Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Greetings All:

It's been a while since I've done any sort of analysis on airframes/airplanes, but I am convinced that the AF really scr_wed the pooch on the F-35. I am toying with the idea of doing an overall (basic) analysis of the F-35 vs a "modified" F-16XL type aircraft. In initial number crunching I have concluded that the AF would have been better off with the XL-type bird.

With the new -22 engines or even the JSF turbine, combined with the stretched airframe, new wing design, new fan-dangled "pod" type racks (see F/B-22 articles), the "XL" would have had a supercruise bombing ability, supercruise CAP and SC manueverability, along with 4 aim-120's conformally mounted under the wings would have been a airplane to be feared. The XL could have added the LOAN-type nozzel, new LO verticle tail, new LO inlet, 20mm door-cover (and some newly shaped skins and canopy). Combined with a lower wing loading than the -35, higher cruise speed, most likely better A3A ability (not enough into on the -35 yet)....... Combined with the lower (most liekly) development costs for the "XL" the USA is getting a COSLTLIER lightly armed slower airframe that cannot replace either the F-117 nor the F-15E (I have quotes someplace from an AF general stating that as factual). Though the -35 does have a low RCS than the -16, it may be possible that she may some advantage in the A2A environment over the standard -16, but given her weights I doubt that such advantage is minimal compared to the costs of the -35. A modified XL could have incorporated many LO features and given her supercruise abiltiy and agility (lower wing loading than the 35) she would have wasted the -35 in A2A duels and also been able to carry a heavier bomb load a greater distance (and remember the LO aerodynamic bomb bay pods under her wings) this AC would have wasted the -35 and just about any Mig, Sukhoi, Eurofighter in the world. Such an airframe would have been a perfect compliment to the -22 and would not have needed -22 aircover for bombing missions (I know I know.... you're all going to say that the -35 is stealthy...... Only she ain't all aspect stealthy & has her weakness's).

Essentially the -35 as it is, is nothing more than a A-7 (with better t/w ratios in certain loadings) with some stealth and lots of electronic goodies. We're getting a "fighter" plane that itself is going to require fighter escorts for the nitty gritty missions. Now then, when she's got about 1/2 of her internal fuel load, given the 40K lb of thrust, then she may come to life as a "fighter", but still the "XL" would wasted her at all altitudes and speeds given identical loads.

As I said, I'm toying with the idea of doing something a little more formal in my statements..... I don't know what good it would do.... Probably no good at all given the political environment and the massive support (world wide) for the JSF.

While I am not an "XL" fanatic, I need to state that we could have added all these wonderful capabilities into an entirely new airframe. But, we're getting gummed down airplane due to the Marines (& Brits) requirements for STOVL among other 'politcal' reasons. Even if the JSF is going to have a laser "weapon" in some versions.......... that capability is well...... Whats the point with our other A2G weapons.

Again, I must say that the AF is getting a plane of lesser ability than was possible and paying more for it than we should (even is the mod'd -16 cost the same then so be it). We're chucking needed (had in hand) capability out the window. Given the fact that we're only ever going to get a silver bullet force of -22's the airframe I described would be a *vital* and needed addition to our Air Force.

I know..... I'm just a "troll"! But hey, I am patriotic.

F-16.net Sponsor

FireFox137 wrote:

Greetings All:

It's been a while since I've done any sort of analysis on airframes/airplanes, but I am convinced that the AF really scr_wed the pooch on the F-35. I am toying with the idea of doing an overall (basic) analysis of the F-35 vs a "modified" F-16XL type aircraft. In initial number crunching I have concluded that the AF would have been better off with the XL-type bird.

With the new -22 engines or even the JSF turbine, combined with the stretched airframe, new wing design, new fan-dangled "pod" type racks (see F/B-22 articles), the "XL" would have had a supercruise bombing ability, supercruise CAP and SC manueverability, along with 4 aim-120's conformally mounted under the wings would have been a airplane to be feared. The XL could have added the LOAN-type nozzel, new LO verticle tail, new LO inlet, 20mm door-cover (and some newly shaped skins and canopy). Combined with a lower wing loading than the -35, higher cruise speed, most likely better A3A ability (not enough into on the -35 yet)....... Combined with the lower (most liekly) development costs for the "XL" the USA is getting a COSLTLIER lightly armed slower airframe that cannot replace either the F-117 nor the F-15E (I have quotes someplace from an AF general stating that as factual). Though the -35 does have a low RCS than the -16, it may be possible that she may some advantage in the A2A environment over the standard -16, but given her weights I doubt that such advantage is minimal compared to the costs of the -35. A modified XL could have incorporated many LO features and given her supercruise abiltiy and agility (lower wing loading than the 35) she would have wasted the -35 in A2A duels and also been able to carry a heavier bomb load a greater distance (and remember the LO aerodynamic bomb bay pods under her wings) this AC would have wasted the -35 and just about any Mig, Sukhoi, Eurofighter in the world. Such an airframe would have been a perfect compliment to the -22 and would not have needed -22 aircover for bombing missions (I know I know.... you're all going to say that the -35 is stealthy...... Only she ain't all aspect stealthy & has her weakness's).

Essentially the -35 as it is, is nothing more than a A-7 (with better t/w ratios in certain loadings) with some stealth and lots of electronic goodies. We're getting a "fighter" plane that itself is going to require fighter escorts for the nitty gritty missions. Now then, when she's got about 1/2 of her internal fuel load, given the 40K lb of thrust, then she may come to life as a "fighter", but still the "XL" would wasted her at all altitudes and speeds given identical loads.

As I said, I'm toying with the idea of doing something a little more formal in my statements..... I don't know what good it would do.... Probably no good at all given the political environment and the massive support (world wide) for the JSF.

While I am not an "XL" fanatic, I need to state that we could have added all these wonderful capabilities into an entirely new airframe. But, we're getting gummed down airplane due to the Marines (& Brits) requirements for STOVL among other 'politcal' reasons. Even if the JSF is going to have a laser "weapon" in some versions.......... that capability is well...... Whats the point with our other A2G weapons.

Again, I must say that the AF is getting a plane of lesser ability than was possible and paying more for it than we should (even is the mod'd -16 cost the same then so be it). We're chucking needed (had in hand) capability out the window. Given the fact that we're only ever going to get a silver bullet force of -22's the airframe I described would be a *vital* and needed addition to our Air Force.

I know..... I'm just a "troll"! But hey, I am patriotic.

What does being patriotic have to do with it? Bizarre statement.

Have you ever thought that your dislike of the F-35 is basically an aesthetic judgment on your part? Me thinks your issue with it is the inarguable fact that it is just not a "sexy" airplane, while the F-16XL is one of the nicest-looking planes ever built. Thing is, you offer no factual proof for your contention that the F-35 is an inferior platform. When facts are thrown at you regarding the F-35, your attitude is simply one of disbelief. You believe what you want to believe and it does not matter one bit what may be said to you in response. I think the issue other people on this board have with you is that you provide NO factual basis for your assertions, and your counter-proposals are pie-in-the-sky pipedreams that would have made sense, if at all, two decades ago but no longer. You are designing for the last war. Not even that. More like Vietnam.

Want to know the airplane you just described? Not a souped-up F-16XL but a Eurofighter. Why not just dump the F-35 and get that? Why are the Brits so "stupid" that they want the F-35 in addition to the Eurofighter? Why are there several nations that are foregoing the opportunity to buy the Eurofighter now so they can get the F-35 later?

Earlier, your description of a hypothetical super-air-superiority platform wound up being a Mig-31. Now you're proposing a Eurofighter. You keep going back to the drawing-board to come up with airplanes that have already been designed yet judged inadequate for the missions assigned to the F-22 and F-35.

If I may, you're grabbing at straws. Your efforts will prove fruitless and futile. No one at the Pentagon is going to listen to a person who comes off as being uninformed and not a little nutty telling them: you've been wrong for more than two decades, here is MY solution. I suggest gardening instead. Your efforts in that field may indeed bear fruit.

wrong forum - this drivel should be hidden away in the "abc vs xyz" closet.

idesof wrote:

FireFox137 wrote:

Greetings All:

It's been a while since I've done any sort of analysis on airframes/airplanes, but I am convinced that the AF really scr_wed the pooch on the F-35. I am toying with the idea of doing an overall (basic) analysis of the F-35 vs a "modified" F-16XL type aircraft. In initial number crunching I have concluded that the AF would have been better off with the XL-type bird.

With the new -22 engines or even the JSF turbine, combined with the stretched airframe, new wing design, new fan-dangled "pod" type racks (see F/B-22 articles), the "XL" would have had a supercruise bombing ability, supercruise CAP and SC manueverability, along with 4 aim-120's conformally mounted under the wings would have been a airplane to be feared. The XL could have added the LOAN-type nozzel, new LO verticle tail, new LO inlet, 20mm door-cover (and some newly shaped skins and canopy). Combined with a lower wing loading than the -35, higher cruise speed, most likely better A3A ability (not enough into on the -35 yet)....... Combined with the lower (most liekly) development costs for the "XL" the USA is getting a COSLTLIER lightly armed slower airframe that cannot replace either the F-117 nor the F-15E (I have quotes someplace from an AF general stating that as factual). Though the -35 does have a low RCS than the -16, it may be possible that she may some advantage in the A2A environment over the standard -16, but given her weights I doubt that such advantage is minimal compared to the costs of the -35. A modified XL could have incorporated many LO features and given her supercruise abiltiy and agility (lower wing loading than the 35) she would have wasted the -35 in A2A duels and also been able to carry a heavier bomb load a greater distance (and remember the LO aerodynamic bomb bay pods under her wings) this AC would have wasted the -35 and just about any Mig, Sukhoi, Eurofighter in the world. Such an airframe would have been a perfect compliment to the -22 and would not have needed -22 aircover for bombing missions (I know I know.... you're all going to say that the -35 is stealthy...... Only she ain't all aspect stealthy & has her weakness's).

Essentially the -35 as it is, is nothing more than a A-7 (with better t/w ratios in certain loadings) with some stealth and lots of electronic goodies. We're getting a "fighter" plane that itself is going to require fighter escorts for the nitty gritty missions. Now then, when she's got about 1/2 of her internal fuel load, given the 40K lb of thrust, then she may come to life as a "fighter", but still the "XL" would wasted her at all altitudes and speeds given identical loads.

As I said, I'm toying with the idea of doing something a little more formal in my statements..... I don't know what good it would do.... Probably no good at all given the political environment and the massive support (world wide) for the JSF.

While I am not an "XL" fanatic, I need to state that we could have added all these wonderful capabilities into an entirely new airframe. But, we're getting gummed down airplane due to the Marines (& Brits) requirements for STOVL among other 'politcal' reasons. Even if the JSF is going to have a laser "weapon" in some versions.......... that capability is well...... Whats the point with our other A2G weapons.

