F-35 vs. F-16 performance - RNoAF pilot explains

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

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post24 Apr 2015, 19:08

zero-one wrote:
sergei wrote:" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.



That is their max take off weight not their full combat configuration.

Again this depends on a scenario, imagine a combat scenario where the target is 500 nautical miles away,

The F-35A has an unrefueled combat radius of 613 nautical miles on full internal fuel.

The F-16C Block 50 on the otherhand has an unrefueled combat radius of around 360 miles with a 3,000 pound war load and flying in hi-lo-hi flight profile, which is needed, because the F-16 is not stealthy.

The F-35 on the other hand can simply fly hi-hi-hi and maximize her fuel.


So before reaching combat the F-16 needs to refuel or it needs to carry additional fuel in the form of external fuel tanks, you do know that F-16s are not allowed to go into combat without External fuel tanks right? they are required to always carry EFTs.

Once in combat the F-16 will have more fuel in percentage terms than the F-35.

This is why comparing 2 airplanes with the same percentage fuel figures is a flawed analysis.

According to the F-16.net versions page an air-air configured F-16 weighs 26,463 (not armed to the weight limit as you stated)
Thrust to weight ratio will be: 1.095
Wing loading will be: 88.21 lbs/ square feet

An F-35 in A-A configuration could weigh at around 38,300 lbs to match the range of the F-16C above (360 miles), considering the F-16 had a full load of fuel. and 4 A-A missiles.

that would put the F-35's
T/W ratio at: 1.12
Wing loading: 83.26.


"This is why comparing 2 airplanes with "
This is the only comparison of the different aircraft which has generally any sense,everything else just hype.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post24 Apr 2015, 19:45

lamoey wrote:
sergei wrote:" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.


If the F-35 ever go to war with at max take-off weight it means there are close to zero chance of meeting any threats, so as long as it can make it to the target, hit the right target, and then make it back, that is all that counts. In this case the F-35 can carry an impressive load of weapons, definitely not matched by any F-16.

If, on the other hand, it is flying stealthy it matches or surpasses basically anything out there. Not to mention the support organisation the others would need, like tankers and jammers etc, that the F-35 would need less of.

In fact of all the matter that talk about bomb load and benefits in launching range which gives greater speed
pointlessly - it's just advertising.
When the F-35 flies on bombing mission more prudent to send a second F-35 for SEAD only if any of it may present.
F-35 will also use jammers help .

In summary the F-35 has a number of advantages over the F-16 much of which is linked with superiority in size and there is no difference whether it is a new F-35 or old F-111,It's all the same advantages and disadvantages of a large truck on a small car .
In the F-35 has other advantages, too, but they are not connected it with the F-35 only ,and more connected with the general development of the industry ,if you want most of the electronic package of F-35 can be integrated into other planes.
So what are the advantages of the F-35 have and any other do not ?-STOVL and stealth not very many huh?
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 853
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post24 Apr 2015, 20:11

sergei wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:
sergei wrote:"In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power "
F35 is bigger and heavy then F16 of course the same weight has less effect on.
"50-80 kts higher"
Very Big advance:)
"entire weapons load" it have 6 hardpoint internal ?
"extend missile range __________ F35 doesn't "

And how much higher will range from missiles at a speed of more to 50kts F16 ? 2-5 km ?


In a similar FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load, the F-35 would still weigh more. If a f-35 is on a full loud out compared to a F-16 it's hauling more fuel and similar combat loads, and it can do so higher and faster, for longer. As others have said the 80 knots seems small, except that adds up on a four hour flight to be 320 nautical miles further in range in the same time. The entire weapons load on a F-16 for a strike mission with two tanks leaves them with 4 combat capable hard points usually. The F-35 doesn't have to have external tanks and has it's targeting equipment built in. The F-35 has shown the ability to super cruise in testing as well, if its at mach.95 it can choose to launch it's missiles then or it has the option to quickly go supersonic(something the F-16 doesn't have the option of when loaded for strike missions) with some afterburner launch missiles then maintain supersonic to either continue engagement or leave the airspace. So compared to a F-16 or F-18 strike mission it will launch missiles from higher altitudes while going faster therefore adding range to the missiles, same concept the F-22 uses just not the same numbers.


