Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: artik on June 30, 2013, 02:47:02 AM
-
I just did a small comparison of the common modern (and not so) aircrafts based on their performance*.
(ordered by T/W ratio)
| Aircraft | Loaded T/W | Climb (f/s) | Wing Load (p/f^2) | Speed (M) |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | 1.14 | 62,000 | 64.0 | 2.0 |
| Su-35 | 1.13 | 55,100 | 84.0 | 2.22 |
| F-15C | 1.12 | 50,000 | 73.0 | 2.5 |
| Dassault Rafale | 1.10 | 60,000 | 62.0 | 1.8 |
| F-22 | 1.08 | 40,000 | 77.0 | 2.25 |
| F-16C Block 30 | 1.07 | 50,000 | 88.0 | 2.0 |
| F-18E | 0.93 | 45,000 | 94.0 | 1.8 |
| F-35 | 0.88 | ~40,000** | 107.0 | 1.6 |
| F-4E | 0.86 | 41,300 | 78 | 1.8 |
| MiG-23 | 0.83 | 47,300 | 78 | 2.32 |
| MiG-21 | 0.81 | 44,300 | 77 | 2.0 |
*All data taken from Wikipedia
**Estimated by interpolation
The acceleration of - F-35 is very poor - somewhere around 70ths, the maneuverability is poor - it has very high wing loading, its speed relatively low, its estimated climb ratio is quite low as well.
Basically: it can't run, it can't turn, it can't climb making it trivial target in WVR engagement.
Indeed in BWR engagement it would have an important edge - it is stealthy so it would be hard to shut it down from big distance, but once
it tries to engage you it discloses its location (RWR) and you can catch it and shut down in WVR engagement easily.
And additional problem is the ROE. In dessert storm, it was hard to operate using BVR weapons because you need to confirm that the target
is not friendly. Even with these restrictions there were many friendly fire accidents.
So basically: F-35 would probably be not bad strike aircraft - due to its stealth, but it is limited as well as long wave radars are still capable to track
them (see F-117 how F-117 was shutdown) and thus it still can be intercepted. F-35B would likely to be good replacement of Harrier (as nothing better exists) but it would be absolutely inferior against modern 4th+ generation fighters unless the engagement is strictly BVR.
So why USAF, USN, USMC and others want this F-35? Wouldn't it be the same mistake that was made in Vietnam were the "strategists" believed that missiles would not require knowing ACM, so today strategists believe that "it would be resolved BVR"
-
The F-35 is turning to be a white elephant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant)
Initially, foreign (non US) countries were invited to invest in the project and in return be able to influence its development and get a custom version to fit their needs. Many countries that do not and/or cannot build their own fighters jumped on the opportunity - including Israel by the way. IAF pushed for this because they really liked the idea of a stealth attack plane and getting access to brand new models - the US usually delays such sales and eventually agrees to sell them to Israel as part of a bigger deal with a political cost attached, or as a way to block Israel from a different deal. The Israeli defense industries were thrilled at the opportunity to get their stuff installed in the plane on the production line instead of the usual deal of getting naked planes, or planes with American equipment that needs to be removed/modified.
As development continued, the price kept climbing and progress delayed. The design that tried to satisfy too many requirements has evolved into something that is not really good for anyone's requirements and offer little advantage over upgrades to previous gen planes, except for the stealth. Now I hear that they refuse to install Israeli equipment at the production stage and demand that Israel buys it with the American equipment.
There are many in Israel and other countries that call to withdraw from this project, but there is too much money invested and complicated politics attached, so the decision is not easy - especially when the alternative is not really clear or immediately available.
-
It's unfortunate they sucked Aussie into the programme. Certainly possible it will go down as the biggest white elephant in aviation history. By the time it's delivered in numbers and combat ready piloted planes could be in their last years of service with the rate of Drone development.
Personally I don't think the F22 is worth the cost either, will never be delivered in enough numbers to make a difference on any future battlefield.
But out of both programmes, there must be a few people making an absolute killing out of it in invoices.
<S>...-Gixer
-
When was the F-117 shut down. Was that on Wikipedia too? You do realize anybody could log onto Wikipedia and post what they want in its little pages dont you?
OK heres the deal. There is no enemy Air Force after a strike package of F-35s are able to enter their air space undetected and their air defense assets are blown away in opening night strikes. After, whatever is left, will be vulnerable to F35 wild weasel attack planes. The air war will then have shifted to USAF whom with our AWACs will have a complete picture of the air space with our fighters "NETWORKED" in to it.
I dont know what Political cost to Israel your talking about. Nor is such talk allowed in the forum. I do know the American taxpayer, who has been funding Israel's defense for decades, does not appreciate it.
Theres no point building a airplane, large enough to look like an elephant on a radar screen, so you can do fancy maneuvers in an air show, when you can build a stealthy one who's pilot is equipped with a electronic marvel of a helmet that allows him a virtually 360% ATA missile shot be it BVR or in close. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f20_1342071775 A modern fighter is a combination of performance, avionics, information systems, pilot skill, and mechanical reliability.
It seems like every time Paris comes around, or some INTL air show, where these SU's are performing useless maneuvers for the crowd, more disinformation about the f35 follows on the Internet. One can assume Russia and China have some reason for spending Billions of Rubles and yuan to get a stealth fighter flying.
-
Personally I don't think the F22 is worth the cost either, will never be delivered in enough numbers to make a difference on any future battlefield.
It's a concept called "force multiplier". :salute
-
I just did a small comparison of the common modern (and not so) aircrafts based on their performance*.
(ordered by T/W ratio)
| Aircraft | Loaded T/W | Climb (f/s) | Wing Load (p/f^2) | Speed (M) |
| Eurofighter Typhoon | 1.14 | 62,000 | 64.0 | 2.0 |
| Su-35 | 1.13 | 55,100 | 84.0 | 2.22 |
| F-15C | 1.12 | 50,000 | 73.0 | 2.5 |
| Dassault Rafale | 1.10 | 60,000 | 62.0 | 1.8 |
| F-22 | 1.08 | 40,000 | 77.0 | 2.25 |
| F-16C Block 30 | 1.07 | 50,000 | 88.0 | 2.0 |
| F-18E | 0.93 | 45,000 | 94.0 | 1.8 |
| F-35 | 0.88 | ~40,000** | 107.0 | 1.6 |
| F-4E | 0.86 | 41,300 | 78 | 1.8 |
| MiG-23 | 0.83 | 47,300 | 78 | 2.32 |
| MiG-21 | 0.81 | 44,300 | 77 | 2.0 |
Hang weapons and fuel on all those aircraft and the F-35 will be second only to the F-22 in performance. "Air show mode" performance is irrelevant.
-
Add in a modern F-15E, both clean and with CFTs. 58,000 lbs thrust, empty weight around 37,000 lbs, internal fuel only about 12,000 lbs and "clean" (no external fuel) air to air weapons weight of another 1500 lbs. So it'll take off in butt-kicking config with 58,000 lbs thrust weighing only 51,000 lbs, and it can still be on station an hour later weighing only 45,000 lbs after burning off just half its fuel.
An AF unit was going to use a combat ready F-15E with the -229 motors to utterly demolish all the streak eagle records. They were strictly forbidden to make even unofficial attempts, because on paper a clean and only slightly lightened F-15E might have better basic performance numbers than an F-22. It doesn't tell the whole story so it wouldn't mean anything, but it would be hard to explain to people who know nothing about fighters why the F-22 was better.
That's the problem with that table. An F-15E demolishes most of those raw numbers but that doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story.
-
Rich46yo, did you look at the wikipedia link? it was for the definition of the expression "white elephant", not to any information about planes.
I will not go into politics, but the American tax payer you mentioned is not funding Israel as much as it is subsidizing its own military industries. The foreign military aid is a byproduct, but of course no government will dare to present it this way. The foreign aid is a strong tool used to support various american interests abroad, but most of all to shield its own industries from foreign competition. I will not go into details because they are complicated and likely to start a flame that will get this thread locked.
The marvel of a modern pilot helment has little to do with the plane. Avionics in all planes can be adjusted and upgraded to use them with various degrees of effort. The avionics are not necessarily unique to the F-35. Stealth and BVR is very much overrated IMO. They have never been proven in a large scale air war. BVR is cool in a big empty space, but not all fronts will look like the Iraqi desert. If the F-35 is using its radar then everyone know it's there. Perhaps there are ways to rely on a remote, linked radar, potentially good, but lets see how it works in reality. F-35 radar is not immune to EW. So the enemy plane ahead may have a problem to get a lock on the F-35, but so will the F-35, and just let me remind you that EW can come from may sources, not only the self-defense systems of the plane it is fighting. EW is a big unknown, so it is hard to tell how it will perform in a real war.
There are more issues with the F-35, but the end result is that it does not really bring anything really new to the table except stealth of questionable usefulness per cost and short runways ability which may be important to some services. Avionics and weapons can be installed on other platforms as well.
I am not the one impressed by the neo-soviet fighters. If they try to pull such cobra moves in a multi-plane dogfight everyone around will die laughing.
-
Is there another plane of it's capability that can retain it's stealth while carrying nearly as much ord as the F35.
-
Have to remember that early in WWII the Japanese Zero fighter was thought to be one of the deadliest fighters. Everyone was clamoring about how it could out maneuver everything and why did the USA not go that way. Fact is most fighter pilots would not care to go to battle in a Zero.
Performing fancy maneuvers in a plane doesn't make it the most desirable plane for combat.
