Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AFM: F-35 Can Supercruise  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10802 times:

Well, depending on your exact definition of supercruising (the usual definition that everyone tends to use or Lockheed Martin's definition).

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...2/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

Quote:
The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."

And for those wondering what that definition difference is; Lockheed Martin considers supercruising to be not just be traveling above the speed of sound; it has to exceed Mach 1.5.

And another tidbit was released; a F-35's RCS will actually improve over time. Only serious structural damage will harm the RCS:

Quote:
The F-22 requires heavy doses of regular and expensive low observable materials maintenance. F-35 stealth surfaces, by contrast, are extremely resilient in all conditions, according to the Lockheed team.

"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

This, he went on, is true in part because the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse incoming radar energy are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure.

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.

The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a "maintenance margin," O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s "always better than the spec." Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations.


[Edited 2012-11-03 15:01:17]

52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10750 times:

My sheetmetal bros will appreciate quite skin panel repairs!

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10575 times:

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 1):
My sheetmetal bros will appreciate quite skin panel repairs!

Considering F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%, there won't be much in the way of sheetmetal work for F-35 in the first place. Also, some non-structural parts on F-35 use carbon nanotubes (such as the wingtip fairings, which use thermoset epoxy reinforced by carbon nanotubes). F-35 is the first mass production aircraft to use structural nanocomposites.

[Edited 2012-11-04 00:31:33]

User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10229 times:

Maybe I should rephrase... I call all our structures maintainers "sheet metal" guys even though they are fully qualified to work on a wide range of materials (including composites).

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4381 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10107 times:

I guess i'm missing something, Lockheed claims the F35 can supercruise at Mach 1.2.


But also state that supercruise is Mach 1.5 or greater.


Which is it ?!



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 153 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10005 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

Why only 150 miles? How do they define a 'dash'? Were they able to achieve this in a shallow descent from say FL450 to FL300 over the course of 150 miles? If it can truly cruise at Mach 1.2 it should be able to do this until it runs out of fuel.

Also, if Mach 1.2 = 750 knots at FL300 (I'm guessing, I'm within 10%, no science classes, please) then the F-35 can only 'supercruise' for 12 minutes.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10004 times:

Before people get too caught up in the minutia of the statement or the comparisons to what supercruise actually means I think the important thing to note is really that the F-35 is going to be plenty fast enough to get the job done. In high threat environments it will be operating in a clean configuration with internal weapons only against fighters that most likely won't be operating clean.

The F-35 was not designed as a top-end energy fighter. It was designed to be good enough in that realm and it looks like it will be.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10001 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 6):
The F-35 was not designed as a top-end energy fighter. It was designed to be good enough in that realm and it looks like it will be.

It doesnt matter what it was designed for, everyone is expecting it to be a F-22, so it is a miserable failure.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 10001 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
It doesnt matter what it was designed for, everyone is expecting it to be a F-22, so it is a miserable failure.

The F-22 is great but in this day in age you really only need so many of them. With even high end 4th generation fighters really only being in service in the low hundreds numbers more than around 200 F-22's was overkill. If someone were running around with 1,000 5th generation heavy fighters it would be a good reason to worry. I personally think the F-35 would pull of a better than 1-1 kill ratio against anything but an F-22 (PAK-FA and J-20 included) due to its advanced sensors and networking. Given that it is likely to outnumber those aircraft I don't see what the problem is.

Against anything not in that class...well I think the F-35 would clean the floor with non-stealth opponents in the vast majority of realistic scenarios.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10000 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 8):
I personally think the F-35 would pull of a better than 1-1 kill ratio against anything but an F-22 (PAK-FA and J-20 included) due to its advanced sensors and networking.

Doesnt matter, it is not a F-22, it is not the best thing since sliced bread, that makes it a failure. Sure it can wipe the floor with most opponents... but not everything, so it is garbage and should be sold as scrap.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10002 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
I guess i'm missing something, Lockheed claims the F35 can supercruise at Mach 1.2.


But also state that supercruise is Mach 1.5 or greater.


Which is it ?!

Depends on your definition of supercruise is. Lockheed Martin's definition of "supercruise" is remarkably different to everybody else's, because they only consider what the F-22A is capable of as "true" supercruise, because THAT is what the term was coined for.

When Lockheed Martin say the F-35 isn't a supercruiser, they mean that it won't do M1.5+ on dry thrust. Not that it cannot exceed M1.0 on dry thrust.

So on the basis of Lockheed Martin's definition, F-35 isn't a supercruising aircraft. But on the definition that we all use, then it is a supercruising aircraft.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 5):
Why only 150 miles? How do they define a 'dash'? Were they able to achieve this in a shallow descent from say FL450 to FL300 over the course of 150 miles? If it can truly cruise at Mach 1.2 it should be able to do this until it runs out of fuel.

Also, if Mach 1.2 = 750 knots at FL300 (I'm guessing, I'm within 10%, no science classes, please) then the F-35 can only 'supercruise' for 12 minutes.

I believe F-22 can only supercruise for 100nm...


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4381 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10001 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 6):

The F-35 was not designed as a top-end energy fighter. It was designed to be good enough in that realm and it looks like it will be.

Since when has 'good enough' been the objective ?!


Historically, in the US we have always developed fighter Aircraft that far outclass anything our enemies have or are likely to have in the conceivable future.


Nothing could beat the F14, F15 or F16 when they first flew and indeed since then and for good reason, major compromise to meet three different services disparate needs was not part of their design.


The F35 is truly a jack of all trades, master of none. Maybe a reasonable strike aircraft (although very slow) but incredibly expensive and poor value for money. It is certainly not a serious fighter by any stretch of the imagination.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10001 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
Historically, in the US we have always developed fighter Aircraft that far outclass anything our enemies have or are likely to have in the conceivable future.


Nothing could beat the F14, F15 or F16 when they first flew and indeed since then and for good reason, major compromise to meet three different services disparate needs was not part of their design.

However, each of the 3 aircraft that you mentioned have compromises in their design. The end users have all accepted the compromises and developed tactics around them. Some of them were introduced into service with major and serious design flaws upon IOC, some of which were never resolved.

F-35 is at a very advanced stage of development, with a very high level of systems maturity. In the October 2012 issue of Canadian Defence Review, a test pilot who has flown F-35 in both the simulator and in real life (he's a test pilot who has flown the F/A-18 when it was introduced, and the Eurofighter during development) had this to say:

Quote:
I was a Eurofighter Typhoon test pilot at precisely this phase of Typhoon's development. I grew up in the F-18 which was fragile in the beginning. I've been around the F-16 development, and I've watched the Raptor being developed. This [F-35] is the only airplane I've ever seen as stable and robust at this point in its development. We have more than 40 airplanes flying and everything works when you step into that airplane. I flew AF-20 twice in one day, with a 3 hour gap between; everything worked through the end of the second flight. That is absolutely unheard of. It's not bragging rights, it's just unheard of in the development of a fighter airplane that's this sophisticated. The helmet, the radar, the EW [Electronic Warfare], the DAS [Distributed Aperture System], it doesn't seem possible that we are doing as well as we are - it's remarkable. I think that bodes so well for what we are talking about in introducing a sound design. We're way better than anything I have ever seen in a fighter airplane
Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The F35 is truly a jack of all trades, master of none. Maybe a reasonable strike aircraft (although very slow) but incredibly expensive and poor value for money. It is certainly not a serious fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

Funny, that is what everyone said about the F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc when they were all introduced... and yet those designs all turned up fine.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4381 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10002 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):

However, each of the 3 aircraft that you mentioned have compromises in their design.

Not to the extent that the F35 is compromised. Not even close.


Neither the F14, F15 or F16 suffered the incredible compromises of forcing one conventional airframe configuration for the Air Force, one VSTOL version for the Marines and another totally different platform for the Navy.


No Aircraft has ever been expected to be so compromised and still perform well.


They should have stopped with a conventional version for the Air Force, kept developing the superb Harrier for the Marines, kept flying the F18 with the Navy while developing a true replacement.


The F35 is acknowledged as being such a poor fighter the Japanese Air Force, despite buying a handful of them plan on operating their F15's until 2040 !


At the same time they plan on developing a true F15 replacement themselves.


Same with the USAF, they know full well the F35 is basically a strike aircraft, not a fighter, they have already announced plans to significantly extend the lives of their F15's and F16's as they know they will need their capability.


Same with the Navy and their plans to extend the F18's life.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):

Funny, that is what everyone said about the F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc when they were all introduced... and yet those designs all turned up fine.

That's not really true either. Each one of those designs had a specific mission from day one, and, with the possible exception of the F18 performed them superbly. There simply wasn't the level of concern that any of those Aircraft would not be up to the job.


Unlike the F35.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10006 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
That's not really true either. Each one of those designs had a specific mission from day one, and, with the possible exception of the F18 performed them superbly. There simply wasn't the level of concern that any of those Aircraft would not be up to the job.


Unlike the F35.

Then again many of those fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18) were performing very specific missions that no longer exist. While the F-14 was eventually adapted to other things it existed almost wholly to take on long-range, supersonic naval bombers that the USSR had. Everything else was secondary to that. That role just flat does not exist anymore for a variety of reasons.

The F-15 was built in pretty limited numbers even for the USAF and its role is handled by the F-22 now.

The F-16 and F-18 are really aircraft very much in the mold of the F-35 in my view. Particularly in their later (and heavier) incarnations. What you have really done with the F-35 is bolt on the mission of the Harrier and while I do think that has consequences I don't think it is nearly as dire as you suggest.

I don't see many missions that the F-16 or F-18 perform that the F-35 is not going to be significantly better at.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10005 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
Not to the extent that the F35 is compromised. Not even close.

Unless you are directly involved in the development and testing of the F35, you have absolutely zero idea what it compromises or not.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
Same with the USAF, they know full well the F35 is basically a strike aircraft, not a fighter, they have already announced plans to significantly extend the lives of their F15's and F16's as they know they will need their capability. Same with the Navy and their plans to extend the F18's life.

Extending the lives of airframes has nothing to do with the F35.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The F35 is truly a jack of all trades, master of none. Maybe a reasonable strike aircraft (although very slow) but incredibly expensive and poor value for money. It is certainly not a serious fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not sure if its your lack of knowledge on this subject that makes you come to this conclusion or just pure ignorance. Stop reading publications by that Sweetman baffoon and start listening to what the people flying the aircraft have to say. You probably won't because they are just paid henchmen, random people and "journalists" on the internet have more credibility....right?  


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10004 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
Funny, that is what everyone said about the...F-15

   You mean the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15? Not that any of that has stopped it from being developed into a fine strike aircraft, but it was designed to be dominant in one role.

Most of the really great planes were designed to do one job and then expanded. Designing a plane from day one to be everything to everybody is a good way to design an expensive, compromised airframe.

The F-35 will work out alright, but I'm not sold that it will be a better fighter than an upgraded F-22. Or that it would be a better strike aircraft than an FB-22. And I don't think it will be as capable as the A-10 for close air support.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
Neither the F14, F15 or F16 suffered the incredible compromises of forcing one conventional airframe configuration for the Air Force, one VSTOL version for the Marines and another totally different platform for the Navy.

The F-14 was the fix for the first time the military went down the one-size-fits-all aircraft route. Fortunately the F-35 will work out much better than the F-111, but still. The F-15 and F-16 were designed for fairly narrow roles but have proven more than capable of having their missions expanded.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
Each one of those designs had a specific mission from day one, and, with the possible exception of the F18 performed them superbly.

The Super Hornet in particular was forced to make compromises because of the cancellation of the A-12.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4381 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9998 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):

You mean the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15? Not that any of that has stopped it from being developed into a fine strike aircraft, but it was designed to be dominant in one role.

Most of the really great planes were designed to do one job and then expanded. Designing a plane from day one to be everything to everybody is a good way to design an expensive, compromised airframe.

The F-35 will work out alright, but I'm not sold that it will be a better fighter than an upgraded F-22. Or that it would be a better strike aircraft than an FB-22. And I don't think it will be as capable as the A-10 for close air support.

Well said.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10000 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
Not to the extent that the F35 is compromised. Not even close.


Neither the F14, F15 or F16 suffered the incredible compromises of forcing one conventional airframe configuration for the Air Force, one VSTOL version for the Marines and another totally different platform for the Navy.

There are no real compromises with the F-35 to adapt to all three roles. Since every jet fighter is designed around its jet engine you really wouldn't want to change that being the F-135 engine is the highest thrust engine available. Since the F-35 engine size, mass flow requirements and weapons bays dictate that you must use side air intakes that pretty much forces you into an airframe of the size and shape of the F-35. So really the only thing left to change is who supplies the avionics and systems.

F-35 is a major advancement over the aircraft it is designed specifically to replace: F-16, F/A-18, and the Harrier. It has better sensors, is stealthy, has more range and payload over any of these aircraft, and is just as maneuverable.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
The F35 is acknowledged as being such a poor fighter the Japanese Air Force, despite buying a handful of them plan on operating their F15's until 2040 !

The Japanese intend on cascading their F-15's down to their F-4 squadrons. For the squadrons operating F-4's, it will be a major upgrade, but the former F-15 squadrons will now get F-35's.

And if the Japanese thought so poorly of F-35, then why did they not purchase the other competitors, such as Eurofighter, F-15SE, or F/A-18E/F? They picked F-35 over anyone else. A article in Jane's Defence Weekly explained the rationale behind Japan's decision; the decision-making process was more about actual combat performance and interoperability with the US and other neighbouring allied states than about industrial benefits. Everything else was secondary.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
Same with the USAF, they know full well the F35 is basically a strike aircraft, not a fighter, they have already announced plans to significantly extend the lives of their F15's and F16's as they know they will need their capability.


Same with the Navy and their plans to extend the F18's life.

They are extending the lives of their F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's because they are running out of airframe hours, not because they need their capability. The F-15 was designed with a airframe life of 5,000 hours. It's flying well past that already. The F/A-18 was designed for 6,000 hours. They are trying to push 10,000 hours through more inspections. Once F-35 is rolling off the assembly lines, expect to see F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's pushed to the desert as fast as they can get F-35's.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
The F-14 was the fix for the first time the military went down the one-size-fits-all aircraft route. Fortunately the F-35 will work out much better than the F-111, but still. The F-15 and F-16 were designed for fairly narrow roles but have proven more than capable of having their missions expanded.

Incorrect, F-111's failure was borne out of inter-service rivalry. If you looked and compared the F-111B's and the F-14's Standard Aircraft Characteristics charts, the F-111B’s dated 1 July 1967 and the F-14A’s, dated April 1977, you can see that the USN changed the specs that they were requesting to justify killing F-111B.

Much has been made of how terribly overweight the F-111B turned out. And it was, compared to a totally unrealistic specification. Many think that the F-14A was far lighter than the F-111B, primarily because most comparisons neglect to do so using the F-111B’s design mission for both aircraft. The F-14A is still lighter, of course, because the Navy changed its requirements so that it would be. Deleted were the escape capsule, bomb bay, and swiveling wing pylon stations among other things. The Hughes Airborne Missile Control System, given a few more years of development, was lighter. The structure was designed for 6.5 gs at 49,548 lbs, about 10,000 pounds less than the F-111B’s design gross weight at that g level. In effect, the six Phoenixes and 3,800 lbs of fuel were treated as an overload for the design of the F-14A structure. At combat weight (13,800 lbs fuel and six Phoenix missiles) the F-111B therefore had a load limit of 5.8 g and the F-14A (12,000 lbs of fuel and six Phoenix missiles), a lower (but not particularly constraining) 5.2 g. The result, however, is a somewhat lower structural weight for the F-14A.

According to the F-111B SAC, when it was loaded with full internal fuel and six Phoenixes, it weighed 77,566 lbs and required 11 knots wind-over-deck on a tropical day for launch; the F-14A, not surprisingly, weighed almost 7,000 lbs less but, surprisingly, required 16 knots wind-over-deck. However, at its takeoff gross weight the F-111B was carrying 3,000 lbs more fuel than the F-14, making the difference in takeoff gross weight for the same fuel and weapons load only 3,866 lbs, or 5%, not exactly the amount or percentage difference that most would have guessed given all the negative publicity garnered by the “Sea Pig.” With that additional fuel, the F-111B could loiter on station for 1.5 hours with the combat fuel allowance assuming an acceleration to 1.5 Mach; the F-14A with the two external tanks of overload fuel, and with the same combat Mach number (one has to read the SACs very closely), could only loiter for 1.1 hours.

As for landing, they were both heavy. In fact, the maximum arrested landing weight limit of the F-14A precluded it from landing back aboard with all six Phoenixes, whereas the F-111B had a 5,000 lb margin, all fuel, between its maximum landing weight and the landing weight with the standard landing fuel load of 2,417 lbs of fuel and six Phoenix (56,980 lbs). One does not need to be a Naval Aviator to appreciate being able to land with three times the required fuel. On a tropical day at the standard weight, the F-111B needed 15 knots wind-over-deck for landing; the F-14A could only land with five Phoenix, and even then needed 17 knots wind-over-deck at its maximum landing weight of 51,830 lbs. The F-111B was also less of an handful following an engine failure since its engines were not as widely separated as the F-14A’s.

This is not to say that the Navy didn’t do the right thing in getting the F-111B program cancelled and replacing it with the more versatile F-14, particularly since the Hughes AMCS wasn’t ready for prime time. However, with respect to its Fleet Air Defense design mission, it got an airplane that could not loiter as long or land with its full complement of missiles, had a higher stall speed at a lower weight, required more wind-over-deck for takeoffs and landings, and was more difficult to bring aboard with two engines running, not to mention with one inoperative.

The F-111B could do, pretty much, the Phoenix-based Fleet Air Defense mission that it was intended to do while weighted down with Air Force low-level supersonic mission and other requirements. The F-14 could not do the FAD mission quite as well - but well enough if needs be - and it did the carrier Navy’s other, equally important, fighter missions much better. What really killed F-111B is that the Navy never wanted what they always saw as being an 'Air Force' aircraft; they were looking for every excuse in the book to cancel it, including changing the specs. As a result of the USN changing their specs on what they wanted, F-111B did not meet the USN's requirements, and that gave the USN the excuse it needed to cancel F-111B and go with F-14.


User currently offlineflagon From France, joined May 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9998 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):

First of all thanks for your very informative post.

With regards to your comment on F35 manoeuvrability, I thought at least some versions of the F35 were 7G limited, compared to 9G for the F16 if I am not mistaking?



Stephane
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7138 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10000 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Unless you are directly involved in the development and testing of the F35, you have absolutely zero idea what it compromises or not.

Are you, considering your age I somewhat doubt it, you are no more informed than anyone else who isn't directly involved in the development and testing of the F35.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
There are no real compromises with the F-35 to adapt to all three roles

Unless you are directly involved in the development and testing of the F35, you have absolutely zero idea what is compromised or not.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 153 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9998 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
There are no real compromises with the F-35 to adapt to all three roles. Since every jet fighter is designed around its jet engine you really wouldn't want to change that being the F-135 engine is the highest thrust engine available. Since the F-35 engine size, mass flow requirements and weapons bays dictate that you must use side air intakes that pretty much forces you into an airframe of the size and shape of the F-35. So really the only thing left to change is who supplies the avionics and systems.

There have been plenty of compromises, the biggest one being the VSTOL F-35B variant. Most jet fighters are designed around their engines, not engine, and that has forced a number of compromises too numerous to list. A design free of the B-model contraints would have been faster, stealthier, more manueverable, and been able to carry more for a longer range. That is based on my conversations with F-35 pilots and Operational Test directors and analysts where I work. It also would have been cheaper and suffered fewer delays. The Marines would have been fine with new build, improved, and proven Harriers.

The F-35 will be a very good weapons system, but at what cost? The F-22 is wonderful but with only 180 of them the USAF has a constrained ability to dominate the skies. I see a similar path for the F-35. The US military won't be able to purchase as many as it needs/wants, and we'll have to revise our capabilities downward. Same for the foreign customers. A successful fighter, yes, but not a successful acquisition program. We could have done things a lot better.


User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10000 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 5):
Why only 150 miles? How do they define a 'dash'? Were they able to achieve this in a shallow descent from say FL450 to FL300 over the course of 150 miles? If it can truly cruise at Mach 1.2 it should be able to do this until it runs out of fuel.

Also, if Mach 1.2 = 750 knots at FL300 (I'm guessing, I'm within 10%, no science classes, please) then the F-35 can only 'supercruise' for 12 minutes.

I believe F-22 can only supercruise for 100nm...

That almost sounds like you need afterburners to get up to supersonic speed (M1.5/1.2...whatever) then throttle back and use dry thrust to maintain it (sort of like the Concorde). Then over the course of 100-150nm you slow down and have to use burners again to get back up to speed.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 153 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9998 times:

Quoting SP90 (Reply 22):
That almost sounds like you need afterburners to get up to supersonic speed (M1.5/1.2...whatever) then throttle back and use dry thrust to maintain it (sort of like the Concorde). Then over the course of 100-150nm you slow down and have to use burners again to get back up to speed.

Agreed, but either way it doesn't seem to fit the definition of 'cruise' speed. Cruise speed is supposed to unaccelerated and maintained. Descending or decelerating shouldn't be classified as cruise.

I wonder if its related to engine heating or maybe accounted for in calculations for combat range in order to project a realistic mission profile?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9999 times:

Quoting flagon (Reply 19):
With regards to your comment on F35 manoeuvrability, I thought at least some versions of the F35 were 7G limited, compared to 9G for the F16 if I am not mistaking?

F-35B and C are designed for 7.5G's. However, maneuverability in general is very comparable between all variants due to how the flight control software is written, and there are some slight differences. However, F-35C is slightly more maneuverable at lower speeds as a function of the carrier operations requirement.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 21):
There have been plenty of compromises, the biggest one being the VSTOL F-35B variant. Most jet fighters are designed around their engines, not engine, and that has forced a number of compromises too numerous to list. A design free of the B-model contraints would have been faster, stealthier, more manueverable, and been able to carry more for a longer range. That is based on my conversations with F-35 pilots and Operational Test directors and analysts where I work. It also would have been cheaper and suffered fewer delays. The Marines would have been fine with new build, improved, and proven Harriers.

Disagree. The Harrier line has been long closed and reopening would have been very costly. In addition, the Harrier is a extremely difficult aircraft to operate; one pilot has likened it to being like a octopus to operate all of the controls. F-35B is a extremely simple and easy aircraft to fly; one will require a few simulator rides and a differences course and be able to operate the F-35B in all modes of flight.

The B's restraints have in fact helped F-35's development; as the F-35B was the most sensitive to weight, any weight savings developed for the B model could be easily be rolled into the A and C models as well to enhance their performance. In fact, some have actually argued that it is not the B model that has hobbled F-35 the most, but the C model instead as the larger wing has caused problems with the area ruling of the aircraft, and the extra issues surrounding carrier operations.

The supposed issues regarding maximum speed of F-35 was not dictated by development issues, but a real world assessment of modern fighter jet operations. Fighter jets rarely, if ever, fly anywhere near their top speeds. In fact, the vast majority of service for fighter jets is in the subsonic regime, save for the F-22, which is designed in mind for supersonic operations. However, designing aircraft for high top speeds is more costly, and it was better felt that improving performance in the transonic range, where the vast majority of air combat and operations exist, was a better investment than pure top speed. Maneuverability wise, F-35 is very similar in terms of performance the current US fighters.

Could we have developed 3 separate fighters for all three services? Sure, but it would have been prohibitively expensive to do so. The F-35 is simply the best of a bad situation, and wishful thinking about what could have been isn't going to benefit anyone. Those who want to cancel the JSF now simply aren't living in the current reality, or have an emotional attachment to one of its predecessors or competitors.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 21):
The F-22 is wonderful but with only 180 of them the USAF has a constrained ability to dominate the skies.

Considering that at best, we only have ~100 combat capable F-22's in the first place, the avionics are obsolete (and a developmental dead end), and F-22 is a complete maintenance hog, killing F-22 production made sense. There is no reason to continue buying F-22 when F-35 can do its mission almost as good as F-22.


25 cargotanker : Restarting a production line along with incremental improvements would have been costly, but not nearly as costly as a complete new design aircraft.
26 Post contains images Oroka : Without the STOVL constraints, it would have looked a lot like this:
27 Max Q : It's inaccurate to say the Harrier is difficult to operate anyway. The later versions were and are so much easier to fly than the early ones it's like
28 BMI727 : They really don't. It's a bit questionable why they need aircraft at all, but I think that the cost does outweigh the benefit here. The Navy should h
29 Newark727 : I don't think that's an entirely fair assertion. Or rather, it ignores vested interests amongst the planemakers. The politicians and bureaucrats don'
30 Post contains links BMI727 : Even if the manufacturers know it's a really tall order, they aren't going to say that they can't do it. If they tell the policymakers that their ide
31 Max Q : I do agree with that, the only reason to have Aircraft Carriers is their strike capability, as glamorous as their fighter's are their main purpose is
32 BMI727 : I would not sell short the ability of an aircraft carrier to establish air superiority, however. Yes, it is a slightly more difficult proposition, si
33 Max Q : I understand your reasoning but in this case I think the F35 is so badly compromised for any mission it should be put out of its misery. The A12 had
34 MCIGuy : Agreed, the HMD + AIM-9X combination alone should be deadly, not to mention the APG-81 + AIM-120D. Well, really isn't part of CAS to fly CAP over fri
35 Post contains images Powerslide : Might as well kept the P-51 and kept developing that. You could probably integrate some avionics and weapon stations on there quite nicely. At a cost
36 KiwiRob : Unless you've flown one how could you possibly know this?
37 HaveBlue : As this is an aviation forum for people to discuss their opinions on all things aviation, I find it offensive and in bad taste that you are telling s
38 Max Q : Glad you agree. Thank you for your intelligent comment. I think some people forget we are just having a conversation here !
39 Post contains links Powerslide : Real F35 pilots say so. http://www.dvidshub.net/news/96296/f...arine-corps-air-force#.UKFik4fLTw4 http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123322393 When
40 BMI727 : The F-35 is compromised in its mission, but I think that even more of the compromises have come in terms of cost. It's interesting to wonder how much
41 Post contains links Ozair : On the contrary, one of the few things that Dick Cheney did right was the cancellation of the A-12. The last 20 years has proven that the USN did not
42 ThePointblank : Very correct. A-12 was an unmitigated disaster that frankly was not going to remotely live up to its promises and expectations. A-12 tried to accompl
43 TWA772LR : This is along the lines of what they said when the F-4 came out without a gun. And we all know what happened there... A nation that can afford to hav
44 BigJKU : It has F-22's. The question is how many does it really need right now and is what was built enough. I used to think the USAF needed more of them but
45 Post contains links and images ThePointblank : Japan was a big signal as to the future of F-35. The Japanese could have had their pick of designs (except for F-22). They chose F-35. And the first
46 Max Q : How can you have a 'stealth' fighter that is twice as loud as an F15 ?! This thing is supposedly optimised for ground attack, you don't need radar to
47 flagon : I think you are stretching it a little bit there, but anyway I would expect a typical ground attack mission profile to be conducted a low level at a
48 BigJKU : Actually it is far more likely that the F-35 will operate from high altitude than low, particularly when it is using things like JDAM, SDB and JSWO.
49 powerslide : Please tell me you aren't serious. The anti-JSF camp is really grasping at the straws now, lol. What's next? "The paint is too dark, you'll be able t
50 BMI727 : Your ears are probably pretty useless for actually targeting and hitting things.
51 ThePointblank : Especially considering the advanced sensor package onboard F-35... you essentially have in the nose a high resolution mapping radar, with capabilitie
52 Post contains images gipsy : I still remember the talks a few years ago, how it is a fully fledged fighter performance wise outperforming obsolete "4.5 generation" junk like the e
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic AFM: F-35 Can Supercruise
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force Association Magazine On F-35 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 20:48:37 by ThePointblank
F-35 On Exhibition In Front Of Oslo Town Hall posted Fri Aug 31 2012 15:43:25 by Mortyman
F-35 Milestone - First Successful Weapons Drop posted Thu Aug 9 2012 21:14:19 by ThePointblank
F-35 Sonic Boom posted Sat Aug 4 2012 15:03:06 by 787atPAE
F-35 And Burlington, VT posted Thu Jul 5 2012 10:12:24 by ChrisNH
GAO On F-35, June 2012 posted Fri Jun 29 2012 13:37:21 by tommytoyz
Talk Of F-35 Project Being Scrapped! posted Sat Apr 28 2012 19:03:19 by Zkpilot
LM F-35/F-16 Fort Worth Plant On Strike posted Mon Apr 23 2012 05:02:19 by KC135TopBoom
F-35 Survivability Testing posted Wed Apr 11 2012 17:34:50 by ThePointblank
RAF Voyagers Can't Tank Tornados? posted Thu Apr 5 2012 09:04:49 by trex8
Japan Plans More F-35's, AWACS, Etc posted Sun Dec 15 2013 02:08:42 by ThePointblank
Hill AFB Offically To Get F-35's posted Wed Dec 4 2013 09:02:26 by j.mo
Can Anyone Identify This Helicopter? posted Mon Nov 25 2013 10:19:31 by malaysia
FG: LM Secures Contract LRIP6 And 7 For F-35 posted Mon Sep 30 2013 12:42:16 by oykie
Can AF1 (747) Take Off From A Short Runway? posted Thu Aug 22 2013 00:23:18 by ryu2
FG: LM Cuts Price For Next Batch Of F-35 posted Tue Jul 30 2013 14:04:07 by oykie
Italy Approves F-35 Purchase posted Wed Jul 17 2013 23:27:42 by ThePointblank

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format