Forum: General F-35 Forum

I was curious if I was looking at this right but it seems to me the F-35 should have very good kinematic performance in its Air to Air mode despite what some are saying, particularly at dry thrust. So I present this as informational (assuming I did it right).

F-35
Dry Thrust (50% fuel, 6 AIM-120 internal)- .69 Thrust to Weight
Afterburner- 1.07 Thrust to Weight

SU-35
Dry Thrust (50% Fuel, 6 R-77 external)- .69 Thrust to Weight
Afterburner- 1.15 Thrust to weight

SU-27
Dry Thrust (50% Fuel, 6 R-77 external)- .65 Thrust to Weight
Afterburner- 1.06 Thrust to Weight

PAK-50
Dry Thrust (50% Fuel, 6 R-77 internal)- .68 Thrust to Weight
Afterburner- 1.12 Thrust to Weight

F-15C
Dry Thrust (50% Fuel, 6 AIM-120 external)- .94 Thrust to Weight
Afterburner- 1.36 Thrust to Weight

F-16
Dry Thrust (50% Fuel, 6 AIM-120 external)- .70 Thrust to Weight
Afterburner- 1.17 Thrust to Weight

Eurofighter
Dry Thrust (50% Fuel, 6 AIM-120 external)- .82 Thrust to Weight
Afterburner- 1.26 Thrust to Weight

F-22
Dry Thrust (50% Fuel, 6 AIM-120 internal)- .86 Thrust to Weight
Afterburner- 1.28 Thrust to Weight

So am I wrong? I look at this and conclude that the F-35 should be superior in almost all flight regimes in air to air mode against the SU-27 and all its variants. It seems to be a near match for the PAK-50 in that regard too. It does not have thrust vectoring so you can knock it for that and with afterburner it is around the low end of thrust to weight but then again it is operating clean while the other aircraft are going to be limited by their external carriage AAM's when it comes to moving around.

I think what this really shows is just how exceptional the F-15 was when it was built and how exceptional the F-22 is now. From a kinematic perspective I just don't see the F-35 giving away much at all against its likely opponents. The PAK-FA is a lot closer to the F-35 in this sense than it is to the F-22.

About the only knock you can put on it from an agility standpoint seems to be that it won't have thrust vectoring and others will.

F-16.net Sponsor

You don't need thrust vectoring when it's already on the back of your 9x Smile

Don't forget the F-15s with -229s or -129s.

Such a conclusion is dumb to put it mildly. TWR is one among a couple of factors which determine aircraft performances and I'm not sure whether the data you used for your computations are accurate either. It's a matter of fact that the data for the T-5ß are still classified so what you were working with are estimates only, which may or may not be rough ball park figures. It's sufficient to say that the F-35's kinematic performance is likely to be sufficient for most cases.

Quote:

Such a conclusion is dumb to put it mildly. TWR is one among a couple of factors which determine aircraft performances and I'm not sure whether the data you used for your computations are accurate either. It's a matter of fact that the data for the T-5ß are still classified so what you were working with are estimates only, which may or may not be rough ball park figures. It's sufficient to say that the F-35's kinematic performance is likely to be sufficient for most cases.

I would agree if that were the only thing being considered. I put it up to prompt comment on what other factors should be considered. There are any myriad of other things that could be considered when looking at this (wing-loading, restrictions from external carriage ect). This was just one metric I figured was worth looking at when examining the larger issue. It does not strike me that the F-35 is a kinematic dog as it is at times portrayed by some. That was the larger point here and I would agree with your basic premise in your last sentence. The F-35 is certainly good enough in a kinematic sense for the vast majority of situations. I have just read too many publications that would have the latest SU-27 variants eating its lunch in that regard so I was a bit surprised when I looked at the numbers.

"Some" who are "saying":

ECD Fanboy
Russian Fanboy
APA and assorted threat inflators
F-22 Fetishists

I think most people accept that the F-35 will be somewhere around F-16 kinematics.

It would be nice to have more but not worth the cost, at least according to the USAF and other customers.

shingen wrote:

"Some" who are "saying":

ECD Fanboy
Russian Fanboy
APA and assorted threat inflators
F-22 Fetishists

I think most people accept that the F-35 will be somewhere around F-16 kinematics.

It would be nice to have more but not worth the cost, at least according to the USAF and other customers.

I would say all of the above.

It's always necessary to loo at the grand picture things, most people tend to compare individual parameters in isolation and try to conclude a global assessment of that. It's foolish and misleading and either owed to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject as such or an agenda driven by whatever motives. Many people appear to lack the objectivity and balance to come up with well considered assessments and such people can be found on all sides, F-35 fans included. There is no better or worse crowd/audience, at the end of the day the average is comparable.

bigjku wrote:

About the only knock you can put on it from an agility standpoint seems to be that it won't have thrust vectoring and others will.

The F-15, F-18, and F-16 have all had experimental TVC of some kind attached to them. Experiments of this kind were common in the late-1980s/early-1990s and apparently failed to impress from a cost-benefit standpoint. The F-22 only has TVC because it was integrated into the design from the start. Unfortunately, the USAF decided to make a big deal out of it and now every fanboy thinks it's more important than it really is.

According to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPKw3RksCcI

....the F-35 doesn't even have to turn and burn with the enemies thanks to DAS. If it comes to a merge, the F-35 can fire missiles without turning around. So if that's true, wouldn't any maneuverability deficit be irrelevant? Even if the enemy aircraft could turn circles around it, the F-35 could get a lock from any angle.

The kinematics are more important in defeating launched missiles than in setting up one's own shots thanks to DAS.

How viable is defeating SAM's with kinematics now compared to pre-S400?

My point is that with the new SAMs' kinematics it's looking like you need to be an SR-71 to have a chance. So, another way to beat the SAM needs to be found. That appears to be SA while denying enemy SA.

icemaverick wrote:

According to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPKw3RksCcI

....the F-35 doesn't even have to turn and burn with the enemies thanks to DAS. If it comes to a merge, the F-35 can fire missiles without turning around. So if that's true, wouldn't any maneuverability deficit be irrelevant? Even if the enemy aircraft could turn circles around it, the F-35 could get a lock from any angle.

If all this capability is true, we are so stupid for making a video and broadcasting it to God and everybody. It's like the White House declaring we used couriers to get to Bin Laden the very night of the raid. It make no sense what-so-ever to tell your enemies or potential adversaries of the advantages you have developed, or weaknesses you have found in their operations. A marketing video that shows all these revolutionary capabilities makes no sense IMO.

shingen wrote:

The kinematics are more important in defeating launched missiles than in setting up one's own shots thanks to DAS.

How viable is defeating SAM's with kinematics now compared to pre-S400?

My point is that with the new SAMs' kinematics it's looking like you need to be an SR-71 to have a chance. So, another way to beat the SAM needs to be found. That appears to be SA while denying enemy SA.

bigjku wrote:

So I present this as informational (assuming I did it right).

To determine kinetic performance, you need to look at SEP and T/W ratio is only a part of it and the other part is aerodynamics (kinematics).

All I know is that John Beesley has stated that the -35 is on par with the -16 in turning and accelleration; and that the -35 is on par with the -22 throughout the subsonic region. As others have said, looking at "static" t/w and wing loading numbers doesn't a prediction make about performance.

The initial variant of that big PW engine isn't going to be the same throughout the life cycle of the -35 either. We may well see a 50,000lb thrust version before its said and done. That should up the ante, so to speak. I don't think the -35 is as big as a slug and is purported by those just looking at wing loading and t/w numbers.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Kinematics in Air to Air configuration