Forum: F-35 Lightning II

most dogfight don't even break the sound barrier

F-16.net Sponsor

At the Speed (M1.6-1. Cool

and altitude (60,000 ft) not even the raptor is able to pull 9Gs. It's turn performance is based on Max Lift. If for some reason it needed to point its weapon systems 90 degrees and it would take ~18 seconds to point its nose. In that time its target could have moved as much as 5.25nm if it was moving at the same speed as the raptor. If the Raptor lights the burners and used TVC to point the nose and cuts the turn time in half the target then only gets to move 2 miles before being engaged. The raptor will have lost a lot of speed in the process, but it can get the shot off, nose down the the AB lit and regain the speed quickly while diving to say 50,000ft, keep the AB lit untill it returns to 60,000 ft, and resume cruising. That is the use of TVC on a Raptor at its operating point.

It is good use, it gave the raptor a better edge in battle.

Look, for the last time, thrust vectoring is NOT about fighting in a telephone booth. At altitude, a B-52 can turn inside of an F-15. Thrust vectoring is about maneuvering at SUPERSONIC speed.

In BVR, if you're at high mach, you can turn away from an aam and thereby throw off the intercept. P E R I O D.

F-22 can.
F-35 can not.

The F-35 is a piss poor gap stop way to keep a "modernized" airforce while proclaiming, "Its a gen 5 fighter!! Its a gen 5 fighter!!"

All the fancy dancy 360 field of view stuff don't mean squat against modern AAMs in a BVR duel. Maybe great for all weather/day/night mud moving sorties... Don't mean jack didly squat when the bad guys all have IRST and longer ranged AAMs than you. The F-35 is not and will never be a LO enough airplane against the IR doodads. And then it has to contend with slighly better than legacy class flight performance.

We bet on the wrong horse for air superiority.

Total garbage. Explain how any opponent on the horizon is going to detect, track, and engage an F-35 while F-35's are trying to do the same to it. The best fighters out there are the F-15, EF, T-10 series and now T-50. Which one of those is going to beat F-35's?

sewerrat wrote:

All the fancy dancy 360 field of view stuff don't mean squat against modern AAMs in a BVR duel. Maybe great for all weather/day/night mud moving sorties... Don't mean jack didly squat when the bad guys all have IRST and longer ranged AAMs than you.

Which longer ranged AAMs are these exactly, and what sort of ranges do you believe an RF missile can be fired at an F-35? Unless the threat aircraft is a PAK FA, whose RCS is very likely inferior to the F-35s, then the F-35 will enjoy advantages of 3-5x the detection range(or more) vs. Flanker class targets. Then factor in the high likelihood of superior pilot skill, combined with the avionic and VLO advantages.

Quote:

The F-35 is not and will never be a LO enough airplane against the IR doodads. And then it has to contend with slighly better than legacy class flight performance.

-Reduced IR signature is part of the F-35's design
-The F-35 has IRST too, and the opposing fighters will stick out even moreso
-You're ignoring the AESA/ESM/NCW features on the F-35. On a systems level(which is how we fight), the F-35 will enjoy huge advantages in situational awareness.
-The F-35 has more than slightly better than legacy class performance. Combat loaded it'll fly better than legacy fighters fly clean. That's a huge advantage.
-The F-35 has very advanced self protection systems against RF and IR weapons.

sewerrat clearly has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

exec wrote:

sewerrat clearly has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

He's hung up on top speed, and edge of the flight envelope issues, which simply aren't the most important aspects(or indicators) of how effective a system is. They're certainly nice features, but not the deciding factors of victory/defeat.

Personally I am less concerned about the lack of TVC and more other qualities of the airframe. Has too much in the way of speed and range been compromised by the design being largely configured for the STOVL requirement? Naturally the F-35A and F-35C aren't all they could have been due to they way they share their design with the F-35B.

At least we know they are designing a new fighter(F/A-XX), if the f-35 fails to be enough to beat the enemy, we have the F/A-XX to fall back on.

g3143 wrote:

At least we know they are designing a new fighter(F/A-XX), if the f-35 fails to be enough to beat the enemy, we have the F/A-XX to fall back on.

Like there is much chance of a NEW fighter program making it through the budget crisis any time soon...

Slap

TEG

We have to keep moving forward with our fighter designs we cant stop now with the f-35. soon after the f-15 was in service they started to think about the f-22. If we start slow down on new ideas we will be surpassed by Russian and Chinese designs.

I whole heartily agree... but with public and congressional out-cries about spending on large programs such as this, you'll be unable to start a new one until the previous is fielded.

Look at the Raptor... The F-22's expense 'soared' as the numbers were cut, then someone decided 'why not wait until the F-35, it's surely to be cheaper and more effective' so the numbers of F-22s were cut even more and we fast-forward into the F-35. The F-35's expense has now 'soared' and some are saying it's too expensive and numbers should be cut, then the price will rise even more and then someone will say 'why not wait until the F/A-XX, it will be even MORE capable than the F-35 at just the same price.' The the hugely expensive F/A-XX program's price will soar....

Doh

do you see where this is headed?

If the F-35 'fails to be enough to beat the enemy' it's not about the Lightening II's 'capabilities' or price, it will be about the limited numbers of F-22s and F-35s availably to fight such a conflict. In a 'war-time' (kinda like now) it is VERY difficult at best to fund fighter programs, especialy NEW fighter programs like the F/A-XX. (then add we were unable to fund the F-22 and likely to cut F-35 production)

You notice the 'new air superiority fighter' is procured in about 1/3 (or less) the numbers of the previous fighter? Over 2000 F-4s in the USAF replaced by about 750 F-15s replaced by 183 F-22s replaced by what 60-70 F/A-XXs?

TEG

I'm waiting for Hollywood to film a "gun duel at high noon" scenario pitting a F-35 against hordes of Sukhois and MiGs. Wasn't there rumors of a TopGun sequel with Admiral Maverick trading in his Tomcat for the JSF.. nothing ever came of it though, they probably thought it wasn't a sexy enough plane.

lampshade111 wrote:

Personally I am less concerned about the lack of TVC and more other qualities of the airframe. Has too much in the way of speed and range been compromised by the design being largely configured for the STOVL requirement? Naturally the F-35A and F-35C aren't all they could have been due to they way they share their design with the F-35B.

Speed and range compared to what? It's not the shared designs with the B model that resulted in in the A/C layout, so much as being stealthy AND multirole. The A/C models compare very favorably with ranges of any competitors in their class, and the B model has significantly more capability than the AV-8B.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Trust vecturing for the F-35