Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 11327 times:

As I predicted, it appears South Korea is in the final stages of picking between the F-35 and the F-15SE. DSCA notice has just been posted and is below. It appears South Korea is after 60 of either.

DSCA notice for F-35 is below:
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf

Quote:
Korea – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The Republic of Korea continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.

The proposed sale of F-35s will provide the Republic of Korea (ROK) with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The proposed sale will augment Korea’s operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. The ROK’s Air Force F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-35’s are added to the inventory. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this aircraft system and support will not negatively alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, Texas; and Pratt & Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, Connecticut. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Korea to conduct Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) and Autonomic Logistics and Global Support (ALGS) for after-aircraft delivery.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness resulting from this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

The F-15SE's notice is below:
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-11.pdf

Quote:
Korea – F-15 Silent Eagle Aircraft Support
WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.408 billion.

The Republic of Korea has requested a possible hybrid case in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The Republic of Korea continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.

The proposed sale will augment Korea’s operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability, provide it with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region, and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The Republic of Korea Air Force’s F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-15SEs are added to the inventory. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing this additional equipment and support into its inventory.

The proposed sale of equipment and support will not negatively alter the basic military balance in the region.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews and support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years.

The prime contractor will be The Boeing Corporation in St Louis, Missouri. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness resulting from this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

Note that the F-15SE's notice is just for some of the equipment on the F-15SE, not the entire aircraft, as it is a hybrid of a direct commercial sale and government-to-government US foreign military sale. As such the DSCA notification to Congress is only for certain equipment that would have to be sold to South Korea to support the Silent Eagle sale.

83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 11260 times:

F-35

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

F-15SE

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

Just sayin.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 11246 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 1):
F-35

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

F-15SE

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

Just sayin.

Did you not read the DSCA notice properly? One is for a complete aircraft with all supporting infrastructure (F-35). The other is for avionics and sensors for a separate commercial purchase of the airframe (F-15SE). So we know in the configuration that the Koreans are buying, 60 complete F-35's with support, spares and tools is $10.8 billion dollars. 60 complete sets of F-15SE avionics and sensors is $2.408 billion.

Yeah, really comparable; it's like comparing a car to a pineapple.  


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 11185 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
.....a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.408 billion.
Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.


It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 11177 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?

You honestly think Boeing has offered to sell South Korea 60 F-15SEs including all the accessory equipment such as AESA radars, targeting pods, spares, training etc listed for 2.41 billion???????

Why would South Korea even bother to submit a second case for the F-35 if it was more than 4 times as expensive? I doubt South Korea could transfer the money fast enough and would probably fly the entire acquisition executive team to Boeing to celebrate!


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 11163 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?

Yeah, read the DSCA notice more carefully:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

Here, they are talking about complete aircraft (airframe, avionics, engines) and support.

Now, F-15SE:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The Republic of Korea has requested a possible hybrid case in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

1. The DSCA notice says that the F-15SE will be bought using Direct Commercial Sales. Direct Commercial Sales does not require a DSCA notice! The sensors and avionics, however, do need the DSCA notice in this instance. Notice the very important phrase in what you quoted 'in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales'. This means that the notice does not include the airframes.
2. They are buying radars, targeting pods, IRST's, EW systems, radio's, avionics, and data links, plus support for that. End notice.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 11155 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
This means that the notice does not include the airframes.

You are probably right.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 9 hours ago) and read 11090 times:

I'll put my money on the F-35. As much as I'd like to see South Korea go for the F-15SE, the F-35 suits them well against North Korea in both AA and AG roles. With the F-35, South Korea would have a potent first strike capability to the point where it would decrease their dependence on allied forces for protection.


No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 11004 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
You are probably right.

Other sources confirmed that he is. They also speculate that the total price of the SE will probably be lower than the F-35. How much lower? Boeing is not saying. Guessing that because it is a DCS, negotiation may still be in progress. Also the F-35 price is not yet fixed either.

Still, there are some differences that make the comparison not "apples to apples". As Korea already operates F-15's, there are some tooling, testing and infrastructure already exisited an would not be needed in the new order.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 hour ago) and read 10891 times:

The other issue it timing. With the F-35 not being fully combat capable nor fully developed till 2019 at the earliest, would that have an influence? I bet the F-15SE is available sooner than that, but it's just a guess.

User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10819 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 8):
They also speculate that the total price of the SE will probably be lower than the F-35. How much lower? Boeing is not saying.

At their launch claim of $100M per frame, 60 Silent Eagles would cost an even $6.0B. DCS could probably lower that some more...or SK could negotiate with Boeing to develop and implement say, the canted tails and other stealth enhancing features for the original amount. For sixty airframes and being a loyal customer, the RoKAF have enough leverage to drive a hard bargain...what with the F-35 there to ensure keen pricing. Then just add the $2.4B for a nice $8.4B total...though $40M each plane for those things still seems a bit steep.

More than price, this tender will likely be decided on South Korea's desire to also have something to keep the J-20 and T-50 at bay later on.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © goneless
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan Voukadinov - BGspotters


Whether the SE will be up to the task is the big question.....

.
http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/...12/12/tumblr_m7tpblACnJ1qhagdx.jpg.


Of course, the jury is still out on that too wrt the Lightning II.....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ja676MG45Zg/TAces_OZORI/AAAAAAAADkE/M5cwyMEqgME/s1600/f-35-taxiing-12.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ja676MG45Z...wyMEqgME/s1600/f-35-taxiing-12.jpg


Then, there's the political angle  spin .

[Edited 2013-04-04 13:49:30]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10801 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 10):
At their launch claim of $100M per frame, 60 Silent Eagles would cost an even $6.0B. DCS could probably lower that some more...or SK could negotiate with Boeing to develop and implement say, the canted tails and other stealth enhancing features for the original amount. For sixty airframes and being a loyal customer, the RoKAF have enough leverage to drive a hard bargain...what with the F-35 there to ensure keen pricing. Then just add the $2.4B for a nice $8.4B total...though $40M each plane for those things still seems a bit steep.

More than price, this tender will likely be decided on South Korea's desire to also have something to keep the J-20 and T-50 at bay later on.....

I would also argue that the South Koreans will need to think of their future fleet as well; right now they intend on replacing their fleet of F-4 Phantoms. South Korea has a large number of F-16's that will eventually need replacement in the future, so they will need to think of the future in their fleet planning.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10738 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
I would also argue that the South Koreans will need to think of their future fleet as well; right now they intend on replacing their fleet of F-4 Phantoms. South Korea has a large number of F-16's that will eventually need replacement in the future, so they will need to think of the future in their fleet planning.

Does SK want to run the risk of F-35 being fully developed as per schedule? SK is in conflict with a country that has only recently had a change of leader, one whose actions cannot easily be predicted. Why not select whatever can enter service the sooner (SE) and replace the F-16's with F-35 further down the line?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3575 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 12):
Does SK want to run the risk of F-35 being fully developed as per schedule? SK is in conflict with a country that has only recently had a change of leader, one whose actions cannot easily be predicted. Why not select whatever can enter service the sooner (SE) and replace the F-16's with F-35 further down the line?

clear logic has no place in military procurement especially when threatened.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10504 times:

At the rate the North Koreans are escalating their rhetoric, they may cease to exist before any new order. They may suddenly get a shed load of cruise missiles fired at them simultaneously at all their military targets and put out of their misery.

How to do this while ensuring South Korea doesn't get a retaliatory strike is anyone's guess. Maybe just targeting the missiles and declaring this was the USA defending itself against North Korea and taking out a declared threat, then the North would have no justification to attack the South.

But if the North started shelling Seoul anyway, that would mean the end of the Northern regime. Maybe not the country, but the leaders for sure. Perhaps the North could remain as a stand alone country, to appease China, but with different leadership. Almost anything would be better. Even Fidel or Raul Castro. At least they're not dying of hunger in Cuba.

Wonder how many of North Korea's 600 planes are functional or if they even have fuel for them.

In light of the J-20, the F-15SE would be better in the high and fast arena, where the J-20 will be operating at. Wonder if the F-15SE can super cruise or not.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10495 times:

Well it appears the F-15SE probably can't super cruise. So not any better than the F-35 against planes like the J-20 or T-50, imho. Or even worse. But the F-15SE would work great as an attack plane.

Only the Rafale and the Typhoon can super cruise. How much that might help I don't know. In any case, I doubt Korea would go for anything European for political reasons and because Korea has a bunch of US missiles, bombs, pods, etc..that may not work on them.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10480 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 13):
clear logic has no place in military procurement especially when threatened.

You mean spend double the $$ by first acquiring the F-16 then the F-35? No wonder the US is in such a horrid financial state.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10474 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):

Only the Rafale and the Typhoon can super cruise.

A bit of nitpicking; there are multiple definitions of super cruise. The one that is accepted by Lockheed Martin (and by extension, the US military) is traveling in excess of Mach 1.5 without afterburner. Only one aircraft meets that definition: F-22. The reason being is because they only consider what the F-22 is capable of as "true" super cruise, because THAT is what the term was coined for.

If we accept the generally accepted definition (which is the one you are thinking of) of just in excess of the speed of sound, more aircraft are deemed super cruise capable. The Typhoon has demonstrated this level of performance, the Rafale, not so. F-35 also has this definition of super cruise as well (it has demonstrated the capability of cruising at Mach 1.2 for a distance of 150 miles).

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 and the Typhoon isn't a supercruising aircraft. But on the definition that we all use, then it is a supercruising aircraft.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10459 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
-35 also has this definition of super cruise as well (it has demonstrated the capability of cruising at Mach 1.2 for a distance of 150 miles).

I don't think the F-35 can accelerate past the transonic zone without afterburner. And for those who think power is the determining factor - it isn't. Otherwise the Concorde would not have been able to super cruise at Mach 2.2 with it's low power to weight ratio. At those speeds, it's mostly about aero.

The American birds, except the F-22, are all showing their ages. They are all basically subsonic fighters, that includes the F-35. This is outdated. Why does it take so long to learn the lessons of the SR-71 and F-22? The Russians and Chinese have caught on.

I think the Chinese have torn a page out of the Euro fighters, which are much faster than even the F-15, because of their Delta/canard configuration. The F-15 is a great hauler for attack, but I think it's fighting days are over. But that's all Korea needs - an attack threat. The F-15 has that like nobody else.

The main wing of the J-20 looks a bit like the TU-144/Concorde to me. IMHO, that makes clear, the J-20 will run high and very fast, even with sub par engines. To compare, nobody would say that the Concorde or TU-144 had modern or powerful engines by today's standards, but they super cruised beyond Mach 2 for hours.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10453 times:

When was the last time a modern fighter needed to go past Mach1 in a battle situation? Yeah...exactly. Future aerial engagements will be won because of your avionics, not your speed. When the F35 enters service it will be the most advanced fighter in existence. The Chinese and Russians know they can't match the F35's level so they have to resort to speed - they'll need it to run away.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10427 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):

I don't think the F-35 can accelerate past the transonic zone without afterburner.

Not saying that it doesn't need afterburner to supersonic, but once supersonic, it can sustain it on dry thrust.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
At those speeds, it's mostly about aero.

And a nice, clean F-35 from the frontal aspect even when combat loaded compared to a similarly equipped F-16 or F/A-18 does the trick just fine.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
They are all basically subsonic fighters, that includes the F-35.

Every fighter is primarily a subsonic fighter. That's where the bulk of the actual combat takes place.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
This is outdated.

Not exactly; at higher speeds, it is more difficult to maneuver; you will either bleed more energy or you will have a very large turning radius.

If you look at every fight between fighters, in the hundreds of fights, only a handful ever exceeded the speed of sound. We've had fighters capable of going supersonic for half a century now.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
But that's all Korea needs - an attack threat.

Not exactly. They need to look to the future; who's the other major hegemon in the region. The Chinese will be a major concern to South Korea; there are a number of simmering territorial disputes with China over various islands, and there are some historical grievances between the two sides.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10337 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
ThePointblank

In the Fighter world, the saying is "speed is life". While most close in fights are done below Mach 1, you need to exceed Mach 1 to get to the fight, or leave it. Today's modern fighter aircraft are still optimized for BVR fighting, which is missiles. Yes, they also have a gun for close in dog fighting, but that is not what they were optimized for, except for the highly maneuverable F-16, Rafael, and Typhoon.

