Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3152
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 19:10

SpudmanWP wrote: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.

This^^^^^

They clearly stated 150nm at M1.2 with no afterburner. When the new engines arrive, that will improve.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 22:08

As near as I can work out. The F-35 was doing M1.25. Until they put the EODS on it. Pilots were surprised by the added drag. So more thrust should see it back again.
Aussie fanboy
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8285
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 22:18

EODS??

If you mean EOTS, it's always been there, even if just a dummy to maintain OML and weight.

F-35_003[1].JPG
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 22:29

I can recall it said, so it had to have not been there at some stage. It was my thoughts on why there are two conflicting statements. If the EOTS was there when the M1.2 was made, it isn't the reason.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 22:42

SpudmanWP wrote:EODS??

If you mean EOTS, it's always been there, even if just a dummy to maintain OML and weight.


The window was, weight wasn’t. I forget what year, but that DOT&E report section monitoring weight margin mentioned the addition of ~300lbs when the actual EOTS was fitted. Doubt it’s addition had much to do with the question at hand.... “to supercruise, or not to supercruise” Probably had a minor impact on C.G., but as of last time weight was mentioned, the newer F-35’s weigh almost 400lbs less than those first produced.

Anyway, that feels like a question that has been beaten to death. I thought I recall a pilot quote about the F-35 at mil thrust .95 Mach (could be mistaken, too lazy to search).
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 23:21

It's also whether they are buzzing around on flights, light weapon load. Or they are loaded up with the specified mission profile.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post04 Jun 2019, 23:23

found it, EOTS was added Jan, 2011. Was mentioned in a Concurrency Quick Look Review, Nov 2011.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 07:26

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.


It actually sounds like a zoom climb to me.
Paul Metz wrote:The fastest way to get to altitude in a Raptor is to accelerate to supersonic on the deck and climb all the way supersonically, I can't quote the numbers but suffice is to say that we are talking high supersonic climb speeds......The difference in time to climb using the Raptor versus the Eagle climb technique is dramatic but, again, classified.


May we have your interpretation Mr. Sprst. you're far more knowledgeable on the topic.
Thanks in advance :mrgreen:
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 674
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 08:04

We’re talking rate of climb in the traditional definition of max SEP, which is why numbers like Mach 1.5 is so unrealistic for a fighter.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3179
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 12:56

ricnunes wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Right.

Like oh, I dunno...that time in DS where an Iraqi Mig 25 shot down an F/A-18C. You mean that exaggerated, BS claim the SH will be easily defeated by other aircraft, which is just plain ridiculous? That one??

In, before "but his ECM failed him" and other excuses (it was only one instance!/It was just an F/A-18C!) to cover up for the Hornets deficiencies.


Before you come up again and again with the "SOLE episode" when that F/A-18 was shot down by a Mig-25 during Desert Storm as some stupid evidence of the supposed inferiority of the F/A-18 you should research about what really happened instead of jumping up to conclusion.

After researching about the subject (all these years) here are the facts:

1- Yes, it is known that the ECM of Capt Speicher's F/A-18C malfunctioned during that fateful event.
2- Capt Speicher's F/A-18C and other F/A-18's in the package were tasked with an Air-to-Ground mission while F-14's also in that same package had the task to provide escort for the F/A-18C's. So in the end was this the failure of the F/A-18 or was this a F-14 failure, which you so much defend on your post??
3- Despite the failure of the F-14 to provide effective escort for the F/A-18s, one of the F/A-18C's of the package managed to detect the incoming Mig-25 to lock him but he had to ask permission to AWACS to engage - a permission that never came - since the F/A-18C at that time didn't have NCTR radar mode. If the AWACS gave the permission to engage this F/A-18 would have shot down the Mig-25 and this wouldn't have shot down Capt Speicher's F/A-18C later on!
4- On top of the above this engagement wasn't even a "dogfight" per-se - The Mig-25 managed to lock the F/A-18 (helped with the fact that the ECM malfunctioned) shot a missile at the F/A-18 and get the hell out of dodge - A situation which could have happen between any type of aircraft - You know this was a war, right??

So lets see the pattern here:
1- AWACS failed (to give permission)!
2- The F-14's escorting the F/A-18Cs failed to even detect or adquire and pursuit and ultimately engage the Mig-25!
3- The ECM of Capt Speicher's F/A-18C malfunctioned!

And the fault is because of the F/A-18's being an "inferior" aircraft :doh:
Really you should research more before you jump into conclusions!

mixelflick wrote:You know its awful funny.. F-14's, F-15's and even F-16's have recorded kills of the Mig-25. But not the F/A-18.


And did you know that F-14's were shot down by Mirage F1's??
And did you know that a F-16 was shot down by a Mirage 2000??
And did you know that a F-15 was damaged (and as such almost shot down) by a Mig-25 also during DS?? You can read about this last F-15 vs Mig-25 case here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle

As you can read in the link above, that was during an air battle between (US) F-15's and (Iraqi) Mig-25's which was actually won by the Iraqi Mig-25's. <sarc mode=on> So we must conclude that the F-15 is also a crap! <sarc mode=off> :roll:

mixelflick wrote:I suppose that's just another exaggerated, BS and ridiculous claim though, right?


As you can read above, yes it is...


Wow, so we should be handing out kills for "almost" shooting down another aircraft? Fantastic news. We'll just go back and add a whole lot more aces to history then, won't we?

When all your "facts" change the FACT an F/A-18 was shot down by a Mig-25, let me know. And when your "facts" change the FACT no F-14, 15 or 16 were ever downed by a Mig-25, let me know that too.

Can't wait to hear.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2741
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 13:48

On the other hand several F-14, F-15 and F-16 were shot down by enemy AD systems, but no F/A-18 has ever been lost to them AFAIK. What are the excuses for those?

I don't really think that we can make any real conclusions about combat capability of different fighters from a very small number of isolated incidents.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 14:14

For what its worth, I'll take an F/A-18C and definitely the E/F over any Mig-25 or even Mig-31 variants.
Like I said before, historically speaking, BVR is not a contest of who can shoot further. Its a contest of what you can do inside the BVR bubble which is 25 to 30 nautical miles wide (historically speaking), well within the range of both your missiles.

Who has better SA, lower RCS, better ESM, countermeasures. Once fired upon, who can maneuver better to bleed down the incoming round's energy. I think the Hornets have some serious advantages in those areas.
Unfortunately, one event led after another to give the Foxbat the win that day.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2207
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 14:18

Someone pointed out years ago the climb from brake release to 40,000 feet is vastly faster using conventional lift than a zoom climb.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2033
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 19:43

madrat wrote:Someone pointed out years ago the climb from brake release to 40,000 feet is vastly faster using conventional lift than a zoom climb.


Well according to Metz:

The fastest way to get to altitude in a Raptor is to accelerate to supersonic on the deck and climb all the way supersonically,

If he means straight up, then it would resemble a zoom climb
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post05 Jun 2019, 20:01

zero-one wrote:
Paul Metz wrote:The fastest way to get to altitude in a Raptor is to accelerate to supersonic on the deck and climb all the way supersonically, I can't quote the numbers but suffice is to say that we are talking high supersonic climb speeds......The difference in time to climb using the Raptor versus the Eagle climb technique is dramatic but, again, classified.


May we have your interpretation Mr. Sprst. you're far more knowledgeable on the topic.
Thanks in advance :mrgreen:

If your max SEP occurs with Supersonic speeds then you are in a max performance climb while flying at supersonic speeds. You are in a supersonic climb. This DOES NOT say, in any way shape or form, that the RATE OF CLIMB is supersonic. Only the speed at which best rate of climb is achieved is supersonic. Every single aircraft on earth has a "best rate of climb speed" and in none of them does it relate to actual vertical velocity. Climb speed in a Cessna 172 is ~72knots. Is my vertical speed 72 knots? heck no! That is my "climb speed", not my "rate of climb".

Sorry, I am just getting a little tired of this argument. Some posters are making this harder than it needs to me. The forward speed at which the F-22 climbs the fastest is a supersonic forward speed (angle not being 90 is irrelevant).

End of story.
"Spurts"

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

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: XanderCrews and 7 guests