ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 4:06 am

And according to an USMC test pilot with the F-35 programme, the flight performance envelope is similar to the legacy F/A-18, but better in acceleration.

Quote:
The F-35 program is also making headway in clearing the flight envelope to begin training at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. There have been few surprises, Kelly said.

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.

Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.

And according to publicly released documentation, this is exactly where they had hoped performance would be; F/A-18 level (F-16 level was the bare minimum). And since the F/A-18 has better low speed maneuverability compared to the F-16, it means that the F-35 will be a handful in a dogfight after you factor in the improved acceleration.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 5:46 am

BUT IT IS 16NM SHORT OF ITS RANGE GOALS CANCEL IT NOW!


lol, joking at the expense of all the F-35 haters. (16nm iirc, dont quote me on it)

So, Legacy Hornet maneuverability, double the range, stealth, and bleeding edge avionics... over priced, but the best thing on the block in its class.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 10:23 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
So, Legacy Hornet maneuverability, double the range, stealth, and bleeding edge avionics... over priced, but the best thing on the block in its class.

And a 100 percent loss of the airplane and probably the pilot, when one engine is out in contrast to the F18...

Just imagine an engine loss during take-off by catapult on a carrier...
I really never understood why, besides the cost savings, the navy opted for a single engine aircraft type.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 12:43 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
And according to an USMC test pilot with the F-35 programme, the flight performance envelope is similar to the legacy F/A-18, but better in acceleration.

According to the latest AIR International, British test pilot Bill (?) Wilson, "manoeverability comparable to F-16, acceleration on t/o and climb out very good". I'm at work right now so I'll have to check and get you a fair use quote. There has long been a suspicion that the F-35 wouldn't manoevre all that well, presumably due to high wing loading.

The issue is on the stands now, has a 48 pg insert on the F-35. Looks great, if you believe all the stuff that amounts to advertising, since it comes mainly from compromised sources (i.e., they work for those that make the a/c or systems).
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2216
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 1:26 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 2):
I really never understood why, besides the cost savings, the navy opted for a single engine aircraft type.

   Well, the Navy have been flying single engine fighters for a long time before they got into the twin.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 2):

Just imagine an engine loss during take-off by catapult on a carrier...

Just imagine trying to land back on to a carrier with one engine (for a twin that is). Have this ever been done?

bikerthai

[Edited 2011-05-18 06:27:28]
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2110
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 4:30 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 4):
Just imagine trying to land back on to a carrier with one engine (for a twin that is). Have this ever been done?

See that's what I've asked several times over the years on here and never got a good answer. My question wasn't so much about returning to the carrier but more general as in how many times has that 2nd engine really saved the day?
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10158
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 4:49 pm

Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
BUT IT IS 16NM SHORT OF ITS RANGE GOALS CANCEL IT NOW!

Wasn't the original spec 100NM more, so in effect it's 116NM less than originally claimed, now it's 16NM less than the figure which they revised downwards.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 5:12 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
BUT IT IS 16NM SHORT OF ITS RANGE GOALS
Wasn't the original spec 100NM more,



Oroka has the post noted "iirc" well you didn't, the actual short fall is 106NM..

while that article is an impressive piece, have you ever heard a test pilot say otherwise?...
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 5:24 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
BUT IT IS 16NM SHORT OF ITS RANGE GOALS CANCEL IT NOW!

Wasn't the original spec 100NM more, so in effect it's 116NM less than originally claimed, now it's 16NM less than the figure which they revised downwards.

It's all about how the requirement is phrased, and what "allowances" there are.  
Quoting kanban (Reply 7):
while that article is an impressive piece, have you ever heard a test pilot say otherwise?...


Indeed. When you're flying the newest, shiniest, and most expensive jet ever, it's obviously the best. Especially if you want to keep your job.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 9:49 pm

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 5):
See that's what I've asked several times over the years on here and never got a good answer. My question wasn't so much about returning to the carrier but more general as in how many times has that 2nd engine really saved the day?

I really do not know if a landing on a carrier with one remaining engine is possible, but i know that with no engine remaining it is not...

With one engine still running the crew has a much higher chance to save their owns and the airplane.
This happened in germany several times with tornados and phantoms.

If the carrier is near a coast for example, an airfield could be used for landing with one engine instead of the carrier.
And if not, everybody would have much more time to organize a safe rescue of the crew if they decide to leave the airplane.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2216
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 18, 2011 10:29 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 9):
With one engine still running the crew has a much higher chance to save their owns and the airplane.

I would contend that with one engine on a two engine jet, the pilot would have a better chance to save him/herself by ejecting near the carrier and get picked up by the helicopter than by trying to land at greater risk of hitting the carrier, killing himself and endangering those on the carrier.

With the one engine, it would give the pilot a better chance to get back to the carrier . . . I give you that.

For countries like Canada and Australia where the distance between airports are great, two engines are always a plus.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 12:45 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 10):
For countries like Canada and Australia where the distance between airports are great, two engines are always a plus.

Can't speak for Australia, but for Canada, two engines aren't such a necessity as people make it out to be. All this non sense about "patrolling the vast arctic without available runways" is utter garbage. I'm not getting into specifics, but up north our jets never get too far from the shore, be it Alaska, Yukon or Nunavut. They don't fly around wasting gas, tracking bird migrations. We have NORAD and radar sites for first detection. Even with 30 year old engine technology, 99.9% of the time a complete engine failure is not going to happen.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 3:07 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 11):
99.9% of the time a complete engine failure is not going to happen.

And if there is a failure, there is a good chance that it is something that effects both engines.



Back to the 16nm thing. Original range was 690nm, revised required range is 590nm, current estimated range is 584nm, so I was wrong, the difference is 6nm (regardless of what the original range requirements were, 590 is the current requirement). The Super Hornet is advertised as 500nm WITH 3 external tanks (not sure what the new CFTs will add), but imagine what the F-35 will do with drop tanks when stealth is not needed (can we skip the OMG crap slung under the wings kills the stealth comments?)
 
B595
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:52 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 4:34 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 4):
Just imagine trying to land back on to a carrier with one engine (for a twin that is). Have this ever been done?