The whole purpose of stealth is optimized to prevent long range detection, and BVR. Once inside visual range, stealth is useless. Don't forget, around 2006 the F-35 had its stealth qualities reclassified from "very low observable" (as the F-117, B-2, and F-22 were), to "low observable", which is in reality a downgrade.

Stealth is also not needed once air supremacy is achieved, which is about a few days into the conflict..

The F-35 is a (sustained) 4.6G airplane (9G instantaneous, or maximum), the F-16 is a 9G airplane (not including the F-16E/F, which are 7.5G).

The F-35A has a combat range of less than 600nm, compared to more than 800nm for the F-15SE. The F-15SE also carries more than twice the bomb load the F-35A does. The F-35des have a 'bigger gun', a 25mm, but with only 180 rounds of ammo, the F-15SE has the standard F-15 20mm gun, but with 510 rounds of ammo, the same as the F-16. Going into combat, I would rather have more rounds of a smaller caliber, than a bigger caliber with fewer rounds (in this case less than half the number carried by other US built aircraft.

So, do you buy more capability in a fighter/bomber aircraft, at 85% of the costs of a less capable fighter/bomber aircraft? if you are buying the same number of aircraft, in this case 60?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks ago) and read 10284 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
And a nice, clean F-35 from the frontal aspect even when combat loaded compared to a similarly equipped F-16 or F/A-18 does the trick just fine

Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 and F-18 is irrelevant. Those planes will never be a threat to F-35 operators. You need to compare the F-35 against aircraft that may actually be a threat, like the J-10B, J-20, Flankers and T-50. All are very fast aircraft. The Flankers are probably the slowest of the bunch. The J-20 probably the fastest. The Chinese seemingly to me, learned from the J-10B, which is reportedly a very fast aircraft, capable of super cruise - with one engine. The inlets are similar for instance, as is the canard/delta configuration. With the J-20 having even more sweep, a la Concorde/TU-144.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
Not exactly; at higher speeds, it is more difficult to maneuver; you will either bleed more energy or you will have a very large turning radius.

If you look at every fight between fighters, in the hundreds of fights, only a handful ever exceeded the speed of sound. We've had fighters capable of going supersonic for half a century now.

I am sure there were people in WWI and WWII that had a similar opinion about the needs for more speed.

With this attitude, you are looking into the rear view mirror and ignoring that progress and change is occurring. It's also ignoring the success of the F-22 and SR-71. They operate(d), at supersonic speeds at high altitude. Both are (were), untouchable by many missiles, due to their speed and altitude. By the time they're in your firing range, they're already out of it and even if you do get one off, like has often happened against the SR-71, and an evasive turn or evasive course has proven very effective in defeating inbound missiles using the high kinetc energy and maneuverability compared to a missile. The SR-71 wasn't exactly maneuverable or stealthy but was still able to pull this off all the time. The T-50 and J-20 will be much better since they will me more maneuverable and stealthier than the SR-71.

I bet the SR-71 has had more live SAM missiles and live A2A missiles fired at it over enemy territory than just about any other plane and never even got a scratch.

The F-35 is a subsonic airframe optimized for 25,000 feet with an operating regime, in all aspects, much more restricted than the current fighters. To date, the highest altitude it's reached is 43,000 feet. The world glider altitude record stands at 50, 699 feet.

This low energy regime dictates that the best tactic when encountering others newer jets, is to try to remain undetected and rely on low observability. Because being slower and lower, the F-35 can't force themselves into a favorable position. They'll need to rely on opportunity or a mistake.

However, Typhoon operators have already developed the wall formation - something anyone can replicate. Since the F-35 is not stealthy from all angles, with the wall formation, at least 1 Typhoon will have a radar look at the F-35 from an unfavorable angle to the F-35s. With datalink, all Typhoons will then see them.

This assumes the F-35s haven't been detected via IRST already and not radar.

In any case, for Korea, the attack role is probably much more important. For that, the F-15SE is hands down more effective. It carries so much, it's ridiculous. If Korea really needs stealth fighters, it'll have them in the form of US F-22s, which are in Korea right now.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2934 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks ago) and read 10267 times:

The F-35 order is for the -B model, apparently for the ROKN. Looks like they may be joining the carrier club like the Italians.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10254 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
While most close in fights are done below Mach 1, you need to exceed Mach 1 to get to the fight, or leave it.

Which the F-35 can cruise at a comfortable Mach 1.2 for 150nm in a combat configuration...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The whole purpose of stealth is optimized to prevent long range detection, and BVR. Once inside visual range, stealth is useless.

True, but stealth grants you the all critical first look, first shot advantage against a non-stealthy opponent. In combat the ability to place ordnance on the enemy and get the plane home are important. Dogfights are WWI tactics and this already rarely occured in WWII. Instead high spead passes on the enemy and team tactics dominated. So this incredible focus on very high levels of maneuverability is completely out of place. The integration of sensors and advanced weapon systems, plus the amount of beating a plane can take are much more important.

Look at the combat records of some of the most successful aces in the world; if you examined their fighting styles, it becomes very clear there are two distinct types of fighter pilots; one that predominantly uses team tactics to overwhelm the enemy, the second type is the stalk and ambush ace. Erich Hartmann is a great example of a pilot that was predominantly a stalk and ambush pilot. By his own account, he was convinced that 80% of the pilots he downed did not even realize what hit them. And he was never shot down, and more importantly, he never lost a wingman.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
Don't forget, around 2006 the F-35 had its stealth qualities reclassified from "very low observable" (as the F-117, B-2, and F-22 were), to "low observable", which is in reality a downgrade.

Oh please.

The problem was not with the plane, it was that they raised the bar for the VLO description, so the F-35 could not make the new mark, not that the plane suddenly became larger on radar. The radar signature stayed the same (the F-35 is from many sources, meeting targets on radar observability), it's just the pass mark that got higher. Paper qualification problem, not airframe problem.

To be very blunt and quick: the terms VLO and LO were redefined by the US DoD. NOTHING changed about the spec or the capability of the F-35 with regards to it's low observable performance.

The confusion may have come from perceptions of Low observables varying by degree of familiarity AND the desire to avoid classified discussion (we are borderline branching into things that are considered OPSEC). All VLO aircraft are by definition LO, and for general conversation in the public, ‘LO’ is a good enough characterization – just as the very deep ocean is often described as just ‘deep’ unless you’re an oceanographer talking to another oceanographer.

A word of caution regarding using terms like LO/VLO:

1. They are generally considered marketing terms.
2. They are sometimes used interchangeably on the F-35.
3. Lockheed refers to the F-35 as “VLO” at both of their sites (Lockheed.com and F35.com) yet refers to the F-22 as “LO” on www.f22-raptor.com and “VLO” on Lockheed.com.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-35 is a (sustained) 4.6G airplane (9G instantaneous, or maximum), the F-16 is a 9G airplane (not including the F-16E/F, which are 7.5G).

A F-16 isn't a 9G airframe when combat loaded; many stores have G limits well below that number. Such stores include the current drop tanks, and JDAM's.

And the sustained G limit is a temporary restriction; there is an issue discovered during testing of unusually high temperatures on the rear tail. Until they can place sensors on the area to better observe the situation and conduct more flight testing to monitor the situation, they've placed a limit.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-15SE also carries more than twice the bomb load the F-35A does.

Nope. Equivalent. F-15SE needs external fuel tanks and the conformal tanks to achieve its range. Plus, you need a jammer, and targeting pod for the F-15SE. A F-35 can carry 15,000lbs of stores, primarily weapons, not fuel loaded wall to wall.

And the F-15E has never been loaded with 23,000lbs of ordinance; for one thing, if you did, you wouldn't have a whole lot of fuel. Most notional combat configurations of the F-15E only weigh in at around 71-76,000 lbs all in, of which only around 6-8,000lbs is actual weapons, as demonstrated by the combat load outs in OIF, OEF, OAF, and ODS. The rest is all empty weight and fuel, plus other stuff (like targeting and navigation pods). Once you look at an actual combat configured F-15E and compare it a combat configured F-35 loaded wall to wall with weapons, the differences disappear.

There's a website that lists some of the combat configurations of the F-15E in past conflicts that is a useful guide on past configurations: www.f-15e.info

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
Stealth is also not needed once air supremacy is achieved, which is about a few days into the conflict.

I would not bet on that... against the most recent enemies we've been fighting (Iraq in OIF, Libya and Afghanistan), they had no real air defences to speak of. Against more prepared enemy, such as Serbia during OAF, or Iraq during ODS, SAM's were still a major worry even days into the air campaign. The losses suffered by the Package Q strike during ODS is a clear reminder that despite us achieving air superiority over an opponent, a more prepared and equipped opponent will still inflict serious harm if we don't respect the enemy and acknowledge that the enemy, although beaten, can still hurt us.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-35des have a 'bigger gun', a 25mm, but with only 180 rounds of ammo, the F-15SE has the standard F-15 20mm gun, but with 510 rounds of ammo, the same as the F-16. Going into combat, I would rather have more rounds of a smaller caliber, than a bigger caliber with fewer rounds (in this case less than half the number carried by other US built aircraft.

If you want, we could always go back to the Browning M2/M3 machine gun... or even a .30 machine gun. We will have lots of rounds for those guns in an aircraft, but I doubt we will do much in the way of damage.

The GAU-22/A Equalizer's 25mm round hits much harder and with more force than the 20mm round in the M61 Vulcan. The Equalizer has a slower rate of fire, but I will note that the muzzle velocity of the GAU-22/A is higher than the M61, and fires a heavier round that has anti-armour applications, making more useful in an air-to-ground role. The 25x137 mm cartridge pushes a 492g projectile at 3,630 fps compared to the 20x102mm cartridge which runs a 263g projectile at 3,380 fps. In terms of kinetic energy, the 25mm round packs 297.7 kJ compared to the 20mm round's 138.2 kJ. So it is essentially twice as powerful a round - flatter shooting, better penetration, heavier explosive fill. One hit is pretty much equivalent to two 20mm hits on soft targets and worth even more on armoured targets which requires the round to punch through a few centimeters of steel.

To give you a clear idea of the bigger punch the 25mm round has, see below for a comparison image between the various rounds of ammunition:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ModernAC.jpg

The M61 Vulcan 20mm round is 3rd from the left and the GAU-22/A 25mm is fifth from left. You can see how much bigger the 25mm round is compared to the 20mm round, both in terms of actual size and the actual cartridge size.

We are getting into the age old debate between two different ideas of aircraft cannon weaponry (the older US practice of lighter rounds fired more rapidly versus the European practice of heavier rounds at a lower rate of fire). However, the trend is leaning towards heavier rounds at a lower rate of fire, following the European practice. The AV-8B Harrier, I will note, uses the GAU-12 Equalizer which has 300 rounds of 25mm ammo in two external pods. The US is slowly starting to standardize on the 25mm round over the 20mm round as its standard aircraft cannon ammunition.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10321 times:

This is turning into one of those threads again.......

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10325 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):
The F-35 order is for the -B model, apparently for the ROKN. Looks like they may be joining the carrier club like the Italians.

The Koreans are only considering the F-35A as far as I know. I tip my hat towards the F-15SE winning for so many reasons. If they were considering the F-35B, that might have been different, as the F-15SE can't land vertically. But they're not considering that version. They haven't ordered anything yet. They may still order the Typhoon for all we know, which is actually the most capable of the 3 still in the running, for A2A roles. The F-15SE is better at A2G than Typhoon and it can carry Korea's existing munitions. The F-35 is inferior compared to the others in all metrics, except for Low Observability from the front. Not to speak of the timing issue with the F-35, which won't be fully combat ready till 2019 at the earliest and full rate production models won't be made till then.

In any case, the Koreans are not about to announce an order for anything anytime soon. It's still a ways away.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10361 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 and F-18 is irrelevant.

Yes it is because those two are the aircraft F-35 is replacing!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The Chinese seemingly to me, learned from the J-10B, which is reportedly a very fast aircraft, capable of super cruise - with one engine.

No J-10B never claimed to have supercruising capabilities. I don't know where the heck you pulled that claim out, but it is wrong. For the first thing, J-10 is using the AL-31F engine, and the Chinese never claimed that the J-10 could even supercruise in the first place. The J-10B uses the WS-10A, which is supposed to be equivalent to the AL-31F engine, but from all indications, the WS-10A is having problems meeting performance and reliability targets.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The T-50 and J-20 will be much better since they will me more maneuverable and stealthier than the SR-71.

Which is your opinion, and much like the saying, everyone has an opinion like they have a _____.