-
USAF Lt Col Lee Kloos, commander of the 58th Fighter Squadron, was the first non-test pilot to start his transition over to the F-35A. He has 2000 hours on the F-16, and is a Weapons School graduate:
"One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it's not an F-22. An F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we'll never be that. But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. When I'm downrange in Badguyland that's the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that's where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16.
A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet's performance. You put all that on, I'll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that's not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth. It's of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently.
The F-35's acceleration is very comparable to a Block 50 F-16. Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and turn rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35. But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it."
-
Is there another plane of it's capability that can retain it's stealth while carrying nearly as much ord as the F35.
The F-18 with the stealth weapons pod and F-15E silent eagle will be able to carry a comparable payload with reduced RCS. The F-35 is not rear-aspect stealthy, so its stealth advantage is not as great as you might think. I don't think the F-35 can carry all that much internally. A couple of JDAM and 2 missiles if I recall correctly.
-
Reduced RCS is not in the same ballpark as the F-35. The F-35 has a smaller RCS than the B-2 bomber, and about half that of the F-117. Compared to an F-16 or F-18 the RCS size difference is in the thousands. Even its rear aspect RCS if significantly less than non-stealth aircraft as it is only the engine that is not stealthed.
What an F-35 looks like to radar:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Golf_ball_3.jpg)
-
Israel is, and has been since Yom Kippur War, actually since 1949, the biggest recipient of American foreign military aid of any other country. There is no reason to get into politics cause that is simply fact. It is also simply fact that the stat of Israel would not even exist if not for American assistance. Again...fact!
I will not go into politics, but the American tax payer you mentioned is not funding Israel as much as it is subsidizing its own military industries.
Yes, blah, blah, blah. Which we are basically doing for our own defense and defense of allied nations as well. Defense Industry's Do present a bill and people DO need to work. America and her cousins in Democracy, including Israel, have subsidized their own defense Industrys as well.
The Helmet has as much to do with the airplane as any other system on it. They have all been not only designed to work together but also all the other assets networks in. The F-35 was not designed to operate in isolation. ANY system is designed to operate with others, each system has its place, the concept is call Battle Management. There is no more WW1 or WW2 style operations. An enemy country is going to get hit with the whole shebang at once. Opening night attacks will consist of entirely 100% precision munitions. Air space will be cleared not only by ATA operations but by getting their entire ATA networks attacked and destroyed.
Dude you have to seriously learn about the avionics of the airframe before posting such stuff. Networked air space management is not a new concept. Here AN/APG-81 radar, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ&list=PLxYF2Xt6-JqGp-LHnQucGbtbQTBdsnFp2, http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/1145.html#.UdByPpyBrNU. Im sorry but I just cant go on with this. How in heck does Iraqi air differ from air elsewhere in the world? Air is air.
Stealth and BVR is very much overrated IMO. They have never been proven in a large scale air war.
:huh
Rich46yo, did you look at the wikipedia link? it was for the definition of the expression "white elephant", not to any information about planes.
I will not go into politics, but the American tax payer you mentioned is not funding Israel as much as it is subsidizing its own military industries. The foreign military aid is a byproduct, but of course no government will dare to present it this way. The foreign aid is a strong tool used to support various american interests abroad, but most of all to shield its own industries from foreign competition. I will not go into details because they are complicated and likely to start a flame that will get this thread locked.
The marvel of a modern pilot helment has little to do with the plane. Avionics in all planes can be adjusted and upgraded to use them with various degrees of effort. The avionics are not necessarily unique to the F-35. Stealth and BVR is very much overrated IMO. They have never been proven in a large scale air war. BVR is cool in a big empty space, but not all fronts will look like the Iraqi desert. If the F-35 is using its radar then everyone know it's there. Perhaps there are ways to rely on a remote, linked radar, potentially good, but lets see how it works in reality. F-35 radar is not immune to EW. So the enemy plane ahead may have a problem to get a lock on the F-35, but so will the F-35, and just let me remind you that EW can come from may sources, not only the self-defense systems of the plane it is fighting. EW is a big unknown, so it is hard to tell how it will perform in a real war.
There are more issues with the F-35, but the end result is that it does not really bring anything really new to the table except stealth of questionable usefulness per cost and short runways ability which may be important to some services. Avionics and weapons can be installed on other platforms as well.
I am not the one impressed by the neo-soviet fighters. If they try to pull such cobra moves in a multi-plane dogfight everyone around will die laughing.
-
Hang weapons and fuel on all those aircraft and the F-35 will be second only to the F-22 in performance. "Air show mode" performance is irrelevant.
Small note, all T/W calculations take loaded weight - at least in some references it says explicitly - with full internal fuel and A/A weapons.
Also most of A/A ammunition is not that heavy, it may change the numbers a little but it would change them for F-35 as well.
Note: it is fully reasonable to manage A2A combat without bombs and fuel tanks
-
Add in a modern F-15E, both clean and with CFTs. 58,000 lbs thrust, empty weight around 37,000 lbs, internal fuel only about 12,000 lbs and "clean" (no external fuel) air to air weapons weight of another 1500 lbs. So it'll take off in butt-kicking config with 58,000 lbs thrust weighing only 51,000 lbs, and it can still be on station an hour later weighing only 45,000 lbs after burning off just half its fuel.
Small notes also F-15E has more powerful engines in is much heavier and flies only with CFT for combat missions.
Also F-15E is the newest it is more attack aircraft than air superiority one. F-15C were covering F-15E in dessert storm that were performing ground attacks.
I want to add a side note, at least IAF Eagles and actually Falcons as well fly with DASH helmet that gives and important edge over usual F-15 also the IAF has upgraded avionics making it nothing like "plain" F-15C - it is basically F-15E in terms of latest modern avionics but F-15C in terms of performance.
-
Small note, all T/W calculations take loaded weight - at least in some references it says explicitly - with full internal fuel and A/A weapons.
Also most of A/A ammunition is not that heavy, it may change the numbers a little but it would change them for F-35 as well.
Note: it is fully reasonable to manage A2A combat without bombs and fuel tanks
Weight isn't the important factor, but drag. Even with only A2A missiles none of those top speeds can be achieved, except for the F-22 and F-35 with internal stores only. The F-35 carries more internal fuel than the F-16's total fuel capacity with all three droptanks on.
-
Weight isn't the important factor, but drag. Even with only A2A missiles none of those top speeds can be achieved, except for the F-22 and F-35 with internal stores only. The F-35 carries more internal fuel than the F-16's total fuel capacity with all three droptanks on.
1. The T/W ratio uses loaded - not maximal takeoff weight. Of course if you take F-15 with full CFT it would have much lower T/W ratio but it is not the case.
2. About the drag, it may be improved but take a look on numbers - there are very few fighters in list (including old ones) that have speed less than Mach 2. So how lower would it be with missiles?
-
Small additional note,
If Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) and all the "situational awareness avionics" would be so important addon, why just not to take some older aircraft and put the new avionics inside - new radar, new ECM, new displays, new networking - to the existing frames and you get super aircraft (may be not stealth) but as good as any modern fighter?
Actually it is quite a common practice. Romania uses upgraded MiG-21 with the state of the art avionics and many other countries still fly older Mirages and F-5E Tigers upgraded with modern equipment - GPS, glass display, modern missiles, HMD and new radar - and this is much cheaper than buy a latest F-16...
But yet, if budget allows the new aircraft is preferred over upgrade. Why? Because avionics is important but not everything.
It is like have an external view in SBD... It gives you much better awareness of who is going to shut you down :x
-
Top speed is normally listed as in clean configuration. Add pylons and A2A missiles and I'd be surprised if the F-16 is faster than an F-35 with internal stores at Mach 1.6. With drop tanks the F-16 is subsonic. The F-18E's top speed is Mach 1.5 with two AMRAAM and two Sidewinders, and that is only in a very narrow altitude window.
On the other hand, the F-35 can go Mach 1.6 while carrying four AMRAAM or two JDAMS + two AMRAAM and its full load of fuel (18,480 lbs).
-
Top speed is normally listed as in clean configuration. Add pylons and A2A missiles and I'd be surprised if the F-16 is faster than an F-35 with internal stores at Mach 1.6. With drop tanks the F-16 is subsonic. The F-18E's top speed is Mach 1.5 with two AMRAAM and two Sidewinders, and that is only in a very narrow altitude window.
On the other hand, the F-35 can go Mach 1.6 while carrying four AMRAAM or two JDAMS + two AMRAAM and its full load of fuel (18,480 lbs).
1. If you run or try to catch - you drop tanks... so it is not really the factor.
2. Note if you compare F-35 to F-18... Than ok it is somewere at the bottom of the list. It is far from being the state of the art. Ahh BTW we are talking about F-35A - in case of C it is even more terrible. Also if you look on up-to-date aircraft like Typhoon, it is Mach 2 with A2A weapons
-
"... even more terrible ..." :huh Biased much? In what world is Mach 1.6 with missiles and bombs and 18,480 lbs of fuel "terrible". It is very, very good.
I'm comparing the F-35 to the planes it is supposed to replace, not the F-15, Su-35 and Typhoon. That F-18E I mentioned has nothing under its wings, only two Sidewinders on the wing tips and two AMRAAM semi-recessed under the fuselage. It has enough internal fuel for a very short supersonic dash.
-
Economists call this "Public Choice" theory/school. Street lingo, "crony capitalism." Political science, the German "f" word. In any case, this is about political job, not national defense. Eisenhower warned us against this.