" FULL combat configuration, meaning both aircraft are full load"
F-35A
max weight: 70,000 lb
wing loading 152 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 28,000 lb , aft 43,000 lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.4 , aft 0.614
F16
max weight: 42,300 lb
wing loading 141 lbs/sq feet
Thrust: dry 17,155 lb , aft 29,000lbs
Thrust to weight: dry 0.405 aft 0.685

F35 may have a greater velocity but the worst acceleration and manoeuvrability.
Which means that it will reach the same speed as F16 late and the bonus range will be less than you described.


Actually max weight I can achieve on a F-35A is 66,280. That's full loaded weight with 2 aim-120 and 2 aim-9's with 2 GBU-31s and 4 storm shadow missiles. So using that max weight you get a T2W of 0.422 dry and 0.65 aft. Carrying a bomb loudout that would take 2 or more F-16's to haul. If you go a more USAF loudout (switch storm shadow with AGM-158) it's 63,836 for a dry t2w of 0.44 dry and 0.67 aft. The biggest reason the F-35 wins though in the comparison the article is highlighting is because it's carrying the F-16's same weapons and fuel loadout internally. Which gives it a weight of 54,440 dry t2w of 0.51 and aft of 0.79, on top of this it's carrying it internally so no addition major drag, so compared to a F-16(and F-18) the F-35 will fly higher and faster for further with a max combat loud of the legacy aircraft. Higher and faster again means further missile range and addition speed for combat use.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post24 Apr 2015, 20:31

"the F-35 will fly higher and faster for further with a max combat loud of the legacy aircraft."
We are waiting for the calculations same weight loss for the F-16.
F-35 will fly higher yes it is Ceiling =18000m, F16 Ceiling=15200 m

"max combat loud" F-16 = 7700kg "max combat loud" F-35=8100kg not big difference.

F-35 will fly further yes , faster questionably.
On max load F35 win in range and lost aerodynamic .
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post24 Apr 2015, 21:44

sergei wrote:In the F-35 has other advantages, too, but they are not connected it with the F-35 only ,and more connected with the general development of the industry ,if you want most of the electronic package of F-35 can be integrated into other planes.
So what are the advantages of the F-35 have and any other do not ?-STOVL and stealth not very many huh?


With this statement you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the F-35 brings to the fight. It may be decades before any other aircraft can match the capabilities you seem to think is unimportant, or comes off the shelf if you just ask for it. They may just as well use a B-2 if that was all it was about, because it can sure get a big load of bombs into a stealthy aircraft, which nobody else can do either. It's a sad, sad day when somebody that thinks he understands what this is all about and then demonstrates such complete ignorance.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2180
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post24 Apr 2015, 22:51

sergei wrote:"the F-35 will fly higher and faster for further with a max combat loud of the legacy aircraft."
We are waiting for the calculations same weight loss for the F-16.
F-35 will fly higher yes it is Ceiling =18000m, F16 Ceiling=15200 m

"max combat loud" F-16 = 7700kg "max combat loud" F-35=8100kg not big difference.

F-35 will fly further yes , faster questionably.
On max load F35 win in range and lost aerodynamic .



The reason why your analysis is invalid is because you are comparing 2 aircraft using a very different profile

Comparing the F-16 and F-35A at 100% internal fuel falls apart when you notice that the F-16 never leaves for combat on just 100% fuel. it is REQUIRED to carry external fuel tanks at all times. so in reality you would need to give the F-16 anywhere from 150-200% fuel,

The F-35A on the other hand is designed to go into combat on just internal fuel
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 520
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post25 Apr 2015, 04:48

energo wrote:- In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power than the F-16


Let me clearify what the author ment by "full combat configuration". In the Libya operations the RNoAF typically flew with two 500lbs PGMs, however in this case it was a comparison of 2000lb class weapons. Add to that 700lbs in pylons/adapters, two AMRAAMS at 340lbs a piece and two AIM-2000/IRIS-T at 190lbs and 200lbs in pylons/adapters, ALQ/ECM pod at 500lbs, Sniper 600lbs with adapter and "dollies" (fuel tanks) at 1000lbs empty. That's a about 8100lbs or 3,7 tons of weapons, pods and pylons/adapters.