Actually, a single-engine carrier landing was successfully performed just a month ago:

"The pilot was able to land with one engine before the Hornet became engulfed in flame, the Navy said in a news release."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...another-f-18-catches-fire-carrier/

Granted, the F18 engines are very close to the longitudinal axis, which probably makes single-engine flying easier.
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 9:21 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 11):
Can't speak for Australia, but for Canada, two engines aren't such a necessity as people make it out to be.

Not that I don't think that the JSF will be a fine state of the art program which could work great for the the Canadian Air Command, but wasn't having 2 engines one of the demands in the NFA program that ultimately lead to the selection of the CF18 ?
I clearly remind reading this in an article about our (B/NL/NO/DK) selection process that lead to the 4 nations going for the F16 while the main reason the Canadians went for F17 -> F18 was exactly the 2 engines setup.

Something to do with their horrible experience which lead to the loss of more than 100 CF104, considerably more than contempory frames like the F5 and the Voodoo.
[edit post]
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 11:50 am

Have been thinking about the single V twin economics for a while now.
For the purposes of the argument I am going to leave crew ejection/survival out of the discussion(not saying it is not important, it most certainly is).

Looking at attrition rates, how does the F/A-18A-D compare to the F-16?
I accept there are different operating environments.

-Would a carrier based F-16 suffer greater losses in service than Hornets?

-Would USAF operated F/A-18 be a more survivable or recoverable platform than F-16?

The big question I guess is, does, over the life time of a large fleet--many hundreds in the case of the USA , hundred or so in the case of AUS or CAN, the aquisition/mx/operating cost of a twin engined platform outweigh the attrition costs of a similar single engined platform?
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
User avatar
spudh
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 12:22 pm

As an aside on engine failures its interesing to note that on RAF/RN Harriers I believe the ram turbine which was installed to allow semi-controlled landings in the event of engine failure were removed to save weight and the pilots instructed that they were expected to eject rather than try to save the aircraft in that event. The RAF/RN firmly of the opinion that the pilot was worth more than the aircraft. (maybe that was when the Harriers were old though   )

On the single v twin argument, all the data is there from years back. In each case with the USN a single engined fighter was replaced by a twin engined fighter, it became a basic specification:

A7 replaced by F/A 18
F8 replaced by F4 then F14.

The A7 and F4 would have flown side by side for most of the F4's carrier career, engine related attrition data should be available somewhere.

I think it was universally accepted that a twin has a higher (but nowhere near double) margin of safety than a single in all operations. There are complications in comparing attrition rate, a catastopic failure of the engine (like used to happen with the F14) is likely to damage enough other systems to bring down the aircraft even if it didn't take out the other engine in a close spaced config (F4,F15,F18). With wide spaced engines like the F14 you were left with potentially large asymmetrical thrust depending on the timing of the failure.

IIRC max landing weights of current USN twins are based on single engine wave off requirements rather than just landing stresses so single engine landings are not only feasible but I believe are part of the training regime. (I may be wrong on this or it may have changed but I think I recall single engine recoveries being part and parcel of 'Blue Water' operations, orders to eject rather than recover might be in vogue now). Also I believe climb out after the cat stroke on a single engine was also a big factor in carrier approval.

Again, in the Civil world engine failure rates were studied in depth when the move from 4 engined to 2 engined transatlantic airlines was accepted with the reliability and power available from modern fans proving more than up to the job.

I would expect (hope? especially since they have stupidly canceled the second engine) that the F-35 engines will prove to have reliability beyond the GE engined F16's even.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 7:58 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 8):
Indeed. When you're flying the newest, shiniest, and most expensive jet ever, it's obviously the best.


The F-35 is far from the most expensive jet ever?
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 10:21 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 17):
The F-35 is far from the most expensive jet ever?

Maybe not the most expensive but it's starting to get pretty close to it.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Quote:
With Christine Fox of the Pentagon's Cost Accounting and Program Evaluation (CAPE) group telling the committee that its per-aircraft cost estimate for the F-35 has held steady at $95 million ($113 million in FY11 dollars) since 2008, the "sticker shock" factor at the hearing was reserved for the $1 trillion sustainment-cost estimate .

Several of the senators' questions indicated a growing concern (okay, horror) over the estimated sustainment costs, not assuaged by the responses of the CAPE's Fox or GAO's Sullivan. While it should be possible to reduce the cost of repairables and contract support, Fox doubted they could get f-35 sustainment cost "down to legacy' costs. Sullivan labelled sustainment costs the progam's biggest challenge.
[edit post]
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 19, 2011 11:17 pm

Quoting arniepie (Reply 14):
Not that I don't think that the JSF will be a fine state of the art program which could work great for the the Canadian Air Command, but wasn't having 2 engines one of the demands in the NFA program that ultimately lead to the selection of the CF18 ?

No. The CF18 turned out to be a better overall performer than the F16, which was its main competitor.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1398
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 20, 2011 1:13 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
The CF18 turned out to be a better overall performer than the F16, which was its main competitor.


People forget how much the F-16 has changed over the years. The F-18 had BVR capability and a slew of A2G weapons from the start which was only added or refit to later versions of the F-16.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 12):
Back to the 16nm thing. Original range was 690nm, revised required range is 590nm, current estimated range is 584nm, so I was wrong, the difference is 6nm (regardless of what the original range requirements were, 590 is the current requirement). The Super Hornet is advertised as 500nm WITH 3 external tanks (not sure what the new CFTs will add), but imagine what the F-35 will do with drop tanks when stealth is not needed (can we skip the OMG crap slung under the wings kills the stealth comments?)


Looking at the documents PointBlank linked there are two figures given, threshold and objective. The threshold is the must reach figure and the objective being the optimum.

Overall this is great news for the program! The F-18 is a great WVR fighter and if you combine the F-18 handling with 9G capability higher up the EM scale the F-35A will be a formidable WVR aircraft.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 20, 2011 2:35 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 20):
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
The CF18 turned out to be a better overall performer than the F16, which was its main competitor.


People forget how much the F-16 has changed over the years. The F-18 had BVR capability and a slew of A2G weapons from the start which was only added or refit to later versions of the F-16.

Not Really....

"People Forget" ... That the F-18 (YF-17) lost to the F-16 (YF-16) in the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program in 1974.

So, Basically... They both had access to the same weapons at the same time....

The F-16A/B was introduced in 1978, The F-18A/B in 1983... In 1984 the F-16C/D went into full production with again the same BVR weapons available to the F-18...

Regards
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 20, 2011 4:50 am

Quoting mffoda (Reply 21):
Not Really....

"People Forget" ... That the F-18 (YF-17) lost to the F-16 (YF-16) in the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program in 1974.

So, Basically... They both had access to the same weapons at the same time....

The F-16A/B was introduced in 1978, The F-18A/B in 1983... In 1984 the F-16C/D went into full production with again the same BVR weapons available to the F-18...

Regards

Nope.

The decision to go with the CF-18 occurred in 1980. During the selection process, the Air Force was adamant about having BVR missile capability. F/A-18 at the time of the decision had BVR capability right from the start. On the F-16, it was still in the mockup stage.

At the time, the F/A-18 offered the right mix of capabilities, performance, price, and industrial benefits package that made it attractive.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1398
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 20, 2011 4:53 am

Quoting mffoda (Reply 21):
Not Really....

"People Forget" ... That the F-18 (YF-17) lost to the F-16 (YF-16) in the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program in 1974.

So, Basically... They both had access to the same weapons at the same time....

The F-16A/B was introduced in 1978, The F-18A/B in 1983... In 1984 the F-16C/D went into full production with again the same BVR weapons available to the F-18...

Regards

The CF-18 competition was decided in 1980 with the tender cut-off date of 1st Feb 1978. Blk 15 F-16s which had BVR capabilities and a significantly expanded A2G load weren't coming off the production lines until 1982. Now whether the Canadians were given the option of an AIM-7 equipped F-16 is not immediately clear and I am happy to be proven otherwise but as far each airframe offered for the competition are concerned the F-18 had the greater weapons capabilities.

I agree that by the time the Canadians received their aircraft the F-16 probably had comparable systems and equipment but at tender cut-off this probably wasn't the case. They also had a good history of operating Lockheed aircraft and had a light fighter in the CF-5 already in service but still chose the McDD option.

...Beat me to it PointBlank

[Edited 2011-05-19 21:55:16]
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 20, 2011 4:55 am

Quoting mffoda (Reply 21):
"People Forget" ... That the F-18 (YF-17) lost to the F-16 (YF-16) in the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program in 1974.

The F18 is quite a bit different than the YF-17 despite the looks. Nevermind the current "F18" is a new plane with a few old bits left near the cockpit and a F18 look to it.

Truth be told, Does a single person here think that Boeing couldn't deliver F18's with a little better manuverablity, and longer range with ONE HUNDERD MILLION DOLLARS PER FRAME to put into the program? Thats the stupid bit. Might not get your VSTOL varient, but you certainly could replace the 2000+ F35 frames with a "updated" F18 for less money and get superior performance.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 20, 2011 7:42 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 24):
Does a single person here think that Boeing couldn't deliver F18's with a little better manuverablity, and longer range with ONE HUNDERD MILLION DOLLARS PER FRAME to put into the program? Thats the stupid bit. Might not get your VSTOL varient, but you certainly could replace the 2000+ F35 frames with a "updated" F18 for less money and get superior performance.

You are making the critical mistake most people make in regards to the F-35; you are looking at the F-35 focused on the platform, while in the real world, fights are on a system's level. The F-35 as a system will dominate any other fighter save for the F-22 in existence.

Against any 4th generation (and earlier foe), the F-35 as a system will always have better situational awareness (meaning it setup a fight on its own terms by being better aware of the surroundings), or avoid engaging altogether. Against 5th generation foes, it will still likely enjoy better avionics, RCS, and available numbers. And that's on top of the fact that F-35 has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates, post stall performance, and acceleration rates than either the F-16 or the legacy F/A-18 as demonstrated by the article. That's the real advantage F-35 will have; its package of avionics, low observability, sensors, and raw airframe performance will make any existing 4th generation fighter and their upgrades obsolescent.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Mon May 23, 2011 6:02 am

The F-16 turns better than the C/D Hornet. Combine F-16 maneuverability with L.O. stuff and a powerful radar and it should be quite a jet.

[Edited 2011-05-22 23:10:59]
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
Ozair
Posts: 1398
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Mon May 23, 2011 11:08 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 26):
The F-16 turns better than the C/D Hornet.

Given that the USAF, USN and USMC all agreed that the F-16 would be the baseline and the F-18 the goal they seem to disagree with you.

It is also a bit simplistic to say that the F-16 turns better than a hornet as each has their strengths and weaknesses and different parts of the envelope where they excel. The F-16 is capable of higher G and at higher speeds the F-16s instantaneous and sustained turn rates may be better than a hornet but a hornet is better at lower speeds and can pull much higher AOA. The USAF is designing and now flying 9G capable high AOA fighters so they seem to agree on the benefits of high AOA especially if you can combine it with 9G.

Ultimately the guy who uses the strengths of his platform the best and minimises the strengths of his opponent usually wins the WVR fight. The key is some airframes have more strengths to aid the overall fight than others.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 26):
Combine F-16 maneuverability with L.O. stuff and a powerful radar and it should be quite a jet.

That sounds incredibly like an F-35......
 
mffoda
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Mon May 23, 2011 4:53 pm

Loren B. Thompson @ the Lexington institute has a funny take on the reporting of the F-35...

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/pe...-billion-on-music-bands?a=1&c=1171

Quote:

Pentagon Planning To Spend $25 Billion On Music Bands

Actually, this posting is about the F-35 fighter. But the headline is correct -- the nation's military services really are going to spend over $25 billion on music bands in the coming years. In fact, if you add inflation and indirect costs like retirement benefits, the "then-year" cost of military bands is more like $50 billion. But here's the catch: I'm talking about the cumulative cost for military bands between now and the year 2065.

Ridiculous, right? By the time we get to 2065, the bands will probably be unmanned (robotic) anyway. But that hasn't stopped various news organizations from reporting that the after-inflation "life-cycle cost" of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter through 2065 has risen above a trillion dollars. The story generated a lot of buzz, mainly because few of the reporters who cover the Pentagon know anything about economics. If they did, they'd realize that in the 1970s you could buy a new Mustang convertible for less than $5,000 and half a century is a very long time in economic terms.