-
Small notes also F-15E has more powerful engines in is much heavier and flies only with CFT for combat missions.
Also F-15E is the newest it is more attack aircraft than air superiority one. F-15C were covering F-15E in dessert storm that were performing ground attacks.
I want to add a side note, at least IAF Eagles and actually Falcons as well fly with DASH helmet that gives and important edge over usual F-15 also the IAF has upgraded avionics making it nothing like "plain" F-15C - it is basically F-15E in terms of latest modern avionics but F-15C in terms of performance.
CFTs can be removed. The reasons they are left on the plane have nothing to do with the aircraft capabilities. It is 100% because of the assigned mission. I guarantee you that if the need arose for more air defense aircraft, they'd drop the CFTs on the F-15Es and they'd suddenly have the same or better performance than F-15C/D, plus the WSO and targeting pod would add additional capabilities. An F-15E without CFTs isn't that much heavier than an F-15C, more than compensated for by the bigger and more advanced engines and other capabilities. That extra weight is in structural upgrades that make the F-15E extremely durable. Although not intended to do so, a "clean" F-15E can take 12+ Gs without significant damage. My squadron had 2 F-15Es take 12+ Gs and both were flying again within a few weeks after only minor repairs. An F-15C pulling 12 Gs will literally fall apart inflight.
The F-15E is not "more" air to ground and therefore restricted to A/G missions. If configured the same, it has 99.999999% of the air to air capabilities of an F-15C plus A/G capabilities. Their use is entirely mission requirements based, not the capability of the aircraft or its systems. Also, the F-15E can be fairly easily and quickly upgraded with additional capabilities due to the general purpose digital data bus connecting its avionics.
New build F-15Es could be a further leap in capability, both air ot air and air to ground, if necessary. They'd all have the bigger engines and potentially greatly improved avionics, new displays, new hud, and the latest JHMCS helmets. The gen 2 JHMCS helmets may even be able to be installed 2 per plane, vs. the 1 per plane now, due to different positioning sensor technology, but I don't have much info on that beyond what I read in some manufacturer ads...
A new build F-15E would have an extra 10,000 lbs of thrust over an F-15C and only weigh a few thousand pounds more. And it would be vastly superior in terms of avionics. The basic airframe remains a superb and very capable design, and only the billions upon billions of dollars we're pouring into the F-35 program is keeping us from refreshing our F-15C fleet with a few hundred new build F-15s based on the F-15Es currently in production. Call it the "F-15F" or D+ or whatever you like, but the new aircraft would be better than current F-15Cs and would preserve US air to air dominance for another 30 years or more, at half the price of more F-22s or F-35s. And if we suddenly needed more A/G assets, put on the CFTs and suddenly those new air defense F-15Es become full-up nuclear strike capable attack fighters.
Or drop the CFTs on the current F-15E fleet and give them to the guard/reserves for air defense, move one or two switches from the back up to the front cockpit so they can be flown solo, and buy new silent eagle F-15Es for the active duty force in a strike role as they are now, but more survivable in a modern air defense system. That would be really good for overall national defense.
-
eagl, it's already been done. It's called the F-15SE - Silent Eagle.
It is an ultra-modern design with key outside features crafted in radar absorbant material. Frontal aspect the SE has the radar cross section similar to the F-22. Of course under-wing ordinance adds to radar cross section.
The F-15Silent Eagle was killed in the halls of Congress by the Raptor lobby.
boo
-
Please tell me your kidding. Did you just say the frontal aspect of the F15SE has the radar cross section similar to the F22? :bhead
eagl, it's already been done. It's called the F-15SE - Silent Eagle.
It is an ultra-modern design with key outside features crafted in radar absorbant material. Frontal aspect the SE has the radar cross section similar to the F-22. Of course under-wing ordinance adds to radar cross section.
The F-15Silent Eagle was killed in the halls of Congress by the Raptor lobby.
boo
-
Please tell me your kidding. Did you just say the frontal aspect of the F15SE has the radar cross section similar to the F22? :bhead
I heard it has the frontal aspects of an F35.....an this is coming from aeronautical engineers that work at Boeing :rolleyes:
-
The Silent Eagle wasn't killed off. It's been exported, and it is really a product for the "second hand ally" market. The F-15SE frontal aspect RCS is nowhere near as small as the F-22 or F-35. It does however bring the F-15 into the 4.5 generation giving it a stealthy front on par with the Eurofighter and Rafale.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Boeing_F-15_Silent_Eagle-topshot.jpg)
-
"Look guys!! im the size of a golf ball and flying at 40k at mach 2, now..they will never see me comin'.....wait..wait..somethings tracking me...tracking..tracking..tria ngulating.....incoming mach 6 projectiles!!!....eject eject eje.....-static-"
Drones, rail guns & laser systems have rendered stealth a very very moot point.
Stealth is SO 1990's. :aok
:P
-
It's unfortunate they sucked Aussie into the programme. Certainly possible it will go down as the biggest white elephant in aviation history. By the time it's delivered in numbers and combat ready piloted planes could be in their last years of service with the rate of Drone development.
Personally I don't think the F22 is worth the cost either, will never be delivered in enough numbers to make a difference on any future battlefield.
But out of both programmes, there must be a few people making an absolute killing out of it in invoices.
<S>...-Gixer
Honestly, I think the issues with both planes is that they insist on having it be super duper fancy and high-tech. The F-15 and F-16 are both good fighters, why can't we use the F-22's inherently stealthier geometry to make a fighter using the materials in an F-16, instead of all that radar absorbent paint, and special coatings, and material as the standard.
Same with the F-35, instead of being a swing-role, it should be multirole. Keep the 20mm, but leave room for a 25mm. Leave fittings for external drop tanks, etc when stealth isn't mandatory. And above all, lighten that b***h up!
-
Besides performance or lack of, most ironic fact about all these future Generation 5 fighters, is that the only country in which can probably afford to field them in great enough numbers to make a difference on any future battlefield is probably China.
<S>...-Gixer
-
I heard it has the frontal aspects of an F35.....an this is coming from aeronautical engineers that work at Boeing :rolleyes:
Well by all means DO repeat such an insane rumor without even trying to check it out.
You cant take a very unstealthy aircraft design and turn it into a stealth aircraft with a new coat of paint and a few mechanical changes. You can reduce its RCS somewhat , which was very large to begin with. Here is a diagram that gives some idea of max and min RCS of combat aircraft. The Chinese J-20 is still a decade away from being deployed and not even the Chinese know what kind of RCS it will have. Of course in all other areas of avionics and especially engines the Chinese are 1 to 2 generations away from western standards.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/RCS_zpsf700a158.jpg)
-
The Chinese J-20 is still a decade away from being deployed and not even the Chinese know what kind of RCS it will have. Of course in all other areas of avionics and especially engines the Chinese are 1 to 2 generations away from western standards.
But China has what the west doesn't, plenty of money to spend. Won't take them long to catch up and possibly leap ahead.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Dude you have to seriously learn about the avionics of the airframe before posting such stuff. Networked air space management is not a new concept. Here AN/APG-81 radar, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ&list=PLxYF2Xt6-JqGp-LHnQucGbtbQTBdsnFp2, http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/feature/1145.html#.UdByPpyBrNU. Im sorry but I just cant go on with this.
I learned that in CGI the F-35 can beat anything. It is not the avionics OF the airframe - it's avionics IN the airframe. None of these systems require the F-35 airframe and can be installed in other planes.
How in heck does Iraqi air differ from air elsewhere in the world? Air is air.
:huh
The difference is the density of flying objects. When you have 300 miles of nothing ahead of you and something pops up on radar you can start lobbing BVR missiles at it like a trooper. If on the other hand you switch on the radar and find 100 aircrafts in 30x30 miles square, stacked from zero to 40,000 feet, not counting drones, other flying objects and EW interferences, then BVR is useless.
Israel is, and has been since Yom Kippur War, actually since 1949, the biggest recipient of American foreign military aid of any other country. There is no reason to get into politics cause that is simply fact. It is also simply fact that the stat of Israel would not even exist if not for American assistance. Again...fact!
Dont get over yourself. Israel got little to nothing from the US till 1967 (that's already after 3 wars) when USSR started to give full support to the arab countries. Like everywhere in the world, if the USSR backs one side, the US immediately backs the other. Till 1967 France, Britain and the Czech were Israel's major weapon suppliers. Israel fought all its wars without the involvement of a single US soldier and the only war in which American resupply during the fighting made any difference was in 1973 and even then it only served to shorten the war by allowing Israel to go on the offensive immediately after managing to halt the Syrian and Egyptian advance.
Let me explain to you a little how military aid works. The US armed forces often do not buy enough expensive equipment to justify their economic viability to the industry. The US government cannot simply give money to the industry or buy it at inflated costs, therefore it creates an additional demand by distributing "aid" which is like coupons to its allies. This virtual money can only be spent in the US, so in practice the US government is giving real money to its industries to manufacture more weapons than the US needs, which are sent abroad.
A common twist is that with this coupons the allies are sold used US equipment and the US forces are buying new equipment instead. This is because the US usually do not sell latest technology to its allies unless they can get it elsewhere. If another supplier pops up and want to compete with the US suppliers, the US gov will sell these weapons via aid coupons in order to block the competition. One such examples involving Israel is the "Lavi" fighter. The Lavi was supposed to be a cheap fighter-attacker, but the project got ambitions and ended up as a direct competitor to the F-16. Certain US industries have put a large pressure on US gov to pressure Israel to cancel the project. They finally suceeded to win the IAF top brass to their side with a large deal of latest model F-16s (first C/D blocks if I remember). Project cancelled, threat removed. Isaeli industry has since learned to concentrate on technologies that the US does not have. This is why the IAF is still buying drones, radars, short range A2A missiles, some avionics and ECM, locally. The US then tries as much as possible to prevent sales of these technologies to other counties till they catch up in development - and then sell it themselves.
Alternatively, new technologies are sold as part of a political deal. The classic example is that for years the US refused to sell Patriots SAMs to Israel. They were eventually sold as part of a deal to keep Israel from retaliating against Iraqi Scuds during the 1st Gulf war (which would have dismantled the US-arab coalition). Weapon sales are authorized to Egypt and Saudi Arabia when ever their cooperation or appeasement on other matters is needed.
How does this relate to the F-35? The F-35 could have allowed Israel to escape this pattern and get a brand new weapon platform without the complications described above. The IAF wanted a lot of custom modifications and the Israeli industries could develop new gizmo's especially for it, which means guaranteed sales to the IAF and potential sales to the other partners involved. There were recent rumors that the US is refusing some of the agreed modifications at the production level and forcing Israel to buy it with the american equipment on it, which infuriated some industry people.
-
But China has what the west doesn't, plenty of money to spend. Won't take them long to catch up and possibly leap ahead.
<S>...-Gixer
I question this. You think the wealth disparity in the US is bad? The 1% have got NOTHING on the distribution of wealth in China. Something like 75% of their population lives on only $5 a day and has limited to no access to modern medical care and infrastructure.
-
... Here is a diagram that gives some idea of max and min RCS of combat aircraft...
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/RCS_zpsf700a158.jpg)
And the sources are based on What? Seriously you have a public information in J-20 were most of this data is classified...
So I wouldn't quote such an image/reference too fast. Because it is unlikely based on some real data.
-
Israel got little to nothing from the US till 1967 (that's already after 3 wars) when USSR started to give full support to the arab countries. Like everywhere in the world, if the USSR backs one side, the US immediately backs the other. Till 1967 France, Britain and the Czech were Israel's major weapon suppliers. Israel fought all its wars without the involvement of a single US soldier and the only war in which American resupply during the fighting made any difference was in 1973 and even then it only served to shorten the war by allowing Israel to go on the offensive immediately after managing to halt the Syrian and Egyptian advance.
Who do you think sold the equipment to France, Britain and Czech???????????
The US military industrial complex, that's who. The US has been in the business of war and producing and selling war goods for the last hundred years. It's our main export. Look back over American history and find a 10 year period where America didn't have it's self involved in some type of shooting war. And don't forget the war carried out on the original American, the American Indian.
-
The US military industrial complex does not produce French, British or Czech aircraft.
(http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.com/files/3213/0618/3272/FUIIIYuvalLapid.jpg)
Not made in America™
-
Historically the biggest threat to America is our debt and the poor cascading decisions we make to avoid the reality of it. The history of monetary policy, debt and empires is a very consistent one that goes back many thousands of years. It is as simple as A+B=C.
In any case, the Mirage is a pretty bird!!
boo
-
Certainly is. One of my all time favorite aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3QynY5aLz0
-
"Look guys!! im the size of a golf ball and flying at 40k at mach 2, now..they will never see me comin'.....wait..wait..somethings tracking me...tracking..tracking..tria ngulating.....incoming mach 6 projectiles!!!....eject eject eje.....-static-"
Drones, rail guns & laser systems have rendered stealth a very very moot point.
Stealth is SO 1990's. :aok
:P
Please tell me you understand this:
(http://mgitecetech.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/f22a-vs-f1111.gif)
-
The US military industrial complex does not produce French, British or Czech aircraft.
(http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.com/files/3213/0618/3272/FUIIIYuvalLapid.jpg)
Not made in America™
There are many multinational corporations that partake in the productions of military hardware world wide. These smaller corporations are often owned in whole or in part by the leaders of the MIC. They profit from both sides of a conflict. They hold no allegiance to any one nation, their allegiance is only to the conflict and how best to profit from it.
-
The Swiss Alps the way god intended them to be seen: 600knts, upside down baby!
I'm not an expert on Mirages, and I know it is titled Mirage III but wasn't it the Mirage 2000 that had the canards?
I wonder how a good F-5E-II stacks up against those birds?
boo
-
Next Traveler is going to say the Soviet Union was supplied by the US military industrial complex... :noid
-
The Swiss Alps the way god intended them to be seen: 600knts, upside down baby!
I'm not an expert on Mirages, and I know it is titled Mirage III but wasn't it the Mirage 2000 that had the canards?
I wonder how a good F-5E-II stacks up against those birds?
boo
The Swiss modernized their M.III's whith canards and new avionics/radar in the late '80s.
-
The M.2000 looks "beefier" and does not have canards.
Still a pretty bird...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX9L8IuiwJA
-
Next Traveler is going to say the Soviet Union was supplied by the US military industrial complex... :noid
First, there is no Soviet Union. Suggest you do some reading. You need to drop the US, It's just a military industrial complex. It's not just a US problem. Check your history. Many firms, corporations in the New Russia, are part of the military industrial complex. They make parts for both sides. They sell to everyone.
-
Next Traveler is going to say the Soviet Union was supplied by the US military industrial complex... :noid
Well at least he keeps his babbling short. Trying to get thru Bozons world view threads is painful.
But what did I learn in this thread? Carlos Kopp has the entire continent of Australia convinced we screwed them with the F35, except that is the RAAF, the US Military Industrial Complex has enslaved the world by giving away weapons, and America generally sucks. Oh yeah...and the F15SE has the same RCS as the F22... :huh
Nice F35 thread. Come to Aces High for serious modern aviation discussion............ :bolt:
-
:rofl
-
Next Traveler is going to say the Soviet Union was supplied by the US military industrial complex... :noid
"Was" - Past tense.
First, there is no Soviet Union. Suggest you do some reading.
Oh, the irony!
-
I question this. You think the wealth disparity in the US is bad? The 1% have got NOTHING on the distribution of wealth in China. Something like 75% of their population lives on only $5 a day and has limited to no access to modern medical care and infrastructure.
I was discussing wealth disparity or health care, that's an entirely different discussion.. Just stating China has trillions in surplus to spend, US and Europe have Trillions in Debt. US especially has maxed out it's Credit Card limit a number of times recently and just continues to increase the limit with no plans to pay it off.
At current rate US will be pushing near 20 trillion in debt within a few years, imagine the monthly interest payments on the govt credit card if bond rates was to increase even just half a percent. Which is highly likely scenario since the Treasury can't keep on buying Fed bonds indefinitely.
That scenario you might not be able to field large numbers of even 4th Gen fighters let alone 5th. Takes a strong economy to maintain a strong military.
Anyway it's all up to Ben now and his Kamikaze Keynesianism economics, will be interesting to see how they slow down the printing presses without scaring the markets into panic and causing a sharp rise in interest rates.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Although honestly, there's not a whole lot you can do to make a country pay up, especially one as big as the USA. We supply a lot of food to China, so we can hit them back if they jack up prices or impose a tariff.
I mean short of trying to bully them economically, or crying to the UN, there's not much you can do that wouldn't be a prelude to war.
-
I was discussing wealth disparity or health care, that's an entirely different discussion.. Just stating China has trillions in surplus to spend, US and Europe have Trillions in Debt. US especially has maxed out it's Credit Card limit a number of times recently and just continues to increase the limit with no plans to pay it off.
Where do you think a big chunk of that surplus is COMING from?
-
The history of monetary policy and currency wars. Sadly, they tend to end with major shooting wars. Let's pray not this time but...
As for the F-15SE having a similar frontal radar cross section as the F-22, I know propaganda informs that is easy to disbelieve. This same propaganda machine informs us the shooting down of the F-117s over Serbia was an accident. I remember during Gulf War I reading of allied radars using long-wave tracking F-117s out to 50+ miles. I remember reading of two cell phone engineers using cell phone technology to follow the path of B-2 bombers.
It is very hard to sort out truth versus intentional fiction. The only thing I know is that America has clearly reached Romanesque levels of power projection. If we go serious we could take on the entire combined militarys of the world and defeat them, Brits, Germans, Israelis, Russians, Chinese, Canadians, etc...the while lot of them. Our greatest threat is NOT external, but internal failure.
Yes, we should read up on these things. Please continue to correct my errors of judgement on the F-15SE v F-22 v F-35, etc. I know I am speculating there and enjoy being corrected and learning more. The cost of the F-35 is a greater threat than the entire Chinese Air Force.
boo
-
I'm fairly certain we could mop the floor with the rest of NATO, or China, or Russia. But the whole world is a mighty tall order....
If we had China's population, maybe, since we would then constitute roughly 1/6th of the world's population. But I think the issue we would face is not being defeated tactically, but getting overwhelmed strategically.
-
You'd be hard pressed with the rest of NATO alone...
-
Well by all means DO repeat such an insane rumor without even trying to check it out.
You cant take a very unstealthy aircraft design and turn it into a stealth aircraft with a new coat of paint and a few mechanical changes. You can reduce its RCS somewhat , which was very large to begin with. Here is a diagram that gives some idea of max and min RCS of combat aircraft. The Chinese J-20 is still a decade away from being deployed and not even the Chinese know what kind of RCS it will have. Of course in all other areas of avionics and especially engines the Chinese are 1 to 2 generations away from western standards.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/RCS_zpsf700a158.jpg)
That image reeks, IE: the three clearly featured versions of the F-35, all the same (just had to shove two more pictures of an identical airframe and copypasta avionics capabilities in there), in comparison to the F-18 (C/D, E/F, or even G?), whats its source?