/Bolsøy
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post25 Apr 2015, 11:50

energo wrote:
energo wrote:- In a similar full combat configuration F-35 cruises comfortably 10-15000 feet higher in MIL power than the F-16


Let me clearify what the author ment by "full combat configuration". In the Libya operations the RNoAF typically flew with two 500lbs PGMs, however in this case it was a comparison of 2000lb class weapons. Add to that 700lbs in pylons/adapters, two AMRAAMS at 340lbs a piece and two AIM-2000/IRIS-T at 190lbs and 200lbs in pylons/adapters, ALQ/ECM pod at 500lbs, Sniper 600lbs with adapter and "dollies" (fuel tanks) at 1000lbs empty. That's a about 8100lbs or 3,7 tons of weapons, pods and pylons/adapters.


/Bolsøy


If we subtract fuel tanks and containers it will be 6 point suspension ,more than the F-35 can be placed inside.
Do I understand correctly that the external fuel tanks in the Libyan war on the F-16 is not filled?
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post25 Apr 2015, 11:54

sergei wrote:If we subtract fuel tanks and containers it will be 6 point suspension ,more than the F-35 can be placed inside.
Do I understand correctly that the external fuel tanks in the Libyan war on the F-16 is not filled?


Good to see that you continue on the same informed course.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post25 Apr 2015, 12:36

lamoey wrote:
sergei wrote:In the F-35 has other advantages, too, but they are not connected it with the F-35 only ,and more connected with the general development of the industry ,if you want most of the electronic package of F-35 can be integrated into other planes.
So what are the advantages of the F-35 have and any other do not ?-STOVL and stealth not very many huh?


With this statement you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the F-35 brings to the fight. It may be decades before any other aircraft can match the capabilities you seem to think is unimportant, or comes off the shelf if you just ask for it. They may just as well use a B-2 if that was all it was about, because it can sure get a big load of bombs into a stealthy aircraft, which nobody else can do either. It's a sad, sad day when somebody that thinks he understands what this is all about and then demonstrates such complete ignorance.

You're too keen on advertising slogans or in general not understand what I was saying.
Where I said that some of the benefits are not important ?It sounds like a Freudian slip :D

Again F-16 is Lightweight Fighter and F-35 let's say not a very lightweight.Operation of the F-35 will never be cheaper operating F-16 in the same circumstances,but the F-35 can do much more than the F-16.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post25 Apr 2015, 12:41

pron wrote:
sergei wrote:If we subtract fuel tanks and containers it will be 6 point suspension ,more than the F-35 can be placed inside.
Do I understand correctly that the external fuel tanks in the Libyan war on the F-16 is not filled?


Good to see that you continue on the same informed course.

--------
"dollies" (fuel tanks) at 1000lbs empty
---------
It was a clarifying question not statement.
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 520
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post25 Apr 2015, 16:19

sergei, I think you know the answer to that one. :wink: 1000lbs is the combined weight of the two tanks/pylons when empty. Cooking basic figures is always entertaining, but the greater point is that you have two jets - one replacing the other - with a similar mission profile and this is what the pilots can expect in a real world scenario. Of course, as I mentioned, one needs to keep in mind that this is compared to a PW220E powered F-16A/MLU. Later models with more powerful engines might very well have better excess power at high altitude.


/Bolsøy
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post26 Apr 2015, 00:59

I got 9300kg combat load and full fuel+empty weight 8650kg = 17950kg for F-16C Thrust/weight: 0.435
F35 same combat load and fuel at the same distance+empty weight =18450kg Thrust/weight: 0.69
As expected, the farther away the target is the more advantageous to use a large aircraft.
Offline

araya

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2014, 17:20

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 13:33

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-p ... db9d11a875


Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”.....


....The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.....


Is this really true, can someone confirm this? :shock:
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post30 Jun 2015, 13:54

araya wrote:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875


Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight
New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.”.....


....The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.....


Is this really true, can someone confirm this? :shock:

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
F-35 will be a good fighter in close combat only on the forums.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests