Forum: F-35 Lightning II

jetblast16 wrote:

spazsinbad, oh yeah, the "Vark" carried a LOAD of gas AND could go fast AND far.
One of the great mud movers of all time. Granted, not an A2A machine, but to be
fair, it was really (eventually) never designed to be one.

In my jokingly manner, the "pig" I was refering to is the F-35C variant, not the
A model or B models of the F-35. Below pretty much sums up the performance of
the jet models in my opinion (which of course could be totally wrong).

[Aero-performance]
F-35A -> gets the "A"
F-35B -> gets the "B" and has the excuse of lesser performance due to transformational
STOVL capability
F-35C -> gets the "C", though it has the greatest range, but poorest energy
management

P.S. This is not directed at you spazsinbad, but people really need to lighten-up on this
message board. This is supposed to be fun. It is fun on occasion to get into debates,
but we need to keep it light also (ultimately). Again, in my opinion:)

JetBlast16

Sorry, all models of the F-35 will have extraordinary flight performance...........That is in a Combat Configuration. (i.e. Real World) Wink

www.youtube.com/watch?v=48BUlYNIYQY&feature=related

F-16.net Sponsor

I think the problem is people see the F-22's flight envelope and then incorrectly base F-35 performance characterization by that standard. The F-22 was built for a very specific role. To that end it's design is optimized. The F-35 being multirole has to cover a much broader range of mission requirements AND basing modes all while being affordable and using a common design. It just makes sense that it's not going to outfly a specialized aircraft. It makes up for this through it's flexibility and still manages to match or exceed the performance of aircraft it replaces in every tangible way. For instance, F-teens can't do M2.0 with ordinance or fuel hanging off pylons. What's the point of stressing an airframe to 9G + if you have missiles that can engage with near 360 degree hemispherical coverage and sensors to exploit it? I think all too often it's apples and oranges.

-DA

jetblast16 wrote:

Beazz, I understand your frustrations over some of the posts made by DA, but this
is pretty horrible:

Quote:

My pit bull when shes got a cat in her mouth ripping it to shreds is more likeable then this jurk!

Jetblast, I agree with you completely and I was a bloody mess myself from the cat and the dog tearing my hands to shreds while trying to get her off the cat. I was just making a point. I'm actually an animal lover from way back. Would rather have bambi in my back yard as a pet rather then on my plate as dinner Wink

)

Beazz

DarthAmerica wrote:

I think the problem is people see the F-22's flight envelope and then incorrectly base F-35 performance characterization by that standard. The F-22 was built for a very specific role. To that end it's design is optimized. The F-35 being multirole has to cover a much broader range of mission requirements AND basing modes all while being affordable and using a common design. It just makes sense that it's not going to outfly a specialized aircraft. It makes up for this through it's flexibility and still manages to match or exceed the performance of aircraft it replaces in every tangible way. For instance, F-teens can't do M2.0 with ordinance or fuel hanging off pylons. What's the point of stressing an airframe to 9G + if you have missiles that can engage with near 360 degree hemispherical coverage and sensors to exploit it? I think all too often it's apples and oranges.

-DA

Just shows the F-22/F-35 are similar in concept to the previous F-15/F-16. With the larger twin engined Air Superiority Type being designed for higher speeds and altitudes. Compare to the single engined and simpler multi-role strike fighter. Yet, you don't hear many knocking the Viper compared to the Eagle. Clearly, a double standard... Wink

As you said "Apples and Oranges" Confused

DarthAmerica wrote:

Everybody let's lighten up. Beazz, I love you too. Look we are all enthusiast and/or serving so let's remember we are all on te same side.

Regards
-DA

PS your all ignorant...j/k

Darth, I would love to lighten up. I would also appreciate if when myself and other members of the board state an opinion on who a potential enemy 20 years from now may be or what we feel the cost of the F35 may wind up that we not be called idiots. Because the truth is, what the DoD, the USG, LM, US Army, etc all say about any of these particular scenarios are nothing but their opinions as well. And as far as I can tell, the DoD/USG have never been right on any of them. The only thing they are consistent on is not being right.

I personally have no problem listening to someone give their opinion on anything and especially their particular area of expertise. That is in fact why I started reading the 2 boards I read. I personally have went from knowing nothing more then a plane called the F22 and the F35 are 2 planes we are getting/got, to actually what these awesome machines can/will do and a whole host of other issues involved with them, including price. What I have learned the last 2 years on here and SP is amazing to say the least!!

