Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Online
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5293
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 20:32

Raptor Effect
“You can imagine if you are at 60,000 feet doing Mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying, ‘I’ll take that target and that target.’  ”—Lt. Col. David Krumm, F-22 instructor pilot, on selective multiple target capability of the aircraft, Associated Press, Dec. 23.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post03 Jun 2019, 20:36

sferrin wrote:Raptor Effect
“You can imagine if you are at 60,000 feet doing Mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying, ‘I’ll take that target and that target.’  ”—Lt. Col. David Krumm, F-22 instructor pilot, on selective multiple target capability of the aircraft, Associated Press, Dec. 23.


At 60,000 ft, speed of sound is 660 mph, so Mach 1.9 is 1,254 mph, not 1,400. It's true that F-22 can operate frequently near Mach 2, which is impressive, but that doesn't mean it went at that speed in supercruise.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2065
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 10:26

Why do we need to twist the words of actual F-22 pilots just to fit it into our narrative

Paul Metz wrote:I can't quote actual numbers, but were talking high supersonic climb speeds.


No what he means is that the F-22 can fly supersonic while climbing.


two F-22s were to take off and engage eight F-15Cs from the 65 AGRS, all equipped with AIM-9X and JHMCS.
RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell wrote:It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy.



Maybe what he means is he couldn't see it with his radar. Besides, other sources did not specify the use of Aim-9X.


Lt. Col. David Krumm wrote:“You can imagine if you are at 60,000 feet doing Mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying, ‘I’ll take that target and that target.



Nah what he probably means is that the F-22 can fly at mach 1.9 with AB for short periods, certainly can't cruise at that speed.


Like what disconectedradical said
Its amazing at the amount of "mental gymnastics" involved to twist pilot statements to fit the F-22 into our tiny box of what it should be able to do. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 11:56

zero-one wrote:
Lt. Col. David Krumm wrote:“You can imagine if you are at 60,000 feet doing Mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying, ‘I’ll take that target and that target.



Nah what he probably means is that the F-22 can fly at mach 1.9 with AB for short periods, certainly can't cruise at that speed.


Like what disconectedradical said
Its amazing at the amount of "mental gymnastics" involved to twist pilot statements to fit the F-22 into our tiny box of what it should be able to do. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Looks like math and physics is also not your strong suit. Let's also ignore that speed of sound at 60,000 ft is 660 mph, so Mach 1.9 would only be 1,254 mph. Where did he ever specifically say he was supercruising at those conditions?

For you to accuse someone of mental gymnastics is hilarious.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2065
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 13:38

disconnectedradical wrote:
Looks like math and physics is also not your strong suit. Let's also ignore that speed of sound at 60,000 ft is 660 mph, so Mach 1.9 would only be 1,254 mph.


And because the MPH and Mach numbers are not exactly equal, your conclusion is that the whole story is false?
He did say "about" right. that means its an approximation, so we can forgive him for being 146 Mph off the mark, thats not a big deal.



disconnectedradical wrote:Where did he ever specifically say he was supercruising at those conditions?


He said "the swath of hell you can produce going through country" at that speed.

Further emphasized by saying "I'll take that target and that target" which means multiple target locations separated across a large area all reached at Mach 1.9.

Its not rocket science, all he wanted to say was that he was at Mach 1.9 for a long time covering a large chunk of ground, if thats not describing super cruise then what is?
Online
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5293
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 14:38

The pilot said Mach 1.9. The "(about 1400)" was probably inserted by the author at AP.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1683
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 14:59

zero-one wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
Looks like math and physics is also not your strong suit. Let's also ignore that speed of sound at 60,000 ft is 660 mph, so Mach 1.9 would only be 1,254 mph.


And because the MPH and Mach numbers are not exactly equal, your conclusion is that the whole story is false?
He did say "about" right. that means its an approximation, so we can forgive him for being 146 Mph off the mark, thats not a big deal.



disconnectedradical wrote:Where did he ever specifically say he was supercruising at those conditions?


He said "the swath of hell you can produce going through country" at that speed.

Further emphasized by saying "I'll take that target and that target" which means multiple target locations separated across a large area all reached at Mach 1.9.

Its not rocket science, all he wanted to say was that he was at Mach 1.9 for a long time covering a large chunk of ground, if thats not describing super cruise then what is?

You exaggerate things a little too much there. There is no way you can logically link what the pilot said and supercruise.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2065
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 16:08

eloise wrote: There is no way you can logically link what the pilot said and supercruise.


