Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Thats what is tough about having a string go more than 4 or 5 pages, some people don't go back and read the previous conversations that answer most of the questions.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Shaken wrote:

drummertr wrote:

It's real simple. Its all weight fellas.

For the CV JSF model, in order to show the airframe good for 22000 flight hrs (allotted lifetime used for navy fatigue analysis), we need lots of material. Material equals weight. The G rating is reduced to 7.5 so that we can meet the fatigue requirements for the airframe and still meet weight targets. If this specific airframe were to be rated and sized to 9 g's and STILL me all the requirements (static and fatigue) of a "strike" fighter, the plane would never get off the deck with the desired payload the navy wants.

Those are the facts.

If we were to evaluate the F-35C structure against the fatigue/life standards of the F-35A, what would the rated g-load be?

My interest was to have DrummerTr answer the specific question, above.

The interest is to try to get an apples to apples comparison of the aircraft, which (at least it appears) the basic numbers do not do. It is very common in aircraft and missile specifications for the numbers to be skewed by the many unstated assumptions. G-Limits for the airframe actually vary with current weight. An aircraft can safely pull more g's on the way home (light on fuel and down to self-protection AAMs), then during the push in (more gas and a couple of large munitions in the bay).

I'm sorry this generated a regurgitation of early conversations. Though a late-comer to the topic, I had read through all the discussion before jumping in the pool.

Thanks!

-- Shaken - out --

G-rating based only on internal fuel is pretty rare these days when it comes to fighter aircraft. For example, the F-16 is 9G capable no matter how much internal fuel it carries. Only when you start adding CAT III loadouts does the G rating come down.

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 615 Status: Offline

So, if Country XYZ purchased an F-35C and operated it only from landbases. It in turn would have a higher G Rating..............correct?

Corsair1963 wrote:

So, if Country XYZ purchased an F-35C and operated it only from landbases. It in turn would have a higher G Rating..............correct?

Yes. IF the folding wing system we're to be left deployed and strengthened.

You dont need to save space on land bases.

What makes F-16 that good is the presence of these LEX.

They can increase the level of lift by up to 50% at high AoA and it is lift which matters for both instantaneous and sustained turn rates.

Although for the latest, thrust is also equaly important.

I think many people keep misreading F-35 requierements, they are for
"F-16 like" performances in the STRIKE role, those who want it to be equaly good in A2A only forget one major difference.

F-16 WAS designed as the first agile fighter with maneuvrability as its first design goal.

Not F-35. Where F-35 will show itself superior is stealth and systems but i am not sure qabout general performances and turning performances.

To my knowledge, requierements results on design features results on aerodynamic arrangements results on performances. In the order.

What is maximum AoA for F-35 Question

@

Unknown since they haven't been flown yet.

But the prototypes reached 20* AoA and M 1.22.

I'm wondering that P&W or GE will design one day an engine for F-16 with thrust vectoring ?
I guess that then F-16 would be not only supermaneuverability but even hypermaneuverability fighter. Wink

That would be cool, doesn't it ?

Patriot wrote:

I'm wondering that P&W or GE will design one day an engine for F-16 with thrust vectoring ?
I guess that then F-16 would be not only supermaneuverability but even hypermaneuverability fighter. Wink

That would be cool, doesn't it ?

They already did, the program(s) were called VISTA, that program later became MATV and later still the AVEN program (do a search on F-16.net). Both GE & PW have participated in these programs at one point or another. (I'm partial to the P&W's) These aircraft could do amazing things in flight, probably comparable or better than anything current or proposed. These programs were all used as testbeds for the Raptor and Lightning II technologies. Lets face it, even if they performed better, Lockheed isn't going to want to sell a more maneuverable version of a current production aircraft when they can get BILLIONS of dollars for EPDM, LRIP, and so on for a NEW platform..........The only way you would have seen TV on an F-16 was if Lockheed lost the JSF competition .......................follow the money

This article, from the Sept. 2006 Air Force magazine, should answer some questions: http://afa.org/magazine/sept2006/0906altitude.asp

I'm wondering about one more thing ?
Why LMAC during designing F-35 has not employed concept 'superb viev canopy' as there was in case F-16.
It gives pilot great capabilities during combat when he must have to see everything arround him well, besides aiming the target with use JHMCS requires that solution I think. F-16 and F-22 are built according to this concept and that unique feature differs these two aircrafts from all modern fighters, I think that for pilots it's very valuable feature too. So I can't understand why in case Lighting II they doesn't apply this concept ? Shrug

Elite Joined: May 29, 2006 Posts: 640 Status: Offline

loflyn wrote:

This article, from the Sept. 2006 Air Force magazine, should answer some questions: http://afa.org/magazine/sept2006/0906altitude.asp

I love this, from Rear Admiral Steven L. Enewold:

"Enewold said flatly that the F-35’s combination of stealth, weapons, sensor fusion, and compatibility with networks of sensors and communications will make it, hands down, the best all-around combat fighter in the world.

"When matched against any other multirole fighter, he said, 'We will have much better capability to prosecute targets and [have] much better survivability rates. ... There’s no air-to-ground scenario that I can see out there that we’re not going to be the best on the block. In the air-to-air arena, we’re going to be No. 2—a close second to Raptor.'"

EXACTLY as I've been saying for months. And goddamn it, this is a read admiral speaking. So, Eurofigher apologists, or Rafale advocates, chew on THAT!

idesof

You keep bringing up L-M commercial staments as evidences of superiority. What i'd avise you to chew on is Aerodynamic ABCs not to mention Air Force specialist training because all you can do up to now is make me laugh.

No wonder you didn't "bother" elaborating on any of my points so far, you CANT.

Elite Joined: May 29, 2006 Posts: 640 Status: Offline

sampaix wrote:

idesof

You keep bringing up L-M commercial staments as evidences of superiority. What i'd avise you to chew on is Aerodynamic ABCs not to mention Air Force specialist training because all you can do up to now is make me laugh.

No wonder you didn't "bother" elaborating on any of my points so far, you CANT.

What the hell is your problem, Troll. Get the hell off my back! Unless you are an engineer with any of the above mentioned programs your "Aerodynaic ABCs" are so much speculation. Moreover, the quote is not an "L-M commercial statement." A rear admiral is someone in the NAVY. As I said, I don't have time for you and this is my last reply to any of our intensely annoying posts.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 Lightning II maneuverability