If you would just understand that we also have opinions and not treat us like 14 year old children because we don't agree with you I can say that at least myself would enjoy more of what you have to say and try and actually learn from it. I can't speak for others, but I would bet they all feel the same way. I know I do not resent what you may or may not know. I resent the way it is being crammed down my throat and the reaction I get if I simply do not agree. I'm not talking about actual real life experinces you may have in a certain area either Darth. If you were to tell me the manner in which you would go about carrying out an attack on some other military I would certainly take light of it and my only real opinion would be what you would say and what another with the background would say about it.

It's just the things about possible enemys 20 years down the road and costs and possible numbers of a/c are something your background does not give you the authority to be as assertive as you are. No one can do anything but give an opinion of what they think is going to happen with those type scenarios and one opinion is as good as the next because thats all they are. Regardless of any fact sheets put out by the likes of LM or the USG, its still simply an opinion/guess.

A simple, Beazz, I think the USAF is really going to get all 1763 of those F35's they say they are gonna get and if you think otherwise, well in 2034 we'll check back in and see, would do just fine. I'd say ok Darth and I bet ya a case of beer on it Wink

) No hard feelings.

Anyhow just something to consider, because as you said, we are all Americans (most of us) and on the same side (all of us) and the outright hateful and mean spirited comments from many of us is at least to me ruining the fun for me and I'd prefer something other then what we have been doing.

So if you can try and treat me with a little more respect, I'll do the same with you Darth.

Take care,
Beazz

jetblast16 wrote:

Well, excuse me. Last time I checked, the plane will carry two and two
bombs on a strike mission. Yes, it will carry more for A2A patrols in that
particular mission. So, since I am a registered member of this site,
following the site's rules, expressing my opinions on a
thread that I started, we can rule out the trolling argument.
That leaves the intellectual inability. As I said before, I am a nobody
on the Internet who knows nothing and whose opinion doesn't mean
a stinkin' thing. What's it to you Conan? Why are you so mad and defensive over this?

Because you insist that F-35C will only have "2" weapons to conduct the fleet air defence role, that's why.

That argument is complete garbage.

Quote:

No, but they should have a solid ability to defend themselves. Thing is with the "legacy" systems, they have the ability to expend their ordinance
and free up a lot of drag so they are more energetic for a fight.
of course, this doesn't hold up to all the stealth fans. Trust me, there are
many advantages for carrying internally, but it is not perfect.

Trust you? Why? By your own admission you "know nothing".

To paraphrase your reasoning then, aircraft that carry stores internally cannot "expend" their "ordinance" and lose weight for a turning dogfight, is this correct?

This is REALLY your argument?

How do aircraft with internal weapons bays manage to employ their weapons at ALL then?

I'm pretty sure they open their weapons bays and the weapons are "punched out" aren't they?

So tell me why an F-35C could not do the same, if necessary?

Quote:

The airframe must be heavier and draggier. We can argue to the heat death of the universe over a clean "legacy" jet's usefulness over these
new stealth planes, which apparently are flawless according to some and
will "dominate" any conflict. But I won't waste my time arguing that, since
that would be a waste of computing power, which reminds me, I know
a little Wink

about.

An aircraft with internal weapons bays is going to be a tad bulkier, yes. But not more draggy than an aircraft loaded up with external stores.

It is pointless comparing a clean legacy airframe with a F-35 loaded with internal stores because a "clean" legacy airframe by definition equals one without ANY weapons, bar an internal gun and I hope you are at least intellectually honest enough to admit that an AMRAAM armed F-35 will have no trouble defeating a gun equipped only fighter aircraft in the overwhelming majority of situations?

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

Amen to that Beazz!

and DA, i feel/say the exact same thing.

Corsair1963 wrote:

Just shows the F-22/F-35 are similar in concept to the previous F-15/F-16. With the larger twin engined Air Superiority Type being designed for higher speeds and altitudes. Compare to the single engined and simpler multi-role strike fighter. Yet, you don't hear many knocking the Viper compared to the Eagle. Clearly, a double standard... Wink

As you said "Apples and Oranges" Confused

that's because the f-16 has proven itself along with the f-15. the f-22 is deployed and ready for combat NOW, the f-35 isn't. WHEN (not IF), the f-35 performs, as designed/planned/advertised, then these double standards will be gone. until then, IMHO, all critics of the f-35 have the right to criticize.

Quote:

F-35A -> gets the "A"
F-35B -> gets the "B" and has the excuse of lesser performance due to transformational
STOVL capability
F-35C -> gets the "C", though it has the greatest range, but poorest energy
management

I think the F-35B gets the 'A' grade. In all of history, there has only been a single 5th generation fighter, and only two operational STOVL fighters. The F-35B is will soon be both - leaps and bounds over its predecessors, pity it doesn't have an internal gun.

Just my opinion.

Quote:

Trust you? Why? By your own admission you "know nothing".

Precisely. It's actually quite funny that you are still getting mad over this.
Should I trust your opinions? You missed the entire point of this thread
by a wide margin. Yeah, that's correct. This thread is and was about the
C variant of the jet. It is a PIG in my opinion. I don't care if it could
carry a baby grand piano in its belly. So its "clean". It's still a pig. I really
hope the stealth is as good as others say and LockMart would like us to
believe. I don't care about marketing brochures and you tube videos
from guys "in the know" about how great this is and how great that is.
In comparison to the other models, this jet is a fat pig. Plus, it has a
single engine. I would rather fly a Super Hornet with uprated engines
and (would nice to have, thrust vectoring control) then to fly this fat pig.
My guess is, there are (very quietly) some Naval aviators thinking the same
thing. Granted, the jet's stealth *may* actually be exceptional and we all
know from the you tube videos and marketing brochures how good the jet's
sensors and avionics are, so in the end, the jet may be better than my
rant here. If not, this jet is a fat pig with low energy management, since by
definition, it is a fighter and not just a bomb truck. If the jet had better
energy management with some fuel (foreign oil) burned-down, then I would
have not even written this thread to begin with, but using public figures,
this plane is a big fat pig (single engined too over water). I guess the
USMC doesn't need to drop 2,000 LBS bombs from their jets when in full
stealth mode. Here piggy, piggy, piggy...where are you, oh there you are!

Quote:

I think the F-35B gets the 'A' grade. In all of history, there has only been a single 5th generation fighter, and only two operational STOVL fighters. The F-35B is will soon be both - leaps and bounds over its predecessors, pity it doesn't have an internal gun.

Just my opinion.

You know, after the "first day of the war", its starting to look as this model,
the "B" model, might be the jet to beat. Again, stealth, STOVL, full sensor
fusion, supersonic (I sound like a LockMart marketing guy). Seriously,
if this jet can deliver on performance and on dependability, it
will bring capabilities never before seen. If you look through some of my
old posts here, I really beat up on these F-35 jets. There are things that
I do not like about them, but there are things I do like about them. I
had and still do, however, have some reservations about the lift fan/STOVL
system. I want to watch the development of this as a hawk. Why? Because,
the entire system is quite complex and there are many potential points of
failure. I would hate to see that they almost need to overhaul the STOVL
system after 20 or so flights. What will dirt/dust/grime and other war time
particulate do to the STOVL system's reliability? How vulnerable is the "B"
model to battle damage? The Harrier had issues, since its heat source
surrounded almost the entire fuselage and made a nice target for IR sensors, however, the Harrier's STOVL is more flexible in faster forward
flight than the F-35B, which is really just used for slow landings and slow
take offs for short field operations.

Darth, if you are over in harms way, I hope you make it back safely to
your friends and family and I send this out to all service men everywhere.
I am just getting tired of wars after wars, we (Americans) need to start
taking care of things at home. I have to respect a lot of what you say,
because you actually experience it. So definitely keep posting. That's
what makes this site great.

jetblast16 wrote:

Darth, if you are over in harms way, I hope you make it back safely to
your friends and family and I send this out to all service men everywhere.
I am just getting tired of wars after wars, we (Americans) need to start
taking care of things at home. I have to respect a lot of what you say,
because you actually experience it. So definitely keep posting. That's
what makes this site great.

Thanks for the well wishes but I've been back a while now! No more mortaritaville, overnight stays in the chicken coups or KBR chow for me.

About the wars, yeah they get old quick. But I'm afraid I don't see an end to it. With the global military market link and the danger of nonstate actors we have to proactively keep a lid on things. And it's only going to get worse as Russia gets more desperate as that nation is in serious trouble and has the means to spread the grief!

-DA

Last edited by Corsair1963 on Jul 31, 2009 - 05:48 PM; edited 1 time in total

fretmarks wrote:

Amen to that Beazz!

and DA, i feel/say the exact same thing.