Then don't call it super cruise.
The pilots point was simple. He covered vast swaths of ground, went cross country, engaged multiple locations at 60,000 feet, Mach 1.9 or about 1,400 MPH, give or take 146 MPH.

Is there any other way to translate that statement?
The currently accepted super-cruise limit is Mach 1.82, why is Mach 1.9 such an impossible feat?
I would understand if it was a placard limit but its not, Max speed is estimated to be Mach 2+
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 16:54

This is like people quoting F-35 “supercruising” at Mach 1.2 when the actual quote is that it can do 150 nm at Mach 1.2 at “minimal afterburner”.

The point is that F-22 can often fight at high supersonic speed. Just because it can reach Mach 1.9 with ease doesn’t mean it’s supercruising there without afterburner.

zero-one wrote:Why do we need to twist the words of actual F-22 pilots just to fit it into our narrative

Paul Metz wrote:I can't quote actual numbers, but were talking high supersonic climb speeds.


NOBODY is taking your implication of "high supersonic" vertical rate of climb seriously. Ask anyone here with aerospace engineering background.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8348
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 18:09

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.

No mention of "minimal"
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ghter.aspx
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Online

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4228
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 18:13

disconnectedradical wrote:This is like people quoting F-35 “supercruising” at Mach 1.2 when the actual quote is that it can do 150 nm at Mach 1.2 at “minimal afterburner”.

The point is that F-22 can often fight at high supersonic speed. Just because it can reach Mach 1.9 with ease doesn’t mean it’s supercruising there without afterburner.

zero-one wrote:Why do we need to twist the words of actual F-22 pilots just to fit it into our narrative

Paul Metz wrote:I can't quote actual numbers, but were talking high supersonic climb speeds.


NOBODY is taking your implication of "high supersonic" vertical rate of climb seriously. Ask anyone here with aerospace engineering background.

So, just to point this out, nothing says Vertical with what Metz said. What I can tell you is that for a high performance aircraft above a certain altitude the best RATE of climb can very well be 1.4-1.5M.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 18:28

SpudmanWP wrote:
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.

No mention of "minimal"
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ghter.aspx


I was actually thinking of a DefenseNews article about the Mach 1.2 number.

spazsinbad wrote:F-35A Testing Moves Into High Speeds By DAVE MAJUMDAR : 13 June 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=CVS

"...The F-35's ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry. "It flies fantastic," he said. Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it. The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain. "What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air." Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, formerly the Air Force intelligence chief and a veteran F-15 pilot, said having that kind of capability is a huge advantage. "I'm real happy to hear that in fact is the case, because speed gives you a variety of advantages," he said. "It allows you to employ your air-to-air missiles from a range much greater than otherwise would be the case."

Though the F-35's maximum speed is Mach 1.6, the F-35 test program will eventually push the jet a little beyond that limit to make sure operational pilots have a margin of safety, Griffiths said...."


I'm not knocking on F-35 kinematics here. In raw performance it's no F-22 but it's respectable.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So, just to point this out, nothing says Vertical with what Metz said. What I can tell you is that for a high performance aircraft above a certain altitude the best RATE of climb can very well be 1.4-1.5M.


Usually rate of climb refers to vertical velocity. What Metz is talking about here is climbing at supersonic speeds instead of vertical velocity.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8348
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 18:53

I think they are talking about two different flight profiles.

In one, you get up above mach with AB then go full mil for the next 150nm and in the other you can maintain it indefinitely with minimal AB. It will also depend on altitude, fuel and weapons load.

Whatever 3-stream engine is (if) chosen will of course put this to bed.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

castlebravo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 19:10

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 19:01

sferrin wrote:Raptor Effect
“You can imagine if you are at 60,000 feet doing Mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying, ‘I’ll take that target and that target.’  ”—Lt. Col. David Krumm, F-22 instructor pilot, on selective multiple target capability of the aircraft, Associated Press, Dec. 23.


Wow, 60,000 feet without a pressure suit?
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 19:02

castlebravo wrote:
sferrin wrote:Raptor Effect
“You can imagine if you are at 60,000 feet doing Mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying, ‘I’ll take that target and that target.’  ”—Lt. Col. David Krumm, F-22 instructor pilot, on selective multiple target capability of the aircraft, Associated Press, Dec. 23.


Wow, 60,000 feet without a pressure suit?


I think F-22 flight suit is unique and partly pressurized. In exercises they have reached as high as 65,000 ft.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests