on here. The link above the image is not the same as the image. I thought you initially posted a link then put in an embedded image for clarity. I'll have to go read it. Sorry about that.

Replied to all this. It's mostly incorrect, as usual, ask Groove to send you the post if you want it.

 

Drag index 50 - very little affect on aircraft performance.

http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7591d1183937649-f-16c-acceleration0.gif/

 

F-16C - not as good at sustained turns.

http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7667d1184402615-f-16c-sustained-turn0.gif/

 

F-15C better.

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/7035/f15str.png

 

Weapons smaller, not as much payload required for satisfactory affect on enemy vehicles.

 

 

F-22 in comparison with etc.... No.

Edited February 4, 2013 by marcos