Forum: F-35 Lightning II

thestealthfighterguy wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Well yeah, that's why I said mini-NGJ as the NGJ is AESA based. I thought TSFG meant 360 AESA radar Smile

I ment one or both, but power would be a limiting factor. I didn't know if you could use the AESA in the NGJ as radar a as well. I would love to have 360 jamming though. You could jam something behind or to your side. I guess we'll see.

TSFG

Use the B as the basis for a dedicated EW aircraft. In lieu of the lift fan, plug in a generator set and you'll have all the electricity you could possibly want. In its present configuration, the B already has longer legs than a SH. Explore ways to extend the range via CFTs or stealth ETs.

F-16.net Sponsor

popcorn wrote:

thestealthfighterguy wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Well yeah, that's why I said mini-NGJ as the NGJ is AESA based. I thought TSFG meant 360 AESA radar Smile

I ment one or both, but power would be a limiting factor. I didn't know if you could use the AESA in the NGJ as radar a as well. I would love to have 360 jamming though. You could jam something behind or to your side. I guess we'll see.

TSFG

Use the B as the basis for a dedicated EW aircraft. In lieu of the lift fan, plug in a generator set and you'll have all the electricity you could possibly want. In its present configuration, the B already has longer legs than a SH. Explore ways to extend the range via CFTs or stealth ETs.

I though about that too. I got the Idea from a plan I heard of installing DEW's in the same way. I don't think the generator would take up as much space as the lift fan so you may have room for more fuel. If you used this with most of the jamming equipment in the shell of the gun pod you should have lots of room.

TSFG

You can't use a converted B, they are going to get fitted with ABL-Lite Wink

SpudmanWP wrote:

You can't use a converted B, they are going to get fitted with ABL-Lite Wink

I guess the B is just to darn versatile for its own good. Very Happy

For me, its the C variant or nothing. Endurance has always been a pet peeve of mine, and the whole fuel managment aspects of sorties is something I don't want to cross my mind, even once!

I.
The C hs bigger wings, which look as if the entire JSF lineup was supposed to have those wings, More wing, means mroe fuel. I'd be willing to trade 150kts off of top spead in order to have 180nm more range.

II.
I've always loved varrier colors, and the JSF looking right at home in thise colors.

sewerrat wrote:

For me, its the C variant or nothing. Endurance has always been a pet peeve of mine, and the whole fuel managment aspects of sorties is something I don't want to cross my mind, even once!

I.
The C hs bigger wings, which look as if the entire JSF lineup was supposed to have those wings, More wing, means mroe fuel. I'd be willing to trade 150kts off of top spead in order to have 180nm more range.

II.
I've always loved varrier colors, and the JSF looking right at home in thise colors.

I agree that the C is the best looking of the bunch. That bigger wing is also going to help in terms of maneuverability. In terms of range however, it's advantage over the A is marginal. The extra fuel accommodated seems to just barely compensate for the C's increased weight.

Don't forget it's sacrifice of the gun for more fuel and lower G limits.

Since it's a few minutes to midnight here in California, Merry Christmas and I am hitting the hay. Good night.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Don't forget it's sacrifice of the gun for more fuel and lower G limits.

Since it's a few minutes to midnight here in California, Merry Christmas and I am hitting the hay. Good night.

It's bigger wing should allow it to turn just as tightly if not more so with less Gs, if I understand things correctly.. a smaller winged aircraft must pull higher Gs to match it. The A-10 can outmaneuver a F-16 while pulling less Gs is the example often cited.

As for the gun, just one of the many compromises made. Dozer mentioned that removing the gun on the F-22 to allow more internal fuel was considered but ultimately rejected.. different planes and missions though.

4 more hours and Christmas day is history my neck of the woods.. still enough time to wish all on this forum a special day.

sewerrat wrote:

For me, its the C variant or nothing. Endurance has always been a pet peeve of mine, and the whole fuel managment aspects of sorties is something I don't want to cross my mind, even once!

I.
The C hs bigger wings, which look as if the entire JSF lineup was supposed to have those wings, More wing, means mroe fuel. I'd be willing to trade 150kts off of top spead in order to have 180nm more range.

II.
I've always loved varrier colors, and the JSF looking right at home in thise colors.

I'll give you the wing and range. Also, if my math and numbers are right the "C" has the best wing loading of the 3 even with all that weight. 668 sq/ft. / 57,000 lbs = 85.3 lbs/sq/ft

popcorn wrote:

It's bigger wing should allow it to turn just as tightly if not more so with less Gs, if I understand things correctly.. a smaller winged aircraft must pull higher Gs to match it. The A-10 can outmaneuver a F-16 while pulling less Gs is the example often cited.

A bigger wing can mean your minimum radius turn is smaller and/or you can turn more degrees per second at your maximum turn rate, because you're making a smaller circle closer to stall speed, and the bigger wing makes your stall speed even slower. In other words, the A-10 pulls less Gs while making a smaller circle than the F-16 because it is flying a lot slower, so there is a lot less centripetal force to overcome. Think about the plane pulling the fastest possible 180 degree loop; that's energy- and momentum-equivalent to it stopping, spinning quickly around in place, and speeding back up (which is basically a J-turn, one of the few actually useful thrust-vectored maneuvers). If the plane is only going half as fast, it can stop quicker and speed back up to half speed quicker than it could stop and resume from full speed. Now assume that you don't stop all the way, you just want to slow down to the speed where the most favorable balance exists between producing maximum lift at that speed (just before your wing stalls from going to too high an angle of attack) and having the least amount of speed you need to stop and redirect using your wing's lift. If you go slower, you'd have to reduce your angle of attack and therefore your lift, to avoid a stall. If you go faster, you're plowing through the air more because your momentum keeps you going in the same direction until your wing's lift redirects you. With a larger wing, you bite an equivalent mass of air at a slightly lesser angle of attack or a slightly lower speed, so you can go a little slower and have less momentum to turn around, while generating the same or more redirecting lift force as the smaller wing. Less speed means less centripetal force to overcome, so the same lift force pushes you into a tighter circle. Like a figure skater pulling her arms in, conservation of angular momentum means a tighter circle will spin you through more degrees per second. But making the same turn at the same speed always gives you exactly the same G loading, and turning inside someone else at the same speed always gives you higher G loading. Larger wings enable a slower-speed, but tighter and faster-rotating, turn.

A larger wing may also give a higher maximum sustained rate of turn because the plane has to pitch up less to apply the same amount of lift to changing its direction of travel. Less pitch angle may mean less drag at the same speed, so the speed at which drag = available thrust may be slightly higher. I think the excess thrust of the F-135 makes it kind of irrelevant for this particular airplane; even the small-winged variants are likely to be capable of a sustained turn at combat speeds well beyond what the pilot can tolerate, and the engine will overcome the extra drag from their slightly higher angle of attack indefinitely. Overall, though, larger wings are less efficient, since they're always draggy and always add weight, even when you're close to zero angle of attack, and especially when you're moving fast. And if you have to pitch up equally far to point your nose somewhere in particular, the larger wings become much draggier much faster. The F-35C has larger wings so it can fly slower without stalling as it makes cable-arrested carrier landings, not so it can maneuver better at dogfighting speeds.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Favorite F-35 variant