And don't think the generals, planners and designers that put together the F-35's specs haven't thought about speed. They probably (more precisely, would have) conducted a number of studies to see if additional speed made any sense in a combat situation, or is there a real limit in terms of how much speed is useful. In fact, they would probably would have to justify the performance spec they came out with to design the F-35 to appropriations. It was them that decided that they wanted F-35 to go to Mach 1.6. They didn't want a faster fighter.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
However, Typhoon operators have already developed the wall formation - something anyone can replicate. Since the F-35 is not stealthy from all angles, with the wall formation, at least 1 Typhoon will have a radar look at the F-35 from an unfavorable angle to the F-35s. With datalink, all Typhoons will then see them.

A F-35 walking into that situation will only be the result of some extremely poor operational planning to the verge of utter and complete incompetence, and a less than intelligent pilot at the controls that's ignoring every single warning signal blaring out at him.

First off, F-35's will likewise operate in groups. No combat fighter will ever go into battle alone. He's going to have one wingman, if not more. A F-35 will detect a Typhoon from a much further distance away than the Typhoon will even hope to even remotely see a F-35 because the Typhoon will be emitting radar signals that will be detected by the ESM and ECM equipment on F-35 at a much further range than the Typhoon can reasonably expect to receive a return. A F-35 pilot can then orient themselves to face the group accordingly to reduce their signature.

Secondly, the F-35 will lock onto the Typhoons at a much further range than the Typhoons will even have a chance to detect a F-35. F-35's will then be the first ones shooting at the Typhoons, which means that the Typhoons will then have to make a run for it otherwise, they will be shot down. Not only that, the F-35's radar is an LPI system; unless you're the one emitting and you know the exact moment and frequency and output power of each beam, a sub-microsecond burst will look very much like thermal noise or background static in any system trying to detect it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
This assumes the F-35s haven't been detected via IRST already and not radar.

You do realize how small the detection area and the range of a IRST is, right? You will be lucky to get 60km out of any good IRST today in normal conditions in addition to how it is like looking at the world through a straw. Not only that, IRST systems are very bad at determining the range to target, and is therefore pathetic for guiding a missile. Unless you have cueing from another source, it's doubtful that consistent detection at the maximum range of the system will occur.

IRST cannot search a volume of sky like a radar and it can't determine range. The plane flying with a modern fighter radar will almost always beat an opponent relying upon IRST. It's like a man with one eye, a telescope and a pistol trying to kill a guy with two eyes, binoculars and a sniper rifle. Sure, the one eyed guy could win, but it's only going to happen less than 10% of the time.

Don't get me wrong, in thinking I'm saying that it's not helpful to have an IRST. I just don't think that it's reached the level to where you can say that it's more important than radar.

Oh, and F-35 also has a IRST as well.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10356 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
The radar signature stayed the same (the F-35 is from many sources, meeting targets on radar observability), it's just the pass mark that got higher. Paper qualification problem, not airframe problem.

You are pulling this out from nowhere as you have no way of knowing this. This is the most classified part of the F-35 program and the GAO reports never make mention of that, because that's classified. They only mention certain critical metrics are classified. Please don't talk like you know this as a fact, because you don't. reading between the lines, why would the GAO remark that certain classified metrics are troublesome. That could very easily be the radar signature among other things. It's possible and neither you nor I know.

The comparison of any other newer fighter Vs. the F-35, is a natural progression, because that's all there is from the US DoD. The US DoD has put all of their eggs in the F-35 basket, so everything else has no choice but to make an F-35 comparison. If there were some other fighter the US DoD were procuring in the future, from 2020 onwards, we would have something else to compare, but we don't. The US DoD is about to become a one note piano.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
A F-35 can carry 15,000lbs of stores, primarily weapons, not fuel loaded wall to wall.

I doubt the F-35 even has the space and pods to hang that much weight.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10348 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
A F-35 walking into that situation will only be the result of some extremely poor operational planning to the verge of utter and complete incompetence, and a less than intelligent pilot at the controls that's ignoring every single warning signal blaring out at him.

You don't quite understand the wall formation. The planes would be spread out, searching for a stealth plane from various angles simultaneously and in datalink sync with each other. As far as I know, the F-35 only has one nose. It can only point it in one direction at a time. What is an F-35 pilot to do, if the has multiple fighters from multiple angles on him? It has nothing to do with what the pilot does. It's not his fault he only has one nose.

If the F-35 always fires a missile from long ranges, that does not stop the opponent from firing back at the F-35. It gives them more time to do so. I think you have this notion that all missiles hit and that as soon as you see a target and fire they're as good as dead and your safe. It's not like that at all. You also totally ignore the firing position you need to be in to even be able to git the target, even if it's a balloon.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10332 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
You don't quite understand the wall formation. The planes would be spread out, searching for a stealth plane from various angles simultaneously and in datalink sync with each other. As far as I know, the F-35 only has one nose. It can only point it in one direction at a time. What is an F-35 pilot to do, if the has multiple fighters from multiple angles on him? It has nothing to do with what the pilot does. It's not his fault he only has one nose.

So you are talking about a bunch of Typhoons against one F-35, right? I'm tell you that this will never happen in an actual combat situation. Fighter jets work in groups, F-35 included. To send one aircraft up against 10 is stupidity.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
If the F-35 always fires a missile from long ranges, that does not stop the opponent from firing back at the F-35.

How can you, you don't even have a fix on the F-35's location, nor a weapons lock. Unless you like firing weapons blind and unguided.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
I think you have this notion that all missiles hit and that as soon as you see a target and fire they're as good as dead and your safe.

It doesn't matter; I got you mission killed. Almost as good as blowing you up for most purposes. You now have to eject any ordinance and external fuel tanks to get your weight down so you can defeat my missile and if you managed to survive, you got no weapons left save for your cannon and maybe some shorter range weapons, and you are low on fuel. You have to go back to base now.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 28):
You are pulling this out from nowhere as you have no way of knowing this.

These article seems to agree with me:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...2/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
http://defensetech.org/2011/06/23/how-stealthy-is-your-f-35/
http://www.janicki.com/f-35-halo-pole-model-inverted-for-testing

And the fact that stealth signature testing was done in 2010 and not a bleep about the F-35 failing to meet specifications on the signature says a lot. If the signature wasn't to spec, someone would have said something, even if it is carefully worded to avoid security issues.

Quote:
June 16, 2010 Sedro-Woolley, WA – Janicki Industries' expertise in building composite prototypes was tapped by Lockheed Martin in producing the Full Scale Pole Model for its F-35 stealth fighter jet program. The model is now being used to test radar signature and other key performance data. High fidelity Radar Cross Section (RCS) testing of HALO has validated the accuracy of the predicted F-35 stealth signature performance over a broad elevation and frequency range.
Quote:
U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore, the Pentagon’s deputy JSF program manager then chimed in saying:

“I would only add that the core requirements, the technical requirements that have been laid out in the program and our ability to meet those requirements…the low very observable characteristics, the low radar cross section, we’re achieving that; so when we think about lethality, survivability with the weapons with the very low observable capability, with the agility, maneuverability the sensor suit, it’s a combination of things that makes a weapons system effective. SO, instead of trying to speculate about what someone said about the weapons system in the press, all I can tell you is we have every intent of meeting the key performance parameters of the aircraft designated by our partners and the U.S. services and they’ve determined what capabilities are necessary for future war fighting needs.”
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 28):
I doubt the F-35 even has the space and pods to hang that much weight.

You tell me:
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/F-35_Weapon_Stations.jpg

Looks like there is enough room there.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10294 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):

So you are talking about a bunch of Typhoons against one F-35, right? I'm tell you that this will never happen in an actual combat situation. Fighter jets work in groups, F-35 included. To send one aircraft up against 10 is stupidity.

No, the more F-35's the better. Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind. With the F-35 carrying only 2 A2A missiles, it's not even a fair fight against fighters carrying something like 8-10 missiles each doing the wall formation.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
You now have to eject any ordinance and external fuel tanks to get your weight down so you can defeat my missile and if you managed to survive, you got no weapons left save for your cannon and maybe some shorter range weapons, and you are low on fuel. You have to go back to base now.

Um no. The Typhoon and Rafale, F-15SE and others carry recessed or fully internal missiles and ordinance and plenty of internal fuel. J-20, T-50 exclusively. No ejection required for combat or ti fire missiles. You make all kinds of assumptions in the perfect F-35 world.

You fail to even consider the fact that the F-35 has to be in a firing position to even fire on a blimp. Seeing is not enough. You blissfully ignore key requirements for combat.


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10284 times:

If the F-15SE used F-110-132 engines, it could probably supercruise at mach 1.2 like the F-35. For some reason the US always goes for the lowest common denominator in terms of engine thrust.

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10275 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
You blissfully ignore key requirements for combat.

Irony at its finest.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
With the F-35 carrying only 2 A2A missiles, it's not even a fair fight against fighters carrying something like 8-10 missiles each doing the wall formation.

I'm not going to even bother try to correct such fallacy considering I just posted a diagram displaying F-35's pylons and the weight capabilities of each pylon... But believe what you want.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
The Typhoon and Rafale, F-15SE and others carry recessed or fully internal missiles and ordinance and plenty of internal fuel.

Repeat what you want. But Typhoon and Rafale need external fuel tanks to even get anywhere near their stated combat range. Or are they going to fly on empty tanks, considering the low fuel fraction of the Typhoon and Rafale?

You do realize that the RAF are planning on replacing the type starting in 2015, with guess what, probably more F-35's? By 2030, all Typhoons are to be retired from RAF service.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
You blissfully ignore key requirements for combat.

It seems like the reverse is more true.

Quoting NathanH (Reply 34):

I know we are talking about the SE, but the USAF definitely doesn't think the F-15's fighting days are over. Of if they do, I'm wasting a lot of my day writing software for upcoming upgrades to the Cs.

Well, the C's are probably going to hang around for another decade, probably longer in ANG service in second line and NORAD duties. The F-35's will probably go to front-line squadrons and the aircraft in best shape from those squadrons will be placed with second line squadrons, while everything else goes to the boneyard.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10248 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):While most close in fights are done below Mach 1, you need to exceed Mach 1 to get to the fight, or leave it.
Which the F-35 can cruise at a comfortable Mach 1.2 for 150nm in a combat configuration...

Yeap, 10.4 minutes of flying time to cover that distance. Okay, that gets you to the fight, now fuel is a problem, you don't have enough to fight for 3-5 minutes, then get your a$$ out of there for another 10 minutes at supersonic, then fly home.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):The whole purpose of stealth is optimized to prevent long range detection, and BVR. Once inside visual range, stealth is useless.
True, but stealth grants you the all critical first look, first shot advantage against a non-stealthy opponent.

You are not stealthy with all that garbage hanging off your wings. You are not stealthy once you open the doors.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
In combat the ability to place ordnance on the enemy and get the plane home are important. Dogfights are WWI tactics and this already rarely occured in WWII. Instead high spead passes on the enemy and team tactics dominated. So this incredible focus on very high levels of maneuverability is completely out of place. The integration of sensors and advanced weapon systems, plus the amount of beating a plane can take are much more important.

Better read more history about the USAAF, RAF, and USN during WWII, then read about Korea and Vietnam. Dog fights were much more common than you think.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Look at the combat records of some of the most successful aces in the world; if you examined their fighting styles, it becomes very clear there are two distinct types of fighter pilots; one that predominantly uses team tactics to overwhelm the enemy, the second type is the stalk and ambush ace. Erich Hartmann is a great example of a pilot that was predominantly a stalk and ambush pilot. By his own account, he was convinced that 80% of the pilots he downed did not even realize what hit them. And he was never shot down, and more importantly, he never lost a wingman.

Yes, Col. (Oberst) Hartmann did indeed have 350+ kills, mostly against Soviet Union aircraft and pilots, near the end of the war he fought USAAF P-51s. His ambush tactics did not work as well against USAAF pilots as it did against the Russians. He was never shot down, but was forced to run out of gas and a USAAF P-51B took a picture of him in his parachute. The Russians wrongly convicted him of "war crimes" .

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):Don't forget, around 2006 the F-35 had its stealth qualities reclassified from "very low observable" (as the F-117, B-2, and F-22 were), to "low observable", which is in reality a downgrade.
Oh please.

The problem was not with the plane, it was that they raised the bar for the VLO description, so the F-35 could not make the new mark, not that the plane suddenly became larger on radar. The radar signature stayed the same (the F-35 is from many sources, meeting targets on radar observability), it's just the pass mark that got higher. Paper qualification problem, not airframe problem.

