F-35 performance at Haboob Havoc 2019

[jetblast16]

Who calls it that?

F-15 Eagle: Beagle (E variant, contraction of 'Bomb Eagle'), Mudhen (dark gray 'E variant), Albino (light gray 'C variant), Rodan, Flying Tennis Court, Starship, Ego Jet

F-15A/C Eagle Rhodan, Flying Tennis Court, Starship, Ego Jet

Sources:
http://www.combat.ws/S4/SAILOR/APNDX1.HTM
http://www.coastcomp.com/av/fltline2/nickname.htm

I have heard of the jet being called that, at least in its earlier days by USAF pilots, from other source(s). I'll see if I can find more.

[wooster]

cc952.jpg

50 years later, the F-15 is still a gorgeous bird.

The new F-15EX (if it comes to pass) will undoubtedly have more powerful motors, but then again I'm sure it'll be heavier too. There's always that weight creep..

I know, I know. "New" and F-15 don't belong in the same sentence. I sure as hell hope they come to their senses and just build more F-35's. Why the USAF continues to make major errors in judgment isn't clear. Gates is gone. Shannahan is gone. Building "new" F-15's seems as ridiculous as building up-rated Flankers and Mig-35's.

The Russians are putting old equipment back into production. Not everything needs to be 5th gen if there is a cost benefit to 4.5 gen. You certainly don't need 5th gen stealth for defense against bears, blackjacks, and cruise missiles. There is a case for the f22 and cruise missiles because of its speed, but in war they won't be wasted patrolling California's Big Sur considering the fleet size. Between the f35 and f15x, neither supercruises, both are limited to well below 2 mach dash and the X has longer legs with fast packs and drop tanks. I cannot speak to radar detection range against small targets, maybe someone else knows.

A new old upgraded plane is better than a 50 year fighter held together with bubble gum and spit. Ask the marines how many of their old hornets are flight capable.

I for one would sleep pretty good at night knowing we are buying 35s and X's until PCA is real.

[spazsinbad]

The cost of the airyplane STARRYboat is probably not correct according to this PDF attached (giving loss of an F-15C):

https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/503840277034675322/ "...Called the "Starship" by pilots, the costs 15 million per plane..."

"...[F-15C] loss valued at US$42.36m..." AIRforces Monthly Aug 2019 Issue 377

[mixelflick]

cc952.jpg

50 years later, the F-15 is still a gorgeous bird.

The new F-15EX (if it comes to pass) will undoubtedly have more powerful motors, but then again I'm sure it'll be heavier too. There's always that weight creep..

I know, I know. "New" and F-15 don't belong in the same sentence. I sure as hell hope they come to their senses and just build more F-35's. Why the USAF continues to make major errors in judgment isn't clear. Gates is gone. Shannahan is gone. Building "new" F-15's seems as ridiculous as building up-rated Flankers and Mig-35's.

The Russians are putting old equipment back into production. Not everything needs to be 5th gen if there is a cost benefit to 4.5 gen. You certainly don't need 5th gen stealth for defense against bears, blackjacks, and cruise missiles. There is a case for the f22 and cruise missiles because of its speed, but in war they won't be wasted patrolling California's Big Sur considering the fleet size. Between the f35 and f15x, neither supercruises, both are limited to well below 2 mach dash and the X has longer legs with fast packs and drop tanks. I cannot speak to radar detection range against small targets, maybe someone else knows.

A new old upgraded plane is better than a 50 year fighter held together with bubble gum and spit. Ask the marines how many of their old hornets are flight capable.

I for one would sleep pretty good at night knowing we are buying 35s and X's until PCA is real.

OK, let's consider your "weak point" arguments. First, neither supercruises. That's not really true, as the F-35 can super-cruise at mach 1.2 for short periods of time. With stronger motors that are on the way, it will undoubtely build on that number. F-15 = no supercruise, now or any time in the future.

Both are limited to well under mach 2 dash: OK, but how often is either going to need to? There's no instance of any F-15 needing to exceed mach 1.6 in combat, and remember - that included several engagements where they downed Foxbats. The F-35? Well, it probably won't have to exceed mach 1.6 in flight either. Which is why the requirement was set at... mach 1.6.