Corsair1963 wrote:

Just shows the F-22/F-35 are similar in concept to the previous F-15/F-16. With the larger twin engined Air Superiority Type being designed for higher speeds and altitudes. Compare to the single engined and simpler multi-role strike fighter. Yet, you don't hear many knocking the Viper compared to the Eagle. Clearly, a double standard... Wink

As you said "Apples and Oranges" Confused

that's because the f-16 has proven itself along with the f-15. the f-22 is deployed and ready for combat NOW, the f-35 isn't. WHEN (not IF), the f-35 performs, as designed/planned/advertised, then these double standards will be gone. until then, IMHO, all critics of the f-35 have the right to criticize.

Nothing wrong with criticism along as its not wild speculation or theory based on no facts whatsoever......... Confused

BTW Would you like to provide an official source from the DOD or Lockheed Martin. Which, states the F-35 is failing to meet any standard required of it? For example Stealth, Performance, Maintainability, etc. etc.

Active Member Joined: Jun 01, 2004 - 08:55 AM Posts: 134

Corsair1963 wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

Amen to that Beazz!

and DA, i feel/say the exact same thing.

Corsair1963 wrote:

Just shows the F-22/F-35 are similar in concept to the previous F-15/F-16. With the larger twin engined Air Superiority Type being designed for higher speeds and altitudes. Compare to the single engined and simpler multi-role strike fighter. Yet, you don't hear many knocking the Viper compared to the Eagle. Clearly, a double standard... Wink

As you said "Apples and Oranges" Confused

that's because the f-16 has proven itself along with the f-15. the f-22 is deployed and ready for combat NOW, the f-35 isn't. WHEN (not IF), the f-35 performs, as designed/planned/advertised, then these double standards will be gone. until then, IMHO, all critics of the f-35 have the right to criticize.

Nothing wrong with criticism along as its not wild speculation or theory based on no facts what so ever......... Confused

BTW Would you like to provide an official source from the DOD or Lockheed Martin. Which, states the F-35 is failing to meet any standard required of it? For example Stealth, Performance, Maintainability, etc. etc.

nothing whatsoever. except for target dates and actual cost (due to inflation), i believe the f-35 program is overall, going well. excellent in fact.

however, all claims, by design/paper regarding the f-35's capabilities/maintainability will have to be tested and proven. until then, everything the DoD and LM itself say is also just plain theory/speculation. for example, when somebody says, the f-35 will be marginally cheaper to maintain than the f-22, that is a theory...... when somebody says that IOC will be in 2015, that is speculation..... when somebody says the USAF will buy 1,700+ of these birds, that's theory..... i know you get my point.

jetblast16 wrote:

Quote:

Trust you? Why? By your own admission you "know nothing".

Precisely. It's actually quite funny that you are still getting mad over this.
Should I trust your opinions? You missed the entire point of this thread
by a wide margin. Yeah, that's correct. This thread is and was about the
C variant of the jet. It is a PIG in my opinion. I don't care if it could
carry a baby grand piano in its belly. So its "clean". It's still a pig. I really
hope the stealth is as good as others say and LockMart would like us to
believe. I don't care about marketing brochures and you tube videos
from guys "in the know" about how great this is and how great that is.
In comparison to the other models, this jet is a fat pig. Plus, it has a
single engine. I would rather fly a Super Hornet with uprated engines
and (would nice to have, thrust vectoring control) then to fly this fat pig.
My guess is, there are (very quietly) some Naval aviators thinking the same
thing. Granted, the jet's stealth *may* actually be exceptional and we all
know from the you tube videos and marketing brochures how good the jet's
sensors and avionics are, so in the end, the jet may be better than my
rant here. If not, this jet is a fat pig with low energy management, since by
definition, it is a fighter and not just a bomb truck. If the jet had better
energy management with some fuel (foreign oil) burned-down, then I would
have not even written this thread to begin with, but using public figures,
this plane is a big fat pig (single engined too over water). I guess the
USMC doesn't need to drop 2,000 LBS bombs from their jets when in full
stealth mode. Here piggy, piggy, piggy...where are you, oh there you are!

I disagree with your opinions. I'm not getting mad.

As another "registered member" of this site, your "opinion" is worthless because it contributes absolutely nothing to the debate. "Here piggy" is complete nonsense. You've established your opinion. Why don't you try progressing your argument beyond such childish insults and discuss why it's less than stellar performance will actually mean anything to it's combat capability?

F-35 is a good subsonic cruiser, with excellent range on internal fuel, very good transonic acceleration, pretty good agility and low speed handling and a reasonably good supersonic dash capability.

It is not intended to set any records in sheer performance, but the jets you seem to prefer will not be helped one single iota in combat because they possess "Nn" greater acceleration or speed than the F-35.

Come on, prove you've got a bit more in you than childish insults of an inanimate object...

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35C "Lightning" II