Latest Russian fighter demo

[GScholz]

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

You have no idea what those numbers mean. There's a big difference between total program cost, flyaway cost, and lifetime cost. The total procurement cost for the USAF includes among other things spare parts and ground infrastructure. The flyaway cost is reduced on average by 4% for every production lot. By the time we start getting our planes in lot 10 the flyaway cost will have come down to about $70 million per unit.

[GScholz]

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

Bullsheit. Post them.

[Plawranc]

Check?

I am working on evidence. And numbers from official sources.

Your best source on cost was aviation weekly..... next question?

[GScholz]

Post your sources.

Actually I'm "working" on information obtained personally from RNoAF pilots involved in the F-35 program. Buy hey... What do they know.


Find me a pilot that has flow the F-35 who doesn't like it. It's been flown for thousands of hours already and is in service with USAF training units. If it's actually a lemon finding pilots who think it is a lemon shouldn't be hard...

[Plawranc]

http://web.archive.org/web/20110317113904/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35A-ctol-variant.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35c-carrier-variant.htmll


http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon.aspx

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA_Conf_-_JSF_Program_Brief_-_26_Sept_06.pdf



Also, Frowly's International directory of combat aircraft.

In direct comparison the wingloading of the F-35 is HIGHER, than the F-16.

Also, if you can tell me a stealth aircraft whose invisibility wasn't compromised by external weapons, let me know.

[GScholz]

What payload figures for the F-16 and F-35A are in those documents? Maneuverability assessments? Acceleration figures?

That F-16 page doesn't even mention total payload capability!

You're full of it.

[GScholz]

Hey Gman, here's a countryman of yours...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppyVg4ttLU

[Gman]

That pilot Billie Flynn was the chief test pilot for the Typhoon program as well Gsholz, prior to going to Lock/Martin,  my friend I mentioned Maj Jason Paquin flew with him in the Hornet for many years.  He's also doing his job promoting the company he works for now, he said that the Typhoon was the absolute best fighter in the world when he was on air while working for them as well.  I'm not saying he's being dishonest, not at all, just that he's putting the absolute best positive spin he can.  Notice the words "measurable" and such when describing the greater range and time on station over the CF18, he doesn't actually give a number, and those words were not "pilot speak", but "salesman speak", very deliberately chosen - again, I'm not blaming or criticizing, just pointing out the fact that the detractors will say the same thing about what's said in that video.  Here is another perspective on what he has said regarding the F35 - again, I take no sides, just pointing out the various opinions.  Be forewarned, the author will remind you of that Australian air power site, but some of his points and links are interesting, which is why I've posted it, particularly the one link to the other test pilot at the Aviationist which is here: http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/#.UmKzzhZLLHg

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/2013/10/rant-hey-billie-flynn-war-isnt-playtime.html

My final point is, Flynn is an expert, having also gone through Empire test pilot school, and flown many fighter types including the most advanced such as the Typhoon etc.  He was also president of the society of eng. test pilots, at www.setp.org.   I'll try and find the youtube videos of the Typhoon that he's in, I think considering he's flown and tested 2 of the newest fighters available, as well as flown the Grippen, the Rafale, Superhornet, and latest block F16 (this is all listed in an article about him), regardless of the "rah rah" sales pitchy stuff, he's probably the best qualified to comment on the F35 capability.

FYI, my high school pal Jason "Fudge" Paquin will be Canada and the RCAF's test pilot and first in uniform to fly whatever we buy, which my money is still on the F35.  I just sent him a PM on FB to try and get him to weigh in on this, as he's at least as qualified as Flynn to comment, and has a lot of recent combat flying time in.  I'm hopeful the F35 will work out, as replacements in many airforces in the west are needed quickly.  The only thing that gives me pause still in a serious way is the single engine - in the last 15 years we've had several engine failures on the CF18 way up North where without that extra engine it would be adios aircraft, and more importantly possibly adios pilot in that environment.  

[bozon]

People on an outdoors forum I follow were oooowwwwing and aaaahhhhhhing about the incredible capability of the latest Russian fighters in this video. What do you think?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1389637750

The single engine delta planes look a lot like the IAI Lavi.

[artik]

I think the correct question is what do you need to have best possible air force for a given budget?

1. You need to have absolutely superior training you can get
2. You need to have superior technology over your potential enemies or to be at least in parity at technological level.
3. You need to have high as high sortie generation as possible, you can achieve this by means of (a) having more planes (b) having lower turn-around time

Now lets talk about fighter aircraft selection to achieve these goals?

Let's talk about F-22:

What is the problem with it? It costs a lot. Even US can't afford too many of them. Its flight hours cost is very high and its mean time between maintenance is low which basically means you can't have high sortie generation rate and you can't afford too many flight hours to train your pilots. So you improve the (2) goal but you absolutely loose in (3) and (1).

Now lets take Saab Gripen:

It is in +/- parity with most of the modern aircraft, however, its cost is low in both initial procurement and flight hour costs. It has very low turnaround time (~10 min = refueling time) and it allows you to have highest training hours but withing the same budget. And there is no replacement to high quality training.

Now I'll tell some stories about Israeli Air Force.

It is considered one of the most highly trained airforces both in terms of air crews abilities and ground crew that can provide very high sortie generation rate. When there was a question whether to buy F-15I and F-16I it was clear that F-15I considered better but F-16I was much more affordable... So they choose the 2nd one. IAF is going to buy some F-35 but currently in very small numbers... why?

It looks like F-35 would be very good plane for a specific roles like being able to penetrate heavy defenses and perform strikes on highly valuable positions (much like F-117 in the Gulf War), it can be used as first strike against SAM sites and more.

But by no means it can replace current F-16s and F-15s for Israeli Air Force. One of the reasons is that it does in absolutely different direction to what IAF believes in. For example BVR combat is considered as important ability but not the most important one, on the other hand close combat is very important, as the matter of fact IAF was the first western air force to introduce close combat goodies like helmet mounted display, very efficient 4th generation missiles with high off-boresight abilities.

And when you look at F-35? In stealthy mode it does not carry short range weapons - it is not currently capable of firing heat seeking missiles from its weapon bays. Its maneuverability is very limited (it has huge drag, small wings) so for VVR combat it indeed a lemon (numbers speak for themselves). And it has higher costs in both terms of initial procurement and long term.

I think the hopes that F-35 would do it all would be fatal for any air force. It would complement any air force with good abilities but it wouldn't replace any of existing 4++ generation affordable planes.

[GScholz]

FYI, my high school pal Jason "Fudge" Paquin will be Canada and the RCAF's test pilot and first in uniform to fly whatever we buy, which my money is still on the F35.  I just sent him a PM on FB to try and get him to weigh in on this, as he's at least as qualified as Flynn to comment, and has a lot of recent combat flying time in.

That would be very cool!

[GScholz]

And when you look at F-35? In stealthy mode it does not carry short range weapons - it is not currently capable of firing heat seeking missiles from its weapon bays. Its maneuverability is very limited (it has huge drag, small wings) so for VVR combat it indeed a lemon (numbers speak for themselves).

Yes it can carry dogfight missiles, as I said earlier in this thread... and the last thread we discussed this. You seem to keep "forgetting". The US won't but the European partners will. Norway will use the IRIS-T missile developed jointly with Germany. The UK will use their own ASRAAM missile. Both are off-boresight and lock-on after launch. They can be commanded to engage targets anywhere, even behind the aircraft with extreme close-in agility allowing turns of 60g at a rate of 60 deg/s and can attack specific parts of the targeted aircraft (like cockpit, engines, etc.). The missiles are already operational with several European air forces. I'm quite sure the vaunted Israeli Defense Industry can make something similar.



Here's one of our F-16s ready for takeoff on a patrol mission over Libya with two AMRAAM and two IRIS-T missiles.

Its maneuverability is very limited (it has huge drag, small wings) so for VVR combat it indeed a lemon (numbers speak for themselves).

Only when you nitpick and use use numbers that lie. Like the F-14, F-15, MiG-29, Su-27 and other wide-body aircraft the F-35 produce substantial lift from wide fuselage between the wings. An Israeli F-15 was able to land successfully with only one wing... Just how much lift the body section produces has not been released to the public, but it is going to be quite significant. Wing-loading alone is a meaningless statistic.




Secondly you completely disregard that the F-35 has an enormous amount of thrust compared to other similarly sized fighters. The F135 engine is the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft.  At similar internal fuel loads the F-35 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-16.

The F-35 chief test pilot further noted that the F-35 can fly at angles of attack that are just as steep as those of the F-22. “It’s a fully maneuverable 50-degree airplane,” he said. He invited those who had witnessed the F-22’s startling agility at airshows recently to ponder the fact that “the same people also designed the flight control system for the F-35.”

The F-16 cannot do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA

[wpeters]

What needs to happen is we need to add the same changes to the F15 and F16 that Russians did to the SU30 and Mig35.  Make the engine nozzles movable. They would take care of the maneuvering problem. Then they also would  be capable of high angles of attack

[MrRiplEy[H]]

What needs to happen is we need to add the same changes to the F15 and F16 that Russians did to the SU30 and Mig35.  Make the engine nozzles movable. They would take care of the maneuvering problem. Then they also would  be capable of high angles of attack

IIRC the F15 airframes are breaking midair already from service life...

[wpeters]

IIRC the F15 airframes are breaking midair already from service life...

NO I mean the new generation of 15s and 16s..   They can buy them for cheaper and maintiance is cheaper also.   A f15 is around $30000 per flight hour, were as the F22 is $52,800 per flight hour. You could fly almost 2 F15s for the price of the F22.