-
Although honestly, there's not a whole lot you can do to make a country pay up, especially one as big as the USA.
They don't have to do anything at all, they can just sit back and watch. US can only continue buying it's own debt for so long, they have to do that because no one else wants to buy it, I haven't looked at figures lately but last year over 60% of bonds were being bought by your own Treasury, I think now it's near 70%.
Eventually the music will stop, and when it does interest rates will go up, interest on US Credit Card will go up and US will have a credit rating downgraded which will just add to the monetary problems. Once a nations debt reaches over 110% debt to GDP ratio it's a downward accelerating spiral which is nearly impossible to stop, taking the value of the US dollar with it before you have a Default and new financial crisis on a much bigger scale.
Supply a lot of food to China? :lol
You must be thinking of North Korea. China has plenty of food in the stores. Same as cars,TVs,computers and all that fun stuff. Travel to the provinces sure you might find food shortages, but you'll find higher poverty levels and bigger food shortages in Philippines and that's a US Ally.
<S>...-Gixer
-
When the US debt reaches 110% it will be a prelude to wwIII.
Hold onto your butts, you have the money, we have the stealth, bombs and missiles. We can and will take everything you have, survival demands it. Human nature will make it so.
The future is about as bright as the leaders running this nation and others. :bhead
-
When the US debt reaches 110% it will be a prelude to wwIII.
Hold onto your butts, you have the money, we have the stealth, bombs and missiles. We can and will take everything you have, survival demands it. Human nature will make it so.
You miss a key point, it takes a strong economy to maintain a strong army, and that's been the case ever since the bronze age.
Without a strong economy you won't have the stealth,bombs and missiles to go to war with.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Just a small note I didn't see mentioned re: the 35.
This is second hand from someone on the project, mind you, but I am told that most of the wing loading figures are misleading. The explanation I received was that the traditional formula for calculating wing loading does not take the fuselage into account which, in the case of the 35, does actually produce lift in some capacity.
He also echoed what has already been mentioned in this thread with respect to raw maneuverability vs. the ability to engage targets well outside of the frontal cone (the latter trumping the former in practicality).
-
The fuselage produces a lot of lift in most if not all modern fighters. With the F-15 the fuselage generates so much lift that an Israeli F-15 managed to land safely despite losing a whole wing in a mid-air collision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHADAKreoPY
-
He was attacking this Chinese fellow here, when his F-35 was shot down by a drone launched from that lazer powered rail gun over there.
(http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/b/u/c/buck-rogers-1940-02-g.jpg)
-
You miss a key point, it takes a strong economy to maintain a strong army, and that's been the case ever since the bronze age.
Without a strong economy you won't have the stealth,bombs and missiles to go to war with.
<S>...-Gixer
We have a crap load of conventional munitions in storage. Enough to make one hell of a preemptive strike, or a good go at a protracted war. And USA has plenty of raw materials, even if we're not exploiting them right now. And without foreign trade, the value of the dollar is pretty much whatever the hell the government says it is on US soil.
Not saying it would be pretty, but the reality is that the USA, like Russia and China, isn't completely dependent on foreign trade to remain a functioning nation, like virtually all other countries in the world. We can get oil, we have timber, and metal ore, and manufacturing. I mean the fact that for the most part, the war wouldn't realistically take place on US for soil speaks a lot about the type of fight it would be.
-
I don't know about China, but the US, EU and Russia have more than enough domestic oil production to keep their military going. Oil production facilities would be some of the first economic/strategic targets to be hit in any conflict though.
-
He was attacking this Chinese fellow here, when his F-35 was shot down by a drone launched from that lazer powered rail gun over there.
(http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/b/u/c/buck-rogers-1940-02-g.jpg)
Thanks shifty. :aok
-
There's a tremendous amount of very detailed information on the F-35 and its potential adversaries on the ausairpower.net site. I'll warn you in advance they are no fans of the F-35. However when you take a look at what the PAK-FA puts on the table in terms of sensors (IRST, 360 degree X band AESA, conformal L band, LRF), weapons (TV and GF multispectral missiles), performance (Mach 2+, 3D thrust vectoring), and it's own stealth - you can see the the F-35 is not even in the same category.
Of course, it shouldn't be in the same category. The F-35 is a strike plane, not a fighter, and is designed to operate in skies swept clear of opposition by the F-22. PAK-FA is designed to take on the F-22, and does it with technology 20 years newer than the Raptor. L-Band and IRST are both stealth-immune, and I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here about that Sukhoi leads the world in BSM and TV for the close-in fight.
Any nation that buys the F-35 is going to have to accept that Venezuela and Vietnam will be flying better planes.
-
L-band radar is far from "stealth-immune" and far too inaccurate to provide any form of weapon guidance. The L-band radar can't even provide altitude data. IR sensors have very limited range in clear weather, and are almost useless in bad weather. The second a platform turns on its L-band radar it is detected by the F-22/35 at a much greater range than the radar can detect the stealth. It's like searching for the enemy with a flashlight at night.
The problem with sites like ausairpower.net is that they are filled with morons who are totally clueless to the realities of air warfare, and who not only believe in any magical new anti-stealth device, but overstate their effectiveness to the absurd. The people in the know have long since given up.
-
Thanks shifty. :aok
;)
-
@G-Scholz - You're correct L-Band doesn't localize well, but the the L-Band radar on the PAK-FA is not there for weapons guidance, it's there to cue the IRST and X-Band. It could also be used to LoB for BVR missiles - and bear in mind Ks 172 is designed to do exactly that. Those in the know, know that the L-Band will be spread-spectrum and thus LPI like any other AESA. The ALR-94 ought to be L-Band capable, but I'd be amazed if it has the performance in that band to detect SS LB at much distance - that's asking a lot given the wavelength even with dynamic antenna. Thus don't expect the L-Band to be detected before it detects, quite the opposite. Certainly ALR-94 won't get better localization than the emitter at any range. As with APG-77 the Su will share the PRNG over the datalink so any 2 are now a bistatic TR pair. That can only improve localization.
Same same IRST. Yes weather degrades it, but it is a powerful passive sensor, and the F-22 doesn't have one. Should F22 only operate in bad weather?
None of this is magical anti-stealth technology. Neither is stealth some magical invisibility cloak. This is the ongoing interplay of measure and countermeasure and counter-countermeasure. I'm not here to play my fighter can beat up your fighter. My only point is that the PAK-FA is built to take on the F-22 and has capabilities that make this possible and credible. The F-35 isn't in the same league. It was never meant to be.
-
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/11/evaluating-the-pakfa/ I dont have time to really get into this.
Firstly, despite APA’s claims to the contrary, the PAKFA, like the F-35, can carry only 4 A2A missiles internally, while the F-22 can carry eight (i.e. twice as much). Thus, in any A2A combat, the F-22 gets four freebie shots at the PAKFA, and given that the Pk of any missile will never be 100%, this can be compensated only with a large missile load. By virtue of carrying twice as many missiles as the PAKFA, the F-22 stands a twice higher chance of killing the Russian fighter than of being shot down by it.
Secondly, the Irbis-E radar with which the PAKFA will likely be equipped is inferior to the F-22′s APG-77 radar.
Thirdly, despite APA’s claims to the contrary, the PAKFA has a WORSE thrust/weight ratio and a WORSE wing loading ratio than the F-22. At 50% fuel plus a full internal missile load, the PAKFA has a T/W ratio of 1.19:1 and a wing loading ratio of between 330-470 kg/sq m, more likely closer to the higher than to the lower figure, while the F-22 has a T/W ratio of 1.26:1 and a wing loading ratio of 375 kg/sq m.
So, by 2016, the Russians will be flying an aircraft that will still be inferior in terms of aerodynamic and kinematic performance, radar, and especially missile load, to the F-22, and which, absent significant redesign, will not be stealthy at all if viewed from below or from the rear.
Conclusion??? We will be forced to either develop another air superiority fighter and/or dust off the F22 production line. Maybe open it for exports.
-
Stellaris, you're comparing the F-22 and F-35 in service today to a Russian pipe dream. The F-22 and F-35 have dominance in sensors today, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. You're saying the PAK-FA has IRST and the F's don't... Bullsheit. The F-35 has the EO DAS, and by block 40 so will the F-22, in addition to a host of other improvements.
-
Stellaris, you're comparing the F-22 and F-35 in service today to a Russian pipe dream.
F-35 is not in service... it is still in testing phase with huge amount of problems. It is on much better stage than Sukhoi PAK FA but it is not ready yet.
Also small additional note, when (if) it would be ready it would still cost much less than F-22 and F-35... So even if F-22 would be superior over final version of PAK FA, it is still not produced any more (at least now) and costs much more so...
-
@GScholz - no, I did not say that F-35 did not have IRST. My last post specifically addressed your points on PAK-FAs sensors with reference to the F-22 The F-22 doesn't have IRST. It's proposed to put one in, but proposals aren't programs, and block 40 is currently unfunded. No reason it couldn't be of course.
F-35 will have DAS, which is actually pretty cool, but it sure isn't in service. They just announced the squadron-service dates as between 2015 and 2018.
Anyway, if I wanted to play my-plane-can-beat-up-your-plane, I'd get in the MA and go flying. My only real point is, the PAK-FA and F-22 are comparable as fighters, the F-35 is not, which is unsurprisingly since it's designed to be a strike plane. Nations that buy the F-35 and use it as a frontline fighter are going to be as foolish as those that bought the F-104 and used it for ground attack.