F-15X has longer legs with CFT's and drop tanks. OK, but only marginally. You have to factor in all that drag, which also brings WAY down its supersonic dash. And let's not forget, LM and Israel are working on not 1, but 2 sets of drop tanks. When it gets those, it's range will likely surpass the Eagles.

I'll grant you new planes are much better than old ones, but why not all of those new planes be F-35's? It's going to be cheaper to buy, in time cheaper to operate and have a bazillion more ways to identify, track, intercept and bomb targets into oblivion. And oh btw, it's got that stealth thing, something no Eagle anywhere will have.

I just don't buy the F-15X is the best solution for USAF, and hope they don't either..

[playloud]

OK, let's consider your "weak point" arguments. First, neither supercruises. That's not really true, as the F-35 can super-cruise at mach 1.2 for short periods of time. With stronger motors that are on the way, it will undoubtely build on that number. F-15 = no supercruise, now or any time in the future.

Both are limited to well under mach 2 dash: OK, but how often is either going to need to? There's no instance of any F-15 needing to exceed mach 1.6 in combat, and remember - that included several engagements where they downed Foxbats. The F-35? Well, it probably won't have to exceed mach 1.6 in flight either. Which is why the requirement was set at... mach 1.6.

F-15X has longer legs with CFT's and drop tanks. OK, but only marginally. You have to factor in all that drag, which also brings WAY down its supersonic dash. And let's not forget, LM and Israel are working on not 1, but 2 sets of drop tanks. When it gets those, it's range will likely surpass the Eagles.

I'll grant you new planes are much better than old ones, but why not all of those new planes be F-35's? It's going to be cheaper to buy, in time cheaper to operate and have a bazillion more ways to identify, track, intercept and bomb targets into oblivion. And oh btw, it's got that stealth thing, something no Eagle anywhere will have.

I just don't buy the F-15X is the best solution for USAF, and hope they don't either..

I believe a single AirForce Magazine article is the only source we have for that Mach 1.2 claim. The F-35 pilot I spoke to at Nellis said the F-35 can't supercruise. He said it can hold just below Mach 1 in level flight. Though he also said he can out accelerate his F-16 chase plane when it's carrying only a centerline tank. He thinks if the tank were removed, acceleration would be about even. The planned new engines can certainly change that however.

Agreed on the dash speeds. I spoke to an F-15E pilot Barksdale just a few weeks ago. He said the fastest he has ever flown is Mach 1.6. EVER.

What you said on the range is very important. The F-15 is pretty much maxed out on range. It is not getting an increase in fuel, and very unlikely to get engines with better fuel burn. The F-35 on the other hand is getting drop tanks in Block 4. CFTs are being discussed. And the planned new engines will improve fuel burn. The F-35, which already has good range, is going to have much better range in time. The F-15 is already maxed out.

[wrightwing]

I believe a single AirForce Magazine article is the only source we have for that Mach 1.2 claim. The F-35 pilot I spoke to at Nellis said the F-35 can't supercruise.

There are several sources for the M1.2/150nm claim. As for supercruising, its important to remember how that term is defined. The US uses M1.5 or above in dry thrust, as the threshold definition of supercruise, not just M1 or above. What wasn't specified, was whether the F-35 can fly at M1.2 in dry thrust, with a combat load. It's very likely that it can, though.

[steve2267]

I seem to recall a quote from a test pilot or an Air Force pilot (maybe even a general) who stated 1.2 Mach could be maintained with "very minimal" afterburner, but that without reheat, the speed gradually decays to subsonic, and the decay took "about 120 (or 150?) miles."

[spazsinbad]

CRUISIN' for a BRUISIN':

From 'SWP' Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise. 04 Nov 2012 viewtopic.php?t=20559 12 pages

"...The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners. "Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said...."
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx

[playloud]

CRUISIN' for a BRUISIN':

From 'SWP' Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise. 04 Nov 2012 viewtopic.php?t=20559 12 pages

"...The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners. "Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said...."
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx

That's the magazine article I'm referring to. That's the only source for that claim that I'm aware of.

The pilot I spoke with at Nellis was very clear that the F-35 cannot hold supersonic speed in level flight in dry thrust, so it wasn't a Mach 1.5 definition thing.

I'm much more inclined to believe the idea that it can stay supersonic for 150 nmi, gradually slowing down, from Mach 1.2. Not supercruise by any definition.

It seems the F-35 isn't great at supersonic speed, but can accelerate extremely well in the subsonic.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

playloud, IIRC when you gave a "transcript" of your interview the pilot said they would need 1-2 degrees nose down to hold 1.2M in Mil power. Easy to see how a modest thrust bump would make that sustainable.

[playloud]

playloud, IIRC when you gave a "transcript" of your interview the pilot said they would need 1-2 degrees nose down to hold 1.2M in Mil power. Easy to see how a modest thrust bump would make that sustainable.

That's a good memory, though I think that was to hold Mach 1, and not 1.2 (though perhaps 1.2 is easier, and therefore would still be accurate?)

[wooster]

When pilots report that pulling the throttle back is akin to hitting the speed brakes, that is a draggy airframe. When a single engine airplane with 45,000lbs of thrust cannot maintain even 1 Mach without AB in a clean configuration, that is a draggy airframe. There is something wrong with a fighter having that much thrust and not able to go past 1.6 totally clean. People can only assume that its stealth is good enough as the insiders say it is to make up for its kinematic handicaps.

[quicksilver]

When pilots report that pulling the throttle back is akin to hitting the speed brakes, that is a draggy airframe. When a single engine airplane with 45,000lbs of thrust cannot maintain even 1 Mach without AB in a clean configuration, that is a draggy airframe. There is something wrong with a fighter having that much thrust and not able to go past 1.6 totally clean. People can only assume that its stealth is good enough as the insiders say it is to make up for its kinematic handicaps.

I'll assume for the moment that you're not just another troll, but merely a newb with an opinion. Tell us exactly which pilot reported such a thing ('hitting the speedbrake'), because amongst the many I (and others) know who fly the jet, none have ever said such a thing, In fact, they say just the opposite.

Also, exactly which fighters in the world carry 2x2K PGMs, 2xmedium range AAMs, a Tpod, a DECM pod, and 18K# of JP out beyond 1.6M?

And pls credibly source your answers for us.

[marauder2048]

Not everything needs to be 5th gen if there is a cost benefit to 4.5 gen. You certainly don't need 5th gen stealth for defense against bears, blackjacks, and cruise missiles. There is a case for the f22 and cruise missiles because of its speed, but in war they won't be wasted patrolling California's Big Sur considering the fleet size

In a war, the $70+ million/airframe saved by SLEP'ing the F-15Cs in lieu of F-15Xs buys a lot of SAMs and radars.

And the USMC case isn't comparable since their readiness/SLEP issues were driven by corrosion control or
rather lack thereof.

[steve2267]

When pilots report that pulling the throttle back is akin to hitting the speed brakes, that is a draggy airframe. When a single engine airplane with 45,000lbs of thrust cannot maintain even 1 Mach without AB in a clean configuration, that is a draggy airframe. There is something wrong with a fighter having that much thrust and not able to go past 1.6 totally clean. People can only assume that its stealth is good enough as the insiders say it is to make up for its kinematic handicaps.

Interview with RNoAF Maj. Dolby Hanche

I'll be a bit more precise: With full war equipment, my experience with F-35A is that


It's easier to fly than F-16.
It's faster than F-16. [ That F-16 sure must be a draggy airframe! ]
It has a longer range than F-16.
It flies higher than F-16.
It is more maneuverable than F-16.
It finds opponents on a longer distance (than F-16 would have done).
Opponents discover F-35 later than an F-16 would be found.
And it looks tougher!

...

I want to tell you about another impression from my first flight in F-35, and that's the F-35 is a fast machine. The F-35 keeps effortlessly high speed. Unlike the F-16, this also applies to weapon loads. The machine is so "happy" that we need to make new F-35 pilots especially aware of this. The F-35 is upset if you do not follow. Therefore, it's not uncommon for a flyer without thinking it ends up in supersonic speed!

Yup... sure sounds draggy to me. /smh