You can read the rest of the column at the above link...
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5383
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Tue May 24, 2011 1:37 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 24):
Does a single person here think that Boeing couldn't deliver F18's with a little better manuverablity, and longer range with ONE HUNDERD MILLION DOLLARS PER FRAME to put into the program? Thats the stupid bit. Might not get your VSTOL varient, but you certainly could replace the 2000+ F35 frames with a "updated" F18 for less money and get superior performance.

Or pour that money on the F-15SE Silent Eagle and integrate all those bleeding edge systems into it.....you not only get a bona fide air superiority fighter with stealthy features, but also a proven mud mover.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 25):
Against any 4th generation (and earlier foe), the F-35 as a system will always have better situational awareness (meaning it setup a fight on its own terms by being better aware of the surroundings), or avoid engaging altogether. Against 5th generation foes, it will still likely enjoy better avionics, RCS, and available numbers. And that's on top of the fact that F-35 has better instantaneous and sustained turn rates, post stall performance, and acceleration rates than either the F-16 or the legacy F/A-18 as demonstrated by the article. That's the real advantage F-35 will have; its package of avionics, low observability, sensors, and raw airframe performance will make any existing 4th generation fighter and their upgrades obsolescent.

Too bad we won't likely see the Silent Eagle similarly kitted out (or "come out" at all). Apart from the low RCS.....equipped thusly, there isn't anything an F-15SE would give away to the JSF.....and would literally make it run for its money.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 27):

That sounds incredibly like an F-35......

Except for the astronomical price tag.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Tue May 24, 2011 7:00 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 29):
Or pour that money on the F-15SE Silent Eagle and integrate all those bleeding edge systems into it.....you not only get a bona fide air superiority fighter with stealthy features, but also a proven mud mover.

How much would it cost? For the baseline Silent Eagle configuration, Boeing was asking for a price of around $100 million dollars each (sans weapons, stores, etc). Adding on what F-35 has in terms of avionics will drive up that cost even more. And you still won't get something with the combat performance of the F-35 which will out-fly the F-35 and be more stealthy, and in all likelihood, F-35 would be more cheaper.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 29):
Too bad we won't likely see the Silent Eagle similarly kitted out (or "come out" at all). Apart from the low RCS.....equipped thusly, there isn't anything an F-15SE would give away to the JSF.....and would literally make it run for its money.

Oh, how about LO performance, and maneuverability? The F-15E isn't known for being highly maneuverable compared to the pure fighter counterpart. And the F-15SE's stealth ability is compromised by the exposed engines on the frontal aspect (which necessitated the use of radar blockers in the intakes which severely degrades engine performance), not to mention the total lack of LO capability on the side and rear (beyond the fact that the F-15SE's RCS size is expected to be around 1-3 metres compared to the F-35's metal golf ball sized RCS).

Oh, and was it mentioned that the F-35 will out-accelerate practically every Western fighter in existence, save for the F-22, or maybe a clean F-16 Block 50 while fully loaded? Not to mention that the F-15 has NEVER exceeded Mach 1.2 in combat situations because of the drag imposed by the externally mounted weapons and fuel tanks... This is not a problem with the F-35 with internal stores and fuel.

Ok, how about the fact that F-15SE can only have 4 internal AAMs and the F-35 will have at least 6 after Block 5 in a stealthy configuration? JDRADM will add even more due to the F-35's large bays.

Oh, and how about the fact that the AN/APG-82 radar on the F-15SE IS NOT LPI system. It's a conventional APG-79 radar's guts fitted with the APG-63(V)3's antenna. The AN/APG-81 radar on the F-35 is an LPI system, and it is also part of the F-35's electronic warfare system, which has demonstrated the ability to create havoc on the F-22's radar system.

And that goes beyond how much it actually costs to maintain and fly the F-15 and its variants compared to other fighters of the same generation... F-35's design is for cheap life-cycle and operating costs, something the massive, twin-engined F-15SE would never be able to match.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5383
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Tue May 24, 2011 5:50 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
How much would it cost? For the baseline Silent Eagle configuration, Boeing was asking for a price of around $100 million dollars each (sans weapons, stores, etc). Adding on what F-35 has in terms of avionics will drive up that cost even more.

Remember that giving the F-15SE what the F-35 has means not putting in all the Eagle previously had. And since all those systems have already been developed, tested and flying in the JSF, integrating them into the SE wouldn't add that much of a cost.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
And you still won't get something with the combat performance of the F-35 which will out-fly the F-35

The F-15 has a ferry range of 3,000 nm with 1,000 nm max combat radius.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
Oh, how about LO performance, and maneuverability? The F-15E isn't known for being highly maneuverable compared to the pure fighter counterpart. And the F-15SE's stealth ability is compromised by the exposed engines on the frontal aspect (which necessitated the use of radar blockers in the intakes which severely degrades engine performance), not to mention the total lack of LO capability on the side and rear (beyond the fact that the F-15SE's RCS size is expected to be around 1-3 metres compared to the F-35's metal golf ball sized RCS).

I had already conceded the stealth part so picking on the LO aspect from the sides and rear is quite disingenious.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 29):
Apart from the low RCS

And given where the expected performance level is as you posted at the start, it certainly isn't saying much.....

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
this is exactly where they had hoped performance would be; F/A-18 level
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):

Oh, and was it mentioned that the F-35 will out-accelerate practically every Western fighter in existence, save for the F-22, or maybe a clean F-16 Block 50 while fully loaded?

I would like to see the F-35 do it to a Silent Eagle but that occasion may not come around. However, the F-15C in tactical fighter configuration is still around for a fly-off and will give a good approximation.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
Not to mention that the F-15 has NEVER exceeded Mach 1.2 in combat situations because of the drag imposed by the externally mounted weapons and fuel tanks... This is not a problem with the F-35 with internal stores and fuel.

Theoretically, the F-15 is rated at 2.5 Mach.....one would think a Silent Eagle in AtoA mode is roughly as capable? The limitation would mainly be with the airframe and engines, and as you described.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
Ok, how about the fact that F-15SE can only have 4 internal AAMs and the F-35 will have at least 6 after Block 5 in a stealthy configuration? JDRADM will add even more due to the F-35's large bays.

