Forum: F-35 Lightning II

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... tions.html
Wingspan 43 ft (big span)
Weight empty 34,800 lbs

empty weight + 2,000 LBS ordinance + only 6,000 LBS of gas left = 42800 LBS for a thrust-to-weight ratio of barely unity at low altitude
in maximum fuel-guzzling afterburner

With its large wing span, it should have a high instaneous turn rate, but
because of its poor thrust-to-weight ratio, sustained rates will suffer.
Supersonic speed will also suffer, even though it can carry some internal
ordinance. Fully gassed-up and worse with some external ordinance
after the "first day of war", this thing would need Super Hornets for air cover.
Granted, the numbers above may be what LockMart wants us to see for
security reasons. May be the jet is less than 35,000 LBS empty and/or
it can produce up to 48,000 LBS in maximum afterburner, if not, the
above numbers stink! This jet is supposed to provide A2G AND A2A for
the fleet for the next 30 years. I really hope the frontal stealth is as
good as they are saying and is as durable as being touted. Lastly, its
small blunted nose does hinders high speed flight. High and fast is
ALWAYS an advantage, that does not mean that it is USED all the times;
e.g., CAS scenarios.

F-16.net Sponsor

Weight has been an issue in the program (but realistically only in the B version). Thing about that is that even a thrust to weight ratio of barely one to one gives you enough power to turn effectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet
The Viper's and Hornet's T2W was just barely 1-to-1 also, and yet they got the job done. Remember that it's also the combination between the aerodynamics of the plane and power. I don't think the a/c will be flying anything but clean until the skies have been cleared of bogeys.

^ Weight has been an issue since they started sketching the thing on Wendy's napkins. A single seat, single engined airplane, in all its variants that damned heavy is a pig. As I said before, its a fine U-Haul truck for carrying weapons to target. And as I said before about at least having the SuperHornet is a feather in our cap, well, the USN was listening to me because if search google you'll discover that after my posting that the USN came out and said that because of the reduced F-22 buy that we could use more superbugs.... vindication on all fronts, and I am boasting.

And I don't care about it carrying so much fuel and TWO bombs in its belly, that this is damned bulbous and its surface area is so great that friction is going to turn the thing into the Boyd "grape" that was the F-14.

There isn't a single place on the airframe that if some lucky BB found its mark that it wouldn't be puncturing a fuel cell... even if empty there's still plenty of residual to turn it into a carbon fiber Roman Candle.

And keep in mind that all you guys are purely speculating on its 'stealth' capabilities. It's true capabilities, or lack thereof, are kept under lock and key... But there is plenty of evidence pointing towards it lighting up nicely on some guys panel; both RF and IR.

It'd be a better decision to open the F-15 line for the USAF (along with more 22s) and for the USN to keep the bugs multiplying.

Quote:

Thing about that is that even a thrust to weight ratio of barely one to one gives you enough power to turn effectively.

Tinito, the jet (with public domain figures) is only able to reach
a thrust-to-weight ratio of unity at near sea level in maximum afterburner
with only 6,000 LBS of gas left. If you were to take on 4,000 LBS
of internal ordinance, this drops to almost an empty fuel load of 4,000 LBS
of gas. How far can that jet go, using max. blower with two tons of fuel!?!?
You certainly need a good T/W to maintain sustained turns at high speed.
I understand that most engagements now are going to be BVR and the jet
has a stealth factor of X (classified), but its low performance in regards to
(more than likely) transonic acceleration and its energy it can impart onto
its missiles, WILL negatively impact its capability as an
interceptor or on CAP missions. Remember, this jet is going to almost
replace everything for the Navy, except for the Super Hornet. Furthermore,
it can only carry like two radar-guided missiles internally, so for more,
right now, they need to go outside, greatly reducing its stealth advantages.
Sustained climb to altitude on intercept is also greatly in question with this
jet.

If I were a Naval aviator, I would rather fly a Super Hornet (particulary with up-
rated engines), since I have two engines and more than likely better
aerodynamic capability, than to fly this pig (F-35C). My rant is NOT directed
at the A or B models. The A, *appears* to be a worthy replacement to the
F-16, but only time will tell. The B model essentially brings near-
revolutionary capability, like STOVL, stealth, supersonic capability and
exceptional SA. If I were stuck flying the F-35C, I would fly around most
of the time in BURNER. JK, seriously, the jet carries so much foreign oil,
that it is almost recursive; that is, it carries so much fuel, because the pilot
flies at such a high throttle setting just to get going, that it needs more
fuel and more throttle to overcome the more fuel etc... A picture comes
to my mind of the F-35C, a roasted pig with a tomato in its mouth on a
serving platter.