-
My point still stands; you are comparing today's US jets with a Russian pipe dream. The PAK-FA will never be on par with the F-22 in stealth (not even close to the F-35), sensors or weapons. Yes it is cheaper, but that has always been the case with Russian equipment, and it's cheap for a reason.
F-4 vs MiG-21
F-15A vs MiG 25
F-16A vs MiG-23
F-15C vs Su-27A
F-16C vs MiG-29A
What would you rather go to war with as a pilot?
-
My only real point is, the PAK-FA and F-22 are comparable as fighters, the F-35 is not, which is unsurprisingly since it's designed to be a strike plane. Nations that buy the F-35 and use it as a frontline fighter are going to be as foolish as those that bought the F-104 and used it for ground attack.
That is a bit of an exaggeration. The F-35 is not such a bad fighter and if used correctly can give a good fight even to F-22 - I mean in a real war environment, not in a duel. If you read my posts above you know I am not exactly a fan of the F-35, but the F-35 is not a pos - it is simply not good enough compared to what could have been achieved for similar or less money in upgrading last generation fighters.
-
@bozon - Well, F-35 has decent sensors and missiles, so in that sense its not a bad fighter. However in that sense, a SAM battery isn't a bad fighter. As artik pointed out when he opened this thread, the F-35 has 1970s level thrust loading and even worse wing loading. You're absolutely right that upgrading the last generation would have given better performance for less money. Still would, actually.
@GSholz - Sigh...
-
However in that sense, a SAM battery isn't a bad fighter.
That is perhaps the most moronic thing I've ever read on this bbs...
...the F-35 has 1970s level thrust loading and even worse wing loading.
While carrying three times the internal fuel of a '70s fighter. The F-35 carries more internal fuel than an F-15C and almost as much as an F-15E with conformal fuel tanks. Put an equal amount of fuel in an F-16 and an F-35 and the F-35 will have the better thrust to weight ratio, and lift to weight ratio. You must compare these fighters under equal circumstances, not at max gross weight since none of the legacy fighters it will replace can match it in that regard.
-
F-22 and F-35 are national security risks due to expense on the taxpayer.
First, we will not be going to war against NATO countries...ever in our lifetime.
Second, realistic 'heavy' threats are really limited to China, which is in fact limited. With 6 months workup the US could sortie 50+ B-52s, 50+ B-1Bs, 12-15 B-2s, 500+ F-16s, 500+ F/A-18s, 250+ F-15Cs and a smattering of other birds. Add to this a few thousand Tomahawks launched from USN cruisers, destroyers and submaries.
If serious engagement happened with China we could destroy the Chinese Pacific forces and gain absolute air superiority in less than 10-days. All of this without the F-22 and F-35. Ten years from now we will see a large contribution by UAVs, of which the USN is fielding the first serious force. The F-22 and F-35 will be leapfrogged by military technology though they will leave our grandchildren half a trillion of debt and interest as a legacy. I think this qualifies as 'white elephant' status.
boo
-
The F-35 program is projected to cost $1.3 trillion over the next fifty years. The USA is a 15 trillion Dollar economy, every single year.
-
I dont understand, have any of you people ever heard of the CIA's lockheed A-12?'s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12
They had a entire fleet of the gosh danged things,and you and your nations didnt know bullhonkey untill it was released publicly. Why and or HOW you guys can sit back and tell me what my nation and countrymen have or do not have is mind blowing.
With all due respect, sit back... shut up, and watch the sky's.
-edit- I Love Norwegians.
:rock :salute
-
:salute :cheers:
-
F-4 vs MiG-21
F-15A vs MiG 25
...
What would you rather go to war with as a pilot?
Small notes:
- F-4 and MiG-21 are quite compatible in terms of performance. For example if I was given a Navy F-4 (without a gun) I think I'd prefer the MiG...
- MiG-25 is not really opponent for F-15, it is fast interceptor that wasn't designed for real combat.
...
F-15C vs Su-27A
F-16C vs MiG-29A
What would you rather go to war with as a pilot?
Actually these are match well.
If you don't believe me, IAF respects them well: http://www.iaf.org.il/5642-35655-en/IAF.aspx
MIG’s abilities equals and sometimes even exceeds those of the F-15 and F-16 jets. The aircraft is highly manoeuvrable, and its engines provide higher weight to thrust ratio. Our pilots must be careful with this aircraft in air combat. Flown by a well trained professional, it is a worthy opponent
...
flying the MIG was one of a kind type of experience for a test pilot. Now I know that the result of an air combat between the MIG and an Israeli fighter jet depends on how the combat develops. In a tight battle, it is a real threat. It’s an advanced aircraft, and in close manoeuvring engagements it is absolutely terrific. It makes sharp turns, it’s quick, and to my opinion, as a platform, it does not fall short of our advanced fighter jets
...
The MIG has an excellent radar system. I was also very impressed with the IRST system. The missile systems provide the jet with significant advantage. I made a good use of the Russian helmet, and I can say that it works fairly well. Having said that, it is less convenient than the Israeli system, and in some ways it falls short of it. Overall it works well
Also note these are written about MiG-29 (which mostly fazed out)... Su-27 is considered more advanced fighter were MiG-29 is the "cheap" one that went for the export - similar to F-16 relatively to F-15
So give them respect. In hands of proper pilots they wouldn't fall or even would be superior over current western technology.
-
MiG-25 is not really opponent for F-15, it is fast interceptor that wasn't designed for real combat.
And yet the Mig-25 was the motivation for the F-15. Or at least the exuse to get it flying. It was another Russian super-plane, "if your to young to remember the last fighter gap". And the thing turned out to be a total POS. Yes it was fast but that was all about it was good for.
Designed for high Alt interception we simply started flying low, where the MIGs lousy low Alt radar was good for nothing. The Mig-25 wasnt maneuverable and didnt have avionics even close to western specs. Its engines were pretty shoddy and they ended up putting speed restrictions on them. The dang thing was even hand welded.
-
The Mig-25 was designed to shoot down the B-70 Valkyrie bomber, which was designed to fly at Mach 3 at 70,000 feet.
boo
-
Small notes:
- F-4 and MiG-21 are quite compatible in terms of performance. For example if I was given a Navy F-4 (without a gun) I think I'd prefer the MiG...
No they are not quite comparable. The MiG does not have any BVR capability at all and is very limited in range. The F-4 has BVR missiles and the speed to engage or disengage at will and at the range it chooses.
- MiG-25 is not really opponent for F-15, it is fast interceptor that wasn't designed for real combat.
The MiG-25 is the only Soviet heavy fighter worth mentioning from that era.
Actually these are match well.
If you don't believe me, IAF respects them well: http://www.iaf.org.il/5642-35655-en/IAF.aspx
Also note these are written about MiG-29 (which mostly fazed out)... Su-27 is considered more advanced fighter were MiG-29 is the "cheap" one that went for the export - similar to F-16 relatively to F-15
So give them respect. In hands of proper pilots they wouldn't fall or even would be superior over current western technology.
Actually they don't match well. You'll notice I listed the Fulcrum-A, not the S or SE (Fulcrum-C) of the 1990's. We're talking the 1980's here where the MiG-29 didn't have a good radar and didn't have BVR missiles or an ECM system. If we're taking '90s then the F-16 would have to be the Block 52 not the early-C, and again the advantage in sensors and weapons falls to the Viper.
And from your link, and this has always been a problem with Russian aircraft and vehicles: "There is a major disadvantage: difficulty to fully utilize the jet’s abilities. “One of the greatest problems of the MIG is its human engineering”, explains Major N. “Most of the systems installed are good overall, but their combination, and the user interface is cumbersome, and begs for an improvement. On several occasions, I needed a certain piece of information which was not showing on any of the cockpit instruments"."
Btw. the MiG-29 is in no way "fazed out".
-
F111 vs Mig 23
Yak-38 vs Harrier
My point still stands; you are comparing today's US jets with a Russian pipe dream. The PAK-FA will never be on par with the F-22 in stealth (not even close to the F-35), sensors or weapons. Yes it is cheaper, but that has always been the case with Russian equipment, and it's cheap for a reason.
F-4 vs MiG-21
F-15A vs MiG 25
F-16A vs MiG-23
F-15C vs Su-27A
F-16C vs MiG-29A
What would you rather go to war with as a pilot?
-
Btw. the MiG-29 is in no way "fazed out".
I know, stupid mistake... They not fazed out, they phased out
...
Yak-38 vs Harrier
...
Wow... you can't even remotely compare them, one was used for a short period, was proven as non-reliable
and lots many-many times. I even hadn't seem a combat. In a single attempt to use them in Afghanistan it was proven
as useless.
On the other hand Harrier is still in service and quite a capable aircraft. It had a good record and even shut down supersonic Mirages in 1982
(ok... Mirages couldn't actually fight because of lack of in-flight refueling, but yet)
-
I know, stupid mistake... They not fazed out, they phased out
They are neither fazed out, nor phased out. The Russians operate a similar number of both types (Edit: MiG-29 and Su-27). The MiG-29M/MT/SMT is currently in production in Russia and India. Syria has ordered a number of MiG-29M, but Russia won't deliver them until the civil war is over.
-
Ok, I'll correct they are phased out in Russia.
