F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 13:51
by zero-one
I Tried searching the forum, but it looks like there hasn't been any comprehensive discussion between all 3 variants.
If there was one already, then I apologize for not trying hard enough.

Question is, officially all 3 variants have very similar flight characteristics, however I find this quite hard to believe for the following reasons:

1.) The A model is 3,000 - 5,000 pounds lighter than the B and C model respectively, it also has the least amount of drag due to the missing "hump" behind the cockpit like the B model and smaller wings and tail of the C model.

2.) The B model's center of gravity will be different as it carries a second engine and a drive shaft in the fore section, this is replaced by a dynamic load (fuel) on the A and C models which can be burned down. Unless the fuel tank behind the cockpit is used last on the A & C, the B model will always be Fore heavy compared to the other 2.

3.) The C's big wings and additional control surfaces will surely affect maneuvering performance for the better, Test pilots such as Billy Flynn have pointed out that the C model is the best turning variant of all F-35's and may also be the best high AOA performer. In the infamous F-16 vs F-35 document, it was pointed out that at high AOA, AF-02 lost critical energy due to "insufficient thrust and wing area". I wonder if CF-02 (or whatever the flight envelope expansion test bed is) will experience a similar result when tested at high AOA.

It also occurred to me that all 3 may actually have very different flight characteristics when pushed to absolute limits but are programmed to behave similarly via their FCS software.

(i.e, the C model can sustain a 6G turn at X speed and X altitude carrying X weight, but since the A model can only sustain 5.5Gs, the C model's FCS was limited to 5.8 in order to keep it close to A model's performance)

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 15:26
by weasel1962
There has been more than enough discussions in this forum to address all of the issues many times over. Look harder. Eg view on weight in 1) is incorrect unless the f-35 takes off without fuel. At full fuel, the B is the lightest in the air assuming same weapons weights as it carries 4-5k lbs less fuel. The difference is however negligible.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 15:40
by zero-one
weasel1962 wrote:There has been more than enough discussions in this forum to address all of the issues many times over. Look harder. Eg view on weight in 1) is incorrect unless the f-35 takes off without fuel. At full fuel, the B is the lightest in the air assuming same weapons weights as it carries 4-5k lbs less fuel. The difference is however negligible.


but the Center of Gravity would be somehow be affected as the B model is "permanently" front heavy, also, the B model's mediocre 7G limit may also affect it's flight envelope performance.

Were there any discussions on what characteristics are at tactical maneuvering weights

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:39
by cantaz
zero-one wrote:but the Center of Gravity would be somehow be affected as the B model is "permanently" front heavy


That's not necessarily true.

One would require information on F-35's fuel system and fuel ballasting practices.

Let's say the combat maneuvering window for fuel state is between 80-20% of max internal fuel. In other words, we don't care about how the F-35 handles until it's burnt off 20% of its max internal fuel and we don't care about how it handles when it's only got 20% fuel remaining.

The questions are then:

1. What is optimal CG state for the F-35A and B when it comes to combat maneuvering?

2. Does the B have enough volume in its rearward tanks to offset the weight of the liftfan? If so, does it have enough fuel available to do this at all times between 80-20% fuel? If so, is this compatible with the sequence the tanks are emptied?

3. Does the forward central fuselage of the A model have enough fuel at 80% fuel state to reproduce the same or similar CG as the B with its liftfan? If yes, is this reflective of actual ballasting practice for the F-35A? If true, at what point between 80-20% internal fuel state does the F-35A no longer have enough fuel in the forward central tank to share CG characteristics with the B model?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:42
by XanderCrews
but the Center of Gravity would be somehow be affected as the B model is "permanently" front heavy,


Dude, Seriously?

As for G I would bet the B pulls two less than the A and .5 less than the C. ( just a guess)

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:50
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:
3.) The C's big wings and additional control surfaces will surely affect maneuvering performance for the better, Test pilots such as Billy Flynn have pointed out that the C model is the best turning variant of all F-35's and may also be the best high AOA performer. In the infamous F-16 vs F-35 document, it was pointed out that at high AOA, AF-02 lost critical energy due to "insufficient thrust and wing area". I wonder if CF-02 (or whatever the flight envelope expansion test bed is) will experience a similar result when tested at high AOA.



been said before - if you have exactly the same engine in the CF but are 5000 lbs heavier (thus worse T/W) and have bigger wings (more drag) then energy retention and recovery under similar conditions is going to be worse. However it could still have better ITR and better AOA handling than the A in some cases as the pilot states.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:59
by durahawk
but the Center of Gravity would be somehow be affected as the B model is "permanently" front heavy, also, the B model's mediocre 7G limit may also affect it's flight envelope performance.


Front heavy? I think your neglecting the fact that the 3BSM itself weighs a crap ton more than the standard nozzle and has a very aft moment arm.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 17:15
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:
Dude, Seriously?

As for G I would bet the B pulls two less than the A and .5 less than the C. ( just a guess)


Well the question is, would the B model always be 2Gs below the A and .5 below the C in every part of the envelope, or does the difference only show itself once both the A and C models reach their parts of the envelope where they can go past 7Gs?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 17:19
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:


been said before - if you have exactly the same engine in the CF but are 5000 lbs heavier (thus worse T/W) and have bigger wings (more drag) then energy retention and recovery under similar conditions is going to be worse. However it could still have better ITR and better AOA handling than the A in some cases as the pilot states.


I get that, but what I was looking for was a more in depth analysis into the characteristics of each variant.

For example, the F-22 and F-35A are both rated at 9Gs, but we all know that the Raptor's G envelopes are far far larger than the F-35As. The Raptor can still pull above 5Gs at 30,000 feet around supersonic, not sure the F-35A can do the same.

With the F-35C's larger wing area, are there parts of the envelope where it can reach higher Gs than the A model?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 17:21
by spazsinbad
According to 'LM Fast Facts' since it began the A has a 9G limit; B has a 7G limit whilst the C has a 7.5G limit.
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... 3q2015.pdf

F-35 Stores Testing: An Observation
21 Feb 2012 SMSgt Mac

“...Everyone doesn't have access to AIAA archives, but everyone on the web should know what a frickin' search engine looks like. Bevilaqua also notes in more than one of his AIAA papers that the mid-mission CG of the B model is effectively the same as the A model. This is a critical point because one seeks to design the aircraft to have the best mass properties for maneuvering at mid-mission weights because that is the time when a combat aircraft needs its best maneuverability....”

Source: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... ation.html

At 0330 my time I'm not going to read this four part series again for the good bits - becuz it is all good bits:

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -spec.html
&
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -spec.html
&
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... ec_26.html
&
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -spec.html

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 17:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:
With the F-35C's larger wing area, are there parts of the envelope where it can reach higher Gs than the A model?

In short, yes. Any time the A is lift limited to less G than the C is structurally rated for then the C will have better turning both ITR and STR.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 17:38
by eloise
i think the relationship between the A and the C version would be similar to the relationship between F-16 and F-18?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 12:24
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:In short, yes. Any time the A is lift limited to less G than the C is structurally rated for then the C will have better turning both ITR and STR.


Thank you Sprst, can you make a comprehensive comparison between the 3 like what you did with the F-35A, F-16C, F-16I and F-15E before? :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 13:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:In short, yes. Any time the A is lift limited to less G than the C is structurally rated for then the C will have better turning both ITR and STR.


Thank you Sprst, can you make a comprehensive comparison between the 3 like what you did with the F-35A, F-16C, F-16I and F-15E before? :mrgreen:

I am working on just such a comparison. My models get the known performance stats to within +-1% of the actual values but I did have to make one huge assumption on the Acceleration spec, the loadout. I was left to assume that it was done with 60% fuel and two AIM-120 (same as the sustained G spec). I am trying to find a way to properly model a Rutowski (sp?) profile to see it's effect on the acceleration spec.

In a separate thought experiment I also did a high level analysis of F-15C, F-16C. F/A-18E, and F-35A on a take-off to landing bomber-intercept mission to see how fast they can climb, accelerate to speed, and maintain their max speed before having to fire 6-8 missiles and turn around to cruise home. Let me say now that While the F-35A has a lower dash speed than the F-15 or F-16 it can hold it for a LONG time and at higher altitudes.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 14:46
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:In short, yes. Any time the A is lift limited to less G than the C is structurally rated for then the C will have better turning both ITR and STR.


Quick question, if the A and C models are traveling at the exact same speed and altitude, pulling the exact same G, will there be any difference in the turn rate?

Or will the F-35C's larger wing cause it to pull the turn at a higher AOA thus having a higher turn rate?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 15:54
by Dragon029
G force = (velocity^2)/radius = ((rad/s)^2)*radius

In other words, if they're pulling the same amount of Gs at the same airspeed, they're turning at the same rate. The difference will be whether or not they can maintain that G force and velocity, which comes down to asking whether the overall L:D ratio of an F-35C is better than an F-35A's at the given altitude and airspeed, and also how each aircraft is loaded (100% fueled F-35A vs 30% fuel F-35C?).

At higher airspeeds for example, the superior T:W of the A model, combined with it's lower wave drag should result in a lesser reduction in airspeed, while still providing sufficient lift to reach the same G force, ultimately giving it a greater turn rate in that part of the envelope.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 16:01
by oldiaf
Regarding the 3 models ... It is true the C is going to be slightly more expensive but I can't understand why the UK hadn't choose to purchase it instead of B variant especially when they have aircraft carrier that can operate them, plus the added extra-range the C provides over the B.
Maybe they should have chose the B model for RAF and C for RNFA

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 16:11
by spazsinbad
'oldiaf' your ignorance is getting really old really quick these days. Read this thread to find out the answer:

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 16:25
by oldiaf
spazsinbad wrote:'oldiaf' your ignorance is getting really old really quick these days. Read this thread to find out the answer:

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969

So one of the reasons the UK didn't chose F-35C because it didn't want to develop F-35C to F-35C refuelling capability on its own ?! ... I found this strange because the F-35C has more range than the B variant and in case of emergency the C variant has more chance to reach shore or carrier.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 16:42
by spazsinbad
'oldiaf' you have obviously not read the thread. Put in some reading effort there - it will be rewarding.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 10:11
by charlielima223
I remember reading an old article over at Flightglobal about early F-35B testings on the USS Wasp. Unfortunately due to Flightglobals restructure of their website... the article in question no longer exists :( . I do remember however that pilots remarked that the F-35B is kinematically comparable to an F/A-18C/D. During a round table table talk with USN pilots (luckily you can still find on youtube) a USN pilot stated that the F-35C is comparable to a clean Super Hornet, "slicked with no pylons and no EFTs".

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 10:41
by zero-one
charlielima223 wrote:I remember reading an old article over at Flightglobal about early F-35B testings on the USS Wasp. Unfortunately due to Flightglobals restructure of their website... the article in question no longer exists :( . I do remember however that pilots remarked that the F-35B is kinematically comparable to an F/A-18C/D. During a round table table talk with USN pilots (luckily you can still find on youtube) a USN pilot stated that the F-35C is comparable to a clean Super Hornet, "slicked with no pylons and no EFTs".


I've seen the USN round table discussion, however has the USN gone through full envelope expansion with the F-35C yet?
So the question is, what kinematic parameters was the F-35C compared to?

Perhaps when it comes to acceleration and deceleration the F-35C handles like a slick Superhornet, although I'm impressed it can do this as the C model is almost 3,000lbs heavier with 1,000 lbs less thrust.