Quote:

A picture comes
to my mind of the F-35C, a roasted pig with a tomato in its mouth on a
serving platter.

But of course you would need to add the 2 ft flame coming out of said pigs rectal region for a more accurate visual portrayal.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

the F-35C has more lift.. that compensates for its weight.. at least in the horizontal plane. The a/c is likely to be a bit slower because of the increased drag and lower mach angle, but not by much. It is still supposed to do mach 1.6, which is probably not worse than a loaded SH.

and after looking at the pictures I'm pretty sure they kept the same nose.

And later the F-35C will have 6 internal missiles, more thrust and JDRADMs.

This being said I would have preferred the a/c to be a bit faster too even at the expense of ~10% of range.. It could still have carried external tanks for maximum range - and drop its tanks before entering enemy airspace.

My personal opinion on that... but I can be wrong it depends on a lot of things......

Quote:

If you were to take on 4,000 LBS of internal ordinance, this drops to almost an empty fuel load of 4,000 LBS of gas.

You've got a point there. 4,000 LBS is beyond BINGO most of the time.

Quote:

Furthermore, it can only carry like two radar-guided missiles internally, so for more, right now, they need to go outside, greatly reducing its stealth advantages.

I've read it has room for six but they haven't tested or implemented it yet because the emphasis now is A2G.

The big picture? Some people say you should focus on the SYSTEMS level... Well, the fact that the a/c will be so heavy with a full fuel load will shape the tactics we use. We will have some Air Superiority squadrons of F-35's which wil fly with 6 internal missiles. These will cover the rest of the F-35 package which will take care of bombing, CAS, and maybe even EW. The disadvantage? You have less a/c to strike targets on the ground. The advantage? You are using one type (essentially) for all the missions, reducing cost because you don't have to have parts for 4 or 5 different a/c. And when the enemy a/c are eliminated, you can switch ALL the a/c to bombing.

[Air-to-air squadrons]
* thrust-to-weight ratio at very low altitude in maximum afterburner 0.825 with 43,000 LBS thrust, 6 AMRAAMS (2,100 LBS) and 15,000 LBS of gas
(4,000+ LBS used to get the jet to high subsonic speed in an intercept from a catapault launch)
* fixed inlet design with LO characteristics (not optimal for supersonic intercept -- probably)
* Large wing for higher-drag at transonic/supersonic speeds, though, near optimal at low altitudes for fast "nose pointing", where HOBS and
HMDs somewhat negate this need

If the Navy was so interested in lower "approach" speeds for its pilots, they should have gotten the F-35B as the primary model, since it can
appproach *very* slowly, like in a RVL/VL! This would have eliminated all the time/money/engineering/testing for the C variant. If you want
to go that far, may be have some more tankers around? When the skies are cleared and extreme stealth is no longer needed, the F-35B could carry
external fuel if need be. The problem I have is that this is nearly 2010 and we are making a front line jet for the next 20-30 years who has
less energy management than jets from the mid to late 1970s. Unity in thrust-to-weight is nothing new, but it seems we can't even reach this
in 2010 on a brand new jet! Disgraceful. The F-35C needs an uprated engine or a missile with longer range and better kinematics due to its lower
energy potential, since it will be partly tasked with protecting the fleet from air attack. Tinito, I really do see your point regarding systems
and you make some really great points, but as you can see from above, the "air superiority squadrons" are not exactly in the position to dictate air
dominance with this jet as it is now using the public domain data.

T/W is overrated at this point. You don't need to turn hard if you get enough of a jump on the enemy, which is probably what is going to happen 99% percent of the time. With the F-18 all those bags have a price as a significant percentage of the fuel they carry goes towards paying for their own drag penalty. The assumption is that the vast majority of the time, you want extra range, which can be easily proven looking at almost any combat-ready aircraft the last 30 years (have you ever seen an F-15 outside an airshow fly without external tanks for example?).

And as far as I know it can carry either four missiles internally or two missiles and two bombs, not just two. Combined with SHornets that can carry approximately an armory's worth of AMRAAMs each, I think they'll be okay, especially since they can network together.