Again, I must say that the AF is getting a plane of lesser ability than was possible and paying more for it than we should (even is the mod'd -16 cost the same then so be it). We're chucking needed (had in hand) capability out the window. Given the fact that we're only ever going to get a silver bullet force of -22's the airframe I described would be a *vital* and needed addition to our Air Force.

I know..... I'm just a "troll"! But hey, I am patriotic.

What does being patriotic have to do with it? Bizarre statement.

Have you ever thought that your dislike of the F-35 is basically an aesthetic judgment on your part? Me thinks your issue with it is the inarguable fact that it is just not a "sexy" airplane, while the F-16XL is one of the nicest-looking planes ever built. Thing is, you offer no factual proof for your contention that the F-35 is an inferior platform. When facts are thrown at you regarding the F-35, your attitude is simply one of disbelief. You believe what you want to believe and it does not matter one bit what may be said to you in response. I think the issue other people on this board have with you is that you provide NO factual basis for your assertions, and your counter-proposals are pie-in-the-sky pipedreams that would have made sense, if at all, two decades ago but no longer. You are designing for the last war. Not even that. More like Vietnam.

Want to know the airplane you just described? Not a souped-up F-16XL but a Eurofighter. Why not just dump the F-35 and get that? Why are the Brits so "stupid" that they want the F-35 in addition to the Eurofighter? Why are there several nations that are foregoing the opportunity to buy the Eurofighter now so they can get the F-35 later?

Earlier, your description of a hypothetical super-air-superiority platform wound up being a Mig-31. Now you're proposing a Eurofighter. You keep going back to the drawing-board to come up with airplanes that have already been designed yet judged inadequate for the missions assigned to the F-22 and F-35.

If I may, you're grabbing at straws. Your efforts will prove fruitless and futile. No one at the Pentagon is going to listen to a person who comes off as being uninformed and not a little nutty telling them: you've been wrong for more than two decades, here is MY solution. I suggest gardening instead. Your efforts in that field may indeed bear fruit.

Well, asetheically the XL was a "hot" looking monster and the JSF is the ugly duckling. While it is true that a souped up Mig-31 as you said would be a awesome plane for the F-15 replacement..... That has nothing to do with the "low" mix of capability that the AF seems to require (it's also a bad idead to throw all your eggs in one basket). Also, a Eurofighter..... hmmm, that may be a very capable plane, but would not tough the mod'd -16 that we could have (should have) built. The E-fighter may be a good fighter, nimble, fast, and full of goodies, but not anywhere near the mod'd 16's capabilities: faster cruise speed, longer legs, high ceilings, better situational awareness goodies, acceleration would be better.... better LO technologies incorporated into the airframe. I don't dislike the E-fighter, and I don't discount her abilities out of hand...... But the USoA CAN DO BETTER than the JSF.

There's an old addage(spell???) that if it looks good then it flies good. That's true to this day barring the sci-fi technology that may or may not exist. Ok, then E-fighter vs the JSF in a duel.... JSF --> Scrap metal and carbon fiber fluttering towards the ground. Also, the airfram we could have had would simply be able to carry more weapons to multiple targets than the pint sized JSF load. Guessing off the top of my head on the spot here, but with some nifty pod/racks allowing supercrusie and more 250 pounders than the JSF and more JDAMS..... 2 - 3 the a2g load as the JSF. More bang for the buck. The JSF cannot supercruise (mod'd 16 could; JSF carries a pint sized internal load (mod'd 16 would carry more and further than the JSF w/equal loadings); JSF most likely has a higher drag coefficient than the beast I envision and that also affects range and acceleration.....

Additionally, my comments about the Brits may have been worded incorrectly, but I am refering to their need for the STOVL plane to replace the Harrier. The Harrier mission profile has gummed down the JSF's abilities (and maybe even the AF's lack of a contender to the -22 and other "politcal" reasons).

The JSF would make a great supplemental fighter for the battlefield, but she's not a frontline fighter/bomber (unless we declare war Bosnia or Etheopia). Now then if the AF had three different types of 'fighters', say something like: the F-22, the single engined beast I wanted to supplement the 22, and the JSF for the supplemental close support BF environment.... Then I would feel differently about her.

A few things:-

Any version of the F-16XL will have:-

(1) A much higher RCS than the F-35 and hence a much inferior A2A and A2G survivability. RCS and sensors are now the predominant factors that determine A2A combat effectiveness not agility or speed. This is why all current 5th generation designs focus on stealth as the #1 priority, not speed or super agility.

(2) Shorter range due to a lower fuel fraction and external weapon drag.

(3) At best similar speed performance due to -- again -- external weapons drag and no better T-W ratios.

(4) Not much cheaper. As it is the F-35 is only about 33% more expensive than the latest F-16Cs (48 vs 36 million).

(5) At best similar agility -- the cranks delta is not particularly agile and may be less agile than the classic F-16, whereas the F-35 is at least as agile as the classic F-16.

In short, whether the contest is A2A or A2G engagement, some evolved version of the F-16XL will be inferior in everyway to the F-35.

dwightlooi wrote:

A few things:-

Any version of the F-16XL will have:-

(1) A much higher RCS than the F-35 and hence a much inferior A2A and A2G survivability. RCS and sensors are now the predominant factors that determine A2A combat effectiveness not agility or speed. This is why all current 5th generation designs focus on stealth as the #1 priority, not speed or super agility.

(2) Shorter range due to a lower fuel fraction and external weapon drag.

(3) At best similar speed performance due to -- again -- external weapons drag and no better T-W ratios.

(4) Not much cheaper. As it is the F-35 is only about 33% more expensive than the latest F-16Cs (48 vs 36 million).

(5) At best similar agility -- the cranks delta is not particularly agile and may be less agile than the classic F-16, whereas the F-35 is at least as agile as the classic F-16.

In short, whether the contest is A2A or A2G engagement, some evolved version of the F-16XL will be inferior in everyway to the F-35.

1) Well, from an "observational" perspective the XL carried about 12,800 gallons of fuel - i.e. less than the F-35.

2) Ah ah ah to drag stuff. The 35 carries a whopping 2 bombs (not talking the 250 pounders mind you). It is VERY possible to design some stealthy low draq bomb "racks/pods" that will allow the hypothetical super falcon to carry more weapons/bombs than the 35 and not only to carry more, but to supercrusie to the target release point. Also I'm not talking of a 'photocopy' of the XL. Just looking at some drawings I can improvise the design to stealthily carry 6-8 250 pounders without anything hanging off the wings in any kind of pod/rack.

3) Stealth: the 16's frontal RCS can be greatly reduced and the AF is happy enough to live with that in the JSF. Also, it's possible to reskin the bird and advantage of the sawtooth patterns on the -22. Also, the vertical do-dad.......... easy, very easy to whip a design that is totally non-reflective to radar waves. Then those little 'feathers' sticking out of her bottom.... remove those too. Also throw on the LOAN type nozzel which is what the JSF has and where's the issue with that subject (the rear end)? New paints for the other IR stuff....... New Canopy, an active cancellation type radar thrown into her nose...... low observable inlet.... oh yeah, low oberservable wings as well. They made the Hornet into a somewhat "stealthy" beast and look at what that plane is..... a flying lesson in how to design an aerodynamic fighter-bomber. Given the 16's blended upper wing/boddy design too.... You could most definately reduce her RCS to significant levels.

4) Agility/shmagility! Given a tv nozzel and fast acting control surfaces..... No issues there. There hasn't been a dogfight in how long?? In the truest sense of the word. Unless you are Israel and as soon as you got your gear up you're being targeted by Migs and what-not, then I don't see the need to sacrifice outstanding tactical/strategic capability for dogfighting. The bird in question would not exactly be a sitting lame duck should she find herself turning with the other guys. Look and release missiles are going to rule the future dogfights anyways. The days of F-4's getting pounded upon by swarms of Migs are over and done with: lesson learned and then some.

5) Stealth is defeatible. Just as we don't send our marines into combat wearing classy blue uniforms..... Thus is stealth becoming along those lines. With the 35 we're giving up more than she's worth.

Look up the FB-22 and you'll find some articles on classified types of stealthy bomb racks..... the "XL" would carry these along with some slight mods to the lower wing/body connection area............. I'm thinking outside of the box here.

As far as I can tell, with just some initial assumptions, given the fuel loading of the "XL" and supercruise.... and lower drag coefficient, she'd go a lot further than the 35 would with an identical weapons loading.

Hell, I'd even reccomend throwing out the 20mm cannon in favor of the gun pod for some versions of the JSF, thus opening up more internal volume for my "super XL".

Combined with a wolfpack of F-22's flying out ahead of her..... although not needed for all missions, then there's only plusses and no minus's to what I am envisioning.

Also take into account wing loadings. Who's got the most lift surface?
JSF = slow, lightly armed in "stealth" mode. Not what I want my tax dollars beings spent on. Not what I want my fellow citizens taking into a *real* fight either.

Also, not much cheaper? At least it is cheaper! And at least it's a proven design/aircraft. What are we getting with the JSF? My friends, we're getting a roll of the dice. My god, LM was still even recently trying shed some pounds on the ugly duckling.

FireFox137 wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

A few things:-

Any version of the F-16XL will have:-

(1) A much higher RCS than the F-35 and hence a much inferior A2A and A2G survivability. RCS and sensors are now the predominant factors that determine A2A combat effectiveness not agility or speed. This is why all current 5th generation designs focus on stealth as the #1 priority, not speed or super agility.

(2) Shorter range due to a lower fuel fraction and external weapon drag.

(3) At best similar speed performance due to -- again -- external weapons drag and no better T-W ratios.

(4) Not much cheaper. As it is the F-35 is only about 33% more expensive than the latest F-16Cs (48 vs 36 million).

(5) At best similar agility -- the cranks delta is not particularly agile and may be less agile than the classic F-16, whereas the F-35 is at least as agile as the classic F-16.

In short, whether the contest is A2A or A2G engagement, some evolved version of the F-16XL will be inferior in everyway to the F-35.

1) Well, from an "observational" perspective the XL carried about 12,800 gallons of fuel - i.e. less than the F-35.

2) Ah ah ah to drag stuff. The 35 carries a whopping 2 bombs (not talking the 250 pounders mind you). It is VERY possible to design some stealthy low draq bomb "racks/pods" that will allow the hypothetical super falcon to carry more weapons/bombs than the 35 and not only to carry more, but to supercrusie to the target release point. Also I'm not talking of a 'photocopy' of the XL. Just looking at some drawings I can improvise the design to stealthily carry 6-8 250 pounders without anything hanging off the wings in any kind of pod/rack.

3) Stealth: the 16's frontal RCS can be greatly reduced and the AF is happy enough to live with that in the JSF. Also, it's possible to reskin the bird and advantage of the sawtooth patterns on the -22. Also, the vertical do-dad.......... easy, very easy to whip a design that is totally non-reflective to radar waves. Then those little 'feathers' sticking out of her bottom.... remove those too. Also throw on the LOAN type nozzel which is what the JSF has and where's the issue with that subject (the rear end)? New paints for the other IR stuff....... New Canopy, an active cancellation type radar thrown into her nose...... low observable inlet.... oh yeah, low oberservable wings as well. They made the Hornet into a somewhat "stealthy" beast and look at what that plane is..... a flying lesson in how to design an aerodynamic fighter-bomber. Given the 16's blended upper wing/boddy design too.... You could most definately reduce her RCS to significant levels.

4) Agility/shmagility! Given a tv nozzel and fast acting control surfaces..... No issues there. There hasn't been a dogfight in how long?? In the truest sense of the word. Unless you are Israel and as soon as you got your gear up you're being targeted by Migs and what-not, then I don't see the need to sacrifice outstanding tactical/strategic capability for dogfighting. The bird in question would not exactly be a sitting lame duck should she find herself turning with the other guys. Look and release missiles are going to rule the future dogfights anyways. The days of F-4's getting pounded upon by swarms of Migs are over and done with: lesson learned and then some.

5) Stealth is defeatible. Just as we don't send our marines into combat wearing classy blue uniforms..... Thus is stealth becoming along those lines. With the 35 we're giving up more than she's worth.

Look up the FB-22 and you'll find some articles on classified types of stealthy bomb racks..... the "XL" would carry these along with some slight mods to the lower wing/body connection area............. I'm thinking outside of the box here.

As far as I can tell, with just some initial assumptions, given the fuel loading of the "XL" and supercruise.... and lower drag coefficient, she'd go a lot further than the 35 would with an identical weapons loading.

Hell, I'd even reccomend throwing out the 20mm cannon in favor of the gun pod for some versions of the JSF, thus opening up more internal volume for my "super XL".

Combined with a wolfpack of F-22's flying out ahead of her..... although not needed for all missions, then there's only plusses and no minus's to what I am envisioning.

Also take into account wing loadings. Who's got the most lift surface?
JSF = slow, lightly armed in "stealth" mode. Not what I want my tax dollars beings spent on. Not what I want my fellow citizens taking into a *real* fight either.

Also, not much cheaper? At least it is cheaper! And at least it's a proven design/aircraft. What are we getting with the JSF? My friends, we're getting a roll of the dice. My god, LM was still even recently trying shed some pounds on the ugly duckling.

A few things...

(1) You cannot even appraoch the RCS level of the F-35 regardless of what you do to the F-16XL. Even without any external bomb enclosing pods or buldges, a DSI intake, with a RAM coating and extensive saw toothing its RCS is at best slightly better than that of the Eurocanards -- which is to say not very stealthy at all. Maybe ~0.1 m^2 whereas the F-35 is ~0.0014. You can't utilize the F-16XL type wing and have edge alignment and or the F-16 type fuselage side shaping.

(2) If you want an increased bomb load, it is easier to develop steallthy bomb pods for the F-35. The capacity of 2 x 2500 pounders and 2 AAMs, or 8 x 265 pounders and 2 AAMs is plenty and there is no desire for more bomb load on missions where stealth matters.

(3) You mention supercruise, but supercruising is a definition that has very little value in and of itself. The question is supercruising at what speed? If you are after the kind of supercruising available in the F-22 (Mach 1.7+) you are not going to get it on a reengined F-16XL. The best you are going to get is the marginal supercrusing which the Eurocanards are capable of and which the latest "traditional" F-16s are also capable of to a lesser extent. That is Mach 1.2~1.4 clean and just supersonic cruising with practical external loads. If that is important to you all you have to do is to uprate the engine in the F-35 and that is exactly what you'll get. In fact, you may even get it out of the F-35 as is. The F-35 is a very aerodynamically clean aircraft and it has a lot of thrust for the advertized performance. There are many who believe that its official performance estimates are.... lets say... very conservative, just like the Raptors was when it was under development -- remember Mach 1.8+ Max and mach 1.5+ supercruise from the 90s documents? Supercruising is NOT a requirement for the F-35 and there are no specific attempts to make it supercruise, but that doesn't mean it won't do it. The F-16 is not designed to supercruise either and no specific attempts have been made to make the F-16C supercruise. But a PW229 or GE132 engined one will in fact supercruise (albiet barely @ ~1.2) when it is flying clean.

(4) There has been a lot of unjustified criticism over the F-35's weight, when it fact it is practically the MOST weight efficient aircraft currently known to us. The F-35 is estimated at 12,000kg. 1,000 kg more than the Typhoon. For that 1,000 kg you get 8150kg of fuel vs 5000 kg, you get two large internal weapon bays and you get flexible packaging which permits the incorporation of a liftfan if needed. The F-35 is extremely mass efficient an aircraft given its internal volume -- much more so than the Typhoon, Rafale or F-16.

If the F-35 does as good a job as the A-7 for as many years, it will be proven to have been an effective, well loved, respected and feared platform.

dwightlooi wrote:

FireFox137 wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

A few things:-

Any version of the F-16XL will have:-

(1) A much higher RCS than the F-35 and hence a much inferior A2A and A2G survivability. RCS and sensors are now the predominant factors that determine A2A combat effectiveness not agility or speed. This is why all current 5th generation designs focus on stealth as the #1 priority, not speed or super agility.

(2) Shorter range due to a lower fuel fraction and external weapon drag.

(3) At best similar speed performance due to -- again -- external weapons drag and no better T-W ratios.

(4) Not much cheaper. As it is the F-35 is only about 33% more expensive than the latest F-16Cs (48 vs 36 million).

(5) At best similar agility -- the cranks delta is not particularly agile and may be less agile than the classic F-16, whereas the F-35 is at least as agile as the classic F-16.

In short, whether the contest is A2A or A2G engagement, some evolved version of the F-16XL will be inferior in everyway to the F-35.

1) Well, from an "observational" perspective the XL carried about 12,800 gallons of fuel - i.e. less than the F-35.

2) Ah ah ah to drag stuff. The 35 carries a whopping 2 bombs (not talking the 250 pounders mind you). It is VERY possible to design some stealthy low draq bomb "racks/pods" that will allow the hypothetical super falcon to carry more weapons/bombs than the 35 and not only to carry more, but to supercrusie to the target release point. Also I'm not talking of a 'photocopy' of the XL. Just looking at some drawings I can improvise the design to stealthily carry 6-8 250 pounders without anything hanging off the wings in any kind of pod/rack.

3) Stealth: the 16's frontal RCS can be greatly reduced and the AF is happy enough to live with that in the JSF. Also, it's possible to reskin the bird and advantage of the sawtooth patterns on the -22. Also, the vertical do-dad.......... easy, very easy to whip a design that is totally non-reflective to radar waves. Then those little 'feathers' sticking out of her bottom.... remove those too. Also throw on the LOAN type nozzel which is what the JSF has and where's the issue with that subject (the rear end)? New paints for the other IR stuff....... New Canopy, an active cancellation type radar thrown into her nose...... low observable inlet.... oh yeah, low oberservable wings as well. They made the Hornet into a somewhat "stealthy" beast and look at what that plane is..... a flying lesson in how to design an aerodynamic fighter-bomber. Given the 16's blended upper wing/boddy design too.... You could most definately reduce her RCS to significant levels.

4) Agility/shmagility! Given a tv nozzel and fast acting control surfaces..... No issues there. There hasn't been a dogfight in how long?? In the truest sense of the word. Unless you are Israel and as soon as you got your gear up you're being targeted by Migs and what-not, then I don't see the need to sacrifice outstanding tactical/strategic capability for dogfighting. The bird in question would not exactly be a sitting lame duck should she find herself turning with the other guys. Look and release missiles are going to rule the future dogfights anyways. The days of F-4's getting pounded upon by swarms of Migs are over and done with: lesson learned and then some.

5) Stealth is defeatible. Just as we don't send our marines into combat wearing classy blue uniforms..... Thus is stealth becoming along those lines. With the 35 we're giving up more than she's worth.

Look up the FB-22 and you'll find some articles on classified types of stealthy bomb racks..... the "XL" would carry these along with some slight mods to the lower wing/body connection area............. I'm thinking outside of the box here.

As far as I can tell, with just some initial assumptions, given the fuel loading of the "XL" and supercruise.... and lower drag coefficient, she'd go a lot further than the 35 would with an identical weapons loading.

Hell, I'd even reccomend throwing out the 20mm cannon in favor of the gun pod for some versions of the JSF, thus opening up more internal volume for my "super XL".

Combined with a wolfpack of F-22's flying out ahead of her..... although not needed for all missions, then there's only plusses and no minus's to what I am envisioning.

Also take into account wing loadings. Who's got the most lift surface?
JSF = slow, lightly armed in "stealth" mode. Not what I want my tax dollars beings spent on. Not what I want my fellow citizens taking into a *real* fight either.

Also, not much cheaper? At least it is cheaper! And at least it's a proven design/aircraft. What are we getting with the JSF? My friends, we're getting a roll of the dice. My god, LM was still even recently trying shed some pounds on the ugly duckling.

A few things...

(1) You cannot even appraoch the RCS level of the F-35 regardless of what you do to the F-16XL. Even without any external bomb enclosing pods or buldges, a DSI intake, with a RAM coating and extensive saw toothing its RCS is at best slightly better than that of the Eurocanards -- which is to say not very stealthy at all. Maybe ~0.1 m^2 whereas the F-35 is ~0.0014. You can't utilize the F-16XL type wing and have edge alignment and or the F-16 type fuselage side shaping.

(2) If you want an increased bomb load, it is easier to develop steallthy bomb pods for the F-35. The capacity of 2 x 2500 pounders and 2 AAMs, or 8 x 265 pounders and 2 AAMs is plenty and there is no desire for more bomb load on missions where stealth matters.

(3) You mention supercruise, but supercruising is a definition that has very little value in and of itself. The question is supercruising at what speed? If you are after the kind of supercruising available in the F-22 (Mach 1.7+) you are not going to get it on a reengined F-16XL. The best you are going to get is the marginal supercrusing which the Eurocanards are capable of and which the latest "traditional" F-16s are also capable of to a lesser extent. That is Mach 1.2~1.4 clean and just supersonic cruising with practical external loads. If that is important to you all you have to do is to uprate the engine in the F-35 and that is exactly what you'll get. In fact, you may even get it out of the F-35 as is. The F-35 is a very aerodynamically clean aircraft and it has a lot of thrust for the advertized performance. There are many who believe that its official performance estimates are.... lets say... very conservative, just like the Raptors was when it was under development -- remember Mach 1.8+ Max and mach 1.5+ supercruise from the 90s documents? Supercruising is NOT a requirement for the F-35 and there are no specific attempts to make it supercruise, but that doesn't mean it won't do it. The F-16 is not designed to supercruise either and no specific attempts have been made to make the F-16C supercruise. But a PW229 or GE132 engined one will in fact supercruise (albiet barely @ ~1.2) when it is flying clean.

(4) There has been a lot of unjustified criticism over the F-35's weight, when it fact it is practically the MOST weight efficient aircraft currently known to us. The F-35 is estimated at 12,000kg. 1,000 kg more than the Typhoon. For that 1,000 kg you get 8150kg of fuel vs 5000 kg, you get two large internal weapon bays and you get flexible packaging which permits the incorporation of a liftfan if needed. The F-35 is extremely mass efficient an aircraft given its internal volume -- much more so than the Typhoon, Rafale or F-16.

I'm too tired to think type right now............ can make my case another time......

BUT, as I recall the Start II treaty banned ALL (not just nukes) stealth weapons from being used by stealth aircraft. Therefore there are NO stealth weapons allowed on B-2's, F-117's, F-22's and yes, even the JSF.

I'm not up on my treaties......... But can SOMEONE please comment???????

P.S. I liked the A-7 very much as far as that nifty plane went.... Wouldn't want her as a frontline machine.

Good night.......................

Quote:

BUT, as I recall the Start II treaty banned ALL (not just nukes) stealth weapons from being used by stealth aircraft. Therefore there are NO stealth weapons allowed on B-2's, F-117's, F-22's and yes, even the JSF.

This is apparently not the case. The JSSAM for example is clearly designed for stealth and it will be used on the F-35. The JSOW and ACM are also stealthy weapons.

FireFox137

Facts are stubborn things, sometimes you just have to look at the record.

The A7 was based on the design of the F8. The preliminary design was conceived in 1962, the initial contract was let on the 19th of March 1963, the first flight was on the 27th of September 1965, the first deliveries were in late 1966 and IOC was with VA-147 at Lemoore on the 1st of February 1967.

It was one of the first aircraft with a HUD and later a FLIR, for ordnance, it has six wing, two fuselage and one centerline pylon’s. The maximum weapon load was 15,000 Lbs. with a reduced fuel load or 9,500 Lbs. with a full fuel load. The normal combat load was 12 MK82’s. The initial variants had two Colt MK12 cannons, these were later replaced with one M61 20mm cannon. For self-defense the aircraft carries two Sidewinder missiles.

The official USN mission statement was: “MISSION: Destroy fixed and moving targets ashore and at sea; interdiction and close air support.”

In December 1967, combat operations with the A7E’s started with VA-147 aboard the USS Ranger, during this cruise VA-147 made about 1,400 flights losing only one aircraft. VA-147 is currently an F/A 18C squadron and their motto is “Fused Ordnance, On Target, On Time, First Pass.”

Overall, USAF A-7D’s flew about 13,000 combat sorties during the war with only 4 losses, the lowest of any US fighter in the theatre. The aircraft was second only to B-52 in total ordnance dropped on Hanoi. During Vietnam, the A7 dropped more bombs per sortie with greater accuracy than any other US attack aircraft.

A-7’s were part of the two-carrier battle group that conducted a joint strike on selected Libyan terrorist-related targets in 1986. Together with carrier-based F/A-18s, A-7s used anti-radiation missiles to neutralize Libyan air defenses.

During Desert Storm, the A-7 demonstrated over 95% operational readiness and did not miss a single combat sortie.

The A-7 is an aircraft with a demonstrated ability of performing well in a wide variety of missions. Other aircraft are faster, carry more ordnance (A6) or have a faster rate of climb. The design parameters of the A-7 were chosen so that the aircraft has great mission versatility.

You get an aircraft which can put up numbers like that and you have a winner.

FireFox137 wrote:

1) Well, from an "observational" perspective the XL carried about 12,800 gallons of fuel - i.e. less than the F-35.

So it would likely have less range than the JSF...

Quote:

2) Ah ah ah to drag stuff. The 35 carries a whopping 2 bombs (not talking the 250 pounders mind you). It is VERY possible to design some stealthy low draq bomb "racks/pods" that will allow the hypothetical super falcon to carry more weapons/bombs than the 35 and not only to carry more, but to supercrusie to the target release point. Also I'm not talking of a 'photocopy' of the XL. Just looking at some drawings I can improvise the design to stealthily carry 6-8 250 pounders without anything hanging off the wings in any kind of pod/rack.

External bomb racks are simply not capable of being "stealthy". The 90 degree right angle they make with the wing makes a brutal corner reflector. The racks for the F-22 and the F-35 will only be used after air dominance is achieved...which should be about 69 seconds after the war starts. Cool

Quote:

3) Stealth: the 16's frontal RCS can be greatly reduced and the AF is happy enough to live with that in the JSF.

Not sure what you mean by this…How do you know how the RCS levels compare?

Quote:

Also, it's possible to reskin the bird and advantage of the sawtooth patterns on the -22. Also, the vertical do-dad.......... easy, very easy to whip a design that is totally non-reflective to radar waves. Then those little 'feathers' sticking out of her bottom.... remove those too. Also throw on the LOAN type nozzle which is what the JSF has and where's the issue with that subject (the rear end)? New paints for the other IR stuff....... New Canopy, an active cancellation type radar thrown into her nose...... low observable inlet.... oh yeah, low observable wings as well. They made the Hornet into a somewhat "stealthy" beast and look at what that plane is..... a flying lesson in how to design an aerodynamic fighter-bomber. Given the 16's blended upper wing/body design too.... You could most definitely reduce her RCS to significant levels.

First off, I was at one point in my career the USAF program manager for the HAVE GLASS effort, so trust me when I say there is no way on this earth that an F-16 can match the JSF in signature. I obviously can't produce numbers (I look like he$$ in stripes). Plus, all those mods you propose are not free. By the time you reengineer them for a different airplane, the R&D cost will approach that of the JSF and you'll still have an inferior airplane. I do want to know though...how do you propose that we build a vertical "do dad" that is "totally non-reflective to radar waves?" What about the loss in stability that would incur if you remove "those little 'feathers' sticking out of her bottom?" As for active cancellation, that is an extremely complex issue...do you even know where the state of the art is in that? Oh, I forgot, that’s classified, so of course you don’t. Silly me.

Quote:

They made the Hornet into a somewhat "stealthy" beast and look at what that plane is..... a flying lesson in how to design an aerodynamic fighter-bomber. Given the 16's blended upper wing/body design too.... You could most definitely reduce her RCS to significant levels.

And where did you get the idea that the Hornet is stealthy? Boeing? Ha!. The Super Bug is better than the basic Bug, but that’s a relative term.

Quote:

4) Agility/shmagility! Given a tv nozzle and fast acting control surfaces..... No issues there. There hasn't been a dogfight in how long?? In the truest sense of the word. Unless you are Israel and as soon as you got your gear up you're being targeted by Migs and what-not, then I don't see the need to sacrifice outstanding tactical/strategic capability for dogfighting. The bird in question would not exactly be a sitting lame duck should she find herself turning with the other guys. Look and release missiles are going to rule the future dogfights anyways. The days of F-4's getting pounded upon by swarms of Migs are over and done with: lesson learned and then some.

Fully agree, and the JSF has been designed with tomorrows mission and tomorrow’s threat in mind. Stealth and sensors are the key.

Quote:

5) Stealth is defeatible. Just as we don't send our marines into combat wearing classy blue uniforms..... Thus is stealth becoming along those lines. With the 35 we're giving up more than she's worth.

I really wish I knew what you were talking about. This drivel about LO being a waste simply proves you don’t get it. As Boyd said, the battle is all about time and turning inside the other guy’s decision loop...and LO delays contact long enough to stay ahead of them. Nobody but you and the uninformed media ever implied that LO makes you invisible. It just makes you small enough that it becomes difficult to pull you out of the clutter and the receiver noise. Besides, it also impacts trackers and seekers and fuzes, so the odds get better with each.

Quote:

Look up the FB-22 and you'll find some articles on classified types of stealthy bomb racks..... the "XL" would carry these along with some slight mods to the lower wing/body connection area............. I'm thinking outside of the box here.

Those articles were most likely not written by anybody with experience in LO.

Quote:

As far as I can tell, with just some initial assumptions, given the fuel loading of the "XL" and supercruise.... and lower drag coefficient, she'd go a lot further than the 35 would with an identical weapons loading.

No way an XL could ever supercrusie with any significant external stores. Period.

Quote:

Hell, I'd even recommend throwing out the 20mm cannon in favor of the gun pod for some versions of the JSF, thus opening up more internal volume for my "super XL".

Combined with a wolfpack of F-22's flying out ahead of her..... although not needed for all missions, then there's only plusses and no minus's to what I am envisioning.

I can’t even follow this…the sentence structure is poor and your point is completely lost. What gun pod?

Quote:

Also take into account wing loadings. Who's got the most lift surface?

Wing loading is only one of many important aero parameters. More lifting surface does not always equate to better performance. Under high g loads a bigger wing will flex more (bad) so you need more internal structure…that means weight (bad). More wing area also means more wetted area meaning more parasitic drag (bad).

Quote:

JSF = slow, lightly armed in "stealth" mode. Not what I want my tax dollars beings spent on. Not what I want my fellow citizens taking into a *real* fight either.

Opinion based on false premise and lack of understanding of “the truth”.

Quote:

Also, not much cheaper? At least it is cheaper! And at least it's a proven design/aircraft. What are we getting with the JSF? My friends, we're getting a roll of the dice. My god, LM was still even recently trying shed some pounds on the ugly duckling.

One, XL is NOT a proven aircraft, at least not with all the mods you have discussed as being necessary. In fact, I agree, to be competitive with the JSF one WOULD need to do all this. But if you think you can do this cheap you haven’t worked in the real world. With the JSF we are getting a state of the art aircraft that is based heavily on the PROVEN F-22. As for LO, stop going there, you haven’t the experience or the know how to discuss it intelligently. And finally, yes, LM had to put the poor little JSF on a diet. Guess what…there hasn’t been a plane built that didn’t exceed it original weight estimate and needed a little help.

FireFox137 wrote:

BUT, as I recall the Start II treaty banned ALL (not just nukes) stealth weapons from being used by stealth aircraft. Therefore there are NO stealth weapons allowed on B-2's, F-117's, F-22's and yes, even the JSF.

1) Stealth was never mentioned in START II...aircraft or weapons
2) The other poster was correct. JASSM is an LO weapon.
3) START II never really went into effect so it doesn’t really matter what it said.

Thank you Roscoe. You da man!

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35 vs Modified F-16XL