Will the C model still be comparable to the SHornet when it comes to climb rates, turn rates, sustained and instantaneous G.
A detailed assessment of F/A-18E is found here:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ ... Hornet.htm

With the test pilot having the following conclusion:
This airplane will be quite comfortable in any type of a "phone booth" close-in dogfight.


I know it's like beating a dead horse, but its quite sad that the statement above is in sharp contrast to what Gen. Carlisle has said about the F-35.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /72403642/
Military leaders have repeatedly responded that the aircraft is built for long-range engagements, and is never meant to get near enemies.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 14:03
by quicksilver
charlielima223 wrote:I remember reading an old article over at Flightglobal about early F-35B testings on the USS Wasp. Unfortunately due to Flightglobals restructure of their website... the article in question no longer exists :( . I do remember however that pilots remarked that the F-35B is kinematically comparable to an F/A-18C/D. During a round table table talk with USN pilots (luckily you can still find on youtube) a USN pilot stated that the F-35C is comparable to a clean Super Hornet, "slicked with no pylons and no EFTs".


35B w/ full internal load is like a clean/slick C Hornet. 35C w/ full internal load is like a clean/slick SH (with 300+nm more radius).

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 00:37
by oldiaf
Is stealth worth it ? :
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... h-it-14158
How the C variant will complement the Navy

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 00:53
by spazsinbad
From the above 'oldiaf' article URL: I want to know how this is known.
"...Part of the difference in the two services’ diverging positions can be explained by different political messaging strategies. Publicly, the Air Force doesn’t want to admit the utility of electronic attack or support platforms because they seem to believe that might erode support for the F-35. [Who has said this in USAF?] Meanwhile, the Navy has bills to pay other than for aviation and that service doesn’t see the performance differential between the F/A-18E/F and F-35C as being worth the massive cost plus up...." [And what is that pray tell?]

And THEN we have to take the writer word for this kludge....
"...After a discussion with Air Force and Navy officials—it’s apparent that the truth lies somewhere in between. [Please explain] There is consensus that in the future as anti-access/area denial threats evolve, wide-band all-aspect stealth will probably be necessary...."

The last sentence is a doozy that is supposed to excuse the bullcrap speculation (mixed with good quotes we assume) earlier?
"...But only time will tell…"
Yessireee - Time Will Tell - What is the time? The good quotes will reveal all.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 01:55
by oldiaf
I used the search engine this time to make sure no one post it before ... and as you said its a good start

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 02:14
by spazsinbad
Thanks. Dave Majumdar used to have credibility but since leaving USNI and before this new job he did some shite pieces for clickbait for various publications including the Daily Beast. Credibility with me now for Dave is zero but he does provide good quotes however the subsequent 'DAVE' [F-35] speculation is pretty uninteresting to say the least - YMMV.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 02:56
by mk82
"Meanwhile, the Navy has bills to pay other than for aviation and that service doesn’t see the performance differential between the F/A-18E/F and F-35C as being worth the massive cost plus up...."

It will sure be worth the cost....considering that the F/A-18E/F will like a relative pig carrying EFTs (even just 1), 2 X AMRAAMs, 2 X 2000lb JDAMs, 1 X ATFLIR pod, Full Internal fuel and perhaps an ECM pod. Can you say canted pylons too? The performance differential will be in the F355Cs favour (with a similar load out).

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 03:17
by count_to_10
zero-one wrote:Will the C model still be comparable to the SHornet when it comes to climb rates, turn rates, sustained and instantaneous G.
A detailed assessment of F/A-18E is found here:

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ ... Hornet.htm

With the test pilot having the following conclusion:
This airplane will be quite comfortable in any type of a "phone booth" close-in dogfight.


I know it's like beating a dead horse, but its quite sad that the statement above is in sharp contrast to what Gen. Carlisle has said about the F-35.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /72403642/
Military leaders have repeatedly responded that the aircraft is built for long-range engagements, and is never meant to get near enemies.

Both are true. It was never meant to get near enemies, but it's performance in close-in dogfights will be competitive.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 03:52
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:From the above 'oldiaf' article URL: I want to know how this is known.
"...Part of the difference in the two services’ diverging positions can be explained by different political messaging strategies. Publicly, the Air Force doesn’t want to admit the utility of electronic attack or support platforms because they seem to believe that might erode support for the F-35. [Who has said this in USAF?] Meanwhile, the Navy has bills to pay other than for aviation and that service doesn’t see the performance differential between the F/A-18E/F and F-35C as being worth the massive cost plus up...." [And what is that pray tell?]

And THEN we have to take the writer word for this kludge....
"...After a discussion with Air Force and Navy officials—it’s apparent that the truth lies somewhere in between. [Please explain] There is consensus that in the future as anti-access/area denial threats evolve, wide-band all-aspect stealth will probably be necessary...."

The last sentence is a doozy that is supposed to excuse the bullcrap speculation (mixed with good quotes we assume) earlier?
"...But only time will tell…"
Yessireee - Time Will Tell - What is the time? The good quotes will reveal all.


No one tell anyone about the 390th electronic combat squadron.

Don't even Google it. Srs. Dont. No really. Because if you did you would find a USAF squadron that uses Growlers

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 03:57
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 08:28
by charlielima223
zero-one wrote:
I know it's like beating a dead horse, but its quite sad that the statement above is in sharp contrast to what Gen. Carlisle has said about the F-35.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/mili ... /72403642/
Military leaders have repeatedly responded that the aircraft is built for long-range engagements, and is never meant to get near enemies.


neither was the F-4 and look at it.

Image

Even though this is a War is Boring piece, luckily it is NOT a David Axe piece. Unfortunately it quotes somebody I am sure we all collectively (here at F-16.net) despise...

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/is-the ... .qbmx5bilu

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2015, 13:41
by count_to_10
charlielima223 wrote:neither was the F-4 and look at it.

Image

Even though this is a War is Boring piece, luckily it is NOT a David Axe piece. Unfortunately it quotes somebody I am sure we all collectively (here at F-16.net) despise...

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/is-the ... .qbmx5bilu

"World's largest distributor of Mig parts."
8)

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 08:32
by zero-one
https://www.defensenews.com/video/2018/ ... -is-built/

Jump to 3:52 of the video.
It looks like Billie Flynn's favorite variant is the Sea.

Billie Flynn wrote:So the C model takes off like an escalator

Uhmmm I'm not sure thats a compliment, escalators aren't known to be fast climbers, nor do they climb steep, but I guess what he meant was that it rises effortlessly....maybe

Billie Flynn wrote:When it comes in to land its like a Zeppelin, it barely moves

Makes sense

Billie Flynn wrote:When it turns, its like carving a snowboard in powdered snow in Colorado

What does that even mean Billy? Why would you carve your snowboard in the snow

Billie Flynn wrote:It is the wing and the airplane that this airframe was really meant to be

There you have it folks, Test pilot who flew all 3 variants says the C model is the best. And as the first official F-35A demo pilot, thats saying a lot.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 09:53
by spazsinbad
Oh the FLYNNamity - you musta missed this: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53048&p=404843&hilit=5OdiPeGz1HA#p404843

LM Test Pilot Billie Flynn 'F-35C Best Wing' Airframe of Variants https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OdiPeGz1HA


Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 14:25
by pmi
zero-one wrote:What does that even mean Billy? Why would you carve your snowboard in the snow.


You must be a side slipper brau.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 17:18
by white_lightning35
Snowboarder carving:
https://www.snowboard-asylum.com/media/357763/carving.jpg

My respect for Mr. Flynn just went down if it turns out he is a snowbored chump instead of a skier, as a proper gentleman should be.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 18:49
by zero-one
Well poor choice of figurative phrases aside its clear that he and other pilots who have flown all 3 say that the C model is really special and seems to be the favorite in performance terms.

This comes in somewhat of a difference with the common belief here that the C model will enjoy only marginal superiority in some parts of the envelope but the A will still be the best performing model in most respects.

Just my observation from the statements,

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 19:25
by marsavian
the C model is really special and seems to be the favorite in performance terms.


In turning under 8g but not accelerating. It's a trade-off. Maybe if you rewinged an A with a C wing and did something about the area rule at the same time you could perhaps get the best of both worlds with even more endurance but that's possibly in the future, a F-35D perhaps. In the meanwhile both A and C have performance attributes to admire with perhaps the B being the only real compromise in performance but then again you could base that anywhere in the world so it's all good in the end.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 20:03
by juretrn
white_lightning35 wrote:snowbored chump instead of a skier, as a proper gentleman should be.

You, I like you.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 22:01
by geforcerfx
From what I gathered it seemed the C is easier on the pilot during manuvering compared to the A. The A is the speed demon but ask it to turn hard and your at a higher G and the plane is talking a lot at high G. From what it sounded like the C isn't like that, you just lose your great subsonic accel with the wing and the weight.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 07:48
by zero-one
marsavian wrote: Maybe if you rewinged an A with a C wing and did something about the area rule at the same time you could perhaps get the best of both worlds with even more endurance but that's possibly in the future


Or just give the C a more powerful motor. she's around 5,000 lbs heavier than the A model. With ADVENT said to have a 10% thrust increase. She should be able to accelerate and gain E almost as fast as the A can today.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 15:00
by marsavian
You can give A the same extra thrust so nothing relatively will have changed. You need to start from the A fuselage without the naval changes and put on a C wing again without the naval changes so weight can be reduced as much as possible while you still retain an internal gun. Probably a slightly longer narrower fuselage too to cut down drag maybe increasing top speed a little too. It's either a new model D or you just keep applying the same changes to all the models and let the customer decide what they prefer but no-one is going to pay the extra cost of a C just for the turning ability alone.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 16:57
by zero-one
Yeah, well thats unlikely.
The USAF and USMC seem to be perfectly happy with the Kinematic performance of their F-35s. They are already capable dogfighters even if they are expected to rarely perform that role at all. Upgrades will be focused on Stealth and Sensor capabilities, any improvements in kinematics will likely come from engine upgrades.

As it stands, the C model seems to have best kinematic performance in most cases. The A is probably better in acceleration, I used to think that it will also have better E-M characteristics, however I'm beginning to believe that the C is better.

As the engineers here have said before, turn performance is generally determined by 2 factors, Lift limit and Thrust limit, there are also other factors like drag etc. And in 2012, with the infamous reduced sustained G KPP proposal, the C model had the highest sustained G proposal at 5Gs while the A and B were at 4.6 and 4.5 Gs respectively.

All this coupled with the pilot statements that the C seems to be their favorite performer leads me to believe that the C is really the best performing F-35 variant. The only think lackluster about it is acceleration, and with more powerful engines, acceleration could be brought to near F-16 ballparks. I'd say as it stand the F-35C is the best dogfighting machine the US Navy has ever had.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 17:26
by tailgate
I would dare to take a guess by what I’ve read and seen, that any performances comparisons between the 35 and others is not highly regarded at this point. If there are any performance trade offs, if, then that trade off versus sensor suite capabilities and sensor fusion might be worth the sacrifice. The guys flying these birds seem to be completely happy with the product produced
Remember that allot of these folks are from other platforms so their comparisons matter. As one of my frst instructors at the 15 schoolhouse told me, it’s easy to talk about shooting down your opponent, it’s another thing to actually do it.....

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 17:37
by spazsinbad
Your instructor was GOLD: "...it’s easy to talk about shooting down your opponent, it’s another thing to actually do it....."

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 20:12
by tailgate
spazsinbad wrote:Your instructor was GOLD: "...it’s easy to talk about shooting down your opponent, it’s another thing to actually do it....."


Greets. When I go to reunions, a common thread is how munched we learned from the “Old Hands”. When left for UPT, My dad, a retired Col........told me to keep my mouth shut, my ears open, my brain active, and my eyes always scanning......