Russian officials admitted that most MiG-29 fighters in the Russian Air Force were incapable of performing combat duties due to poor maintenance. The age of the aircraft was also an important factor as about 70% of the MiGs were considered to be too old to take to the skies.[27] The Russian MiG-29s have not received updates since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is because the Russian Air Force chose to upgrade the Su-27 and MiG-31 instead.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29#Soviet_Union_and_Russia that refers to
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090206/120014354.html
in many other countries there are problems with parts etc.
-
They upgraded their Su-27s and MiG-31s first. No big surprise there. They are currently upgrading their MiG-29s in cooperation with Hindustan Aeronautics and the Indian Airforce. They are two years behind schedule however due to funding issues. They are not being phased out.
-
First F-35C delivered tothe USN. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTzFA3zgbxc
-
Interview with RAF F-35 pilot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLSsLCMsCrM
So now we have USAF pilots loving the F-35. USN pilots loving the F-35. RNoAF pilots loving the F-35 (and I've personally talked to them about it). And now, RAF pilots loving the F-35. Yet the media still seems to hate it.
-
F-35 post stall maneuvering. Even does a tailslide!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRJ5kyv79v4
-
:aok :rock
-
First F-35C delivered tothe USN. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTzFA3zgbxc
And it is still not capable of arrested landing due to critical design issues in the tailhook.
Interview with RAF F-35 pilot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLSsLCMsCrM
So now we have USAF pilots loving the F-35. USN pilots loving the F-35. RNoAF pilots loving the F-35 (and I've personally talked to them about it). And now, RAF pilots loving the F-35. Yet the media still seems to hate it.
Small corrections RAF pilots loving the F-35B - which is indeed a huge step forward from Harrier.
(BTW I mentioned that F-35B would be a good replacement for the Harrier when I started the thread)
So yes. For STOVL, it is the best aircraft around... (and the only aircraft for RAF as RAF removed Harrier from the service)
and they really wait for it to place back in service existing aircraft carriers for STOVL.
Also RAF had ordered F-35B only
F-35 post stall maneuvering. Even does a tailslide!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRJ5kyv79v4
FYI - post stall behavior is a standard test for any aircraft - for example test pilots enter their machines to spins and recover them
making sure that even if the aircraft has stalled it is recoverable. For this purpose, even F-16 is capable of doing Pugachov's Cobra.
(with modified software that allows the pilot to do such maneuvers as normal restricts it)
Basically what you see in the video that F-35 does not totally lost control (i.e. goes to a spin etc)
It is different from post stall behavior of the jets with vector thrusting that can really control their behavior...
-
You conveniently overlook USAF and Norwegian pilots loving the F-35A, and USN pilots praising the F-35C. Why do you have this bias toward the F-35? An aircraft you clearly know little about?
-
Gscholz, thoughts on this video? This guy was part of the team that designed and built the F-16. His approach is a rather practical discussion on the combat aircraft. One note, the RAF pilot praises the ease of the ST/VOL ability of the F-35 but nothing else. He certainly does not address any of the concerns and complaints.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw
boo
-
Here is a short Youtube on the F-15SE...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UldoGIMRsSY
I have spent roughly two decades playing politics. More than anything when I watch Pierre Sprey talk about the politics of the F-35 to a Canadian tv crew I see what I've seen for two decades. Economists call it Public Choice School/Theory of Economics; street lingo is 'crony capitalism.' Basically, if you can get the right lobby team in place you can get congress to appropriate anything.
My brother's boss is an old Wall Street type. At one point he served on the board of directors for the New York Stock Exchange. I know him somewhat and have had lunch with him a few times. Funny, every business idea that is pitched to this guy his first question is what government agency would buy it. Why compete with Walmart or some other firm when you can hire the right team and get government to buy it in mass for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
We all know this happens. The question is sorting out legitimate need and public good versus crony capitalism. I see the F-22 and F-35 as the latter. We'd be so much better off buying upgraded versions of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
boo
-
One more Youtube. This one comes from Australia and is open for criticism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M
The video and likely discussion around the scenario implies that Red Force decimated the Blue Force via ACM, not BVR. If this is correct, more details are needed. Did they skip the BVR aspect or was it controlled?
I have read of a couple joint training exercises pitting F-15s and F-22s against Su-27s and Su-33s. The one that received more attention was with Indian Su-33mms, in which the Indians dominated. The Air Force/DOD response was that the F-22s kept their drop tanks, thus reducing stealth and 'held back.'
As for keeping the drop tanks, considering the limited range of the F-22 those drop tanks are likely life and death, so a likely requirement in real life, not just training with the Indians. As for holding back...who knows. How can that be quantified and/or verified.
boo
-
OK, this is the 'one more youtube.' In fairness, a video from India that seemed to demonstrate some concerns on their end of the discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZGD4esp78
-
Do not listen to anything Pierre Sprey says, ever. I read Sprey’s essay, and it’s clear that it fails to offer any proof and in fact, offers the same standard lies about the F-35 as he spread about the F-22 earlier. Moreover, the essay reveals that Sprey is either completely ignorant about defense issues or, more likely, so biased against modern weapons that he’s blatantly lying to malign them while praising the F-16 to the highest. Why the F-16? Because Sprey, as a member of the Fighter Mafia, was one of the men behind that program and, throughout the 1970's and 1980's, he advocated its development and production. Sprey is, in short, the godfather of the F-16 as much as Harry Hillaker and John Boyd were. His love for his brainchild, the F-16, is obviously blinding him, leading him to malign better, more capable aircraft, including the F-22.
Against the F-22 Sprey went so far as to falsely claim that the F-22 is 30 times more expensive to acquire than the F-16 while being less capable. Anything that man says cannot be taken seriously.
-
One note, the RAF pilot praises the ease of the ST/VOL ability of the F-35 but nothing else. He certainly does not address any of the concerns and complaints.
Show me one pilot that has flown the F-35 that has any concerns or complaints. You can't because they all praise it. I've personally spoken with two of them and listened to their lecture of the F-35, and they're both veteran F-16 drivers.
-
Oh, and not only are they veteran F-16 pilots in the RNoAF, but they were also the test pilots that flew the JAS Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale. All these aircraft competed with the F-35 for the Norwegian contract, and it is no question in their minds as to which aircraft they wanted.
-
And it is still not capable of arrested landing due to critical design issues in the tailhook.
That issue has been resolved when Lockheed redesigned the tailhook.
ack-ack
-
Show me one pilot that has flown the F-35 that has any concerns or complaints. You can't because they all praise it. I've personally spoken with two of them and listened to their lecture of the F-35, and they're both veteran F-16 drivers.
Ok: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf
Enjoy reading :x
-
We all know this happens. The question is sorting out legitimate need and public good versus crony capitalism. I see the F-22 and F-35 as the latter. We'd be so much better off buying upgraded versions of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
Im sorry but one air mans life is not worth his wife, children family or friends crying over his or her loss because some suit wearing smuck can save a buck.
Money is no option. My nations already trillions in debt, what do i care if some of that go's to making our people safer while in combat.
-
hahahha..... sorry, this conversation is too stupid....
Seriously, you guys are arguing about what horse drawn carriage is better in a world on the brink of being dominated by model Ts...
-
Ok: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf
Enjoy reading :x
I read that back in February. You obviously do not understand what it says if you think it is criticism of the F-35, and it doesn't say anything about pilots not liking it. It is just a normal report of the early stage of testing pointing out what works, doesn't work and recommendations for what needs to be done. Are you seriously suggesting an early test report represents the finished product?
The very first recommendation from that report:
"Given its many significant limitations, the results of the OUE should not be used to make decisions regarding the readiness of the JSF system..."
Again Artik, why are you biased against the F-35?
-
I'm not biased.
It would be good strike aircraft to handle SAMs in first wave of attack, it would be excellent STOVL aircraft. It would be good aircraft for performing hidden strikes at night and escape.
And I understand that for example having a small squadron of such specialized forces for IAF would be a good improvement for some new threats.
However I'm looking on a simple numbers and it looks inferior. I'm looking at the design decisions - and it is super over-complicated with many risk factors that finally would make it hard:
1. Its performance in terms of T/W, maneuverability is inferior, it is build in ~60th early 70th standards... You can't deny it, these are numbers.
2. It has one engine - how many F-16 were lost due to engine failure? How many F-15? So basically it is very pricey, it is maintenance is costly and its reliability is low.
3. It used unproved technologies. Small example, lets get rid of HUD and use helmet... So if you have a problem in helmet (any mulfunction) you can't aim because you don't have HUD!
4. Lets use internal fuel only... OMG even F-22 has external tanks (F-35 hasn't them yet) which makes the range very short.
5. Lets make it CTOL, STOVL, CATOBAR, I don't believe that it can be done without sacrifices
What can I say? It does not seems to me as F-16/F-18 replacement as it costs much more and besides stealth it gives much less: less weapons, less range, less maneuverability, less acceleration. That's it.
-
There's a more broad reason why the F-35 will never be a success---its existence is owed solely to politicians, for political reasons, not ones layed out on a drawing table
-
1. Its performance in terms of T/W, maneuverability is inferior, it is build in ~60th early 70th standards... You can't deny it, these are numbers.
What are the numbers and where did you get them?
2. It has one engine - how many F-16 were lost due to engine failure? How many F-15? So basically it is very pricey, it is maintenance is costly and its reliability is low.
In the '80s we lost a number of F-16's to all sorts of problems. The last time we lost one was in 2002. Engines today are a lot more reliable than back in the '70s and '80s.
3. It used unproved technologies. Small example, lets get rid of HUD and use helmet... So if you have a problem in helmet (any mulfunction) you can't aim because you don't have HUD!
