F-16.net

Neno wrote:

Cm'on Firefox.. If the 35 was simply a bomb-truck then usaf was throwing away a lot of money (and time) developping engines whith 40000 (and maybe more..) pound of thrust!.. and what about thrust vectoring!??.. So do you think one day we could see thrust vectoring also on tornado's and B2's?.. Confused

What about thrust vectoring? Sure it's neat when you have an a/c without massive weight to try and throw in one direction or another. But have you seen how much the 35 weighs? Why is the AF throwing away money on a +40,000lb thrust engine? Well, the 35 due to its weights/loadings/wing areas will simply require that much thrust to be on par with the legacy beasts. That F-35 is god awful heavy for a single engine plane... And remember by cramming so much fuel and weapons inside, the F-35 is a "fat" airframe and i.e. not that areodynamic. Does anyone remember aerodynamics 101 and how to NOT make an aerdynamic airframe: make it fat for increased drag coefficients and make it slender for reduced drag coefficients. It's simple fluid dynamics.

There used to be a motto something to the effect of, 'Bigger, higher, faster.' Well, LM and the AF got the bigger part quite well on the F-35, but it is neither faster nor higher than anything in service today (I'm exlcuding the F-22)... It's a plane with legacy class performance and some LO features.

Now when the 35 is operating on half it's fuel load... then she may come to life as a fighter. But that's a piss-poor way to design an aicraft that "supposed" to be able to do battle with the born and raised fighters on the other side of the globe. I have

There were so many ways that the Pentagon/Industrial base could have drawn up a single engined fighter that COULD be effective in the BVR and the WVR scnenarios and still had pinpoint accuracy with a couple of one-tonner's inside her stomach.

We're really screwing the pooch with the JSF in its current incarnation. We'd been better off with a limited run of the super A-7 with the latest/greatest in electron smashers and avionics... As that would have left more $ for a real plane, i.e. the F-22. Sorry, but my sarcasm is showing through here. Actually a re-engined/re-wired/re-winged F-16 with some airframe strenghtening would have been better off for the AF (sort of what the Navy did with the Hornet). That F-16XL had a lot of potential, but was thrown away out of fear of treading onto the F-22s missions/capabilities.

I just simply do not see the need for 200 billion+ dollar program that's going to yield an end product which is just going to be a bomb truck (and not even carrying that much due to LO) when there is a more capable airframe in production now that can do both missions and do them better.

Everyone is claiming that the F-35 is survivable because of LO. Well, even the AF admits that none of its stealthy planes are undetectable... The F-22 is survivable because of supercruise and LO which complement eachother to reduced opportunities to fire upon the 22. The F-35 does not supercruise, is less stealthy and therefore will be much more readily engaged than the 22. With the LO its got more of a chance of not getting knocked down as an F-16, but that does not equate it into a BVR fighter... It's WVR will leave a lot to be desired as the entire airframe is designed for weight and cost and not for performance, and it's simply a fat cat airplane. It's big engine runs hot and will be more visible on the IR scopes, and the export countries are by default going to purchase a less LO airframe than the US version... I don't why they want in on the 35 when there is something called the E-fighter which is a better all around platform. I dont even see any evidence of the 35 being able to fight in the supersonic airspeed scenarios... I see no evidence that the weapons bays are properly designed for those velocities. Has the X-35 fired a missile while flying supersonic??

As sure as death and taxes are, it is certain that the orders for the F-35 are going to drop and costs will increase while per unit costs of the F-22 are dropping. There is no logic in pursuing the F-35 other than if there is so much money to throw into weapons systems that we can stock up on F-22's and have enough money left over to stock up on light bomb trucks. But everyone knows this is not the case.

If you really are concerned about the costs of defense budget, then it clearly makes more sense to scrap the F-35 and stock up on the 22s and new build Strike Eagles -- reduce the number of aircraft types operated (which in turn reduces costs) The USN can live with the SH, and the Maries I doubt TRULY require a STOVL platform... So equip them with the SH. When was the last time STOVL was ever used (outside of an airshow)? When will the Maries ever storm the beaches of a foreign nation? Never since there is NEVER going to be a surprise beach landing by any nation ever again.

Personally, I would not be the least bit surprised that when a new administration comes into office that they don't pull a "Comanche" on the F-35. I'm x'ing my fingers on that.

At least its not too long now before the 35's maiden flight so more "real" information will be coming out and not a pissing contest on a web blog.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

Why don't you people just keep quiet? These diatribes are annoying. They just take up space. Who reads them? Anyone?

"F-35 will not fulfull the BVR requirement with neither authority nor competence."

I got that far before I tuned out. Laughing

"What about thrust vectoring? Sure it's neat when you have an a/c without massive weight to try and throw in one direction or another. "

I made it through two whole sentences on this one. Applause

(I'm not even gonna point out that the effectiveness of thrust vectoring has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with moment-of-inertia in the affected axis. Why muddy the water with facts?)

Elite Joined: May 17, 2005 Posts: 984 Status: Offline

Sorry - I don't get the discussion. Block 30 Viper max takeoff is 42,000 lbs and engine provides about 29,000 lbs thrust. And yet the jet is undeniably one of the best performing fighters ever. So to jump on this 40K vs 45K argument just seems like silly oversimplification. I'm actuallly ashamed I even got sucked into replying to this thread. Rolling Eyes

Active member Joined: May 23, 2006 Posts: 101

Hi guys,
It has been a long while since I last posted in F-16.net but I have been reading most of the threads with great interest, including the ones thwarted by so called "trolls".
I was wondering
1. Is it a troll whoever has a different perspective on things most of the contributors in this forum have in any case only a theoretical knowledge of? (EDIT: since most of the details in discussion are classified)
2. Is that so bad that F-35 originates from a program called Joint STRIKE Fighter that called for an affordable tactical ATTACK aircraft with AA capabilities comparable to the F16 and variants for AF/Navy/Marines?
3. Is that so bad that the F-35 aircraft seems (up to now) to fulfill these requirements perfectly but not anymore than that?
4. Is it so bad that it will probably won't be the technological leap the Raptor has been in its era?
5. Is it so bad that potential enemy dedicated AA platforms of the mid 2015's will have a significant capability against the Lightning II?

Where does all that make the F35 a failure? And at the same time why should it be no2 in AA when it was never intended to be?

In other words, my view (the view of an enthusiast and not an engineer) is that the F-35 will be successful in meeting the requirements that were posed during its conception and nothing more. Believers in American aircraft engineering supremacy should be very content that the program may achieve the JOINT and AFFORDABLITY goals in an EFFECTIVE operational aircraft; this is a truly unprecedented feat.

Regards,
George

Phirefaux1.37 is basically 40,000 lbs of hot air.

Why would someone named Everett from Brenham Texas, who enjoys bbq cookoffs, boy scouts, camping and hiking, have such a vendetta against the JSF program?

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 - 40,000lbs of thrust for 45,000lbs aircraft?