But I will tell you, some of the best training I ever received was from “seasoned” phantom drivers in the Navy A-4 and USAF F-5. Those sessions proved vital in determining strengths and weakness’ and honing overall tactics. Those exercises also were crucial in the development of team building. Nobody does it better than the US Fighter Pilot, and training is one of the keys to this success. It’s one reason we always fought to always fund out training programs and exercises

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 01:43
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:Yeah, well thats unlikely.
The USAF and USMC seem to be perfectly happy with the Kinematic performance of their F-35s. They are already capable dogfighters even if they are expected to rarely perform that role at all. Upgrades will be focused on Stealth and Sensor capabilities, any improvements in kinematics will likely come from engine upgrades.

As it stands, the C model seems to have best kinematic performance in most cases. The A is probably better in acceleration, I used to think that it will also have better E-M characteristics, however I'm beginning to believe that the C is better.

As the engineers here have said before, turn performance is generally determined by 2 factors, Lift limit and Thrust limit, there are also other factors like drag etc. And in 2012, with the infamous reduced sustained G KPP proposal, the C model had the highest sustained G proposal at 5Gs while the A and B were at 4.6 and 4.5 Gs respectively.

All this coupled with the pilot statements that the C seems to be their favorite performer leads me to believe that the C is really the best performing F-35 variant. The only think lackluster about it is acceleration, and with more powerful engines, acceleration could be brought to near F-16 ballparks. I'd say as it stand the F-35C is the best dogfighting machine the US Navy has ever had.

The A has the best kinematic performance (i.e. acceleration, climb rate, STR), the C has the best turn radius. All 3 jets will be getting more powerful motors in the 2020s.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 02:08
by marsavian
C has the best STR, A has the best ITR.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 02:55
by popcorn
marsavian wrote:C has the best STR, A has the best ITR.

Yeah, but only the B can fly in reverse. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 03:02
by spazsinbad
:roll: HOVER in Reverse. :doh:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 07:45
by zero-one
wrightwing wrote:The A has the best kinematic performance (i.e. acceleration, climb rate, STR), the C has the best turn radius.


See thats what common sense will tell us. It also makes the most logical sense. However this is not the first time Pilots have come out with statements like Mr. Flynn's.
The C is the Airframe that the airplane was really designed to be. Thats saying a lot. I'm sure he didn't just say that because the C has smaller turn radius. Something tells me the Sea variant's flight characteristics stand out considerably compared to others.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 15:34
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The A has the best kinematic performance (i.e. acceleration, climb rate, STR), the C has the best turn radius.


See thats what common sense will tell us. It also makes the most logical sense. However this is not the first time Pilots have come out with statements like Mr. Flynn's.
The C is the Airframe that the airplane was really designed to be. Thats saying a lot. I'm sure he didn't just say that because the C has smaller turn radius. Something tells me the Sea variant's flight characteristics stand out considerably compared to others.



Its going to be slower Transonic and for as much as people gripe about the B's liftfan weight penalty, any airplane designed for CVN use is carrying extra weight around. The Undercarriage alone adds weight, before we get into the structure at all.

Seeing an "A" with "C" wings and tails would be neat.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 15:51
by marsavian
Seeing an "A" with "C" wings and tails would be neat.


Agreed, perhaps in the 2030s when the F-35 has some Western stealth export competition they could do such a new model, D ?, which is then tuned for transonic / supersonic drag so it doesn't appreciably lose the A acceleration but has more endurance and turning ability and perhaps top end speed too. Seems a natural evolution for the future after current orders wind down.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 16:21
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:
Its going to be slower Transonic and for as much as people gripe about the B's liftfan weight penalty, any airplane designed for CVN use is carrying extra weight around. The Undercarriage alone adds weight, before we get into the structure at all.

Seeing an "A" with "C" wings and tails would be neat.


Thats true, is it also correct to assume that the C is better in most turning aspects except for max high G turn, and better in most climbing aspects except for a straight up power climb and like you said, transonic acceleration would also be worse.

But she is noticeably better in all other aspects.

Having an A with bigger wings may only be implemented for additional range. The US does not typically do major redesigns of air-frames for Kinematic purposes unless the original airframe was proven to be woefully incapable in that aspect. (i.e. wing modifications for the F-4 to improve agility)

If anything, latter versions become a tad less maneuverable due to weight growth. (i.e. Sprts said that the F-15A is still the best turning F-15 variant). This is just my general observation, there are exceptions. The F-16V block 70 with GE-132 could be the best performing F-16 ever but this is largely due to India's specific maneuvering requirements.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 17:00
by quicksilver
"But she is noticeably better in all other aspects."

No. The 'A' and 'B' are also significantly better in subsonic accel, as well.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 22:33
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The A has the best kinematic performance (i.e. acceleration, climb rate, STR), the C has the best turn radius.


See thats what common sense will tell us. It also makes the most logical sense. However this is not the first time Pilots have come out with statements like Mr. Flynn's.
The C is the Airframe that the airplane was really designed to be. Thats saying a lot. I'm sure he didn't just say that because the C has smaller turn radius. Something tells me the Sea variant's flight characteristics stand out considerably compared to others.

The C has the best ITR/min radius turn. The A is superior at pretty much everything else.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 03:29
by Corsair1963
Could we ever see a Landbased F-35C???

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 06:01
by steve2267
Corsair1963 wrote:Could we ever see a Landbased F-35C???


Oh, Canaduhduhduh

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 07:43
by zero-one
quicksilver wrote:No. The 'A' and 'B' are also significantly better in subsonic accel, as well.


yes but I'm not sure if the advantage would be that much larger compared to the hugh gap in Transonic Accel.


wrightwing wrote:The C has the best ITR/min radius turn. The A is superior at pretty much everything else.


If thats true, then why is the C version the the favorite of pilots who fly it? Its hard to believe that the reason they favor the C over the A is simply because of sustained turn rate.

Billie Flynn talked about climb, landing and turning. There was another pilot who said something like all models can turn very well but the C is "really special"

To be fair, I would agree that the A model should be the best performing model, it has the most power and the least amount of drag. But pilots are singing a different tune. The C has the most lift. and has nearly 50% more lift from the wings than the A and B. What if Lift compensates for the lack of power?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 12:23
by quicksilver
Zero, are you a pilot? Have you flown multiple aircraft types? Billy was talking about how the jets ‘feel’ — or in other words, ‘handling qualities.’

Why? Because all jets ‘feel’ different; they respond differently to pilot inputs, and one can feel those differences. If one is a test pilot, one is trained to notice those differences formally, and to describe those differences in technical terms that engineers understand and use to adjust the handling qualities if necessary.

However, in this case, Billy wasn’t being technical; he wasn’t using test pilot vernacular (alpha, beta, beta-dot, theta, Cooper-Harper ratings etc etc). He was answering a reporter’s question and was describing some simple joys in flying one of the F-35 variants — in this case the ‘C’. I am told — by those who have flown all three — that roll rate of the ‘C’ is slightly higher, and the G onset rate is a bit more ‘crisp’ (not a test pilot term).

In other words, Billy liked how it ‘felt.’ Doesn’t mean it ‘had higher performance’ in quantifiable terms; it means he liked how it felt. In short it was a joy to fly. That’s it. Nothing more... no one ‘changing their tune...’.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 13:25
by zero-one
quicksilver wrote:Zero, are you a pilot? Have you flown multiple aircraft types? Billy was talking about how the jets ‘feel’ — or in other words, ‘handling qualities.’

I mean no offense by this but to be fair, even if you are a pilot your opinion holds just a bit more water than mine if you have not flown all 3.
We are all trying to interpret their statements in the first place

Remember Major Hanche talked about pilots who tried to dogfight with him in his F-35. As he said, they were surprised at how maneuverable the aircraft was. at first they engaged him even with their full complement of bombs and EFTs, the next day they were slick with just A-A missiles and finally the next day they were flying clean.

It was hard to believe but it looks like there were actually pilots who still believed that the F-35 can't turn, can't run, can't climb.

I've even exchanged emails with a pilot, former aggressor. He couldn't believe it when I said that F-35s were beating F-15s in WVR DACT. He said that even F-35 pilots at Nelis he talked to call the F-35 "the fat kid"
I showed him links and statements from other pilots to prove it.

My point is, being a pilot doesn't automatically mean your assessment is right. Yes you have the experience and credentials to back it up but a pilot's opinion is still debatable unless he has flown the aircraft in question itself.

quicksilver wrote:In other words, Billy liked how it ‘felt.’

Thats your interpretation of his statement and yes you may be right, But you may also be wrong. Thats the reason why we are having this discussion, so we can get more evidence from people who have actually flown all 3.

quicksilver wrote:I am told — by those who have flown all three — that roll rate of the ‘C’ is slightly higher, and the G onset rate is a bit more ‘crisp’ (not a test pilot term).


Now this is what I'm talking about, So if I'm reading this correctly the C can get to max G faster than the A but the A has a higher limit.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 14:06
by quicksilver
It’s not interpretation zero; I know these guys...have known them for years. Some a couple decades. I speak to them regularly.

Move on.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 15:31
by zero-one
quicksilver wrote:It’s not interpretation zero; I know these guys...have known them for years. Some a couple decades. I speak to them regularly.

Move on.

Well yes, with the guys that you know who have flown all 3 and have said things, I'll take it as gospel even if you don't show me proof. I think you've earned your credibility in this forum many times over already so I wouldn't dare accuse you of lying.

But when you say that Billie Flynn was referring to handling characteristics, the "feel" of the aircraft and not necessarily performance parameters, then thats your interpretation of his statements, because Billie didn't say that.

He could have been referring to performance parameters but was being extra careful not to throw any shade against any other F-35 variants.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 18:33
by steve2267
Z1, no offense intended, but are you even a pilot? I am guessing not. Even though I am but a GA piston-popper private pilot, I agree with QS that Billie Flynn is describing flying qualities. Hell, he may even like the performance of the Cee Monster better in certain areas. (There is more ways than one to skin the air-to-air BFM proverbial cat.)

I'm also an aero engineer by education and experience. The more I learn, the more I know that I don't know sheeitt. So I take Billie's statement at face value. I may wonder a bit why. But at the same time, if the Cee was such a sh*t hot performer, the Air Force would have ordered the big wing on an Aye. But they didn't. So there is something to that as well. Take Billie Flynn's statement for what it's worth (he likes the way the Cee flies the best), and move on. Don't try to read to much into it.

The F-35 is a great performer, by all those who fly it. Smile. Be happy. Wonder at the magical aero mysteries the LM engineers hath wrought with a smile on your face.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 18:51
by zero-one
^^ Yeah. I'm just a fanboy, nothing more, and compared to most folks here I'd have the least credibility.
I'm not saying QS is wrong.

If anything, all I'm trying to convey is. Don't be too sure. You guys may be right, but lets look deeper, we may find something out there that can give us more detail into this.

The common consensus in this forum is, the A is the best performer, the C may have a small niche where it is superior like sustained turn, or roll rate but the A is generally the best performer. And that makes sense even to me, it is the most powerful in terms of power to weight ratio.

But we 2 pilots, as far as I know who have glowing remarks with regards to the C's flight characteristics. 2 pilots who have flown all models and specifically mentioned the C as a "stand out". So that tells me that, maybe its not just a small niche where the C is better.

And yes I agree that all F-35's are superb aero performers. The RN's Bee model did a sustained turn limited to 7Gs and it was one of the best crisp turns I have ever seen. And I consider the B model to be the worst of the 3 in aero performance.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 19:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote: So that tells me that, maybe its not just a small niche where the C is better.

Let's summarize with "Anything that involves needing to make a lot of lift, the C does better. Anything that involves high speed/acceleration the A does better. Anything that involves flight under 100kt the B does better."

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 19:37
by SpudmanWP
Anything that involves flight under 100kt or going backwards, the B does better.


FIFY :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 19:43
by usnvo
quicksilver wrote:In other words, Billy liked how it ‘felt.’ Doesn’t mean it ‘had higher performance’ in quantifiable terms; it means he liked how it felt. In short it was a joy to fly. That’s it. Nothing more... no one ‘changing their tune...’.


I felt that the comments were akin to what you hear from old British Sports Car (or Miata guys as well) enthusiasts. They generally love the feel of their cars. That doesn't mean they had better performance or would take it over something else in a race, just that they liked the feel.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 19:43
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SpudmanWP wrote:
Anything that involves flight under 100kt or going backwards, the B does better.


FIFY :mrgreen:

:doh: :thumb:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 19:48
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Let's summarize with "Anything that involves needing to make a lot of lift, the C does better. Anything that involves high speed/acceleration the A does better.


Okay, so if I remember the physics of turning correctly. It involves both. But if I'm correct, at the same G. the A will have a lower turn rate but a higher air speed, while the C will be at slower speed with a higher turn rate.
I'm not sure how the C would maintain the better sustained G since it has more drag and weight, but apparently it does.
I also think it will climb better except if its a straight to vertical power climb.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 20:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:Okay, so if I remember the physics of turning correctly. It involves both. But if I'm correct, at the same G. the A will have a lower turn rate but a higher air speed, while the C will be at slower speed with a higher turn rate.


Not exactly, but on the right path. Because the C has vastly greater lifting ability it CAN fly at any given G at a lower speed than the A. Once they are at a speed where the A can also turn 7.5G then they will have the same ITR performance at any matched G and speed while the A still has another 1.5G of pull available. The fact that the max lift line of the C would be further back on a turn rate plot is why the C has the better radius and can have the better rate at a slower speed.

zero-one wrote:I'm not sure how the C would maintain the better sustained G since it has more drag and weight, but apparently it does.


At any given speed and G loading the C is using a lower lift coefficient as the difference in wing size is much much greater than the difference in weight. Since this is squared in determining drag due to lift, the C is much more efficient in lift generation. Under the 0.8M condition for the sustained G spec, drag due to lift is the dominant drag type. Since the C is better at this than the A, it also has a better STR when subsonic.

zero-one wrote:I also think it will climb better except if its a straight to vertical power climb.

The C will always weigh more than the A. It will always have more form drag than the A. Since best rate of climb occurs at speeds above L/D max, form drag is the dominant drag for climb. The A will always win. At very low speeds, where the A can barely stay aloft in the first place, is the only place where the C would have an advantage. The C will always be inferior in the vertical climb because the only factors there are thrust (the same), weight (advantage A) and form drag (advantage A).

Hence my summary statement. Any time the wing is producing 50% or greater of it's maximum ability (low speed or high lift turn) while subsonic and below corner velocity, the C will out do the A. Anytime the wing is at low angle of attack, where form/wave drag or weight dominate, the A will be the better performer.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 00:15
by quicksilver
usnvo wrote:
quicksilver wrote:In other words, Billy liked how it ‘felt.’ Doesn’t mean it ‘had higher performance’ in quantifiable terms; it means he liked how it felt. In short it was a joy to fly. That’s it. Nothing more... no one ‘changing their tune...’.


I felt that the comments were akin to what you hear from old British Sports Car (or Miata guys as well) enthusiasts. They generally love the feel of their cars. That doesn't mean they had better performance or would take it over something else in a race, just that they liked the feel.


This ^.

But, as stated by the USG in the public domain, the C has better sustained turn performance than the other two variants. Sometimes that ‘feel’ also directly translates to quantifiable performance.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 00:31
by quicksilver
“You guys may be right, but lets look deeper, we may find something out there that can give us more detail into this.”

This isn’t about being right; it’s about conveying knowledge born of experience and conveyed in a fashion that is conducive to building understanding in those who haven’t had the benefit of such experience.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 00:37
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Let's summarize with "Anything that involves needing to make a lot of lift, the C does better. Anything that involves high speed/acceleration the A does better.


Okay, so if I remember the physics of turning correctly. It involves both. But if I'm correct, at the same G. the A will have a lower turn rate but a higher air speed, while the C will be at slower speed with a higher turn rate.
I'm not sure how the C would maintain the better sustained G since it has more drag and weight, but apparently it does.
I also think it will climb better except if its a straight to vertical power climb.

The C doesn't have a better STR than the A. It has a better ITR/turn radius. The A has the better rate.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 05:56
by quicksilver
Actually, you might recall that the USG changed the spec for sustained turn for each of the variants back in 2013 (iirc). Assuming the same flight conditions, the sust turn perf of the C is slightly higher.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 11:29
by marsavian
wrightwing wrote:
zero-one wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Let's summarize with "Anything that involves needing to make a lot of lift, the C does better. Anything that involves high speed/acceleration the A does better.


Okay, so if I remember the physics of turning correctly. It involves both. But if I'm correct, at the same G. the A will have a lower turn rate but a higher air speed, while the C will be at slower speed with a higher turn rate.
I'm not sure how the C would maintain the better sustained G since it has more drag and weight, but apparently it does.
I also think it will climb better except if its a straight to vertical power climb.

The C doesn't have a better STR than the A. It has a better ITR/turn radius. The A has the better rate.


A would only have a better STR is if in the particular scenario at sea level it could sustain 8-9g (never been claimed though) otherwise C has the documented better rate. A has the better ITR above corner velocity but yes below that C would take over that metric too. In summary A turns better above corner velocity (~ Mach 0.7) because of its 9g capability but below that C's greater wing lift dominates. At 19kft F-35 E-M diagram ...

Image

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 13:56
by quicksilver
For all the attention that "technology" and the quantifiables get, much of flying (particularly in BFM) is still "organic." Note the pilot in this article talking about "feel."

https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs ... ack-2017-4

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 16:22
by lbk000
Here we are backsliding yet again into WW2 dogfight pursuit mindset...

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 16:43
by quicksilver
Nonsense. We’re just talking about flying.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 17:16
by mixelflick
A big part of the "C is the best variant" is based on Billy Flynn's testimony. And as someone who's flown all 3 variants, I suppose he would know! But the C is the version most lagging, and Mr. Flynn works for LM. That too, needs to be factored in IMO.

We need to acknowledge the C will have the worst thrust-to-weight ratios of the 3: 0.75 at full internal fuel and 0.91 at 50%. That, as a consequence of its beefier construction and carrying a whopping 19,000lbs of internal fuel. And that's before any external stores are carried...

Don't get me wrong: T/W ratio isn't everything. But it is important, and by accepting this performance the Navy has bet even bigger than the USAF, Marines and our allies that stealth, its sensors, weapons and situational awareness will carry the day.

Let's hope so...

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 21:00
by marsavian
Conversely the F-35C will be able to turn very competitively with anyone if forced to. Remember its base core mission will be fleet defense and out of all the F-35s it needs to have the best dogfighting skills if attackers just have to be destroyed to protect the carrier group.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 21:35
by lbk000
marsavian wrote:it needs to have the best dogfighting skills if attackers just have to be destroyed to protect the carrier group.

This... is not how FAD works. This isn't how FAD worked before stealth, and it's even further from reality after stealth. Right off the bat, I don't think you guys understand how time consuming dogfighting is. Positioning takes time. Rating takes even more time, because while you're rating the enemy is also rating around. And then again, while you're waiting playing rate wars with the Su-27, those massed Kitchens or god forbid those new "hypersonic" AShMs are speeding towards your carrier. Oops!

Su-27s don't kill carriers. J-11s don't kill carriers. What kills carriers? Tu-22s. Tu-160s. For arguments sake we'll even consider H-6Ks and Su-34s. These are all big aircraft shooting big missiles. They don't dogfight, and if you can get a shot off on them either they or their mission is over with. So how do you get that shot off on them? Gee golly whiz it just so happens you have these great VLO aircraft that allow you to save time and save lives by slipping past people who want to tie you up and waste your time.

You're literally cooking up contrivances here because you don't like the idea that the C model has a few numbers lower than other numbers. To justify your argument you'd have to ignoring the existence of the BVRAAM among entire swaths of the air combat complex, hell, you have to ignore the actual objective here to make yourself sound good. Sure the F-35C has better STR performance. This is a completely "cool story bro" sort of deal. Nobody gives a rat's a$$ about that anymore, there are bigger forces in play that determine the score at the end of the day.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 22:08
by popcorn
Will Top Gun 2 just be more of the same? Hope not...

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 22:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Top Gun already wasn't realistic in regards to the mission of the F-14. It was fun to watch BECAUSE of all the super close range "dogfighting". Nobody wants to watch Maverick look at his scope, push a button, and wait for the blip to stop blipping.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 22:16
by marsavian
Sure ideally take them out of range, BVR, stealthily but what if you don't have enough effective BVR missiles to do the job there and then and they are still heading for the fleet/target ? They have to be fought in the trenches like F-14s did over Libya and Iran and that was the ultimate BVR interceptor of the 20th century. F-35C is perfectly equipped for the job of standing and fighting if it hasn't already speared you at range. These comments were primarily in response to mixelflick who was worried about its thrust/weight ratio.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 22:33
by lbk000
popcorn wrote:Will Top Gun 2 just be more of the same? Hope not...

Wouldn't get my hopes up, the reality of even 4th generation air combat is already too alien to appeal to the general public.

There are already enough enthusiasts who have trouble grasping what an RWR is ("if I turn it off will I also disappear from enemy radar?").

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 22:37
by steve2267
marsavian wrote:... but what if you don't have enough effective BVR missiles to do the job there and then and they are still heading for the fleet/target ?


You borrow some slammers from another aircraft and provide targeting (5th gen fighting), or you whistle up some SM-6's from the nearest Arleigh Burks (OR LHDs or whoever happens to have them handy), and provide targeting.

Dogfighting a Cee Monster should be the last thought entering the pilot's head. (But I think it would more than hold its own.)

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 22:50
by lbk000
marsavian wrote:Sure ideally take them out of range, BVR, stealthily but what if you don't have enough effective BVR missiles to do the job there and then and they are still heading for the fleet/target ? They have to be fought in the trenches like F-14s did over Libya and Iran and that was the ultimate BVR interceptor of the 20th century.

No
Libya and real FAD are completely different scenarios and can't even be remotely compared. In a real FAD scenario all hands are on dick. Behind your flight is another flight and behind him, another flight still, not to mention as Steve said, you have all other antiair assets to tap into. When you've done your thing, you sit back and you let the next group have their turn.
In fact, you are a liability if you decide to close with the enemy because now the guys behind you can't freefire their missiles for fear of accidentally hitting you instead.

Please, get your head out of the video game mentality. Stop casting your perspective as some sort of heroic mission. It's a team effort.


Oh yeah good thing the F-35C doesn't carry a gun so you don't even need to think about playing red baron.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 23:03
by vilters
All you need is a clown that puts : "Visual Identification Required before engaging" in the ROE's.

