Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[GScholz]

4) Its not stealthy vs infrared detection systems.
5) Its range is short.
6) Its ordnance load is small unless it carries externally.
7) Its slow vs 5th gen fighters.
8) Its too much money.

4) Nothing is.
5) 2-3 times the range of the AV-8B/Sea Harrier it replaces.
6) It can carry an infinitely larger internal ordnance load than the AV-8B/Sea Harrier, and 2-3 times as much externally.
7) About twice the speed of the AV-8B/Sea Harrier it replaces.
8) Maybe for your pockets.

You don't seem to realize just how much more airplane the F-35 is over the AV-8B/Sea Harrier: The Sea Harrier has a 26,200 lbs max. takeoff weight. The F-35B... 60,000 lbs.

[GScholz]

Check out the Typhie at the same show, loaded for World War 4 - holy crap.  Looks like 2 IR AAM, Asraam I think, 4 MRM missiles on the wells, 6 Brimstones, 2 500-1000lb class LGB/GPS bombs, 2 fuel tanks, and a partridge in a pear tree.  That's insane, especially with the show it puts on.  I know the F35 with external/internal stores mix can carry a lot too, but this is impressive for the Eurofighter IMO.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is arguably the best 4.5 generation multi-role fighter, and most impressive in the air superiority role as well. The only reason I would choose the F-22 and F-35 over the Eurofighter is because they are sneaky. Without stealth I think the Eurofighter is superior to both of them. More so against the F-35 of course in performance terms, but the DAS does make up for some of it. As with all designs it's give and take: Stealth requires a sacrifice in some other area of the design.

[Squire]

You don't seem to realize just how much more airplane the F-35 is over the AV-8B/Sea Harrier

...its not JUST replacing the Harrier is it?

...the F-25 is replacing the F-18, F-16, Harrier and A-10...in an Air Force that only bought a limited # of F-22s (in the case of the USAF). In other countries its replacing the F-18 and/or the F-16 and Tornado.

4) Nothing is.

...well then...maybe they should have thought about that before spending god knows how much money and design complexity and trade-offs with the design before they went with a RADAR STEALTH design that in the end is going to be of little advantage.

If it was just replacing the Harrier and just the Harrier?...I would not be against it assuming the costs were reasonable but that's not the scenario and you know that perfectly well.

[Zimme83]

Harrier is a plane that only exist because of the VTOL capability, other than that is a very mediocre plane by todays standard. Should not be too hard to bulid a 120 million $ plane that is better..

[GScholz]

...its not JUST replacing the Harrier is it?

"Its"? You seem to think it is one aircraft model. It's not. The B-model in Gman's video is only replacing the Sea Harrier/AV-8B, and yes, it is expensive. It's a niche aircraft. The C-model will supplement the Super Hornet and probably replace it at some point in the future. Again an expensive niche aircraft. Though the price will come down as more aircraft are ordered. The model that's replacing the F-16 and A-10 is the A-model, and that one is not as expensive. LRIP Lot 10 has just been approved and in the next production lot the unit price is expected to be below $100 million. "Oh but that doesn't include the engine!" ... No of course it doesn't. What aircraft manufacturer makes its own engines? No one. If you bought a new F-22 from Lockheed Martin you'd also have to buy two engines for it from Pratt & Whitney. If you bought a new F-16 from Lockheed Martin you'd also have to buy an engine from General Electric. If you buy a 737 from Boeing, you'll have to buy two engines for it from CFM International.

[GScholz]

...well then...maybe they should have thought about that before spending god knows how much money and design complexity and trade-offs with the design before they went with a RADAR STEALTH design that in the end is going to be of little advantage.

IR sensors are almost limited to visual range. Their only advantage over normal optics is that IR can penetrate some cloud cover and smoke. We're talking 10-20 miles typical range up to perhaps 50-60 miles under optimum conditions. With radar we're talking hundreds of miles, in any weather. The best airborne IRST system in use today is probably the French Optronique Secteur Frontal. They claim a 60-mile detection range, but that's under the best possible conditions. There's a reason planes still use radar...

[Zimme83]

Although most manufacturer includes the Engine in the prize. There are a lot of other parts also built by external companies but they are included in the prize.

[GScholz]

Really... Please source one U.S. military contract, or any contract buying U.S. aircraft where the engines are included in the price. You made the claim, now back it up.

[GScholz]

"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has reached an agreement with Pratt & Whitney for the ninth low rate initial production (LRIP) lot of F135 engines, which power the F-35 joint strike fighter.

The agreement, worth an estimated $1.4 billion over the life of the production lot, covers 66 engines, as well as spares, extra parts, and support from the Connecticut-based engine manufacturer. Specifically, the breakdown is 53 conventional takeoff and landing engines, used in the F-35A and F-35C models, and 13 short takeoff and vertical landing models used for the F-35B model.

The engine lot also includes engines for five international partners and customers: Italy, Norway, Israel, Japan and the United Kingdom. Engines under this contract should begin delivery before the end of the year, according to a Pratt statement."

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/04/12/pentagon-pratt-whitney-f35-engine-f135-lrip9-contract/82950130/


The U.S. government, Norway, Israel, Japan and the U.K. all buy engines from Pratt & Whitney directly in separate deals. Not via Lockheed Martin.

[Zimme83]

It's irrelevant whats stands in the contracts, whats matter when talking about cost of an Aircraft is how much its actually cost. No one cares what a F-35 cost without an Engine since you kind of need the Engine.

[GScholz]

Then show me the aircraft manufacturers who include the engines in the price, as you claimed "most manufacturer" do.

[Zimme83]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/7-25-billion-france-makes-its-best-price-offer-for-36-rafale-fighter-jets/articleshow/52230203.cms 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/

Neither one of them says 'Without engines'

Now show me anyone that sell a fighter without the Engines...

[GScholz]

Neither one of them says 'Without engines'

Lol, that's just a negative proof fallacy. That "neither one of them says 'Without engines'" does not prove the numbers include engines. Neither does any of those aticles actually state the price of the aircraft, only the whole deal which undoubtedly includes a lot of things... Unless your argument is that a Rafale costs $223 million (€7.25 billion for 36 aircraft) and a Gripen costs $150 million ($5.4 billion for 36 aircraft). If you do then the F-35A is a bargain! 

[Zimme83]

Yes of course they include a lot of things, noone buys just a fighter without an Engine and nothing more..

1.4 billion for 66 Engines is 21 million a piece but say 15 million for an Engine, thats 15% of what the airframe cost. A rather significant increase in the prize.

Talking about cost without Engines is never relevant.

[Zimme83]

various flyaway costs:
F/A-18 60,9 million
Rafale C 94 million
EF2000 90 million
Gripen E 50-60 million

The numbers ive seen on the F-35 is 180 million and up so far, it will of course drop when production ramps up but the 100 million without an Engine talk is just a way of hiding the real cost.