So what happens after the F-35 has expended all its internal stores?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
Oh, and how about the fact that the AN/APG-82 radar on the F-15SE IS NOT LPI system. It's a conventional APG-79 radar's guts fitted with the APG-63(V)3's antenna. The AN/APG-81 radar on the F-35 is an LPI system, and it is also part of the F-35's electronic warfare system

Didn't I mention migrating the JSF's "bleeding edge systems" to the putative Silent Eagle?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):

And that goes beyond how much it actually costs to maintain and fly the F-15 and its variants compared to other fighters of the same generation... F-35's design is for cheap life-cycle and operating costs, something the massive, twin-engined F-15SE would never be able to match.

A lot of people disagree with that.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-search-for-f_35-alternatives.html

Cheers.  
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Oroka
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 25, 2011 3:25 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):
Remember that giving the F-15SE what the F-35 has means not putting in all the Eagle previously had. And since all those systems have already been developed, tested and flying in the JSF, integrating them into the SE wouldn't add that much of a cost.

Ohhh, dont under estimate how much it would cost to integrate a new avionics and warfare suite into an airframe. Why use a F-15SE then? Why not use a down rated F-22 air frame that can be upgraded to full standards later?
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 25, 2011 4:04 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):
Remember that giving the F-15SE what the F-35 has means not putting in all the Eagle previously had. And since all those systems have already been developed, tested and flying in the JSF, integrating them into the SE wouldn't add that much of a cost.

You still have to integrate and test the systems to see if they would work in an older platform. On the F-15SE platform, Boeing hasn't given much in the way of upgrading the avionics package beyond a new radar over the baseline F-15E platform. It is akin to gutting a 40 year old house and rewiring everything, then passing the new 'house' to the current standards. It becomes tremendously costly and in the end, you might as well raze the entire house and build a new one because the costs aren't worth it.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):

The F-15 has a ferry range of 3,000 nm with 1,000 nm max combat radius.

On 3 external tanks, with minimal weapons. F-35 is expected to have a combat radius of 600nm on internal fuel AND maximum weapons load; F-15 won't be able to do that. And ferry range means nothing because the aircraft is not combat capable. The F-35 carries it fuel and weapons internally and doesn't pay the huge speed, range and maneuvering penalty that all fourth generation aircraft have to pay do to parasitic drag of external weapons carriage. So in a turn a F-35 will easily out turn an armed F-16 or an F/A-18 in both degrees per second, turn radius, and reduced energy bleed (deceleration forces) .

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):
I had already conceded the stealth part so picking on the LO aspect from the sides and rear is quite disingenious.

It is really important as the F-15SE's approach to LO is half-assed, and compromises performance. Remember the radar blockers in the engine? They reduce engine performance significantly. There is a significant difference between the F414's performance on the bench compared to an F414 in an F/A-18E/F.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):

I would like to see the F-35 do it to a Silent Eagle but that occasion may not come around. However, the F-15C in tactical fighter configuration is still around for a fly-off and will give a good approximation.

What part of 'F-35 will out-accelerate practically every Western fighter in existence, save for the F-22, or maybe a clean F-16 Block 50 while fully loaded?' aren't you understanding? The F-35 will out accelerate a F-15, as even the F-16 Block 50 in a clean configuration will do that compared to an F-15.

The F-35 will be as fast or faster than the F-16C/D and F-18C/D operationally. Meaning, it'll accelerate faster, reach higher speeds and probably cruise at higher speeds compared to the F-16 and F/A-18 when all are carrying a typical war fighting load.

Fast is expensive and the F-35 is about cheap. Sure, say an F-16 will do Mach 2+, but how often do they go that fast? How long can it fly that fast at almost 50K-lbs+ of fuel per hour (hint: it's measured in minutes and in single digits)?

Answer: Never, especially while loaded. An Eagle or Viper can't reach their MAX speed with weapons or other stores, but the F-35 will be able to do so loaded since it's 'load' is all internal. So, go ahead, light your afterburners and go Mach 2+ in your teen series fighter compared to my F-35... I'll cruise happily along at transonic with a full load of weapons for hours and be miles away, while you will be bugging out for a tanker or base for gas after a couple of minutes of even starting a chase.

And even then, even if you do manage to catch me, what are you going to do, glare at me through the cockpit because you got no weapons to shoot at me with (save maybe for your standard issue survival pistol?)!

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):
Theoretically, the F-15 is rated at 2.5 Mach.....one would think a Silent Eagle in AtoA mode is roughly as capable? The limitation would mainly be with the airframe and engines, and as you described.

Nope, see above. It's also about aerodynamics and fuel consumption.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):

So what happens after the F-35 has expended all its internal stores?

It can fly straight home as the enemy won't have the ability to catch it as it will fly comfortably in transonic range for hours on end... the F-35 isn't intended for dashing, it's intended for wearing you out until you are forced to quit.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):

Didn't I mention migrating the JSF's "bleeding edge systems" to the putative Silent Eagle?

Sure, if you want to jack up the costs even more to the point where buying more F-22's would be more attractive... remember the $100 million dollar base price for a F-15SE is an estimated price based upon estimated development costs (and as we have seen in the past, these estimates are usually never correct!), and that's for a fighter that is in the end, less capable than the F-35 and F-22.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 31):
A lot of people disagree with that.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-search-for-f_35-alternatives.html

Cheers.
Ahem...

Quote:
Asked about the costs, Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin’s general manager for F-35 program integration, says that the next-generation fighter’s sustainment costs cannot be fairly compared to older aircraft.

He says JSF sustainment was developed on a performance-based logistics plan different than legacy sustainment processes. The JSF’s O&S estimates also go out to 2065 and are susceptible to ground rules that legacy aircraft are not bound to, he adds.

And that's beyond the fact that there no indication to what alternative these Senators want to consider? I don't see the AF going for it, but then again, Congress did shove a bunch of unwanted C-17's down AMC's throat these past few years... so that says a whole lot about the sanity of the Senators on Capital Hill...
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5383
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 25, 2011 4:14 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 32):

Ohhh, dont under estimate how much it would cost to integrate a new avionics and warfare suite into an airframe.

Not underestimating....just saying it would be much less than if everything were to be developed from scratch.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 32):
Why use a F-15SE then?

Because this is just a hypothetical exercise to gain a rough idea of the F-35's value as a fighter.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 32):
Why not use a down rated F-22 air frame that can be upgraded to full standards later?

They were already thinking about the very same thing....

http://www.flightglobal.com/channels...on-architecture-for-f-35-f-22.html

Quote:
"Lockheed Martin is looking at revamping several of the F-22's most critical systems with hardware from the F-35.

The initiative would create a common architecture that links upgrades of the radar, electronic warfare suite and communications, navigation and identification (CNI) system to both aircraft.

The concept requires 'significant initial investment', but 'could yield some cost savings in the long term', the manufacturer says."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 25, 2011 5:47 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 34):
They were already thinking about the very same thing....

http://www.flightglobal.com/channels...on-architecture-for-f-35-f-22.html

Quote:
"Lockheed Martin is looking at revamping several of the F-22's most critical systems with hardware from the F-35.

The initiative would create a common architecture that links upgrades of the radar, electronic warfare suite and communications, navigation and identification (CNI) system to both aircraft.

The concept requires 'significant initial investment', but 'could yield some cost savings in the long term', the manufacturer says."

Considering what they are planning to roll into F-22 from F-35 is essentially capability that was cut out of F-22 for cost savings (DAS, a helmet mounted sight, Link 16 capability, etc)... quite ironic don't you think...
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5383
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Wed May 25, 2011 7:24 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
On the F-15SE platform, Boeing hasn't given much in the way of upgrading the avionics package beyond a new radar over the baseline F-15E platform.

Would be very interesting to see what Boeing would do were the USAF so much as hint they're ordering $10B worth of F-15 Silent Eagles.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
It is akin to gutting a 40 year old house and rewiring everything, then passing the new 'house' to the current standards. It becomes tremendously costly and in the end, you might as well raze the entire house and build a new one because the costs aren't worth it.

One still needs to know the true costs before he can decide it isn't worth the effort.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
On 3 external tanks, with minimal weapons. F-35 is expected to have a combat radius of 600nm on internal fuel AND maximum weapons load; F-15 won't be able to do that.

While the F-15 has 685 nm "normal" combat radius. It is fair then to also expect the Silent Eagle to have this radius with AtA weapons in its conformal weapons bay.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The F-35 carries it fuel and weapons internally and doesn't pay the huge speed, range and maneuvering penalty that all fourth generation aircraft have to pay do to parasitic drag of external weapons carriage. So in a turn a F-35 will easily out turn an armed F-16 or an F/A-18 in both degrees per second, turn radius, and reduced energy bleed (deceleration forces) .

But not necessarily an F-15SE.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):

What part of 'F-35 will out-accelerate practically every Western fighter in existence, save for the F-22, or maybe a clean F-16 Block 50 while fully loaded?' aren't you understanding? The F-35 will out accelerate a F-15, as even the F-16 Block 50 in a clean configuration will do that compared to an F-15.

None, as technically, the F-15SE only existed in mockup form during the press launch. But "practically" and "save" ln that same sentence seem redundant.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The F-35 will be as fast or faster than the F-16C/D and F-18C/D operationally. Meaning, it'll accelerate faster, reach higher speeds and probably cruise at higher speeds compared to the F-16 and F/A-18 when all are carrying a typical war fighting load.

You are again omitting the F-15.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
An Eagle or Viper can't reach their MAX speed with weapons or other stores, but the F-35 will be able to do so loaded since it's 'load' is all internal.

Again, the F-15SE would be carrying its weapons in the CWB.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
So, go ahead, light your afterburners and go Mach 2+ in your teen series fighter compared to my F-35... I'll cruise happily along at transonic with a full load of weapons for hours and be miles away, while you will be bugging out for a tanker or base for gas after a couple of minutes of even starting a chase.

Might not even require reheat with one of the highest T/W ratios around...and comparable combat radii.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
And even then, even if you do manage to catch me, what are you going to do, glare at me through the cockpit because you got no weapons to shoot at me with (save maybe for your standard issue survival pistol?)!

Forgot the four arrows in the conformal quivers?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
Nope, see above. It's also about aerodynamics and fuel consumption.

And a lot of other things. BTW, how miserly does that monster engine sip gas again?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
It can fly straight home as the enemy won't have the ability to catch it as it will fly comfortably in transonic range for hours on end... the F-35 isn't intended for dashing, it's intended for wearing you out until you are forced to quit.

Now, now...surely even the mighty F-35 couldn't stay aloft that long.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
Sure, if you want to jack up the costs even more to the point where buying more F-22's would be more attractive...

Sounds a lot like the F-35.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
(and as we have seen in the past, these estimates are usually never correct!), and that's for a fighter that is in the end, less capable than the F-35 and F-22.

No question about the Raptor.....have reservations on the Lightning.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
And that's beyond the fact that there no indication to what alternative these Senators want to consider? I don't see the AF going for it

And therein lies the rub.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 35):
Considering what they are planning to roll into F-22 from F-35 is essentially capability that was cut out of F-22 for cost savings (DAS, a helmet mounted sight, Link 16 capability, etc)... quite ironic don't you think...

Agree.

[Edited 2011-05-25 00:59:11]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 26, 2011 5:06 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
Would be very interesting to see what Boeing would do were the USAF so much as hint they're ordering $10B worth of F-15 Silent Eagles.

The USAF has essentially bet the bank on F-35. The USMC and USN, not so much, but the USAF will never order another Eagle or Falcon ever again.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):

One still needs to know the true costs before he can decide it isn't worth the effort.

However, historically, major redesigns and modifications usually cost way more than a clean sheet design because of the design parameters are constricted by an older design.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
While the F-15 has 685 nm "normal" combat radius. It is fair then to also expect the Silent Eagle to have this radius with AtA weapons in its conformal weapons bay.

While F-35 will do the 600nm, AND carry 2 AIM-120's, and 2 Mark 84 2,000lb bombs at the same time. For a small range penalty, it will take six Mark 84 bombs, two AIM-120's and two AIM-9's without tanker support. F-35's weight reserves, if you haven't noticed, are enormous. It can take off with full fuel and full load of the heaviest weapons in the USAF inventory, something no other fighter can do.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
But not necessarily an F-15SE.