It will take a long time before "Stealth Tacktics" creeps up the command ladder.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 23:05
by lbk000
Anyone who can't VID a Russian or Chinese anticarrier attack on the scope deserves to be sunk.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 23:05
by marsavian
Nothing to do with video games but all the actual F-14 combat encounters ever recorded and the majority were dogfights starting at BVR. You do not want opposing aircraft to get comfortable enough to start releasing their attack munitions at range or even closer, take them out before they start doing that and giving your ship defences problems they could well do without. It's about position and time and intercepting invariably turns into dogfighting when attacking aircraft cannot be permitted to proceed on their mission. Stealth just makes the BVR intercept more easier and clinical but does not preclude WVR interception if the BVR was not completely successful.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 23:12
by spazsinbad
lbk000 wrote:Anyone who can't VID a Russian or Chinese anticarrier attack on the scope deserves to be sunk.

You made me giggle (& I'm not insulting any country or part of any country by doing so) along with your other comments.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 23:23
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Since EOTS allows VID at 40+nm, yeah.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 00:30
by lbk000
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Since EOTS allows VID at 40+nm, yeah.

A proper attack is, to say the least, "very loud." Talking about VIDing hostile bombers at 40nm is about as silly as putting a stethoscope to the ground at the front row of a Metallica concert. Or Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

"Kamikazes: The Soviet Legacy" by Maksim Y. Tokarev sheds some insights into an anticarrier strike:
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-r ... 67/iss1/7/
(Tokarev, Maksim Y. (2014) "Kamikazes: The Soviet Legacy," Naval War College Review: Vol. 67 : No. 1 , Article 7. )

Firstly, the scale of an earnest attack attempt on a US CVBG cannot be understated. For just the bomber component,
The doctrine for direct attacks on the carrier task force (carrier battle group or carrier strike group) originally included one or two air regiments for each aircraft carrier—up to seventy Tu-16s. However, in the early 1980s a new, improved doctrine was developed to concentrate an entire MRA air division (two or three regiments) to attack the task force centered around one carrier. This time there would be a hundred Backfires and Badgers per carrier, between seventy and eighty of them carrying missiles.

Large numbers were necessary additionally because, despite the Backfire's ability to carry up to 3 missiles,
...in anticipated real battle conditions, seasoned crews always insisted on just one missile per plane (at belly position), as the wing mounts caused an enormous increase in drag and significantly reduced speed and range.

For protection, the already large signatures of the massed bomber groups would be further augmented by copious quantities of ECM, of both active and passive variety:
...the incoming Backfires had to be able to saturate the air with chaff.

Lastly, there had to be a set choreography to ensure a successful attack:
To know for sure the carrier’s position, it was desirable to observe it visually. To do that, a special recce-attack group (razvedyvatel’no-udarnaya gruppa, RUG) could be detached from the MRA division formation. The RUG consisted of a pair of the Tu-16R reconnaissance Badgers and a squadron of Tu-22M Backfires. The former flew ahead of the latter and extremely low (not higher than two hundred meters, for as long as 300–350 kilometers) to penetrate the radar screen field of the carrier task force, while the latter were as high as possible, launching several missiles from maximum range, even without proper targeting, just to catch the attention of AEW crews and barrier CAP fighters. Meanwhile, those two reconnaissance Badgers, presumably undetected, made the dash into the center of the task force formation and found the carrier visually, their only task to send its exact position to the entire division by radio.
[...]
After the RUG sent the position of the carrier and was shattered to debris, the main attack group (UG, udarnaya gruppa) launched the main missile salvo. The UG consisted of a demonstration group, an ECM group armed with antiradar missiles of the K-11 model, two to three strike groups, and a post-strike reconnaissance group. Different groups approached from different directions and at different altitudes, but the main salvo had to be made simultaneously by all of the strike groups’ planes. The prescribed time slot for the entire salvo was just one minute for best results, no more than two minutes for satisfactory ones. If the timing became wider in an exercise, the entire main attack was considered unsuccessful.

Beyond the large movements of large aircraft, there were other tells presaging an attack:
...SSGNs were evidently considered in the West to be the safest asset of the Soviet Navy during an attack, but it was not the case. The problem was hiding in the radio communications required: two hours prior to the launch, all the submarines of the PAD were forced to hold periscope depth and lift their highfrequency-radio and satellite communication antennas up into the air, just to get the detailed targeting data from reconnaissance assets directly


While certainly adversary capabilities have advanced beyond Soviet era capabilities and their attendant shortcomings, so has American ISR. As good old Boromir once said, "One does not simply spring a surprise attack to sink a carrier."

--

To understand the other end of it, USN FAD doctrine required a rather unique sort of interceptor that isn't really in line with the point defense interceptor familiar everywhere else. The F-14 is a slow aircraft. Yes, it could fly fast, but that's not the real use case (the F-14's top speed limits got ratcheted down lower as its career went on). FAD was a role where the aircraft wasn't even an interceptor; it was a proxy platform that launched the interceptor proper -- that being the AIM-54 Phoenix. And so the F-14 was truly most in its element just floating around for hours at a time down at Mach 0.4 or so, like a big overgrown sailplane because loiter time is the key concept of FAD. The longer and further you can hang out from the carrier, the safer the carrier is from assailants.

So if you want to talk about the virtues of Big Wing Charlie then that's the line of thinking you should be exploring along with other mundanities of daily operation, not turn rates. Believe it or not, being safe at landing on a carrier is a pretty big deal because you cause the boat more trouble than 2 MiG-23's ever will if you crap things up with a bad landing.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 17:57
by mixelflick
Thank for that understanding of how the USN protects its carriers, or protected as the case may be with F-14's.

I wonder if the US Navy is increasing its stock of SM-6's, or expanding the number of launch platforms? Given the range, speed and overall deadliness of that system it would make sense. Especially given how the F-35 can communicate/call shots with it.

So at the end of the day we have a stealth fighter flying lazy circles say, 600 plus miles from the carrier with a half dozen AIM-120D's and the ability to call in SM-6 shots. It has not dozens, but hundreds of ways to locate, ID and otherwise keep track of the enemy (be it fighters, bombers, cruise missile's etc). The enemy won't ever see it, so they likely won't have activated their ECM/ECCM, chaff/flares or other defensive systems. The first time they'll know they're under attack is when AIM-120D's/SM-6's slam into them.

Do I have that right?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 01:25
by lbk000
mixelflick wrote:The enemy won't ever see it, so they likely won't have activated their ECM/ECCM, chaff/flares or other defensive systems.

I think this is the only part that's wrong. There is the possibility of a pure LO offense that runs as passively as possible (think J-20 packs), the saturation ability of a relatively small quantity of elite units may be of dubious value against a well protected target such as a USCVBG. I think that it's an extremely risky thing to do, and no planner would seriously entertain such a gamble against capable opponents.
More likely an adversary will use combined forces which include traditional, high visibility units to ensure the widest spread of threats in order to saturate the entire defensive capability spectrum and ensure success of the strike. To that end, I think ECM can be safely assumed to accompany any attempt. When we talk about the efficacy of F-35 LO, one of the things established is that LO is made better by ECM, so even a pure LO offense has all to gain from accompanying ECM.

The enemy will come, horns blaring and drums banging, they're gonna have their EW cloud because there's just no hiding an attack like that, and the CVBG will have its EW cloud up, and the F-35 is going to negate the enemy's EW by getting in there and bringing out that all important targeting data for everyone else.

And then there's the fringe scenario that a couple fighters will be dispatched by a government wholly unaware of the sheer technological gulf between them and the US, and then they will be unceremoniously intercepted and escorted away (because they wouldn't even be able to see the F-35 nevermind satisfy retaliation RoE).

Also 600nm out seems a bit far even for the F-35, iirc F-14 FAD patrol was 200 or 250nm out.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 08:47
by zero-one
lbk000 wrote:Here we are backsliding yet again into WW2 dogfight pursuit mindset...


Well not really, the Thread is "F-35A vs B vs C" to date, they have the exact same, sensor and avionics suite. So their BVR performance will be exactly the same.

The only thing we can talk about is flight performance and maybe range or maintenance. And as long as you're using moving objects like bullets and missiles to destroy other moving objects like aircraft. the nature of their movement will always affect the outcome. So Kinematics will matter, for BVR and WVR.

But I don't know maybe in the future some customer flying a specific model will require an avionics upgrade that the other services will not acquire or are unwilling to pay for. then we can start talking about Avionics.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 03:16
by squirrelshoes
mixelflick wrote:So at the end of the day we have a stealth fighter flying lazy circles say, 600 plus miles from the carrier with a half dozen AIM-120D's and the ability to call in SM-6 shots. It has not dozens, but hundreds of ways to locate, ID and otherwise keep track of the enemy (be it fighters, bombers, cruise missile's etc). The enemy won't ever see it, so they likely won't have activated their ECM/ECCM, chaff/flares or other defensive systems. The first time they'll know they're under attack is when AIM-120D's/SM-6's slam into them.

Do I have that right?

I don't think so. An F-35 that flies 600 miles away from the carrier isn't flying lazy circles, it's making plans to turn around and go home. That's the range of a strike sortie, not CAP. If enemy comes from another vector it wouldn't be available to support the CAG.

I'm also not sure you can discount them seeing an SM-6 before it hits them. Even if the SM-6 isn't using it's active radar because target cued from F-35 it's still a very large, hot object that would be approaching from their forward FOV where sensors are strongest. Radar, IRST, etc. could pick it up.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 03:44
by spazsinbad
I'm wondering why this SM-6 cannot be fired from another ship resulting in a NON forward approach vector? Carrier pilots are sweating their fuel to return with sufficient according to circumstances and will call BINGO fuel to do so. However as the F-35C is a '3 wire machine' perhaps 'less fuel at mother' will be needed and then there will be JPALS & AUTO approach.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 05:22
by lbk000
spazsinbad wrote:I'm wondering why this SM-6 cannot be fired from another ship resulting in a NON forward approach vector

0_923f5_4e8a4f98_orig.jpg

AIM-7F(M)_ranges.jpg

As you can see from the diagrams, range diminishes dramatically when the target isn't doing half the missiles work by flying towards it. If there's a ship so far off to the side that a missile will be coming in from abeam, then it means the enemy aircraft long already penetrated the perimeter and one is given to wonder why the defending ship didn't shoot sooner, before the enemy is flying past them.

When the enemy is coming at you with the bayonet charge you don't wait until they've already jumped into the trench with you to shoot.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 05:37
by SpudmanWP
squirrelshoes wrote:I don't think so. An F-35 that flies 600 miles away from the carrier isn't flying lazy circles, it's making plans to turn around and go home.


Its A2A combat radius is 740 nmi

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 05:41
by lbk000
SpudmanWP wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:I don't think so. An F-35 that flies 600 miles away from the carrier isn't flying lazy circles, it's making plans to turn around and go home.


Its A2A combat radius is 740 nmi

There is a tradeoff here. Going out too far results in a relative decrease of coverage in both area and duration.
To use a sports analogy, a goalie risks a lot if he leaves the goal too far behind.

While sure the F-35 is a "star" quarterback, remember there are other valuable players in the game. Sure the APG-81 is good, and sure EOTS sees far, but E-2 and MQ-4 are dedicated ISR platforms that are there to see even farther so that the F-35 doesn't need to be farther.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 06:23
by popcorn
Stingray will add another variable to the equation.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 14:37
by squirrelshoes
SpudmanWP wrote:Its A2A combat radius is 740 nmi

A2A isn't flying lazy circles waiting to see if anything appears on the horizon within their loiter time.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 16:41
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:it needs to have the best dogfighting skills if attackers just have to be destroyed to protect the carrier group.


Actually he may be on to something here, maybe its just not the best choice of words. If you remember in the JSF prototype stage, it was the Navy who actually increased the maneuverability requirement.