For how many years have we flown with just a HUD, and no back up? If the HUD fails you can't aim because you don't have HUD! OmG!!1 OMG!!!11!!1!
4. Lets use internal fuel only... OMG even F-22 has external tanks (F-35 hasn't them yet) which makes the range very short.
F-35 "hasn't" a lot of things at the moment, because it IS STILL BEING DEVELOPED! On only internal fuel the F-35 already has more range than the F-16 with all its drop tanks, but still the F-35 will get drop tanks eventually.
Here they are wind tunnel testing the new tank design:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/f_35windtunnelmodelextfueltankshape_123.jpg)
5. Lets make it CTOL, STOVL, CATOBAR, I don't believe that it can be done without sacrifices
The three versions are hardly the same plane. They share components and systems.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/f35_technology_commonality.jpg)
What can I say? It does not seems to me as F-16/F-18 replacement as it costs much more and besides stealth it gives much less: less weapons, less range, less maneuverability, less acceleration. That's it.
I wonder where you get your information? The F-35 has more range on internal fuel than both the F-16 and F-18 with drop tanks. By using external pylons the F-35A/C can carry more weapons than the F-16 and F-18. With an equal amount of fuel and stores the F-35 is equal or more maneuverable than the F-16 and F-18, and has better acceleration.
As for the bad press and who's pushing it, lobbying it, pulling strings wherever it can, here's a conspiracy theory for you:
Lockheed Martin is today the world's largest military defense contractor thanks to the F-22 and F-35. What company used to be the largest?
What company produces and sells the F-18?
What company produces and sells the AV-8?
What company produces and sells the F-15?
What company was in direct competition for the JSF contract and lost to Lockheed Martin?
What company stands to benefit hugely if the F-35 fails?
All those questions have the same answer.
-
There's a more broad reason why the F-35 will never be a success---its existence is owed solely to politicians, for political reasons, not ones layed out on a drawing table
WTF does that mean?
-
5. Lets make it CTOL, STOVL, CATOBAR, I don't believe that it can be done without sacrifices
:)
-
The F-35 is turning to be a white elephant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant)
i said this back when it first became public.
-
What are the numbers and where did you get them?
Seriously... they were posted at the beginning of the thread!
In the '80s we lost a number of F-16's to all sorts of problems. The last time we lost one was in 2002. Engines today are a lot more reliable than back in the '70s and '80s.
You have been talking :furious ... Today, after I had written about reliability of the single engine fighter:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4401944,00.html
Latest, modern F-16I lost due to engine failure. Fortunately both pilot and WSO are fine.
Or what would happen to F-35 in this case: http://www.idf.il/1283-13467-en/Dover.aspx
F-15 landed with one engine stopped and on fire after a birds strike
So don't try sell this kind of stuff
Single engine fighters lost much more than double engine ones - it is fact.
For how many years have we flown with just a HUD, and no back up? If the HUD fails you can't aim because you don't have HUD! OmG!!1 OMG!!!11!!1!
Difference? How fragile is helmet and how fragile is HUD that is firmly connected to the airframe?
On only internal fuel the F-35 already has more range than the F-16 with all its drop tanks,
And were did you get these numbers from? Maybe more than F-16 with internal fuel :lol
For example,
F-35 ferry range 1,200 nmi
F-16 ferry range 2,280 nmi
Ok, lets take an operational example Opera, distance from Eilat to Baghdad is 610. So twice it is 1220 not including combat requirements and not including the fact that the flight wasn't in straight direction.
F-16A with 3 drop tanks and 4,000 lbs of bombs covered it in one direction on the deck, which is far from efficient flight mode and than back at altitude and than back.... F-35 would be lying somewhere in the dessert (until stealthy tanker would be developed in 2050)
Now modern F-16s have CFTs which make their range even better... So no, F-35 does not have good range at all.
Don't believe my numbers, read this: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:193f1ee3-bac2-4a8d-b0b0-c42c84351a6a
The three versions are hardly the same plane. They share components and systems.
Except they are almost indistinguishable for incompetent eye, they
Also this picture show shared components of different air frames... Not the aircraft in general!
Why wouldn't navy adopt F-15E? How hard would it be to make a stronger gear and stronger tailhook?
And F-15E has much better performance that F-18. Why wouldn't havy use the cheap F-16 - just
change the design a little. Why wouldn't USAF use F-18 and F-14?
Stop selling the LM PR stories
Lockheed Martin is today the world's largest military defense contractor thanks to the F-22 and F-35.
How many LM F-22 had been produced: ~200
How many LM F-35 had been produced: ~63
How many MD F-18 had been produced: ~1,500
How many MD F-18E had been produced: ~500
How many MD F-15 had been produced: ~1,200
How many MD F-15E had been produced: ~330
How many GD F-16 had been produced: ~4,500 (GD was purchased by LM but they didn't develop it)
So who is the largest military defense contractor? Ohhh maybe LM indeed... by the COST to the customer :bhead
-
WTF does that mean?
The primary, driving force is that it's a frikkin UN project, meaning that pointy-headed types' opinions will always take a backseat to what the pols want
-
The primary, driving force is that it's a frikkin UN project, meaning that pointy-headed types' opinions will always take a backseat to what the pols want
:huh
Nieuport - 1 engine
Spad - 1 engine
Mustang - 1 engine
Jug - 1 engine
Saber - 1 engine
Crusader -1 engine
Super Saber - 1 engine
MiG-21 - 1 engine
Starfighter - 1 engine
Thud - 1 engine
Dart - 1 engine
Viper -1 engine (but two OEMs?)
Mirage - 1 engine
Gripen - 1 engine
Jianji-10 - 1 engine
There were issues with the original PW-100 engine on both the F16 and F15 fighters but the contract for new engine was then split between GE and PW resulting in the GE-F110, and then later, PW-F100-229. The reliability of the F16s single engine was improved dramatically resulting in a manufacturing/export bonanza for the most popular fighter now flying. In fact "reliability" of the F135 is going to be one of the strongest points FOR the aircraft as it will be for the F35 system in general. It will set a new standard in sortie rates and maintenance. It always amazes me how people forget the teething problems other aircraft have had in the past when talking about the F35. The F-111, Carlos little dream boat, was a disaster at first. We had a lot of problems with the F15. In fact pretty much all fighters have issues in the beginning. They are very complicated machines.
The F35 was designed to perform as it does. Theres a reason we didnt make a super fast air show fighter, with a RCS like an elephant, and with an inferior avionics package. Instead a "fusion" of systems and performance was produced in order to build a multi-role 5'th gen fighter bomber. Again I ask you, why would the Chinese and Russians spend fortunes trying to develop stealth fighters if their SU super-jets are going to be so capable against the F35?
I'd rather bet my life on a one engine Yank or European design then any 2 engined Russian, or especially Chinese, fighter. Russian engines have nowhere near the reliability or sortie life of American engines and Chinese efforts have basically been a disaster.
-
One engine.....two engines, five engines....really wasn't the point I am obviously failing to make. This gets into it a bit http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html
-
Nieuport - 1 engine
Spad - 1 engine
Mustang - 1 engine
Jug - 1 engine
Saber - 1 engine
Crusader -1 engine
Super Saber - 1 engine
MiG-21 - 1 engine
Starfighter - 1 engine
Thud - 1 engine
Dart - 1 engine
Viper -1 engine (but two OEMs?)
Mirage - 1 engine
Gripen - 1 engine
Jianji-10 - 1 engine
First of any single engine aircraft in generally cheaper, that is one of the reasons of success of the F-16. As it is small, affordable but yet very capable aircraft.
However, F-35's price is several times higher than one of the most capable 4++ generation aircrafts F-15E. Have you ever seen such costly fighters with one engine, I don't know?
There were issues with the original PW-100 engine on both the F16 and F15 fighters but the contract for new engine was then split between GE and PW resulting in the GE-F110, and then later, PW-F100-229. The reliability of the F16s single engine was improved dramatically resulting in a manufacturing/export bonanza for the most popular fighter now flying.
Recently crashed IAF F-16I had F110 Engine...
In fact "reliability" of the F135 is going to be one of the strongest points FOR the aircraft as it will be for the F35 system in general
How can you know about the reliability of F135 when it wasn't yet proven over the time? There is no other way to prove engine reliability than to show it over the time.
-
The F35 can accomplish it's mission without being seen.
The others can't do that.
-
Really good discussion.
My knowledge of this is well above the average person; well below the experts.
My knowledge of politics and the appropriation, lobbying process is on level with the experts, having done it for 20 years.
The F-35 and F-22 are text book lobbying monsters. With enough lobbyists you could appropriate the money to put a gold coffee pot in each bird, with the PR and marketing to turn those coffee pots into 22nd Century technology booms and a matter of national security; and, anyone who disagreed with the gold coffee pots are either communist agents or charter members of 'we hate America' club.
I am very skeptical of both planes and to my DNA see them as bad decisions. Maybe there is some military merit though the politics make it much closer to white elephant.
Interesting technical discussion that does absolutely nothing to change my political opinion.
boo
-
one of the articles I read today..... a congressman said the F35 could replace both the F16 AND the A10... :O
-
One engine.....two engines, five engines....really wasn't the point I am obviously failing to make. This gets into it a bit http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html
It would probably cost less to push it through, than it would to start from scratch, and deal with 'most' of the same issues with a new airframe.
Once you go half way, it's dumber to quit than to keep going.
-
Locked for multiple rule $14 violations.