See above. F-35 will still out fly a F-15 with full weapons load.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
None, as technically, the F-15SE only existed in mockup form during the press launch. But "practically" and "save" ln that same sentence seem redundant.

The baseline F-15 and F-15E are outperformed in the acceleration department by F-22 and a clean F-16 Block 50. And if F-35 will very closely match the performance of F-22 and the F-16 Block 50 fully loaded, then it will outperform the F-15 and its variants in acceleration.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):

You are again omitting the F-15.

F-15 is not as maneuverable as the F/A-18 or the F-16, nor as we have demonstrated, can it out accelerate the F-22 or a clean F-16 Block 50.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
Again, the F-15SE would be carrying its weapons in the CWB.

While F-35 will do it with full weapons load of up to 18,000 lb.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
Might not even require reheat with one of the highest T/W ratios around...and comparable combat radii.

F-15 is not capable of supercruise. Boeing additionally has not advertised supercruise capability with the F-15SE. F-35, while not capable of supercruise, is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet. Remember, on the F-15, the amount of time the entire fleet has spent anywhere near its top speed is measured in minutes, and most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights. And F-22's supercruise capability is altogether, a class to itself as F-22 is really the first true supersonic fighter in existence.

As such, the F-15's rated top speed while on paper looks impressive, isn't very useful for the warfighter. F-35's lower top speed but better transonic acceleration is of more use to the warfighter, but on paper, it is not as impressive.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):

Forgot the four arrows in the conformal quivers?

Can you even lock on with your weapons and guide them stealthily? Nope.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
And a lot of other things. BTW, how miserly does that monster engine sip gas again?

F-35 carries way more gas as a percentage of MTOW (over 26%) than conventional fighters, while being able to carry a massive payload. For any other fighter to match the fuel percentage of F-35, you are trading significant amounts of weapons payload for fuel.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
Sounds a lot like the F-35.

F-35 will do more than F-22. F-35 can do the air superiority role, but it can also perform ground attack, reconnaissance, SEAD, etc... way more flexible as a platform compared to F-22. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons F-22's production numbers got chopped and the production line is closing soon. F-22 is a one trick pony.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 26, 2011 6:19 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 27):
Given that the USAF, USN and USMC all agreed that the F-16 would be the baseline and the F-18 the goal they seem to disagree with you.



There's a reason the F-16 won the LWF competition despite the F-17's twin engine redundancy.  
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 26, 2011 7:45 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 38):
There's a reason the F-16 won the LWF competition despite the F-17's twin engine redundancy.

The F/A-18 is more maneuverable at lower speeds (which is a function of the carrier capability requirement). Not to mention the F/A-18 can sustain higher G's at a higher bank turn... Even the USAF acknowledges that the F-16 is less capable than the F/A-18 at low speeds. However, the F-16 is better at achieving higher G's, and is more maneuverable at higher speeds. Not one approach is better than the other, but in general, fighter aircraft are moving towards more Hornet-like performance at high AoA's... so take it as you will.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2216
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 26, 2011 1:22 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
In fact, this is one of the primary reasons F-22's production numbers got chopped and the production line is closing soon.

I thought the reason why the F-22 production was cut short because it was too expensive. And now, the F-35 is heading in the same direction, regardless of its capabilities.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5383
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Thu May 26, 2011 5:34 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
While F-35 will do the 600nm, AND carry 2 AIM-120's, and 2 Mark 84 2,000lb bombs at the same time. For a small range penalty, it will take six Mark 84 bombs, two AIM-120's and two AIM-9's without tanker support. F-35's weight reserves, if you haven't noticed, are enormous. It can take off with full fuel and full load of the heaviest weapons in the USAF inventory, something no other fighter can do.

Let's see about that.....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
See above. F-35 will still out fly a F-15 with full weapons load.

So much so that they're feverishly concocting a fix.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...reaking-f-35as-legs-too-short.html

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
F-15 is not as maneuverable as the F/A-18 or the F-16, nor as we have demonstrated, can it out accelerate the F-22 or a clean F-16 Block 50.

Direct comparison with the F-35 is what we seek.....we have not demonstrated anything. Remember this?.....

.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/i...7main_EC96-43780-2_3x4_428-321.jpg

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
And if F-35 will very closely match the performance of F-22 and the F-16 Block 50 fully loaded, then it will outperform the F-15 and its variants in acceleration.

That is a very big "IF".....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/systems/aircraft/f-15-design.htm

Quote:
"Thrust of this caliber allows an F-15 to accelerate while going straight up! A specially modified F-15A Eagle known as the "Streak Eagle" was able to outclimb a Saturn V Moon Rocket to almost 60,000 feet. This same aircraft flew to 98,430 feet (30,000 meters) in 207.80 seconds (less than 3 minutes and 30 seconds)."


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):

Can you even lock on with your weapons and guide them stealthily?

Avionics and weapons suite are migrated to the F-15SE per the premise above. A lock would be a lock.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
F-35 carries way more gas as a percentage of MTOW (over 26%) than conventional fighters, while being able to carry a massive payload. For any other fighter to match the fuel percentage of F-35, you are trading significant amounts of weapons payload for fuel.

Does that explain why they're now busy identifying where more fuel could be stored?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):

F-35 will do more than F-22. F-35 can do the air superiority role, but it can also perform ground attack, reconnaissance, SEAD, etc...

So can the Eagle. And for comparison (at least those that they made available).....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 27, 2011 3:36 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 41):

Let's see about that.....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s.htm

Can F-15 take those weapons and fly supersonic? Nope, it can't due to aerodynamic issues.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 41):
So much so that they're feverishly concocting a fix.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th....html
Ahem:

Quote:

One simple change under review is a software tweak that would maximise the amount of fuel taken onboard during in-flight refuelling. Another relatively simple fix is to raise shut-off valves higher inside the fuel tank to create slightly more capacity, a source said, adding: "That gets you back a lot of the fuel that you need to recover" to meet the range mandated by the contract.

A more complex solution also being considered is to install new fuel tanks in a small number of hollow spaces within the aircraft's structure.

But programme officials are also debating whether to change how the range of the F-35A is calculated, the source said. The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft's combat radius, the source said.