This prompted Boeing to change their design from a tailless delta wing configuration to a tailed configuration, they decided between a Pelican tail and a conventional tail. Fortunately the X-35 already met the increased maneuvering requirements and did not require such modifications.

Question is, why did the Navy increase the maneuvering KPP? I know a lot of people here cringe when they hear the word dogfight almost as if its a crime to mention the word in today's network centric, HOBS, HMD environment.

But maybe it was, if things did not go as we thought and we somehow ended up in another Vietnam where dogfighting was more common than initially anticipated then the USAF had no problem as they already had the Raptor which is an absolute monster in that environment. But what about the Navy, they would be left with no 5th gen dogfighter.

Anyway, thats just a theory, maybe the increased maneuverability requirement was for another reason that I can't think of right now. Fact is, the navy requested for it and the F-35C is designed to deliver it.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 17:03
by spazsinbad
IIRC the USN required better manoeuvrability for carrier approaches - however I'm not staking anything with my memory.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 17:26
by lbk000
spazsinbad wrote:IIRC the USN required better manoeuvrability for carrier approaches

This matches what I know about it as well.

zero-one wrote:
marsavian wrote:it needs to have the best dogfighting skills if attackers just have to be destroyed to protect the carrier group.

Actually he may be on to something here, maybe its just not the best choice of words.

It's ridiculous how bent you guys are on interpreting things to fit your belief. Like, I don't know how I can fully express how far up the wrong tree you are barking. It's like you're trying to tell me the M4 without the ACOG is specially designed to be better at clubbing people with the buttstock.

The F-35 has no gun, all the missiles it carries are all-aspect designs -- there is nothing at all to gain from saddling up behind an opponent. Everyone's been working their asses off trying to come up with layers of defenses against having to enter the furball and here you are, interpreting it as the complete opposite just because you got the notion in your mind that it's a good thing to be 1500' behind an enemy.

This is not 5th generation combat. This is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, generation air combat. This isn't even 4th generation air combat. In 5th generation combat if you are 1500' on the enemy's tail he actually sees you then even though his radar didn't, so by George he's going to do something about it now. Good job! You've pissed away the invisibility you had by simply showing up. And because you're on a guy's tail he's going to tell all his buddies, "Blyaaat there's an F-35 on my tail!" and now you're getting dogpiled to death. Caesar was the most powerful man in Rome. Caesar also got dogpiled to death.

I was reading On Killing the other day and it, as well as a couple of other books around the topic, have a recurring theme of how important threatening displays are to our animal nature. Maybe this is part of the problem with how alien VLO is to some people. The F-35 is a killing machine first, a "hey back off" machine second. It's not very good at showing off how scary it is, because modern US military doctrine established that it wants to create a faceless, anonymous terror in the enemy, where they don't know what killed them, and they don't know what's going on, so they can't know how to counter it.

But you keep wanting to drag it down to a scenario where you can show off to the enemy "hehe look at me I'm in an F-35 and I'm killing you."

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 18:12
by zero-one
Any links for that, there were plenty of non maneuverable carrier planes. A3, E2, and yes even fighters like the F-4. I'd be hard pressed to believe that the original X-32 was even less maneuverable than the F-4, since the USAF and USMC did have maneuverability metrics too and apparently the X-32 could meet them, else that would suggest the USAF requirement was to have sub F-4 class maneuverability.

Anyway, I didn't know maneuverability was needed for carrier approaches at all. maybe handling sure but maneuverability?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 18:19
by lbk000
zero-one wrote:Any links for that, there were plenty of non maneuverable carrier planes. A3, E2, and yes even fighters like the F-4. I'd be hard pressed to believe that the original X-32 was even less maneuverable than the F-4, since the USAF and USMC did have maneuverability metrics too and apparently the X-32 could meet them, else that would suggest the USAF requirement was to have sub F-4 class maneuverability.

Anyway, I didn't know maneuverability was needed for carrier approaches at all. maybe handling sure but maneuverability?

But handling is maneuverability. You'd be surprised how well slow straightwings like an A-10 can turn. The F-4 has a lower wing loading than even the FA-18. When you hear those garbled accounts (how many times have they been passed down through know-nothings again?) about F-4's losing dogfights in Vietnam, keep in mind that those fights were against MiG-17s which are practically sailplanes with turbines strapped to them. They're even better at handling at low speeds which is why F-4 pilots were told not to play chicken limbo against them. F-4s could play the turn game against the MiG-21MF and win, but guess what, the Vietnamese never turned in a MiG-21 because they knew that if they did they'd lose the precious few they had. So no the "unmaneuverable F-4" is yet another myth perpetuated by ignorance.

Once asked a P-3 pilot if he was concerned about adversary escorts since his aircraft couldn't outrun or outturn them. He gave me a laugh and told me that they're the ones that have trouble staying in the air as slow as he can.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 18:26
by zero-one
lbk000 wrote:It's ridiculous how bent you guys are on interpreting things to fit your belief. Like, I don't know how I can fully express how far up the wrong tree you are barking.


I can see this is quickly gona drag down to beating the dead horse argument of dogfight relevance again. Lets just stop it from here.

The F-35 or any other 5th gen for that matter will not go out there looking for dogfights. It will go out, play to it's strengths of S.A. and Stealth kill and go home hopefully without ever being seen, doing evrything necessary to AVOID dogfights as much as they can

Thats the whole purpose. I agree with that. Nobody in this thread so far has said that the F-35 was meant to dogfight so lets keep tempers here in check, some people read the word dogfight and tempers suddenly flare like it's an unthinkable scenario.

Dogfighting is a last resort, an unlikely but possible last resort.

But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft.


https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen ... -starts/3/
2 things here:
1. Mistakes happen, missions don't always go perfectly according to plan all the time.
2. Do we really expect just one wave of enemy aircraft all the time?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 18:33
by lbk000
zero-one wrote:2. Do we really expect just one wave of enemy aircraft all the time?

Yes and no. There will be diversions but your defense is already faulty if it did not make the enemy to concentrate their force. See Russian attack -- the actual attack window is a coordinated launch inside 2 minutes. In order to make sure everything lands, launch platforms need to be at the same place at the same time when it happens -- so essentially it's a single wave where it really matters. If you break the wave below the critical threshold, you've defeated the attack.

You should also be thinking of the reverse -- do you expect just one wave of defenders all the time?
Again, it's a team game. If wanks slip by for some reason, you don't run them down. You hand it off to the next guys in line. And so on. F-14 FAD strategy was already staggered, with defending waves layered one after another. And this was the 1970s.
Once Hornets were added to the mix, they got to be in charge of intercepting AShMs that managed to get launched.

Nowhere in the playbook is an F-14 charging in and bat turning onto the rear of a Tu-22M (mind you those things have tail guns) or whipping around and lighting the cans to run down a Kitchen that slipped by, despite the fact that among the teen series the F-14 had one of the best low speed turning capabilities of all. It's. Just. Not. Relevant.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 18:43
by zero-one
lbk000 wrote:F-14 FAD strategy was already staggered, with defending waves layered one after another. And this was the 1970s.


True but in the end all USN F-14 kills were from dogfights weren't they. Point is, yes the F-35 will not be there to dogfight, but IF that occasion does arise, again thats a big IF, well all I'm saying is that the F-35 is well suited for that worse case scenario.

They still train for it extensively, why?
Well heres a hint, adversaries know they have no chance against an F-22/35 in BVR, so they will do everything possible to get into that merge, and most of the time they'll be dead before they get there, but the Russians and Chinese aren't dumb, somehow, someway, a few of them might slip through and thats the reason why F-22 and 35 crews are still trained for ACM so when that lucky guy does come within eyeball range he'll realize he wasn't so lucky after all.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 18:58
by lbk000
Are you trying to say that the Navy, because it cares about retarded Libyans so much, would sacrifice a nearly 2-fold decrease in acceleration compared to the F-35A, just so they can bat turn around better? Despite the fact that F-35 has the freedom to approach from any angle and so no need for a frontal merge and a bat turn?

Furthermore, given that the Air Force is and has always been the service most concerned about having the edge in any regime of air combat, you would think that if the F-35C's turning capability was actually significant that the Air Force would have adopted it instead. You suggest that the Air Force does not train in BFM?
There are all these new and wondrous ways to prosecute WVR from HOBS capability to the F-35A's powerslide capability enabled by it's rapid energy gain and loss dynamics; trying to argue that the F-35C was designed to be a "WVR monster" is a nonstarter because being a WVR monster today and tomorrow is bigger than simply having a big wing.

Give it up already, the real answer why the F-35C has a big wing is more simple and more mundane than you'd like it to be.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 19:23
by zero-one
^^ Not sure how my statements came off as that. but no.
If anything I'm suggesting that the F-35 and F-22 are designed not to have weaknesses in air combat. BVR or WVR, missiles or guns they are designed to have generational leaps in capability in all types of fights.
'
You maybe under the illusion that the F-35 was never meant to have combat maneuverability because the USAF and USN were certain that it would always be able to sneak up on opponents until it is retired from service. That was what it was designed for but combat maneuverability was considered as a fail safe should it be needed.

I'm sorry but Sometime People are so bent on ruling out dogfights that they'd rather believe the increase in maneuverability was done for carrier approaches and not ACM. Extensive high AOA and high G test for carrier approaches???

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 19:37
by lbk000
zero-one wrote:I'm sorry but Sometime People are so bent on ruling out dogfights that they'd rather believe the increase in maneuverability was done for carrier approaches and not ACM. Extensive high AOA and high G test for carrier approaches???

That's absolutely mandatory to test. Why wouldn't you test to know the limits of a different design and the limitations it would impose? The larger lifting surface of the wing will put on more G's because you're not bleeding the energy as rapidly when you load it up in a turn.

The fact of the matter is that Navy aircraft, by nature of the service are, by necessity, and history bears this out, heavier and slower, with consequently worse sustained dogfighting characteristics than any land-based counterpart design. This is okay and you don't need to make any mental gymnastics to live with it because the sacrifice is all worth it to have that mobile airstrip, because being there is what counts. The P-51 was not exactly a better maneuvering aircraft than the Bf109, but unlike the Spitfire, it could be there over Berlin and that meant that the Bf109s and Fw190s couldn't do their thing. It doesn't matter that the F-22 can flip over your head and onto your tail if it's stuck over at Alaska and you're in Guam. But even if you can't win the 1v1s, if you have the capability to be there it means your friends can also be there, and you all can give them the good old gang bang. Less honor, more profit.
So the logistics of carrier aviation are not glamorous but they're a big deal. The boat might be anywhere, and if you're in the tropics where the heat makes the air thin, you can't just ask for a longer airstrip to work it out. When the Russians sent their Yak-38s around to Vladivostok they discovered near the equator that their lift engines were gasping and their dinky wings weren't enough to take off with any more than 2 Aphids. If you're having landing accidents because at low speeds your small wings are struggling for air, your aircraft won't be there when things actually go down.

This is your problem, you think that shooting people down is the only thing that matters.
Amateurs talk tactics...

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 20:12
by XanderCrews
lbk000 wrote:. FAD was a role where the aircraft wasn't even an interceptor; it was a proxy platform that launched the interceptor proper -- that being the AIM-54 Phoenix. And so the F-14 was truly most in its element just floating around for hours at a time down at Mach 0.4 or so, like a big overgrown sailplane because loiter time is the key concept of FAD. The longer and further you can hang out from the carrier, the safer the carrier is from assailants.

So if you want to talk about the virtues of Big Wing Charlie then that's the line of thinking you should be exploring along with other mundanities of daily operation, not turn rates. Believe it or not, being safe at landing on a carrier is a pretty big deal because you cause the boat more trouble than 2 MiG-23's ever will if you crap things up with a bad landing.



