F-35's max speed conundrum

[Corsair1963]

I think the general idea is that the F-16 is faster than the F-18.

Just because the F-16 needs afterburner to keep up with the F-35. Doesn't mean the latter has a higher top or sustained speed than the F-16 and/or Super Hornet. Yet, it could still out accelerate both.........

[count_to_10]

Depends on what you mean by "sustained speed". A clean F-16 has a higher top speed than an F-35, by design, but it appears that the F-35 has a higher dry top speed.

[sferrin]

Depends on what you mean by "sustained speed". A clean F-16 has a higher top speed than an F-35, by design, but it appears that the F-35 has a higher dry top speed.

Now load them for combat.

[Corsair1963]

Depends on what you mean by "sustained speed". A clean F-16 has a higher top speed than an F-35, by design, but it appears that the F-35 has a higher dry top speed.

Now load them for combat.

I was responding to a comment from another member. Stating the F-35 had a higher sustained speed than the F/A-18E Super Hornet. So, I was just asking for a source.......

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

the comment was about the A, not the C, and a test pilot had also said that 1.6 is easy and they have to fly at less than full AB to sit there. Given that the NATOPS indicates the SHornet is SUB 1.6M with tip-winders and belly-raams (low drag carry)... seems that the F-35A being faster than the SHornet is confirmed.

[SpudmanWP]

NATOPS for the SH states top speed while carrying 2xAMRAAM and 2xSidewinders (ie no pylon) is about m1.55 at a small segment of the altitude.

[smsgtmac]

Wow. This thread is still going?
I was just thinking about it a couple of days ago when I was doing some 'homework' and ran across a 'blast from the past':

From: “Pitfalls of Fighter Force Planning” , Page 5,
Benjamin S. Lambeth, RAND, February 1985

In retrospect, Mach 2.5 may fall within the “nice to have” category, but one must wonder at what cost it came in terms of the F-15’s size and weight, complexity, reliability, and cost. To say nothing of lost opportunities to apply elsewhere (perhaps towards readiness enhancement) the savings that might have been afforded by a more relaxed Vmax requirement.

And a lengthy footnote was added…

I am not questioning the need for a lot of excess power in a modern air superiority fighter. Indeed, the ability to out accelerate an enemy from low speed to corner velocity (the speed that offers maximum turning performance) and from corner to supersonic can make the crucial difference between survival and disaster. But reaching out to Mach 2.5 requires more than just the margin of excess power needed for maintaining an edge in maneuvering engagements. It also demands a variety of airframe refinements, such as variable inlets, that are extremely complex and expense for the limited value they offer in most situations. We have gradually come to recognize this in the F-16 and F-18, which compare favorably to the F-15 in the air combat maneuvering arena but lack its top speed by a considerable margin.

I do not agree with Lambeth that a lower top speed for an aircraft with an interceptor role was of limited value, I believe he based his opinion on thinking that showed up in an assertion just before this passage that the M2.5 max speed requirement for the F-15 came about because that ‘was how fast the Mig-25 was’ and believing the aircraft, given their ‘missions’ would “probably” never face each other (Guess he wasn’t thinking about down the road to Mig-25 OR F-15 exports). He forgot about the “intercepting” requirements while focusing on the “dogfighting”.

But isn’t it interesting? Here we have a guy in the mid-1980s second-guessing the M2.5 top-speed of the F-15 as being perhaps too high. And now in this 2013 thread there appear to be those who might be second-guessing M1.6 for the F-35 (apparently flying a racetrack pattern, doing step-accelerations, on the PAX range) as perhaps being 'insufficient'.

We should split the difference between M1.6 and M2.5 in future fighter developments so there can be simultaneous concern about them for being both 'too fast' and 'too slow'.

[Corsair1963]

the comment was about the A, not the C, and a test pilot had also said that 1.6 is easy and they have to fly at less than full AB to sit there. Given that the NATOPS indicates the SHornet is SUB 1.6M with tip-winders and belly-raams (low drag carry)... seems that the F-35A being faster than the SHornet is confirmed.