So they are talking about adding a couple pounds of fuel through some software tweaks and placement of shutoff values. Or redoing their calculations because their current calculations right now are educated guesses on estimates for bleed usage, aircraft performance, and fuel capacity that are not yet fully known. So in short, the given range right now is at best a guess based upon unvalidated and untested numbers on fuel capacity, performance, and fuel consumption.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 41):
Direct comparison with the F-35 is what we seek.....we have not demonstrated anything. Remember this?.....

.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/i...1.jpg

Comparison is possible, as it is WELL established that F-16 and F/A-18 are more maneuverable than F-15, and that F-22 and a clean F-16 Block 50 can out accelerate a F-15. Thus, if the numbers are coming back saying F-35 is just as maneuverable as F-16 and F/A-18, and can at least match the acceleration of the F-22 and a clean F-16 Block 50, it reasonably and logically stands that F-35 will out maneuver F-15 and out accelerate F-15 as well.

And the F-15 ACTIVE program didn't result in production aircraft... I'm sure the F-15 ACTIVE had lift coming out of its ears, but you don't see canards on subsequent production aircraft because at a some level, it's simply not worth the technical complexity of what they have done to the F-15 ACTIVE, nor could it translate in a combat capable and effective aircraft. I'm also sure the Grumman X-29 or the F/A-18 HARV would have be supreme dogfighters, but it is clear that none of the technical innovations and modifications have made it onto subsequent fighter jets from the West for the same reasons earlier.

And before you even have a chance to say anything about wing loading, I will kill that argument right now: Wing loading is a bogus metric... full span slats and flaps, and LERX's, as well as large lifting bodies have destroyed the meaning it had. Fighter jets today are no longer tubes with wings stuck to them. The F-16 has a higher wing loading than the old F-4, but I don't think anyone will argue that the F-4 was more maneuverable than the F-16. In fact, here's a list of the wing loading of some jets right now to help blast that argument some more:

3rd Gen US fighters
F-4E: 78 lb/ft²
F-8: 77.3 lb/ft²
F-105D: 93 lb/ft²

4th and 4.5th Gen US Fighters
F-16C Block 30: 88.3 lb/ft²
F/A-18C/D: 93 lb/ft²
F/A-18E/F: 94 lb/ft²
F-15C: 73.1 lb/ft²
F-14D: 113.4 lb/ft²

5th Gen US Fighters
F-35A: 91.4 lb/ft²
F-22: 77 lb/ft²

Eastern bloc fighters
MiG-29: 90.5 lb/ft²
Su-35: 84.9 lb/ft²
PAK FA: 96 lb/ft²

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 41):
That is a very big "IF".....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/systems/aircraft/f-15-design.htm

Quote:
"Thrust of this caliber allows an F-15 to accelerate while going straight up! A specially modified F-15A Eagle known as the "Streak Eagle" was able to outclimb a Saturn V Moon Rocket to almost 60,000 feet. This same aircraft flew to 98,430 feet (30,000 meters) in 207.80 seconds (less than 3 minutes and 30 seconds)."

Key Words: Specially Modified. That means they removed a ton of components that would have made this particular F-15 not combat capable, striped the F-15 of weapons pylons and specially cleaned up the aerodynamics, and specially tuned the engine for this purpose.

Therefore, NOT USEFUL IN COMBAT SITUATIONS. Therefore, as it stands, F-35 in combat configuration will out accelerate F-15 in a similar configuration.

I will also note that Lockheed Martin does not consider being able to fly under Mach 1.5 without afterburners as being supercruise. It is very likely that F-35 will be able to fly at around Mach 1.0 without afterburners, but LM will never call that supercruising. Also remember that even the F-16 can hit supersonic speed without going to AB. With the F-35's internal stores, and a thrust to weight ratio better than the F-16, it stands that F-35 should be able cruise at around Mach 1.0 at military thrust.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 41):

Does that explain why they're now busy identifying where more fuel could be stored?

See earlier. They are looking at software tweaks or redoing the math because they had added in significant fudge factor for testing purposes.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 41):

Avionics and weapons suite are migrated to the F-15SE per the premise above. A lock would be a lock.

Question becomes, can it be done in a economical fashion to make it worthwhile for a design that would be at best 80% as capable as the F-22 or F-35? Not likely.

[Edited 2011-05-26 20:44:53]
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2216
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 27, 2011 1:24 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 42):
F-35 should be able cruise at around Mach 1.0 at military thrust.

This is a question for those who actually flew past M1.0.

I thought that conventional wisdom recommends that M 1.0 is not a place to be cruising. Too much turbulence - difficult to control. You either stay under 1 or accelerate past 1.0. Has super-cruise changed this paradigm or is it still true?

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1398
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 27, 2011 10:05 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 43):
This is a question for those who actually flew past M1.0.

I thought that conventional wisdom recommends that M 1.0 is not a place to be cruising. Too much turbulence - difficult to control. You either stay under 1 or accelerate past 1.0. Has super-cruise changed this paradigm or is it still true?

In the hornet I never noticed the transition nor felt any buffering but rarely floated around M1.0.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 38):
There's a reason the F-16 won the LWF competition despite the F-17's twin engine redundancy.

I have no idea why the LWF competition decided in 1974 has any bearing on the specifications of a jet designed 30 years later. Would like to know what your line of reasoning is though?
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Fri May 27, 2011 10:21 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 44):
In the hornet I never noticed the transition nor felt any buffering but rarely floated around M1.0.

Sorry to be so nozy but are you saying that you are/where a pilot in the RAAF ?

If so, i'm officially jealous.
[edit post]
 
Ozair
Posts: 1398
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Sat May 28, 2011 3:07 am

Quoting arniepie (Reply 45):
Sorry to be so nozy but are you saying that you are/where a pilot in the RAAF ?

Lol, no not a pilot. One of the contracts I completed for defence required me to get a significant number of back-seat hours.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots

Sun May 29, 2011 9:18 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 44):
I have no idea why the LWF competition decided in 1974 has any bearing on the specifications of a jet designed 30 years later. Would like to know what your line of reasoning is though?

Because it's maneuverability is being compared to legacy fighters. I pointed out earlier that if it's maneuverability is the same as the F-16 combined with LO and a powerful radar that should be a potent platform.
Airliners.net Moderator Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Antonio124 and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos