F-16.net

We all talk about how stealthy and awesome this plane is. But how does it fair in the WVR arena? Especially against the platforms it replaces.

I'm wondering if it can knife fight like the best of them today, in addition to being unseen and deadly.

F-35A vs F-16
F-35B vs. AV-8B or Gr.9A
F-35C vs. F/A-18C

The poll question will pretain mainly to the most (planned) procured type. And the fact this is F-16.net. Wink

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Enthusiast Joined: May 16, 2006 Posts: 87 Status: Offline

Well, it's bigger and heavier than the F-16, and marketed as a bomb truck rather than a 'multi-role' fighter.. So I guess it's less maneuverable.

NOTE: LAYMAN HERE. Feel free to lynch me if I'm wrong! Laughing

Newbie Joined: Jul 11, 2006 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

F-16C
Wing loading: 88.2 lb/ft² (430.7 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: F100 .898; F110 1.095
F-35A
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²);
Thrust/weight: 0.88

Even with more advanced FCS it is doubtful that the F-35 is as agile as the F-16. During development it was stated that that manoeuvrability would equal that of the F-16 and that was before weight increases.It's larger size might also be a hindrance in the visual range. It has a higher wing loading, lower thrust to weight ratio and the design is biased towards AG not WVR as in the case of the F-16. It does however have the advantage of AiM-9x and HMS, something which most F-16s do not currently carry. For the US it's limited AA capability ( low combat persistence in stealthy configuration, poor acceleration, high wing loading, low excess power) is not a problem, as the F-22 can hold the fort- though it is for export ( and some partner) customers .

Doesnt the F-16's wing loading increase when carrying the same combat load as the F-35? 2 BVR AAMs, 2 WVR AAMs?

The F-16 would need to carry the load on its wings entirely, whereas the F-35 can carry it internally and on the inner-most wing pylons.

Also, we dont know how much the F-35A weighs atm. Weight increased, then decreased by 2,000lb or something with the redesign of the new wing. Lastly, it was the F-35B that had the weight troubles. Don't forget that.

When it is all said and done, the F-35 will weigh less than it does now due to redesign.

Newbie Joined: Jul 11, 2006 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

"In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. It is broadly reflective of the aircraft's lift-to-mass ratio, which affects its rate of climb, load-carrying ability, and turn performance."

That's a interesting question about whether wing mounted loads increase wing loading more than internally mounted ones. Do you mean that the load will decrease the usuable surface of the wing, that is that it will decrease the amount of wing which is working at it's most efficient ? This would be pretty incremental wouldn't it?

I know about about the weight reductions, but haven't teh target weights moved a bit?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

Wing loading no longer gives you adequate information to form an intelligent guess about a modern fighter's performance. That is not how you compare the F-16 to the F-35. There are many more variables to consider. Basically however, you need to know CL vs. AoA, CL vs. CD, and installed thrust. CL and CD vary with airspeed and Reynolds number. The Reynolds number doesn't change that much throughout the envelope, so it can usually be neglected. Thrust changes with both altitude and airspeed.

jwtc wrote:

I know about about the weight reductions, but haven't teh target weights moved a bit?

I dont think so. If they did, its because they got more thrust out of the F135 (about 3,000lbs more).

The F-35B is the only one with weight problems. The others have actually lost weight overall due to weight reductions for the b-model.

Supposedly the new wing-fuselage connections have saved alot in terms of weight. Here: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... +game.html

Also! Due to the redesign, supposedly, the wing is almost "one piece" through the fuselage.

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3021 Status: Offline

At least it'll have a decent thrust to weight ratio with 40,000 pounds of thrust on tap Wink

.

Not all those thrust increases were due to engine changes. The STOVL model is not stressed to as high a G as the A so that would limit it's agility although comparing to Harrier doesn't set a very high bar. The makers have consistently claimed that in representative conditions, the F-35A will easily outfly the F-16. The figures from John don't indicate aircraft weight so could be very misleading. Are they for a fully loaded F-35 or what? I suspect they are so what is the benchmark F-16 carrying? Describing F-35 as having limited a2a is just repeating Dassault/EADS propaganda.

Also, the F-35C would have the best low speed handling of the group. I'm curious if the Blue Angels may have their new aircraft... Smile

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

An F-35A or F-35C loaded up with only A/A weapons (both internal and external) would most certainly smash an F-16 flying an equal loadout. The aircraft is no doubt more advanced aerodynamically and has a more advanced, robust flight control system. The engine is way more powerful than anything the F-16 can fly with (even an F110-GE-132). And the avionics/radar? That is bound to be a more potent combo than any F-16 can muster. As for the respective weights of the F-35A/C and F-16C with full A/A weapons loadout, I think you'd find them comparable in terms of L/D and T/W ratios. The weight of the F-35 A or C will certainly be higher, but both the A and C variants will have higher L/D and T/W ratios throughout the flight envelope. Don't sleep on the performance of the F-35. You WILL need an F-22 or some other comparable fighter to tango with the "Lightning". Smile

Even as a bomb truck it will be capable of some stunning performance. Ever see one of those dodge pickup trucks all decked out and sporting a V10 or something like that? The one that will give your BMW M3 a run for its money? Hehehe... that's the kind of bomb truck the F-35 is. A snake in sheep's clothing.

Nicely put. Thats why I'm in love with the F-35... (just don't tell the F-22A or Superbug) Wink

skrip00 wrote:

Also, the F-35C would have the best low speed handling of the group. I'm curious if the Blue Angels may have their new aircraft... Smile

What, better than a hovering AV8? Laughing

Is anybody concerned that the weight savings may affect airframe durability? I read that thinner wing skins were used to pare weight. There were thousands of weight saving ideas generated in some seemingly insignificant areas. The weight reduction work by LM`s 500 engineer strong SWAT team (STOVL Weight Attack Team) got transferred in some measure into the "A" and "C" designs...

Another interesting area is the engine thrust increase on the "B" model. The auxiliary inlets were re-shaped giving an extra 600lbs of oommph! Shutting off the roll posts during a rolling take off added another couple of thousand lbs of thrust out back..

We will have to wait until the thing flies to see if we have a Lemon or a Diamond!

The " B" model is stressed to +7G, the "A" model +9G, is that correct?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

The only cool thing about the B model is the V/STOL capability. Aside from that, I'd much rather go into battle with an A or C model. In fact, I think I'd take the C model above all others just for the bigger wing (and internal fuel capacity???).

Yes, the C-model has longer legs. But its also the most expensive of the 3.

As for durability, the F-35 surely uses the same composites and materials used in all of today's new fighter aircraft, which offer durability, less weight, and perhaps, easy replacement.

All three models are rated for up to +9G manuvers. Check www.globalsecurity.org

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 Lightning II maneuverability