Prinz, about the only way this jet is going to get a jump on the enemy
is from networked external sensors and its stealth working really well,
other than that, it gets a grade of "C" IMHO:)

jetblast16 wrote:

Prinz, about the only way this jet is going to get a jump on the enemy
is from networked external sensors and its stealth working really well,
other than that, it gets a grade of "C" IMHO:)

Uh, yeah, that's the point of the sensors and the stealth. It doesn't matter how you win, as long as you do.

jetblast16 wrote:

Prinz, about the only way this jet is going to get a jump on the enemy
is from networked external sensors and its stealth working really well,
other than that, it gets a grade of "C" IMHO:)

That is wrong on so many levels.

1. You completely discount the APG-81 and it's LPI and AEW ability.

2. EOTS will have the best sensor flying

3. DAS will track every missile and AC in the WVR range-band

4. Every missile carried has HOBS

5. If they want to, follow-on F-35s can carry 10 AMRAAMs externally which can be command launched and guided from the forward, full stealth, F-35s.

6. JDRADM will be a game changing missile like VLO changed fighter design

It gets a grade "C" in my book. Big freakin' woop that it has all this
whizz-bang sensors, EOTS, APG-81, stealth...so does the F-35B. What's
the point of using catapaults when you can make a STOVL? More range?
Guess what, the F-35B probably has less overall drag than the C model,
but the same basic thrust in level flight. It might not be able to reach
out quite as far, but it has the same basic systems. All the money
for this could have gone to other systems. They should paint on the
side of the jet, "Got Thrust?" as in, "Got Milk?" Or a nice little roundel of
a roasted pig on a platter. If the jet gets more power and JDRADM, then
it will get a higher grade in my book, till then.

jetblast16 wrote:

It gets a grade "C" in my book. Big freakin' woop that it has all this
whizz-bang sensors, EOTS, APG-81, stealth...so does the F-35B. What's
the point of using catapaults when you can make a STOVL? More range?
Guess what, the F-35B probably has less overall drag than the C model,
but the same basic thrust in level flight. It might not be able to reach
out quite as far, but it has the same basic systems. All the money
for this could have gone to other systems. They should paint on the
side of the jet, "Got Thrust?" as in, "Got Milk?" Or a nice little roundel of
a roasted pig on a platter. If the jet gets more power and JDRADM, then
it will get a higher grade in my book, till then.

Stealth technologies get a lot of credit because you can SEE IT. ie look at a menacing black jet and be awed ect. But the truth is that it's in the domain of AVIONICS and NCW capability that some of the most astonishing gains have been made yet you discount a sensor like APG-81 and DAS?

No offense but I don't think you fully appreciate the capabilities they offer and thats just some of the higher level avionics. Let me say this. A lot of us have had the pleasure of playing video games where you have this magic 360 degree RF FoV and all the threats are little red dots and the friendlies are green ect. In other words you have a great deal of situational awareness when you play so its relatively easy to not shoot down your computerized wingmen or ground troops and you can execute tactics against "dumb" computer enemies. Well my friend the latest AVIONICS in jets like the F-35 almost make it like that FOR REAL. We have equivalent things in our ground combat vehicles and let me tell you that it makes a world of difference and I can only imagine how USAF pilots will enjoy this.

-DA

The F-35C has a much longer range. At least 500 nm difference. Plus it can carry 2000-lb class munitions internally, unlike the B. The B is missing several tons of fuel because of the space taken up by the lift system. The C wings aren't hugely draggy plus- uh-oh, they carry more fuel, so they pay their own penalty (and then some). It's always been more efficient to use catapults, especially if the infrastructure is already there. Otherwise the we would have been using Harriers instead of F-18's all these years.

T/W matters less than it did because combat is less likely to devolve into a knife-fight. To quote the highest scoring fighter ace of all time: "Dogfighting is a waste of time." If you can destroy the enemy before they know you're there, or even just get into a better position before they spot you, you will almost always win. The F-35C can do that. Plus even if it gets close in, it has the best HOBS on the planet, so it doesn't need to point it's nose to take a shot. Complaining about the T/W ratio of the F-35 compared to 70's fighters is like complaining that the P-51 has a better turn rate than an F-15. Sure it does- but that's not the point.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35C "Lightning" II