Yes it is, the RCS of a F-35 is much bigger than that of a B-2, it is a problem with the airframe, it is a bigger problem on the F-35B/C than it is on the F-35A..

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
A word of caution regarding using terms like LO/VLO:

1. They are generally considered marketing terms.
2. They are sometimes used interchangeably on the F-35.
3. Lockheed refers to the F-35 as “VLO” at both of their sites (Lockheed.com and F35.com) yet refers to the F-22 as “LO” on www.f22-raptor.com and “VLO” on Lockheed.com.

ROTFLMAO. LO/VLO are official terms used by the DOD, and each has a very specific qualification attached to it. The F-35 does not qualify as a VLO airplane in the eyes of the DOD, or any of its customers.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):

And the F-15E has never been loaded with 23,000lbs of ordinance; for one thing, if you did, you wouldn't have a whole lot of fuel. Most notional combat configurations of the F-15E only weigh in at around 71-76,000 lbs all in, of which only around 6-8,000lbs is actual weapons, as demonstrated by the combat load outs in OIF, OEF, OAF, and ODS. The rest is all empty weight and fuel, plus other stuff (like targeting and navigation pods). Once you look at an actual combat configured F-15E and compare it a combat configured F-35 loaded wall to wall with weapons, the differences disappear.

The F-35 will never take off with a "full load" either. Combat loads are defined by the mission, not the max capability of the aircraft.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):Stealth is also not needed once air supremacy is achieved, which is about a few days into the conflict.
I would not bet on that... against the most recent enemies we've been fighting (Iraq in OIF, Libya and Afghanistan), they had no real air defences to speak of. Against more prepared enemy, such as Serbia during OAF, or Iraq during ODS, SAM's were still a major worry even days into the air campaign. The losses suffered by the Package Q strike during ODS is a clear reminder that despite us achieving air superiority over an opponent, a more prepared and equipped opponent will still inflict serious harm if we don't respect the enemy and acknowledge that the enemy, although beaten, can still hurt us.

Read what I said. I said "Air Supremacy", not "Air Superiority", they are two different things.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21): The F-35des have a 'bigger gun', a 25mm, but with only 180 rounds of ammo, the F-15SE has the standard F-15 20mm gun, but with 510 rounds of ammo, the same as the F-16. Going into combat, I would rather have more rounds of a smaller caliber, than a bigger caliber with fewer rounds (in this case less than half the number carried by other US built aircraft.
If you want, we could always go back to the Browning M2/M3 machine gun... or even a .30 machine gun. We will have lots of rounds for those guns in an aircraft, but I doubt we will do much in the way of damage.

I am well aware of the 'punch' different calibers have, much more than you have. The P-51 of WWII carried 6 .50 cal M-2s, with an average of 600 rounds per gun, not much more than the F-15. Why didn't you mention the A-10, its GAU-8A 30mm had almost 1200 rounds available?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 and F-18 is irrelevant.
Yes it is because those two are the aircraft F-35 is replacing!

Ahhh, the ROKAF is replacing the F-4s, not the F-16s.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
No combat fighter will ever go into battle alone.

Really? Read about Ryan's Raiders in Vietnam, Look at F/FB-111 missions, or the RAF Mosquitos, or just about any reece airplane, including the SR-71.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
Secondly, the F-35 will lock onto the Typhoons at a much further range than the Typhoons will even have a chance to detect a F-35.

Once he locks onto a Typhoon, or any other modern fighter in the world today, the 'target' will know it and will know exactly where he is.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10201 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Yeap, 10.4 minutes of flying time to cover that distance. Okay, that gets you to the fight, now fuel is a problem, you don't have enough to fight for 3-5 minutes, then get your a$$ out of there for another 10 minutes at supersonic, then fly home.

150 miles at Mach 1.2 is very good, considering that the F-22 is supposed to do Mach 1.5 for 115 miles. The combat range of the F-35 is 672 miles, so it's fairly equivalent. F-35 has lots of internal fuel to do the job expected.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):

You are not stealthy with all that garbage hanging off your wings. You are not stealthy once you open the doors.

And how long is that door open for? A few seconds? Not enough to lock on and engage.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Better read more history about the USAAF, RAF, and USN during WWII, then read about Korea and Vietnam. Dog fights were much more common than you think.

Better look at what's going on since Korea. The bottom line is we see more and more conflicts where electronics and factors "other than performance" are playing bigger roles, and its not just with airplanes. Its no longer about "higher, faster, tighter," the limits are being reached not just in cost of aircraft but in the limits of humans to endure what the aircraft can do (F-22 maybe an example of this).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
He was never shot down, but was forced to run out of gas and a USAAF P-51B took a picture of him in his parachute. The Russians wrongly convicted him of "war crimes" .

Yeah, because he ran out of ammo and fuel after shooting down 2 P-51's in that mission. He was about to take out number 3 before he realized he was out of rounds.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Yes it is, the RCS of a F-35 is much bigger than that of a B-2, it is a problem with the airframe, it is a bigger problem on the F-35B/C than it is on the F-35A..

Prove your assertion that the F-35B/C has a larger RCS than the F-35A.

And it is not that much bigger; according to Global Security.org, we are talking about a 0.005m2 to a 0.0001m2 comparison. But the F-35's stealth coating is much more maintainable.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):

Read what I said. I said "Air Supremacy", not "Air Superiority", they are two different things.

You are not going to get air supremacy over a near peer enemy. The only way that will happen is if the enemy has no air force or air defence system to begin with.

But then, if the enemy has no air defence system to begin with, you don't need stealth or air superiority jets to take control of the skies.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Why didn't you mention the A-10, its GAU-8A 30mm had almost 1200 rounds available?

Because A: that gun is no longer made and B: it's a one trick pony, a big one at that. You do realize how big the GAU-8A is right? Here's a quick size comparison to a Volkswagen Beetle:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/HTransam/FairchildA-10Thunderbolt05GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg

You are looking at a very big fighter to house a GAU-8 and have it perform reasonably well stock. Otherwise, you could cut down and thin down the barrels, reduce the rate of fire and reduce the carried ammo to get it to fit in a reasonably sized fighter, but then you loose muzzle velocity, and rate of fire. But then again, you might as well get something like the GSh-301, GSh-30, GSh-6-30 or the GIAT 30.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The F-35 will never take off with a "full load" either. Combat loads are defined by the mission, not the max capability of the aircraft.

The same can be said for F-15E.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Ahhh, the ROKAF is replacing the F-4s, not the F-16s.

Even better, a F-35 is a major step up. Not that there's anything wrong with the F-15SE, it's also a step up.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Really? Read about Ryan's Raiders in Vietnam, Look at F/FB-111 missions, or the RAF Mosquitos, or just about any reece airplane, including the SR-71.

Note what I said: combat fighter, not recce aircraft. And Ryan's Raiders flew modified F-105F fighter bombers, and they were more hampered by the fact that they only had 4 F-105's and a similarly small crew pool. And I believe they lost at least 2 F-105's as well.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Once he locks onto a Typhoon, or any other modern fighter in the world today, the 'target' will know it and will know exactly where he is.

The AN/APG-81 radar is an LPI set. And there are ways to fool a enemy into thinking that they haven't locked on until the very last minute... but we are entering into things that are OPSEC.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10200 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):
The F-35 order is for the -B model, apparently for the ROKN. Looks like they may be joining the carrier club like the Italians.

Apparently, that news concerns Singapore...and is going through some minor...errr...'fact checking'.....

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-15SG_Armed_Boeing_lg.jpg
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.co...es/AIR_F-15SG_Armed_Boeing_lg.jpg.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ecides-to-fly-like-an-eagle-01141/

Quote:
"Sure, Singapore also wants 10 AMRAAM Spare Guidance Sections and an AMRAAM Programmable Advanced System Interface Simulator (PASIS). They also want 18 AN/AVS-9(V) Night Vision Goggles, the H-764G GPS with GEM-V Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM), and Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE-Plus) 'in support of a Direct Commercial Sale of new F-15SG aircraft.'

In other words, they’re about to buy another 12 F-15SGs as F-5 replacements and grow their fleet to 36, instead of buying 12 F-35Bs that won’t be useful until 2018 or later.

Because the fighters are a DCS sale, Singapore will manage it themselves, and figures aren’t disclosed. They’ve done this for all of their F-15SG buys, and past estimates for their 12-plane buys have been around $1.5 billion ($125 million per aircraft + support etc.). Their support and training infrastructure is already in place, so the total may be lower this time."


Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 26):
They may still order the Typhoon for all we know, which is actually the most capable of the 3 still in the running, for A2A roles.

And Eurofighter is dangling a very enticing deal to be more than an 'also ran' this time around.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...e-48-eurofighters-in-s.-korea.html

Quote:
"SEOUL --- The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), which is competing with U.S. companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin for South Korea's fighter jet program, has offered to manufacture 48 out of 60 planes in local factories if it wins the multi-billion dollar deal, sources and company officials said Friday.

The multinational defense firm EADS's Eurofighter Tranche 3 has been bidding with Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet and Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle for the 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 billion) contract to replace the South Korean Air Force's aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s from 2016.

The Defense Acquisition and Procurement Agency (DAPA) has already completed the first round of negotiations with Boeing and EADS over pricing, officials said, while Lockheed Martin, which offers the F-35 through the Foreign Military Sales program, is still in consultations.

With negotiations over other conditions, including technology transfer and delivery time, nearing completion, EADs has recently proposed raising the number of Eurofighters to be built in South Korea.

'Procurement officials and EADS officials have negotiated over the number of aircraft to be produced in the nation for nearly two years,' a military source said, citing ongoing negotiations. 'EADS, which had initially proposed to manufacture 30 planes in South Korea, has recently decided to increase the number.'

EADS officials confirmed that the company has made the higher offer with promises of technology transfer needed to build the airplanes."



However, it's uncertain if it would make much headway against the incumbent.

[Edited 2013-04-06 20:02:33]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10168 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
150 miles at Mach 1.2 is very good

That's below marginal. One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.

Besides, it takes a eternity for the F-35 to get to Mach 1.2 with afterburner. It's just not a practical for it to have its afterburner lit for so long. Comparing the F-35 at 25,0000 feet going subsonic to the F-22 class jets is a sorry sight. No amount of electronics and situational awareness is going to change the physical and with it the combat advantage these have over the F-35.

Try this, what is the range of an AIM-120D when fired from a plane at 25,000 feet traveling MACH 0.90 at a target at 65,000 traveling at MACH 1.5, moving away from the launch plane? Perfectly on the nose. If you want try 30 degrees off the nose and recalculate. You'll be surprised how short the range is.

Now do the revers, with the missile fired from the faster, higher plane with the slower plane one moving away. You'll be surprised how much farther the missile can travel. Unless you plan on ramming planes, you need to know this information as a pilot. You are not going to shoot your 2 missiles at targets they have no chance of reaching, are you?

[Edited 2013-04-06 20:43:36]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10157 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):

That's below marginal. One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight

Gee, you know so much about how a fighter should fly, why, don't you present your credentials and your theories to the USAF, the DoD, the Pentagon, the Senate and every foreign nation buying the F-35 to argue your point? I'm sure you will get a wide audience that will agree with you.

I can get more nippy and sarcastic, but that would be a personal attack. I'm not certain if you know what you actually are talking about, misguided, or just trolling. I am hoping for the best, but the more I see about it, the more I am thinking you are making absurd statements to get a rise out of people because you constantly ignore facts that are contrary to your position and don't offer any reason to support your claims.

I'm not going to bother with your claims because it is clear that you refuse to listen. It's like talking to a brick wall.

And we are SERIOUS off-topic on the subject of Korea and their planned purchase of F-35's or F-15SE's. Any further responses after this should go back on topic otherwise the mods should delete any subsequent off topic post.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10075 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
Quoting NathanH (Reply 34):
I know we are talking about the SE, but the USAF definitely doesn't think the F-15's fighting days are over. Of if they do, I'm wasting a lot of my day writing software for upcoming upgrades to the Cs.
Well, the C's are probably going to hang around for another decade, probably longer in ANG service in second line and NORAD duties. The F-35's will probably go to front-line squadrons and the aircraft in best shape from those squadrons will be placed with second line squadrons, while everything else goes to the boneyard.

The USAF has no "second line squadrons", they are all fully combat ready and fully "front line squadrons".

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
You are not stealthy with all that garbage hanging off your wings. You are not stealthy once you open the doors.
And how long is that door open for? A few seconds? Not enough to lock on and engage.

It is fractions of a second.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 39):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
That's below marginal. One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight
Gee, you know so much about how a fighter should fly, why, don't you present your credentials and your theories to the USAF, the DoD, the Pentagon, the Senate and every foreign nation buying the F-35 to argue your point? I'm sure you will get a wide audience that will agree with you.

I can get more nippy and sarcastic, but that would be a personal attack.

Sounds snippy to me. BTW, tommytoyz is correct.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 39):
I'm not going to bother with your claims because it is clear that you refuse to listen. It's like talking to a brick wall.

But you are 'open minded' to opposing views?

The ROKAF should just get the F-15SE and get this done.


User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9981 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
You do realize that the RAF are planning on replacing the type starting in 2015, with guess what, probably more F-35's? By 2030, all Typhoons are to be retired from RAF service.

Can you source that please? The plan is to retire the early Tranche 1 Typhoons beginning 2015. The UK hasn't actually committed to procuring the F-35 yet, a decision will come as part of the 2015 defence review. Current speculation is the UK will procure less than 50.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3575 posts, RR: 27
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 41):
Can you source that please?

from the other thread in response to :

'and you can of course authenticate this without using LM's propaganda."

Thepointblankresponse:
"This is the internet, you don't have to authenticate anything."


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9888 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
BTW, tommytoyz is correct.

That is fantastic news. I follow the F-35 program pretty closely, especially the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft and gather all the info I can. Hence please KC135TopBoom or Tommytoyz provide the source document/link that gives you both such certainty that the aircraft performs as Tommytoyz said it does below.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9872 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 43):
provide the source document/link that gives you both such certainty that the aircraft performs as Tommytoyz said it does below
Effects of shockwaves become apparent well in advance of the aircraft reaching Mach 1 when parts of the airflow around the aircraft become supersonic. This regime, roughly from Mach 0.8 - Mach 1.2, is called the transonic regime. The onset of the transonic regime occurs when some spots on the aircraft start to create supersonic flow and cause shockwaves.

Nevertheless, the transonic flight regime is in all aircraft characterized by the sudden increase in drag which needs to be overcome somehow. Modern fighter craft usually utilize the increased thrust of afterburners to accelerate through the transonic regime quickly.


http://wiki.flightgear.org/Understan...Supersonic_Flight#Transonic_Flight

The F-35 can't maintain super sonic flight without afterburner except straight and level or descending, if all it can do is MACH 1.2 without afterburner. We know for a fact that the F-35 needs afterburner to cross the high drag transonic zone, which ends at MACH 1.2. And it does so very slowly. It's slow acceleration through that zone is not because of a lack of power. Look at an F-5 and you can clearly see the shape in the center of the fuselage that facilitates supersonic speeds. The thrust to weight ratio of the SR-71 at full afterburner was only 0.38. Aerodynamic properties have a far greater effect on supersonic speed than power does.

Unless the F-35 has altered the laws of physics, it is bound to the existing ones. If you go on fighter forums, the energy required and how it bleeds off during maneuvering is often discussed. It takes energy to turn or to climb and you lose speed or add power to maintain speed while you do that. That's just a fact anyone can look up.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 39):
I can get more nippy and sarcastic,

Sorry you have issues.

I seriously doubt Korea would get good value or capability for their money with the F-35A. I assume one of their biggest requirements is speed, with the populated centers so close to the border. That would make the F-35A the worst choice and the typhoon the best choice, though the F-15SE isn't slow either. However, I am not sure about the A2G capabilities of the Typhoon. Perhaps the F-15SE is a good compromise between speed and attack capabilities.

[Edited 2013-04-07 15:50:12]

[Edited 2013-04-07 15:52:12]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9857 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
Effects of shockwaves become apparent well in advance of the aircraft reaching Mach 1 when parts of the airflow around the aircraft become supersonic. This regime, roughly from Mach 0.8 - Mach 1.2, is called the transonic regime. The onset of the transonic regime occurs when some spots on the aircraft start to create supersonic flow and cause shockwaves.

Nevertheless, the transonic flight regime is in all aircraft characterized by the sudden increase in drag which needs to be overcome somehow. Modern fighter craft usually utilize the increased thrust of afterburners to accelerate through the transonic regime quickly.

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Understan...light

Great, we all know this. This does not address the F-35 specific ability to remain at M1.2 supercruising.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
The F-35 can't maintain super sonic flight without afterburner except straight and level or descending, if all it can do is MACH 1.2 without afterburner.

How do you know this? Do you have access to program T&E data that has given you the ability to determine this?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
We know for a fact that the F-35 needs afterburner to cross the high drag transonic zone, which ends at MACH 1.2.

Agree, but so does the F-22 and so did the Concorde. This is no different to any other supersonic aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
Unless the F-35 has altered the laws of physics, it is bound to the existing ones.

So you have the aerodynamic flow model of the F-35 and how it interacts past M1.2 and have determined that it will lose speed because it

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.

I would like to see this model, the T&E data you have access to or the calculations you have undertaken to arrive at this conclusion.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9825 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 45):
So you have the aerodynamic flow model of the F-35 and how it interacts past M1.2 and have determined that it will lose speed because it

Every aircraft loses speed if it turns or climbs, unless you add power as well. There is no plane that doesn't. I do not need data on the F-35 to know that. My personal experience also confirms this.

To stay supersonic without afterburner while maneuvering at MACH 1.2, the plane would need to add power be able to stay supersonic. This comes from the aftterburner in the case of the F-35. The F-15E is better here in that it can reach and maintain a maximum speed of Mach 1.1 without afterburner. So it can afford to lose a little speed and still get back to MACH 1.1 dry - in the transonic regime.

The F-35 can not do this without afterburner.

Only the Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 can currently super cruise well faster than MACH 1.2 without afterburner.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9826 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
Only the Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 can currently super cruise well faster than MACH 1.2 without afterburner.

Maybe in airshow configuration. Full weapons load with pylons, EFT's and pods? I don't think so.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9821 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
To stay supersonic without afterburner while maneuvering at MACH 1.2, the plane would need to add power be able to stay supersonic. This comes from the aftterburner in the case of the F-35.

Still no source so I will help you. The basis for your M1.2 claim is a quote from Air Force Magazine, http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...2/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx which says the following, 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."


So your source document for M1.2 is from Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O’Bryan. Does O'Bryan indicate the F-35 is limited to M1.2? Does he say it cannot manoeuvre at M1.2? Does he say it

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.

No he does not. You have assumed all of the above.

As an aside, we also know that at the point the comment was made the F-35 was approximately 20% through its T&E phase. As with all aircraft testing you increase the performance and margins the further you go through the test program so, in my opinion, it wouldn't surprise me if that level is increased at sometime in the future as the US DoD and LM understand more about the aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
I do not need data on the F-35 to know that. My personal experience also confirms this.

You do need data if you want to make claims about what an aircraft is capable of, so either provide some source documentation or some calculations on how you reached that.

Anything else is not fact, but merely a conjecture/opinion/pluck without any evidentiary support and should be presented as such........


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9812 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
The USAF has no "second line squadrons", they are all fully combat ready and fully "front line squadrons".

True, what I meant was that units that will continue to operate the F-15 will probably not see intensive combat and be tasked duties and areas that are more secure.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
It is fractions of a second.

Humans can't react in such a time; it takes a computer to react that quickly. This is why some systems for ship defence have automatic engagement modes where the computer does all of the tracking, acquisition and engagement. Humans are not fast enough to react.

And the thing is, you still need to illuminate the F-35 with your radar to provide guidance and mid course updates until the missile can track the target independently. Remember, stealth is not just about avoiding initial detection; it is also about breaking the kill chain along the way.

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 41):
Can you source that please? The plan is to retire the early Tranche 1 Typhoons beginning 2015. The UK hasn't actually committed to procuring the F-35 yet, a decision will come as part of the 2015 defence review. Current speculation is the UK will procure less than 50.

Reuters and Jane's had an article:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...tain-usa-jet-idINL2E8II4D420120718
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/...hannel=defence&subChannel=business

The ultimate numbers (the RAF has committed to a minimum of 48 F-35B's) will be determined in 2015 in the defence review, correct.

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
from the other thread in response to :

'and you can of course authenticate this without using LM's propaganda."

Thepointblankresponse:
"This is the internet, you don't have to authenticate anything."

Double standard if you ask me; I have to authenticate everything, and you don't.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3575 posts, RR: 27
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
Double standard if you ask me; I have to authenticate everything, and you don't.

The point is (no pun intended) if you make a statement and we challenge it, or ask for source information so we can become as smart, you should provide the supporting data or source. It's not up to us to find your source. If you state an opinion, we are allowed to ask for the basis of that opinion... The trouble over 20 threads is determining which statements are supported by actual data and which are your opinions presented as facts.

When you have provided source data, it's mostly been useful ....


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9771 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
Double standard if you ask me; I have to authenticate everything, and you don't.

I can't remember ever asking you to authenticate anything.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48):
You do need data if you want to make claims about what an aircraft is capable of, so either provide some source documentation or some calculations on how you reached that.

I am making claims of what the F-35 is not capable of. It is not capable of maneuvering in any significant way starting from MACH 1.2 and simultaneously maintaining supersonic flight without afterburner.

Again the basics:
All planes lose speed when they maneuver unless they add power or descend and the higher the wing loading the more pronounced this becomes. This is beyond debatable. The F-35 is no different I am sure, since the laws of physics have no been altered to accommodate the F-35. This is aerodynamics 101 and all pilots, including fighter pilots know this.

It is public that the F-35 can not get through the transonic regime without afterburner going straight and level and takes an eternity to do so. It also known it has a relatively high wing loading - not good for minimal speed loss to execute a maneuver. This is 101.

GAO:
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C,......increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds," Typhoon accelerates faster than just the shortfall.

However, the nonsensical comments still keep coming from people related to the program:

Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon

Cough, the Typhoon can cross the transonic regime without even using afterburner and can super cruise - F-35 can't. Cough. And when it does use afterburner, it out accelerates the F-35 through the transonic regime by a wide margin, even when carrying 6 A2A missiles. Wonder what Lockheed defines as better? Slower is better?

To anyone who takes offense, please ignore my explanations and posts. None is meant. Thank you.

Now here is an interesting concept:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-sixth-gen-fighter-concept-384291/


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9734 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 51):
I am making claims of what the F-35 is not capable of. It is not capable of maneuvering in any significant way starting from MACH 1.2 and simultaneously maintaining supersonic flight without afterburner.

Prove it. Provide sources that verify your statement.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 51):
However, the nonsensical comments still keep coming from people related to the program:

Billie Flynn in his past, worked as a test pilot for the Eurofighter. This is his profile at The Society of Experimental Test Pilots:
https://www.setp.org/directors/flynn.html
His profile mentions that he has extensively flown the following aircraft in a combat or testing environment:
CF-18 Hornet
F-16D's
F-16 VISTA
Eurofighter Typhoon
F-4E/F Phantom II
Tornado ECR/IDS
F-16E/F Super Viper
F-16 GCAS
F-35 Lightening II

His profile also mentions that he has flown 70 different aircraft with 4,700 hours logged. He's qualified to make those comments because unlike everyone else, HE'S FLOWN THE AIRCRAFT IN QUESTION EXTENSIVELY.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 51):

Cough, the Typhoon can cross the transonic regime without even using afterburner and can super cruise - F-35 can't.

Prove your assertion that the F-35 cannot cross the transonic regime without using afterburner; we've already established that F-35 will go Mach 1.2 without afterburners.

Considering that using afterburners to break the speed of sound is actually faster and quicker than using dry thrust, there is a trade off between using just dry thrust over a long period of time, or lighting the afterburners to quickly break the speed of sound, then backing off.

But then again, the F-35 doesn't need afterburners to take off (the only other fighter that can do this is the F-22).


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9707 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 51):
I am making claims of what the F-35 is not capable of. It is not capable of maneuvering in any significant way starting from MACH 1.2 and simultaneously maintaining supersonic flight without afterburner.

And there is little credibility of your statement given you refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 51):
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C,......increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds," Typhoon accelerates faster than just the shortfall.

LoL, and Typhoon can't land on a carrier. What's your point.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9653 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
The M61 Vulcan 20mm round is 3rd from the left and the GAU-22/A 25mm is fifth from left. You can see how much bigger the 25mm round is compared to the 20mm round, both in terms of actual size and the actual cartridge size.
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 25):

This is turning into one of those threads again.......

Dang . . . came in too late to comment on this portion of the debate.

The biggest difference between the 20mm round and a 25mm round is not necessarily the kinetic energy of the round.

The heavier the round just make it more easy for it to go into one skin of the wing and out the other.

The more pertinent benefit of a larger round is the ability to put in a delayed/proximity fuse that detonate inside the wing (or fuselage). I am somewhat aware that the larger 23mm round has an exploding war head. I'm not sure about any 20mm rounds.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9631 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
The ultimate numbers (the RAF has committed to a minimum of 48 F-35B's) will be determined in 2015 in the defence review, correct.

The UK hasn't committed to purchasing any F-35's beyond the development airframes. Original intentions were to purchase 150 but it is now widely believed that the UK will purchase no more than 50 F-35s of a yet undetermined type, and the final decision to commit to a purchase will be made in the 2015 defence review.

The RAF is planning to start retiring its Tranche 1 Typhoons in 2015-2018 and operate 107 Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 aircraft up to 2030.


It's rather disengenuous to suggest that the RAF is just about to start retiring its Typhoons and replace them with F-35s.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9585 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 53):
And there is little credibility of your statement given you refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim.
The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain.

"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air."

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, formerly the Air Force intelligence chief and a veteran F-15 pilot, said having that kind of capability is a huge advantage.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds

And I read similar comments from F-35 pilots in several other places. While the American pilots rave about the speed of the F-35, it's very slow in comparison:

The Typhoon has "Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic" - Official release. The F-35 can't do that. The F-15E can go only MACH 1.1 on dry power alone. It's showing its age, though it's a great attack plane. I don't know if the F-15SE would be much faster or not.

The Rafale has about the same acceleration as the Rafale M (carrier version), which both acelerate about as good as Typhoon. This was admitted by Eurofighter. I can't find the chart they put out which I saw, showing the Rafale neck and neck with the Typhoon on acceleration and speed. Both carrying 6 A2A missiles.

And then we have the T-50 and the J-20, which will surely also outclass the F-35 on speed and acceleration.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 53):
LoL, and Typhoon can't land on a carrier. What's your point.

The F-35A and B also have sluggish transonic acceleration and have shown to be slower than required and all version require afterburner to go supersonic and through the transonic regime, as has been reported repeatedly. It's not limited to just the C version. If carrier landing abliity is your thing, the Rafale M can do that for you and still beat the pants of the F-35 in speed and acceleration.

Happy now?

[Edited 2013-04-08 10:45:02]

User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9485 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 56):
I don't know if the F-15SE would be much faster or not.

It certainly will if it is equipped with the 20,000 lb dry/32,500 lb AB F110-132, which so far no F-15's have been.

Frankly I fail to understand why Boeing has not offered the F-15SE with this engine. It would make it a lot more attractive/capable for very little additional cost.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9463 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 56):
The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain.

"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air."

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, formerly the Air Force intelligence chief and a veteran F-15 pilot, said having that kind of capability is a huge advantage.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...peeds

And the quote from Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O'Bryan talking to Air Force Magazine is 18 months later than yours. In a development program like the F-35 18 months is a long time.

Nor does Lt Gen Deptula provide a speed, so how fast was he going or alluding to considering being supersonic is a reasonably wide region? I don't know and I'm pretty certain you don't either? So how about a more recent source please or a calculation to verify your claim?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 56):
The Typhoon has "Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic" - Official release.

So provide the link so the source can be analysed instead of just providing a sentence from the ether.... The interesting thing is we have no numbers for Typhoon. So how about some numbers to back up your claims?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 56):
The Rafale has about the same acceleration as the Rafale M (carrier version), which both acelerate about as good as Typhoon. This was admitted by Eurofighter. I can't find the chart they put out which I saw, showing the Rafale neck and neck with the Typhoon on acceleration and speed. Both carrying 6 A2A missiles.

So find the chart. Then we can at the very least analyse your claims. This is an opportunity for you to raise the level of the discussion from simple one liners or vague assertions to factual evidence that can be analysed and discussed.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 56):
It's not limited to just the C version.

No, but you deliberately quoted the F-35C numbers because it was the largest increase of the three. The F-35A was increased by 8 seconds and 16 for the B. Since you have provided no numbers for Typhoon, Rafale or F-15 I am not sure why you are bothering with the comparison.

The interesting part of this whole transonic acceleration issue is we don't actually know what the original numbers for the F-35 were! So an increase of 8 seconds for the F-35A may indicate poor performance or it may have brought it into line with the 4.5G jets.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9425 times:

Ozair,
Let's make this simple. You provide a link or proof the F-35 can actually accelerate to supersonic speeds without afterburner and without descending and maybe you're right.

However, I have read very recent pilot reports that say exactly the same thing about supersonic flight and the need for afterburner to get there. Apparently, the F-35 has not gotten any faster. I am not going to run around finding stuff for you.

Because you always find a reason to disparage whatever I post, no matter whom I link to or quote. So your turn now. Show what you've got, that proves the F-35 is faster than what I claim and what the F-35 pilots have clearly stated.

If you noticed the F-35 pilots saying that the supersonic cruise is sustained in cruise - barely. Pull some 3Gs and they be subsonic in a flash, unless they light afterburner.

If the Koreans want speed, they'll clearly go with Typhoon. If they want attack, with F-15SE. Low Observable platform - F-35.

[Edited 2013-04-08 18:06:22]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9387 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 59):
You provide a link or proof the F-35 can actually accelerate to supersonic speeds without afterburner and without descending and maybe you're right.

First, I never said the F-35 could accelerate to supersonic not using afterburner. I actually said,

Quoting Ozair (Reply 45):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
We know for a fact that the F-35 needs afterburner to cross the high drag transonic zone, which ends at MACH 1.2.
Agree, but so does the F-22 and so did the Concorde. This is no different to any other supersonic aircraft.

It is common practise to use afterburner to cross the transonic region. It gets you supersonic faster and reduces buffeting.

I have already indicated on a number of occasions that I do not have access to program data and therefore I attempt to make rational conclusions from data provided. I am also more likely to believe program officials, test pilots, government officials or the GAO, over one line statements that have no evidence, or context, to support them.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 59):
Ozair,
Let's make this simple.

I don't understand why this is anything other than simple? In place of evidence you have used the old adage "well prove me wrong then". Sorry Tommy, it does not work that way. If you want to make a claim you are required to support your position, not get me to somehow prove your claim wrong.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 59):
However, I have read very recent pilot reports that say exactly the same thing about supersonic flight and the need for afterburner to get there.

So quote them. If you look at reply 58, I showed that your information was older than the relevant point of discussion, which therefore negated its value.

I am not asking for anything other than a discussion based around evidence instead of hearsay. There are enough one line masters on Anet already. Let’s make the MilAv forum a place where evidence based discussion can improve the quality of information discussed and the knowledge base of the posters. The best threads in the CivAv and Tech forums are those where serious debate occurs around facts, why can't the same can happen in MilAv?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 59):
Because you always find a reason to disparage whatever I post, no matter whom I link to or quote.

Only when you make a statement without any evidence to support it, and frankly that happens a lot. Look at reply 56 as an example, for over half the post you made claims that you have not substantiated. I make a point of providing a link/document/quote whenever I make a claim, or say clearly that I am stating an opinion and expect people to take it as such.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 59):
If the Koreans want speed, they'll clearly go with Typhoon. If they want attack, with F-15SE. Low Observable platform - F-35.

All three are more than capable for the NK role. Which of the three will be capable in 20 years time is the real issue.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9363 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
Only when you make a statement without any evidence to support it,
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 56):
"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air."
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds

If you do not want to believe this, I can't help you. Linking to more won't help either. You don't even understand your own links. Your own O'brian link does not say that the F-35 can get through the transonic regime without afterburner. O'Brian never said the F-35 could even get past MACH 1 without afterburner, so I don't know where you get the impression, that he said the F-35 could - he didn't say that in your quote nor did any other official anywhere.

What he did say, is consistent with what I have said all along and which my F-35 pilot quotes confirm: To get past MACH 1 the F-35 requires afterburner and it can cruise at MACH 1.2, once there - in a cruise dash.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48):
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.

You are reading into O'brian's statement something he did not say - nor contained in any GAO report nor anywhere else. It's only in your imagination that someone said the F-35 can do more than what I have described here.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
I am also more likely to believe program officials, test pilots, government officials or the GAO,


Then please do exactly that - and not what no official actually said.

[Edited 2013-04-08 21:51:47]

[Edited 2013-04-08 21:58:00]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9342 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 61):
O'Brian never said the F-35 could go supersonic without afterburner
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 61):
in the 1st place even past supersonic without afterburner
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 61):
so it is not the same as the F-35, which does need it
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 61):
Who ever said the F-35 can go supersonic without afterburner?

I don't know, I certainly didn't. For some reason you are trying to morph this to a question about using afterburner to get supersonic. You introduced this to the discussion here,

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 51):
It is public that the F-35 can not get through the transonic regime without afterburner going straight and level and takes an eternity to do so.

I don't know why.

Anyway, my question remain the same........

Quoting Ozair (Reply 43):
Hence please KC135TopBoom or Tommytoyz provide the source document/link that gives you both such certainty that the aircraft performs as Tommytoyz said it does below.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.

I did not ask about getting to M1.2 or anything like that.

I even clarified that fact for you.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
First, I never said the F-35 could accelerate to supersonic not using afterburner.

I will agree on the F-22 and the Concorde not requiring afterburners to get supersonic but that this is common practise, so my wording in reply 45 was somewhat ambiguous but I corrected that later.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 45):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
We know for a fact that the F-35 needs afterburner to cross the high drag transonic zone, which ends at MACH 1.2.
Agree, but so does the F-22 and so did the Concorde. This is no different to any other supersonic aircraft.

It is common practise to use afterburner to cross the transonic region. It gets you supersonic faster and reduces buffeting.

Okay, let us just be clear.... You quote this

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 61):
O'Brian never said the F-35 could go supersonic without afterburner,

But then you quote this....

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 61):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 48):
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.

So you say O'Bryan never said the aircraft could go supersonic without afterburners but then you provide a direct quote from the article I listed, that is a summary of a brief given by O'Bryan, which says the F-35 can go M1.2 (surely we agree this is supersonic) without using fuel-gulping afterburners?

So what do you actually mean and how does this have any relation to my original question?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9323 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 62):
So what do you actually mean and how does this have any relation to my original question?


It means the F-35 is a 100% subsonic aircraft without afterburner. It means the F-35 can only push supersonic and sustain MACH 1.2 dry a) only after it has used the afterburner to accelerate to MACH 1.2 and b) only while cruising, not while pulling Gs.

Nothing the GAO, O'Brian nor the pilot reports say, claim otherwise. That is why I said, that being able to only cruise straight and level without afterburner at MACH 1.2 is a very marginal supersonic speed, because to maneuver at supersonic speeds, the F-35 would need afterburner or slow subsonic, while others don't. Even the old F-15E can push past MACH 1 and fly in the transonic regime to MACH 1.1 on dry power, which the F-35 can not. Newer fighters are even faster than that.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 62):
So you say O'Bryan never said the aircraft could go supersonic without afterburners but then you provide a direct quote from the article I listed, that is a summary of a brief given by O'Bryan, which says the F-35 can go M1.2

The pilots said it can't without afterburner and your quote from O'Brian doesn't contradict the pilots nor say otherwise. It Remains from official sources then that the F-35 can sustain MACH 1.2 without afterburners but only if and only after it has used afterburner to push to MACH 1.2 Because without afterburners, the F-35 can not get anywhere near MACH 1.2. The two are consistent.

[Edited 2013-04-09 00:33:29]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9267 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):

It means the F-35 is a 100% subsonic aircraft without afterburner.

Well kind of. If the aircraft can fly at M1.2 without using afterburner what does it matter how he got there? Do you think the Typhoon, Rafale, F-22, Concorde, etc etc etc all make sure they use only dry thrust to get to supersonic speed?

The more important question to ask is does it make a difference? Tactically, you only supercruise when you really need to as it chews through your fuel. The Concorde experience tells us you will use less fuel and speed the process if you use afterburner to punch through the sonic barrier. Hence why would you use dry thrust only?

The only reason I can think of is that you are concerned about your IR signature but that is doubtful. If you need to get somewhere you are going to point where you are going so your rear aspect doesn't really matter. If you need to get away from something you are going to increase your speed at any cost. I doubt even a stealth platform like the F-35, F-22 or B-2 can mask their exhaust from the rear aspect at close range. Better to move out of the WEZ of IR missiles using speed or change your aspect to re-engage. Either way, missiles don't do well chasing a target.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):
It means the F-35 can only push supersonic and sustain MACH 1.2 dry a) only after it has used the afterburner to accelerate to MACH 1.2 and b) only while cruising, not while pulling Gs.

Point A - Maybe, we don't have the details to make that call. The test pilots have indicated that they use burner to get through the barrier but no one has said they had to. It is probably a test point within the T&E phase to use dry thrust only but my guess is for typical flights 99% of fighter aircrew would simply put the burner on anyway, they have zero desire to undergo buffeting, especially on a test airframe. Better to just push through quickly.
Point B - You don't know this. You can guess it but there is no information to confirm or deny it. There are so many factors that constitute the ability to supercruise including how the airframe behaves within supersonic airflow.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):
Newer fighters are even faster than that.

With selected loadouts and probably at lower fuel states to reduce weight. I doubt when you add a standard A2G loadout on the Typhoon, Rafale or F-15 that any of them can push through the transonic region without burner. If we talk A2A loadouts I see no reason an F-35 should be different, especially if is it closer to a 50% fuel state lowering its empty weight.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 63):
The pilots said it can't without afterburner

No the link you quoted has the following text, "What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going...". They do not say you can't, they say that they use afterburner to do it. IMO there is a difference.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9241 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 57):
Frankly I fail to understand why Boeing has not offered the F-15SE with this engine. It would make it a lot more attractive/capable for very little additional cost.

Attaching a more powerful engine may be simple. However you must make sure the supporting structure can withstand the new thrust rating. Even if the higher thrust is meant to be used very rarely, the life cycle analysis have to show that the airframe struture can handle it. If you have to beef up many parts. . . the cost won't be as trival.

Commercial aircraft often are designed with these higher thrust rating in the plan. Even then they do have to tweak the substructure once in a while when they upgrade to more powerfull engine. A fighter don't usually have the luxury to carry the extra weight, waiting for the next engine upgrade.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
It is common practise to use afterburner to cross the transonic region
Quoting Ozair (Reply 64):
Well kind of. If the aircraft can fly at M1.2 without using afterburner what does it matter how he got there?

I read somewhere that pilots will put their airplane in a dive to get through the transonic region faster.

If there are other tricks to get pass the transonic region, then why spend the money to overcome that performance deficiency when you can spend it to solve other problems?

As expensive as the F-35 is why make it more expensive?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9164 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 65):
I read somewhere that pilots will put their airplane in a dive to get through the transonic region faster.

The SR-71 used this technique. Others do too. There is no reason why the F-35 couldn't also. But as a combat technique, I find it dubious. Even this technique is very slow and you really have to dive. If you're too low to begin with, it's doesn't work.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 64):
The more important question to ask is does it make a difference?

Exactly right.

Anyone who knows about aerial combat knows that kinematic performance is vital in fighters, especially under G loads. Even the F-35 test pilots explain how important this is, for the reasons they state and many more. The F-35 just does not have the kinematic performance of a Typhoon, F-15 or Rafale and several others. I don't care who says it, that is just not true. That is why I ridiculed the pilot's statement. Coming from him, it's clearly pure marketing, probably for politicians.

For Korea, I think one of the important points will not be the plane, but the weapons it can carry:

An ROKAF officer is quoted as saying that they %u201Curgently need more long-range air-to-surface missiles due to the mounting nuclear threat and the increasing possibility of provocations from North Korea.%u201D

It was clear from the outset that the ROKAF was looking beyond the 40 or so Boeing AGM-84K SDLAM-ER missiles in its arsenal, with particular interest in Lockheed Martin%u2019s AGM-158 JASSM/JASSM-ER. Unfortunately, the current administration has made it difficult for South Korea to join Australia as a JASSM export customer.

Chalk up another %u201Cown goal%u201D for American weapons export processes and administration %u2013 though JASSM reportedly had some carriage issues with the F-15SE and F-15K (vid. Nov 5/12 entry). The KEPD 350 is currently integrated with the Tornado and F/A-18 Hornet, partially integrated with Saab%u2019s JAS-39 Gripen, and is expected to be integrated with the Eurofighter by 2015 or so. The ROKAF will have to fund additional integration and testing on its own, in order to use the new missile with its F-15Ks and F-16s.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-fx-multirole-fighter-buy-phase-2-the-race-is-on-02966/

Maybe if Eurofighter offer the integration with the KEPD 350 as part of the package, that would seal the deal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KEPD_350


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9114 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 66):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 64):
The more important question to ask is does it make a difference?

Exactly right.

So...answer the question?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 66):
Anyone who knows about aerial combat knows that kinematic performance is vital in fighters, especially under G loads.

Well EM theory is evolving with the use of new technology. In an era of high off boresight all aspect missiles sustained turn rates are less important compared to instantaneous turn rates and AoA. The ability to point your nose at an opponent in a WVR range engagement means you shoot first, usually giving you first kill. Sure you may lose a lot of energy in the process but the kinetic performance is about regained lost energy from a very low and slow state. Here is a good reference to explain where I am going, http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com....der-on-energy-maneuverability.html

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 66):
The F-35 just does not have the kinematic performance of a Typhoon, F-15 or Rafale and several others. I don't care who says it, that is just not true.

The problem Tommy is each of those aircraft probably have parts of their flight regime where they exceed all the others, dependent upon altitude, load out, fuel state etc of course. Hence kinematics is more than simply going fast. The point of tactics is to maximise your platform against your opponent by using areas where your kinematic performance is better. So making a general statement like above when you compare four aircraft that are very very close in performance, without a context, is somewhat meaningless. If you want to compare the kinematics of a Typhoon to a B737 it makes more sense.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 65):
I read somewhere that pilots will put their airplane in a dive to get through the transonic region faster.

Pretty sure it is called a bunt.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 65):
If there are other tricks to get pass the transonic region, then why spend the money to overcome that performance deficiency when you can spend it to solve other problems?

Agree, especially in this case where the tactical implications are so miniscule.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9103 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 66):
The F-35 just does not have the kinematic performance of a Typhoon, F-15 or Rafale and several others. I don't care who says it, that is just not true.

So attack the idea, not the person. Explain why he's wrong. Provide evidence that he's wrong.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 66):
That is why I ridiculed the pilot's statement. Coming from him, it's clearly pure marketing, probably for politicians.

Billie Flynn is very well qualified to make such statements, because he's flown the aircraft in question extensively and can speak as a subject-matter expert. He helped test the performance characteristics of the Eurofighter during his time as a test pilot with EADS, and is doing the same work with Lockheed Martin. He's a very well qualified and respected pilot who stakes his professional reputation on this, having worked with the USAF and NASA as one of their test pilots.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9094 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 67):
In an era of high off boresight all aspect missiles sustained turn rates are less important compared to instantaneous turn rates and AoA


None of these capabilities are going to help the fighter if it is not in a position to fire, because it is lower and slower than the target. The higher and faster fighters can shoot well before a slow and low fighter can fire - assuming similar missiles.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
So attack the idea, not the person. Explain why he's wrong. Provide evidence that he's wrong.

I didn't attack the person. And I did provide ample explanations and evidence. Too many actually, so this will conclude my posts here. However, why don't you provide evidence that the F-35 can accelerate 1) past MACH 1 or 2) past the transonic regime - both on dry power alone, and without diving? Thanks! That would be great to see and much appreciated!

[Edited 2013-04-09 15:20:48]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9067 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 69):
None of these capabilities are going to help the fighter if it is not in a position to fire, because it is lower and slower than the target.

Well you can be lower and slower than the target and still fire. Can I be 100ft lower and 20 kts slower and still fire?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 69):
The higher and faster fighters can shoot well before a slow and low fighter can fire - assuming similar missiles.

Don't you think sensors play a more important part? How can you fire your wonderful AAM if you can't detect or track the target? If your sensor suite has allowed you to detect the adversary first a lower and slower airframe could move to an advantageous position before he is detected. If you are high and fast do you even have enough fuel to make the engagement because you burnt it all getting high and fast in the first place? Why does one aircraft always have to be lower and slower?

I could go on and on. Instead of contriving scenarios where you provide all the tactical advantage to one platform against another why not just look at the capabilities of the airframes themselves?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9040 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 70):
Can I be 100ft lower and 20 kts slower and still fire?

More like 40,000 feet lower and 400 knots slower. Just over the thumb, I would think the higher/faster jet's missiles would have at least twice the range of the lower one - assuming more or less equal missiles.

Assuming IRST has a detection range of 50 miles head on and 90 miles from the rear (like Typhoon PIRATE), the F-35 would have to detect and track the targets from at least 100 miles out, just to keep it even.

Secondly, the higher jets would more easily be able to defeat any missiles fire at them. See SR-71 as an example that this is true.

Thirdly, the faster jets could engage or evade at will Vs. the F-35, since they're faster.

Debate amongst yourselves folks....I personally can't see Korea ordering the F-35 because it's too far out time wise and has too many question marks surrounding it. Most importantly, the Koreans want a plane that can carry bunker busting cruise missiles.

By the way, both Typhoon and Rafale far exceed the F-35's ability in max AoA and in instantaneous turn rate. Look it up....


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9018 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 66):
Coming from him, it's clearly pure marketing, probably for politicians.

And the articles you linked are just pure bias garbage. Works both ways.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8982 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
Assuming IRST has a detection range of 50 miles head on and 90 miles from the rear (like Typhoon PIRATE), the F-35 would have to detect and track the targets from at least 100 miles out, just to keep it even.

A IRST or a FLIR system is not designed for volume search. You need a external cueing source to start the search. If you want to get an idea of the limitations of such devices, pick up up and actually use one; the principles are the same.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
F-35 would have to detect and track the targets from at least 100 miles out, just to keep it even.

The AN/APG-81 radar is expected to have a range in excess of 100 miles against most targets. Probably more, but the exact details are of course, classified.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
More like 40,000 feet lower and 400 knots slower. Just over the thumb, I would think the higher/faster jet's missiles would have at least twice the range of the lower one - assuming more or less equal missiles.

Does the enemy fighter even have enough fuel to sustain high and fast operations for a sustained period, or is it only for a short dash? Consider that a enemy fighter that a F-35 will likely face will need external weapons and fuel tanks for any decent range, which increases the drag index compared to a clean aircraft.

As an example, we will use the NAVTOPS data of the F/A-18 Super Hornet as that's the manual that's easily accessible.

According to NAVTOPS, if we calculate for an air to air configuration of the following:
M61 Cannon with M56 & M242 HEI/HEI Tracer (DI of 0) Weight: 449 + 231
Station 1: AIM-9 + LAU-127 (DI of 0) Weight: 196 + 95
Station 2: AIM-120 + LAU 127 (DI of 4 + 2) Weight: 348 + 135
Station 3: (2) AIM-120 + LAU-115 + LAU-127 (DI of 3 + 3 + 2) Weight: 2x348 + 133 + 135
Station 4: 480 Gallon EFT (with 3264 lb fuel) + SUU 79 (DI 30 + 8.5) Weight: 3645 + 350
Station 5: AIM-120 + LAU-116 (DI of 4 + 4.6) Weight: 348 + 68
Station 6: Empty (DI of 0)
Station 7: AIM-120 + LAU-116 (DI of 4 + 4.6) Weight: 348 + 68
Station 8: 480 Gallon EFT (with 3264 lb fuel) + SUU 79 (DI 30 + 8.5) Weight: 3645 + 350
Station 9: (2) AIM-120 +LAU-115 + LAU-127 (DI of 3 + 3 + 2) Weight: 348 + 133 + 135
Station 10: AIM-120 + LAU 127 (DI of 4 + 2) Weight: 2x348 + 135
Station 11: AIM-9 + LAU-127 (DI of 0) Weight: 196 + 95
total Drag Index= 128.2
Total weight: 12,978 lbs

We then need to calculate the drag interference code between the various stores:
Station 6 to 5 & 7: 0
Stations 5 & 7 to 4 & 8 (DI of 30.1 x 2)
Stations 4 & 8 to 3 & 9 (DI of 35.7 x 2)
Stations 3 & 9 to 2 & 10 (DI of 33.6 x 2)
Drag Interference Code: 198.8

According to the NAVTOPS charts, my cruise AOA are as follows:
Mach 0.6: 22.5
Mach 0.8: 34
Mach 0.85: 46
Mach 0.9: 48

Dash AOA:
Mach 0.6: 14
Mach 0.8: 41
Mach 0.85: 55
Mach 0.9: 36

Total Gross Weight: (32,081 + 14,400 + 12,978) = 59,459lbs

Now, you are probably wondering, what the heck does this all mean?

Go back to the NAVTOPS charts, and you can then figure out the performance data at this configuration. Per the NAVTOPS charts, a F/A-18 Super Hornet configured under my configuration will have the following optimum performance specs:
Optimum cruise altitude: 35,000ft at military thrust
Optimum speed: Mach 0.81
Time to 35,000ft: 14 minutes at military thrust
Fuel consumption: 3000 lbs to optimum cruise
Distance to optimum cruise altitude: 90nm
Combat Ceiling: 44,000ft

Unless you have a document similar to the F/A-18 Super Hornet's NAVTOPS for the F-35, and any other jet you wish to compare, you really have no proof regarding the capabilities of each aircraft. As demonstrated above, a Super Hornet configured under the configuration I specified won't make it's specified ceiling of 50,000+ ft, and I doubt based upon the drag index that it will be going supersonic for very far or very fast. And even then, the comparisons will be affected by how much fuel you choose to take on, what weapons, weather, external temperature, etc.

[Edited 2013-04-09 23:29:25]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8919 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
More like 40,000 feet lower and 400 knots slower.

That makes no sense. Why do you get to be 40,000ft above and 400 knots faster? Because the scenario you have contrived means you get to. If I was planning an air campaign why would I allow my ground attack jets to fly without top cover in a threat environment where there were high fast flyers?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
Assuming IRST has a detection range of 50 miles head on and 90 miles from the rear (like Typhoon PIRATE), the F-35 would have to detect and track the targets from at least 100 miles out, just to keep it even.

That again makes no sense. You don't have the fuel to chase me down from the rear aspect, if you do I simply drop my altitude and then you lose me in the clutter. If you are on my nose my radar will see you long before you can do anything. A jet flying that high and that fast, especially in a look up scenario, would be easy to find on radar and a beacon on IR.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
Secondly, the higher jets would more easily be able to defeat any missiles fire at them. See SR-71 as an example that this is true.

So you want to compare a reconnaissance aircraft that flew at 80K and M3+ to a fighter aircraft that will be lucky to hit 50K and M1.4 with a meaningful payload?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
Thirdly, the faster jets could engage or evade at will Vs. the F-35, since they're faster.

The faster you go the more fuel you use. I think you would probably find it would be the opposite. Your high fast flyer would have a limited window in which to engage because it is using so much fuel maintaining that energy state.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
Most importantly, the Koreans want a plane that can carry bunker busting cruise missiles.

If you want to bunker bust you use the 5,000lb GBU-28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28 Not a cruise missile that is lucky to have a warhead over 1,000lbs. In that case, you are restricted to F-15 or F-35. They are the only fighter aircraft with the pylon strength to carry that weapon.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 71):
By the way, both Typhoon and Rafale far exceed the F-35's ability in max AoA and in instantaneous turn rate. Look it up....

How about you actually provide the info.....

For a start I doubt you have it, instantaneous turn rates are certainly classified numbers. Second, you again appear to be trying to make a claim about the F-35 when you have absolutely no way of knowing that information.

If we talk about AoA, Rafale info is here, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ault-rafale-rampant-rafale-334383/ "The DFCS is a "g" demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity. The aircraft continuously "recognises" the load it carries, but indicates and leaves the final DFCS mode selection to the pilot. Minus g limit in all modes is -3.2."

Wow, shock horror the Rafale can only pull 9g/29 AoA in air to air and 5.5g/20 AoA in air to ground. Interesting read, especially the fact he uses a bunt to get supersonic and then drops back to M0.8 after completing a 4G turn.......

Eurofighter is going to be very similar, since they both share a common delta wing structure and flight control law.

With regards to F-35, as far as AoA is concerned, http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/us/...f-35_achieves_angle_of_attack.html " An F-35A Lightning II conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft rapidly expanded its high angle of attack (AOA) test envelope to its 50 degree limit in only four flights during recent flight testing here. "

So, provide your numbers/info/sources. I just have......

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 73):
Unless you have a document similar to the F/A-18 Super Hornet's NAVTOPS for the F-35, and any other jet you wish to compare, you really have no proof regarding the capabilities of each aircraft.

Thanks mate, an interesting read.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8870 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 74):
Wow, shock horror the Rafale can only pull 9g/29 AoA in air to air

The F-35 can only do 50% of this at high speed. Besides, more than 9G sustained and the pilot blacks out. F-16 is similarly limited by the FBW.

Secondly, the max AoA you quoted for the Rafale is the high speed AoA, not the slow speed AoA. The 50 degrees AoA the F-35 reached was at slow speeds too. Apples to apples please.

At slow speeds, even an A330 can reach 50 degrees AoA, as recorded on AF447. But it's not useful in combat, like the cobra show maneuver isn't useful either.

And I did not compare the SR-71 to any other fighter. It was used to illustrate how hard it is to hit it, because it was a high and fast jet. The faster and higher, the harder it is to hit. Like the F-22/Typhoon and probably T-50, J-20. Of course we don't know the exact specs, nobody does. But enough to see where that is going and the F-35 did not go that route.

There are fighters that can operate at 60,000 feet or more and more are in the pipeline, while the F-35 normally cruises at 25,000 feet, per Lockheed. That's a huge altitude difference it is going to have to live with and an advantage opposing aircraft will have. The higher altitude also allows for faster true air speeds and allows for missiles to travel much farther than if fired from 25,000 feet. This is a disadvantage when you're low down. It's just simple physics.

If the F-35 detects the high/fast flyers rolling in on them from 100 miles away - that alone does them no good - because the AIM-120D does not have the range, fired from that altitude/speed to reach them.

Missile range becomes the key factor here. F-35 supporters pretend this does not matter and ignore this completely. But it is life and death critical. I suggest the F-35 supporters look into this. Or comment on this at the very least with some valid information.

F-35s can also only detect high flyers from 100 miles only if the targets are in the search cone of the F-35's radar. From the side or rear the F-35 has no such radar detection ability.

In general, how is the F-35 supposed to fight with missiles which have far shorter ranges than the opponents missiles? Given the quality of missiles are similar?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 74):
If you want to bunker bust you use the 5,000lb GBU-28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28 Not a cruise missile that is lucky to have a warhead over 1,000lbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KEPD_350
It has a 1,100lb warhead.

If the GBU-28 is you weapon of choice, then you have just ruled out the F-35, since it won't be carrying it as far as I can see. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I don't have any more time here folks, so I suggest you do your own research and get your own data. Have fun and be nice!


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8849 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):
I don't have any more time here folks,

About damn time. Your 'insightfulness' in these threads lack proof to back up your opinion. Next time try to bring facts instead of using your bias hatred towards the program.


User currently onlinethunderboltdrgn From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8849 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 76):
About damn time. Your 'insightfulness' in these threads lack proof to back up your opinion. Next time try to bring facts instead of using your bias hatred towards the program.

The same goes for the rest of you as well.



Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1732 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8792 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):

There are fighters that can operate at 60,000 feet or more and more are in the pipeline,

Can they operate with a meaningful load, that's the question. I just showed that a F/A-18 Super Hornet cannot operate with a meaningful load above 44,000 ft in example air to air configuration. Unless you have the aircraft's performance charts in front of you, you can't make that statement.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):
while the F-35 normally cruises at 25,000 feet, per Lockheed.

Under what conditions and what payload? For example, the cruise altitude of F/A-18 Super Hornet, per the NAVTOPS, will vary depending on the exact configuration and weight of the aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):
If the GBU-28 is you weapon of choice, then you have just ruled out the F-35, since it won't be carrying it as far as I can see. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

The Air Force Research Laboratory is working on the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon, which is a new bunker buster. It's a 2,000lb-class weapon with 5,000lb-class penetration capability could be available within two years. Designed primarily for carriage inside a F-35, but is also meant for other aircraft to increase their load outs.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8763 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):
so I suggest you do your own research and get your own data.

Because you can't provide any. I won't bother going any further considering you continue to make clearly incorrect statements that are unsupportable. When asked for a source you dodge the question and instead challenge those who have actually brought information to the debate.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 78):
The Air Force Research Laboratory is working on the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon, which is a new bunker buster. It's a 2,000lb-class weapon with 5,000lb-class penetration capability could be available within two years. Designed primarily for carriage inside a F-35, but is also meant for other aircraft to increase their load outs.

How are they expecting to accomplish it, with denser materials in the nose cone and an optimized profile?


User currently onlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2614 posts, RR: 17
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
And it is not that much bigger; according to Global Security.org, we are talking about a 0.005m2 to a 0.0001m2 comparison.

I love it when people throw these numbers around as if they mean anything. 0.005m2 to 0.0001m2? From what angle? From the front? Side? Top? Rear? Using what type of radar? What power? How far away? Is the target using ECM? How did anyone even get these numbers? Aren't they absolutely classified? These numbers mean absolutely nothing. Even if you had REAL numbers on RCS just throwing "0.005m2" without specifiying any of the conditions and parameters I just asked still makes it utterly useless.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
But then again, the F-35 doesn't need afterburners to take off (the only other fighter that can do this is the F-22).

Not true. Every modern fighter can take off without afterburner. Hell, I've even seen a MiG-21 do it. It was long and painful, but he eventually got it in the air.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8703 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 80):
These numbers mean absolutely nothing. Even if you had REAL numbers on RCS just throwing "0.005m2" without specifiying any of the conditions and parameters I just asked still makes it utterly useless.

Agree, especially when you consider that the Global security page has three different values for the B-2, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

In the case of the F-35, we can't go any further than statements from the program office that it has met the RCS spec. What that spec is and from what aspect etc none of us know.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 80):
Not true. Every modern fighter can take off without afterburner. Hell, I've even seen a MiG-21 do it. It was long and painful, but he eventually got it in the air.

Surely that depends upon configuration. I would guess that many need afterburner when they are at MTOW but have no issues with lighter weights. With the F-35, the Australian solution will be to extend the runway at RAAF Williamtown to allow for non afterburner take-offs, with the intent being to reduce noise.


User currently offlineual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8663 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):

Yes, Col. (Oberst) Hartmann did indeed have 350+ kills, mostly against Soviet Union aircraft and pilots, near the end of the war he fought USAAF P-51s. His ambush tactics did not work as well against USAAF pilots as it did against the Russians. He was never shot down, but was forced to run out of gas and a USAAF P-51B took a picture of him in his parachute. The Russians wrongly convicted him of "war crimes" .

He shot down 6 mustangs in one sortie....

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):

There are fighters that can operate at 60,000 feet or more and more are in the pipeline, while the F-35 normally cruises at 25,000 feet, per Lockheed. That's a huge altitude difference it is going to have to live with and an advantage opposing aircraft will have. The higher altitude also allows for faster true air speeds and allows for missiles to travel much farther than if fired from 25,000 feet. This is a disadvantage when you're low down. It's just simple physics.

True airspeed only increases to a point with altitude, get high enough and your MMO starts to decrease, and thus your true airspeed as well.



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2800 posts, RR: 4
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8638 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

This thread has gone completely off topic and will be archived to future posts. Any posts made after the lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.
Thanks,
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
B-52 Overflew South Korea March 08 2013 posted Mon Mar 18 2013 11:08:58 by tommytoyz
Any F-22's In South Korea...? posted Tue Nov 23 2010 17:29:06 by lucky777
Looking For South Korean P-3 Orion Pics posted Wed Feb 18 2009 12:44:38 by JakeOrion
South Korea Selects B737 AEW&C posted Fri Aug 4 2006 06:13:26 by DEVILFISH
U-2 Crash In South Korea posted Sun Jan 26 2003 08:51:31 by Flyf15
Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada? posted Fri May 29 2009 01:34:22 by JoeCanuck
S Korea 4-4E Replacement: F-15 Or F-35? posted Fri Oct 14 2011 07:10:05 by art
More Grief For The F-35... posted Thu Sep 1 2011 05:01:23 by JoeCanuck
Norway Buy's 4 F-35 For Training posted Thu Apr 7 2011 12:53:11 by OyKIE
How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...? posted Wed Nov 17 2010 15:56:14 by JoeCanuck