Latest Russian fighter demo

[Gman]

Hrrm, I'll have to check that, last time this came up I read that their ranges with externals was equivalent, but that was on another bbs and from a ground tech that is with 409 sqdr CF18 at Cold Lake.  If that's wrong, I wonder what range the F35 gets on 2 Externals, as I don't know if it can mount a centerline due to the sensors there, can it?  Regardless, if it can mount 3 or 2, I'd like to know what kind of range it gets on those 2 wing mounted tanks. 

After searching it, I think the F35B stats were used compared to the F18, as they are very close on internal fuel and external fuel for combat radius range, the F35B having about 9 percent better range on internal, with the F18 having about the same on external better, probably due to having an extra tank (3 vs 2), where as the F35A and C have much better range, the A model 600 vs 400 for the F18A and C models on internal fuel only.  The C model might be the best option for us to go with then if those range figures are correct, although not having an internal gun might not sit well with the RCAF.

[Tank-Ace]

It's a very nice 4th generation fighter, and in the end it was the Gripen and the F-35 that were the most competitive choices. However, without stealth the Gripen isn't much better than the upgraded F-16 we currently operate, and it isn't much cheaper than the F-35 either. Also range was an issue; the Gripen is short-legged.

As I understand it though, it's pretty damn rugged, VERY serviceable, and capable of flying from highways, and perhaps even unimproved strips.

Not to disparage anyone's military capability, but if any of the big boys like Germany or UK get pissed off, I think everyone else is going to be going to be trying to maintain a state of air denial, rather than going for air parity.

[GScholz]

Hrrm, I'll have to check that, last time this came up I read that their ranges with externals was equivalent, but that was on another bbs and from a ground tech that is with 409 sqdr CF18 at Cold Lake.  If that's wrong, I wonder what range the F35 gets on 2 Externals, as I don't know if it can mount a centerline due to the sensors there, can it?  Regardless, if it can mount 3 or 2, I'd like to know what kind of range it gets on those 2 wing mounted tanks. 

After searching it, I think the F35B stats were used compared to the F18, as they are very close on internal fuel and external fuel for combat radius range, the F35B having about 9 percent better range on internal, with the F18 having about the same on external better, probably due to having an extra tank (3 vs 2), where as the F35A and C have much better range, the A model 600 vs 400 for the F18A and C models on internal fuel only.  The C model might be the best option for us to go with then if those range figures are correct, although not having an internal gun might not sit well with the RCAF.

1,200 nmi on internal with stores should match the CF-18 max range with stores. The CF-18's ferry range with max fuel and no stores is 1,800 nmi. The Cf-18 can carry three 330 gallon drop tanks. The F-35 gets two 426 gallon DTs.

[GScholz]

Not to disparage anyone's military capability, but if any of the big boys like Germany or UK get pissed off, I think everyone else is going to be going to be trying to maintain a state of air denial, rather than going for air parity.

They are our neighbors and allies; any military conflict with them is unthinkable. As I said a year ago in a similarly themed thread:

I think you're mindset is too much focused on the way a super power fights... Norway's defense is based on a collective defense with our NATO allies. During the dark years of the Cold War we could muster an army half a million strong... It was designed to last three days. We could buy our allies three days to mobilize and come to our aid. Our air force would be gone on day one, but their mission would be to take out key targets on day one, slowing the Soviet advance. After day three we would only have "stay behind" forces left; guerrilla forces (terrorists lol) using hidden caches of arms and explosives to terrorize the occupying force.

Today Russia is no longer the threat it was. Our armed forces are now more focused on international NATO operations. Yes, 50 planes isn't much by themselves, but again we're talking about a collective effort with other NATO countries. Collectively the countries of Europe can muster more than 3000 modern combat aircraft.

Btw. it's a thread that anyone interested in the F-35 should read: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345902.0.html

[GScholz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtEdfSKgCOQ

 

[eagl]

I have to say that I REALLY like the Rafale.  The gripen would be a nice F-16 replacement but the Rafale is bigger and arguably more versatile.  It also comes in a naval variant that lands on US carriers.  That would be a treat, the US Navy trying to buy the rafale if the F-35 doesn't pan out and the F-18 production line was shut down due to the politics of the thing.

Eurofighter is good too but I'm not as enthusiastic about it.

Back to the subject of RC aircraft, I used to be drooling over the F-18 models and actually bought one but had kids instead of flying it.  Now I'm trying to decide if I get back into RC flying, will I go with another F-18 model or go with a Rafale.  They're just too sexy.

[GScholz]

Please don't. If the USN buys the Rafale, the French smugness will be completely intolerable!

[Plawranc]

Having seen the F-22's capabilities and knowing the sort weapons tech housed inside it (As in I know its got the best and most expensive gear in the world in it, what it is I don't know). I know that the F-22 is the premier and most effective air superiority aircraft in the world. Period.

That said, their servicing hours, their cost, and low numbers mean they are not an effective combat solution in a large scale war. Their best use would be a path finder for a formation of F-15's. Or a force multiplier rather than a squadron strength fighter. The F-22 is a fiscally intensive super weapon. Which should be used economically rather than primarily. Same with the B-2 spirit. I'd trust a squadron of
B-52's..... AFTER the B-2 has annihilated the radar and SAM positions as well as the C&C building.

The Russian's on the other hand go for an "almost as good" fighter with superior dog-fighting ability, which is cheap and effective enough to have odds on the US aircraft by 3 to 1. I maintain that if a Russian fighter had the sort of missile and radar technology that the US fighter's possessed that Russian aircraft would be VASTLY superior. I know that Eagl our resident fighter pilot has said in the past that a MiG-29 and a SU-27/30 can turn up the butt of an F-16 and F-15. And that standard doctrine is to throw as many AMRAAMs in their direction as possible before they can get close.

The F-35... is simply a codpiece for US defence spending. It is simply not practical. It has an inflated price-tag. Its capability is nowhere close to that of current fighter aircraft in the inventory and would be outclassed by almost every fighter that Sukhoi and MiG are producing. It would be totally reliant on missiles and its stealth. WHICH again, should the Russian defence spending increase rectify this. Would make it combat ineffective unless in huge numbers. But considering you could have 3 F-16's or 4 MiG-29K's for the same price as ONE F-35, Its just not viable.

And I know the arguments are coming "you don't know anything, you don't know what it can do, its secret, it probably has LAZOR's or an Antigravity device you don't know about".

Until I can see it turn like an F-16, match the payload of the F-22 and carry ordinance like a Strike eagle. I will reserve my judgement.

[GScholz]

We have a new winner of the "most ignorant post" award. The unit recurring flyaway cost of an F-35 is $84.5 million for the FY2016. The recent UAE F-16E/F deal was for 80 aircraft totaling $6.4 billion, or $80 million per plane. With all the bells and whistles available, a new F-16 could cost more than $100 million.




I think it is especially funny that you end your post with "I will reserve my judgement". You have none nothing of the sort.

[Tank-Ace]

They are our neighbors and allies; any military conflict with them is unthinkable. As I said a year ago in a similarly themed thread:

Wasn't specifically talking about Norway, but rather European nations in general. Pretty much everyone but Germany, France, and the UK should be looking long and hard at the Gripen.

[Plawranc]

 The figures I have place an F-35 at 200 million per unit.... From the US Navy's report on budget......

A standard F-16 C costs 45 million per unit........ So even with the all the bells and whistles F-16 you are talking 2 to 1... with greater capability.

Edit: Standard Navy costs place the F-35B at 100 Million, and the US Marine at 103 million.

USAF with everything on it is 200. 

[GScholz]

Where the hell are you getting your numbers? The USAF F-35A is the cheapest version of the three. The F-35A's cost became less than $100 million per unit last summer!

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_30_2013_p0-602401.xml



What "greater capability" are you talking about? Be specific!

[Plawranc]

Total Payload and Maneuverability. You know..... the two most important things in a combat aircraft.

A little thing called the US Air Force, is where I'm getting my numbers.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdf

^^ F-35 A, fiscal year for 2013.


And the US Navy...

http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf

So your telling me you are going to have a 50% decrease in cost... within 3 years?.... From a multi-billion dollar program?

right. 

Also.. on the subject of projected cost....

I'm told a shamwow will clean anything anywhere for only 19.90$ in five installments...... I better go buy it.

[GScholz]

Total Payload and Maneuverability. You know..... the two most important things in a combat aircraft.

And what are the maneuverability and payload figures for both aircraft in your fantasy world, pray tell?

You see, in the real world the F-35A has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates than an F-16 carrying a war load. A clean F-16 in "air show mode" has a maximum sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second. The F-35A carrying an A2A war load and full fuel has a sustained turn rate of 17 degrees per second. The F-35 has better acceleration and top speed than the F-16 carrying a war load, and that's with the F-35 carrying 3.5 times more internal fuel than the F-16. The F-16 is actually structurally limited to 4G's if carrying external fuel or bombs.

As for payload the F-35A can carry a total of 18,000 lbs on four internal and six external hardpoints. The F-16 can carry up to 17,000 lbs on nine external hardpoints.

[Plawranc]

The fantasy world in question is the US Air Force fact sheets for each aircraft.