So, what is this quote all about???

"An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards."

[wrightwing]

the comment was about the A, not the C, and a test pilot had also said that 1.6 is easy and they have to fly at less than full AB to sit there. Given that the NATOPS indicates the SHornet is SUB 1.6M with tip-winders and belly-raams (low drag carry)... seems that the F-35A being faster than the SHornet is confirmed.

So, what is this quote all about???

"An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards."

It's about the fact that given the constraints of the airspace, where supersonic flight is allowed, they don't have an unlimited straightaway distance to accelerate.

[Corsair1963]

the comment was about the A, not the C, and a test pilot had also said that 1.6 is easy and they have to fly at less than full AB to sit there. Given that the NATOPS indicates the SHornet is SUB 1.6M with tip-winders and belly-raams (low drag carry)... seems that the F-35A being faster than the SHornet is confirmed.

So, what is this quote all about???

"An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards."

It's about the fact that given the constraints of the airspace, where supersonic flight is allowed, they don't have an unlimited straightaway distance to accelerate.

Thank You now I understand........

[haavarla]

the comment was about the A, not the C, and a test pilot had also said that 1.6 is easy and they have to fly at less than full AB to sit there. Given that the NATOPS indicates the SHornet is SUB 1.6M with tip-winders and belly-raams (low drag carry)... seems that the F-35A being faster than the SHornet is confirmed.

So, what is this quote all about???

"An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards."

It's about the fact that given the constraints of the airspace, where supersonic flight is allowed, they don't have an unlimited straightaway distance to accelerate.

Well, agreed. But F-35 still have severly limitations. It sounds like they stayed on AB for most of the flight. Hense the little gas at the end.

[Corsair1963]

the comment was about the A, not the C, and a test pilot had also said that 1.6 is easy and they have to fly at less than full AB to sit there. Given that the NATOPS indicates the SHornet is SUB 1.6M with tip-winders and belly-raams (low drag carry)... seems that the F-35A being faster than the SHornet is confirmed.

So, what is this quote all about???

"An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards."

It's about the fact that given the constraints of the airspace, where supersonic flight is allowed, they don't have an unlimited straightaway distance to accelerate.

Well, agreed. But F-35 still have severly limitations. It sounds like they stayed on AB for most of the flight. Hense the little gas at the end.

What sources says that???

[maus92]

the comment was about the A, not the C, and a test pilot had also said that 1.6 is easy and they have to fly at less than full AB to sit there. Given that the NATOPS indicates the SHornet is SUB 1.6M with tip-winders and belly-raams (low drag carry)... seems that the F-35A being faster than the SHornet is confirmed.

So, what is this quote all about???

"An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards."

It's about the fact that given the constraints of the airspace, where supersonic flight is allowed, they don't have an unlimited straightaway distance to accelerate.

IDK, there's plenty of airspace in the Atlantic Test Range off the Virginia Capes where these trials were taking place.

[spazsinbad]

Different names compared to graphic on first page of this thread [ http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html ] - OK - here is another map/text from:

ATLANTIC TEST RANGES Patuxent River, Maryland

"...The inshore operating area, known as the Chesapeake Test Range, consists of selected targets and airspace covering regions over the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia. Additional air/sea space is available in the Atlantic Warning Areas, located east of the Delmarva Peninsula over the Atlantic Ocean...."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/ranges/atr/

http://www.navair.navy.mil/ranges/atr/i ... eas_Lg.jpg

"Atlantic Warning Areas | Warning Areas W-386, W-387 and W-72
Surface to unlimited altitude"
&
Chesapeake Test Range | Restricted areas R-4002, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008
Surface to 85,000 feet

http://www.navair.navy.mil/ranges/atr/d ... FS_ATR.pdf (0.6Mb)

[spazsinbad]

Maps and Inventory of Ranges, Range Complexes, Military Training Routes, and Special Use Areas

http://www.denix.osd.mil/sri/upload/SRR ... igures.pdf (2.8mb)

Just the image on PDF page attached as PDF now - a lot clearer....