The bolded part was mind blowingly profound.


zero-one wrote:^^ Not sure how my statements came off as that. but no.
If anything I'm suggesting that the F-35 and F-22 are designed not to have weaknesses in air combat. BVR or WVR, missiles or guns they are designed to have generational leaps in capability in all types of fights.
'
You maybe under the illusion that the F-35 was never meant to have combat maneuverability because the USAF and USN were certain that it would always be able to sneak up on opponents until it is retired from service. That was what it was designed for but combat maneuverability was considered as a fail safe should it be needed.

I'm sorry but Sometime People are so bent on ruling out dogfights that they'd rather believe the increase in maneuverability was done for carrier approaches and not ACM. Extensive high AOA and high G test for carrier approaches???



Theyre always going to test the flight envelope. We even do that with Helicopters. They tested the Osprey a lot. it wasn't for dogfighting


Not all BVR fights go WVR. Not all WVR results in turns. Not all Turns become dogfights. Not all dogfights go to guns. Not all guns make hits. And the better and more manueverable fighter doesn't always win.

Now I really make people mad and ask what happens if an F-35 loses a dogfight? Does the world stop? If its a war with China or Russia does the world notice because its the largest global conflict in history? We are going to take hits. ITs the same argument ive had with F-35B "haha you won't be so smug when you lose some to enemy arty!" If I'm fighting an enemy thats competeting locating and using arty on me, theres a much bigger war at hand and that will be just another day on the line.

theres a weird zero defect mentality creeping in. "LOL stealth isn't perfect since you lose an F-117 in kosovo!" indeed stealth isn't perfect, but it is a vast improvement on survivability. but if we suffer one loss the whole endeavor is over? Are F-15Es tainted since we lost those in 1991? What airplane or design concept can we go back to where we didn't suffer a loss short of SR-71?

I don't know how we can say the F-35 is for a war with China or Russia but we can't lose even one. If we go to war with those people we are going to get some bloody noses, folks. We aren't going to crush them with no loss. There will be losses, deaths, and set backs. Against lesser opponents F-35 will be fine.

In fact an F-35 could shoot down 10 Mig-29s tomorrow and the internet would still tell you its just a fluke and doesn't prove anything. The F-35 sucks in the air. the end. Those Mig-29s were monkey models, the pilots were a joke, anyone could have done that. etc etc. These days it might just be dismissed as outright propaganda in fact. "LOL show me the migs"

ok here is gun camera footage

"thats photoshopped"

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 20:34
by SpudmanWP
squirrelshoes wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Its A2A combat radius is 740 nmi

A2A isn't flying lazy circles waiting to see if anything appears on the horizon within their loiter time.

I never said it was as I was just clarifying the Combat Radius differences between the A2G and A2A configs.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 21:04
by steve2267
ElBeeKay... I dunno why you go on and on... it's like talking to a box of rocks. I do appreciate your comments re: the nasal radiator way of doing things, and the team elements of FAD. If you're ever in Denver, beer's on me. And I don't buy the cheap stuff -- just ask Gums and Blind.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 22:14
by marsavian
Give it up already, the real answer why the F-35C has a big wing is more simple and more mundane than you'd like it to be.


Agreed but it does not hurt that as a byproduct it gives useful turning ability that could come in useful in close combat or even long range combat where something as mundane as a quick 90-180 degree turn is required to get good missile position first. I get that a planned attack and defense is all about mass structured layers but sometimes attack and defense are surprise encounters to the other side and in an arena as dispersed and wide and long as the South East Pacific maybe concentration of forces may not be possible in time and the forces at hand, F-35B/C, have to ensure destruction of enemy attackers at range from the fleet or base.

Carrier F-35 will almost certainly be carrying sidewinders and/or gunpod on CAP duty as the slight degradation in RCS relative to their opposition will take a back seat to the extra firepower needed if combat is required on interception. No-one is arguing that maneuverability is as important as it was in the last century in this age of BVR detection and kills and networked assets but it may still be a useful attribute to have if an encounter with an enemy has to have a definitive end there and then and BVR tactics and weapons have not done the job for you. All models of the F-35 have competent enough maneuverability so that their pilots can still believe they are in a good fighter and so can have less apprehension prosecuting missions that may involve enemy contact all the way up to a merge.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 22:37
by lbk000
Really good points Xander, especially about F-35 losses. The F-35 is designed to be a juggernaut -- it keeps on rolling. That's why there's so damn many of them. The US has always liked to maintain an undercurrent of few vs many, quality over quantity, "Alamo holdout" narrative but when you look at the number it's kind of funny because the US has always rolled over its opposition with both quality AND quantity. It's so damn unfair that I think if some people were more aware of it they would declare it a crime -- but that's the point, to be unfair.

So I'm gonna finally bite and get on the kinematics train since at the end of the day we don't seem to ever want to get away from talking about it (just means we know even less about the other stuff like EW). The F-35C's better energy retention capabilities are what I would call a sidegrade. It's a sidegrade because the concept of what constitutes agility has long become more abstract than how long time it takes to do a flat turn.
Now what I'm gonna say is just from my internalization of how things work, so it's very much in my own words. Maybe it will touch off some understanding, maybe not.

In the past, energy conservation was considered a good thing. It is a good thing the weaker your engine is, because if you think about energy like income, the worse your income, the more thrifty you have to be.
Cool, but there is absolutely such a thing as "too much energy". You can think of every coordinate point in the air as having a set "energy value" (this isn't exactly the right term but Steve :D is already tired enough). If you don't have that energy value, you won't be at that coordinate. If you are "saddling up" on a guy, you are trying to hit all the energy values as he does. Your aircraft's kinematic characteristics determine how well you can sustain nailing those energy values. If your aircraft lacks power or you're pissing your energy away in drag, etc., your energy points won't reach up to the needed value (determined by your opponent) and your nose will start to drop to hit lower energy values that you can reach, and so your coordinates series (aka your flight path!) will deviate from his. If you have too much energy, you will be forced to hit higher energy values, changing your coordinates again, which manifests as the overshoot. Thus, differently engined aircraft need to be managed in different ways. A relatively underpowered aircraft keeps the throttle jammed in all the time, but an "overengined" aircraft (ex. late war WW2 jobs like the 190D, and big boys like the F-15) may actually require the pilot to cut the throttle to avoid over-energizing.
So how does aerodynamics come into play with energy? The traditional approach to aerodynamic energy management is drawn from the premise that the powerplant is of relatively low TWR. Propeller aircraft and early jet aircraft all can be said to have low energy income. Therefore the focus has always been to conserve what little energy could be gained as much as possible, by cutting into the air as cleanly as possible, to which end you desire as low AoA as possible.
Earlier airfoils being designed to work at low AoAs, weren't very good at dealing with high AoAs. Once Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall and the airflow separated, they weren't really able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again until the AoA was reset to smooth it all out again. So to make sure the airflow was always smooth, one had to constantly groom the airspeed to ensure it was within the wing's "AoA capacity" else if you exceed it, the wing chokes and you can basically consider it the aerial equivalent of snagging a pothole and getting thrown off your bike.

nrg.png
For older fighters, you got to "slot the airfoil" peg into the slot on the airspeed scale, which is really the doghouse chart that I've turned on its side.

So with an aircraft like... the MiG-15, if you wanted to make a good turn, you had to first ensure you started at the right energy level: you hit that speed brake to get you down to 600kph or so, at which then your wing really bites into the air and slides you around. If you tried to hoik the stick at 900kph, your wing got a mouthful of energy that it failed to convert into mechanical motion and the aircraft yells at you by buffeting a bunch and dipping a wing and all that good jazz.

For a long time though, especially with American (and practiced by Germans) ACM doctrine, there was absolutely no reason to reduce your energy level down to the enemy's. American doctrine was rooted in combining offense with defense, in avoiding the turnfight (which requires energy matching) by maintaining an insurmountable energy difference by flying faster and higher than the opponent.

This was alright back in the age of propellers where relatively speaking, a large absolute energy differential was not needed to be tactically significant. But as aircraft technology advanced, the scale also grew, until the necessary scale to prosecute skirmish boom and zoom tactics became so great as to be wholly impractical. Simple logic suggested WW2 fights would just be magnified to supersonic speeds (and some planners thought this), yet the range of the human eye and the range of the cannon had not kept pace with the capabilities of aircraft and that changed the balance of the equation significantly. Basically, air forces no longer knew what to do with all this energy that they were capable of attaining.

So here's the problem that was discovered in Vietnam: keeping a large energy gap between you and your opponent is good for keeping yourself safe, but now in jets you basically need to slow down to get anything done outside of BVR. Unfortunately there is no way you're going to instantaneously brake fast enough to saddle in. To do that, you'd need massive airbrakes the size of wings (hold on to that thought). It's as troublesome as jumping off a building and landing in the saddle Zorro-style.

The solution is BFM. By packaging your excess potential energy as mechanical motion, BFM manages and grooms your energy and geometry until they are in a desirable state. BFM is the aerial equivalent of taking the stairs down the building to the ground floor where your horse is waiting.

However, taking the stairs is slow. The dream is to be Zorro and leap off the building right onto your horse to ride off into the sunset. That's where high alpha really comes into play. The new wave of aerodynamics in the 80's allowed the wing to be the airbrake. Wings that used to choke on too much air are now able to smoothly put separated flow back together again as the airspeed slows down and AoA drops. If we go back to that diagram above, now instead of looking and guiding your peg into the hole, now you can start at the top and slide yourself down until you catch the slot and grease it right in. Or like, now you got a mountain bike and you go right over the pothole without a hitch. To go back to the visualization that coordinate points in space are of set energy states, now you get to chop off all excess energy very quickly that previously you had to gradually get rid of with extra BFM choreography.

So the real breakthrough realization was the importance of spending energy. That's why TWR became emphasized since the 70's. You make a lot so you can spend a lot. The aircraft that is more dynamic at gaining and losing energy gets to "buck" the other guy off the WVR rodeo.

That's why I think the F-35A is the preferred design over the F-35C, even in WVR, because the smaller wing and higher energy bleed allows for faster braking, because excess energy can be opted to not be converted into mechanical motion. Conversely, the lower parasitic drag and attendant better acceleration of the A allows for a better energy recovery/income. With its more dynamic energy states, the F-35A can nail coordinates in space in sequences that older designs aren't going to dream about matching.

But that's what Dolby Hanche already told us.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 23:51
by popcorn
Appreciate your insights and analogies lbk000.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 07:47
by zero-one
lbk000 wrote:
That's why I think the F-35A is the preferred design over the F-35C, even in WVR, because the smaller wing and higher energy bleed allows for faster braking, because excess energy can be opted to not be converted into mechanical motion.


I agree with this, it continues the long standing rivalry between the USAF and the USN in this area. The AF always had the better energy fighter (F-16 and F-15) while the Navy had the better slow speed maneuvering fighter (F/A-18).

Although the Viper has the clear advantage in income (energy generation) there are Hornet pilots that still claim they are better in dogfight scenario. I've never lost to a Viper I saw was the statement of 1 Hornet pilot here.

https://fightersweep.com/4210/dogfighti ... 18-hornet/
But there are many other aspects of aircraft performance besides thrust-to-weight ratio and turn rate. Specifically, turn radius is a very important component to BFM as well. In fact, I would say the Hornet has arguably the best turn radius of any fourth generation fighter.

The Hornet, like the Viper, has a very high level of maneuverability. However, there are some advantages inherent in the Hornet design. It’s Leading Edge Extensions (LEX’s) combined with advanced flight control laws in the computers allow for carefree handling. This is especially important for flight at high angles of attack (AOA). This high AOA advantage is manifested in many ways, but two of the most important ways are in the form of slow speed handling and nose authority. The pilot has no AOA limiter and does not need to worry about any nasty stalls or departures from controlled flight.
most BFM engagements will get slow at some point as pilot’s spend their energy to take shots or gain a positional advantage. This is where the good Hornet pilot will look to force his adversary and go 1-circle and turn inside his opponent with the superior tight turn radius.

Another capability is the ability to execute a rapid energy excursion, and trade energy for nose position. All fighter pilots understand this and use this technique in their own jets, but the Hornet does this exceptionally well. Since the nose position can be pointed well past the jet’s flight path (the definition of high angle of attack), the jet can sell a large amount of energy quickly to point the nose at will. In the vertical, the jet can take advantage of its high AOA abilities with a maneuver called The Pirouette.

It looks like a zero airspeed hammerhead reversal, and can quickly yield a positional advantage when done correctly. Combine this with the high-off-boresight abilities of the JHMCS and AIM-9X, and you have a very lethal platform.


Problem is, now the USAF has access to superb slow speed, high AoA capabilities as well in the F-22 and F-35A.
But with regards to the A vs C, I think the C will still retain the smaller turn radius advantage due to the fact that it can turn at the same G as the A at a much slower speed. In fact, if the KPP revision is to be believed, the C will sustain a higher G at the specific set of conditions that they placed.

Sprts's operational comparison chart also showed that C had a higher sustained G rate than the A IIRC

So the rivalry continues

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 07:58
by spazsinbad
Whether or not you believe this: Both the F-18 (both) and F-35C are designed to carrier land. This necessitates certain limitations upon these carrier capable aircraft caused by the limitations of things such as the arrestor gear then throw in how the carrier aircraft need to be toughened up for carrier landings in sometimes slightly adverse conditions and you have a requirement to be SLOW & maneuverable in these circumstances. A big thread about this for the F-35C exists whilst some of it may be summarized in a oft cited PDF about designing the F-35C (& B) for flat deck operations. Hence a difference from the beginning of development of a NAVAL aircraft compared to conventional fighter aircraft (not bomber).

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter 26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA399988 (1.1Mb)

Search on RYBERG to find lots of references in this forum to this PDF however there is lots of other info nearby these URLs.

My 'ryberg' search had 27 hits: search.php?keywords=ryberg&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=65&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 09:51
by weasel1962
Things sometimes change over time. Loved this article. I've always wondered if the USN adopted the YF-16 instead of the -18, would there still be an F-35C today or an F-36 instead.

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... t-wasnt/2/

Most accounts state that a primary reason for rejection of the F-16 was that the Navy preferred its aircraft to have two engines, because of the added over-water safety factor.


Admiral, the Air Force is the program manager for the F-16, and I can promise you we are not going to screw up the design and performance by adding a lot of stuff that the Navy wants. It’s an Air Force lightweight fighter, and we are going to keep it that.”

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 09:58
by zero-one
^^ It's not that I don't believe it Spaz, I understand that carrier borne aircraft will have requirements that will make it heavier and slower. But they will also have requirements that will have the byproduct of being better in the slow speed arena.

Now the argument here is why did the Navy request for higher maneuverability. A requirement that forced Boeing to implement major design revisions and could have played a major factor on their loss.

Was it simply for carrier approaches? If so, they have grossly over estimated the required maneuvering performance needed for the JSF's maneuverability because the resulting F-35C is arguably the most maneuverable Naval fighter ever built.

Has there ever been a US naval fighter that can go beyond the 7.5G ball park (I know they can go beyond with the G override switch). According to QS, the C also has a higher G onset rate than the A. Thats pretty big considering that the A is definitely no slouch. And lastly, the C rivals or may even be better than the SHornet in the post stall region.

Are these all unintentional byproducts of the flight handling requirements for carrier approaches? Theres also a long lecture on this thread explaining that Billy Flynn was actually praising the handling of the C and not necessarily max maneuvering performance. So I don't think improving handling will directly translate to better maneuvering performance because they are not the same. So the fact that the C has such good maneuvering performance tells me that it was intentional in the design and not just a byproduct of carrier approach requirements

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 10:08
by Corsair1963
Naval Fighters are limited to 7-7.5 G's to extend their service life. Has nothing to do with the number of G's they can sustain.

As a matter of fact the Hornet and Super Hornet has a switch to override the G Limit. I believe the F-35C has the same system. Yet, haven't found a source online....

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 10:50
by spazsinbad
F-35 test pilots have switches to over ride the CLAW/limits "paddle on / off". I don't believe ordinary pilots will have this.

'zero-one' all of your text means a lot to you - keep in mind the naval hornet aircraft are 'strike fighters' whilst all the F-35 variants are 'strike fighters'. What came first - I would have to do research that I'm not willing to perform because I'm not interested in your assertions as such. However I am interested in how the USN strike fighters were designed for carriers.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 10:54
by marsavian
So the fact that the C has such good maneuvering performance tells me that it was intentional in the design and not just a byproduct of carrier approach requirements


It can be explained totally by the greater wing lift area which was mandated by the carrier approach requirements. Your argument would only have validity if you can step back and say there would have been a better/equivalent way of meeting those requirements without having a bigger wing.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 11:57
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:F-35 test pilots have switches to over ride the CLAW/limits "paddle on / off". I don't believe ordinary pilots will have this.


Called “flight test aids” in F-35 program.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 11:58
by quicksilver
marsavian wrote:
So the fact that the C has such good maneuvering performance tells me that it was intentional in the design and not just a byproduct of carrier approach requirements


It can be explained totally by the greater wing lift area which was mandated by the carrier approach requirements. Your argument would only have validity if you can step back and say there would have been a better/equivalent way of meeting those requirements without having a bigger wing.


x2

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 12:03
by quicksilver
01 — “A requirement that forced Boeing to implement major design revisions and could have played a major factor on their loss.”

The design revision was for carrier approach requirements which required them to switch to a more conventional wing/tail arrangement.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 12:19
by zero-one
Not really, If you can provide links that prove the US Navy's increased maneuvering requirement was due to carrier approach retirements then I'd be happy to rest my case. I have no problem accepting if I'm wrong.

Right now, I'm just afraid that most of us here have become so bent on ruling out dogfights that we'd rather believe it was never a factor in the F-35's design phase.
To me that could be dangerous, because its been done before and the lessons were painful. And even if we're certain the F-35 will almost never reach the Merge, I think designers still incorporated dog fighting performance into the design for that unlikely scenario.

To be clear I too think that most F-35 kills will be BVR and most of the few WVR kills will not involve maneuvering. But if it should come to that, then the F-35 is well capable for it. Thats the response I give whenever some says "The F-35 was not built to dog fight"

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 12:25
by spazsinbad
These footnotes from LM Test Pilot about F-35 CLAW have been mentioned a few times so perhaps to mention them again.
Semper Lightning: F-35 Flight Control System
09 Dec 2015 Dan “Dog” Canin

"...[4] What’s NzW? The airframe structural limit isn’t just a function of g – which the pilot can sense – but the actual lift force imposed on the airframe, which is the product of gross weight (W) and g (also known as Nz, the normal acceleration in the z direction). At light weight (low W) we can pull more Nz with the same structural load (Nz*W). That said, there’s still a maximum g the F-35 is allowed (9g for the F-35A, 7g for the B, and 7.5g for the C), and CLAW will let us pull that anytime the weight is less than the Basic Flight Design Gross Weight (BFDGW). Above that weight, the allowable g decreases to keep the total lift – Nz*W – constant. . Fortunately, CLAW figures that out for us.

[5] An OVER G advisory will trip if you exceed the book symmetric or asymmetric maneuvering limits by more than 0.5g. For the purposes of this ICAW, the airplane defines as “asymmetric” any roll rate over 50 deg/sec, so there’s a 25 deg/sec buffer there as well. So if you stick to the flight manual roll rate limit, you should never see this ICAW. What you might trip, though, is an “overload” HRC, which has a much more sophisticated algorithm behind it and will only trip when you’ve exceeded an actual limit on some component of the structure. CLAW should in all cases prevent actual overload to failure, but during rolling maneuvers it may allow one of these indications to trip, requiring a maintenance inspection...."
&
Photo caption & explained in main text: "What about g? We’re mostly protected, but not completely. Interestingly, the protection is least where the maneuvering limits of the F-35 are the lowest: in powered approach (PA) and aerial refueling (AR).
&
The limits in powered approach and aerial refueling modes are 3g and 2g, respectively, and there’s nothing to keep pilots from exceeding them. Why not? Because, while those limits are more than adequate for normal ops, there might be times when we need to exceed them to avoid hitting something – such as the ground, or the tanker – and our CLAW engineers have wisely decided that running into things would probably be worse than busting the g limit. So they let us bust the limit.
&
The pilot-observed [G] limits were decreed to make sure the airframe delivers its contractually specified life. If we exceed them, the wings won’t fall off, but we might reduce some of that life."

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=187

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 12:32
by quicksilver
zero-one wrote:Not really, If you can provide links that prove the US Navy's increased maneuvering requirement was due to carrier approach retirements then I'd be happy to rest my case. I have no problem accepting if I'm wrong.

Right now, I'm just afraid that most of us here have become so bent on ruling out dogfights that we'd rather believe it was never a factor in the F-35's design phase.
To me that could be dangerous, because its been done before and the lessons were painful. And even if we're certain the F-35 will almost never reach the Merge, I think designers still incorporated dog fighting performance into the design for that unlikely scenario.

To be clear I too think that most F-35 kills will be BVR and most of the few WVR kills will not involve maneuvering. But if it should come to that, then the F-35 is well capable for it. Thats the response I give whenever some says "The F-35 was not built to dog fight"


NOW you’ve back-slid into the BVR thing again. You’ve been here before zero — ad nauseam. You argue with your own straw man. :roll:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 12:41
by quicksilver
“If you can provide links that prove the US Navy's increased maneuvering requirement was due to carrier approach retirements then I'd be happy to rest my case.”

No, YOU have failed to prove YOUR point. YOU provide proof of your claim.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 12:52
by marsavian
Right now, I'm just afraid that most of us here have become so bent on ruling out dogfights that we'd rather believe it was never a factor in the F-35's design phase.


Of course it was a factor but for the whole family. How else did you think they got such a stubby shape with relatively small wings to pull more than 20 degrees/sec. It was designed to deliver leading 4th gen maneuvering performance and as an overall maneuvering package they delivered. However the C was not given any special attention and just benefited a bit more under corner velocity from the bigger carrier wing fitted. It was a nice useful byproduct but the bigger wing is primarily designed to approach a flat deck more slowly with more control. You will not find a single reference to the C design that suggests greater dogfighting maneuverability than the A was ever a requirement but you will find plenty/all of them suggesting carrier adaptation was the driver for its design.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 13:01
by quicksilver
"The most influential requirement was the Navy's insistence on a large bring-back payload. By the time JIRD 3 was issued in 1998, the Navy had increased its total bring-back weight comprising fuel and weapons from 8000 to 9000 pounds and specified approach speed which had previously been left to the contractors discretion."
"Lockheed Martin could deal with this problem by enlarging the carrier-based JSF's wing, gaining low speed performance at the expense of transonic acceleration and speed. Boeing's tailless delta was in a more difficult position. The Navy requirements drove the size of the trailing edge controls upwards, but as Boeing sought to increase pitch authority with larger ailerons, the weight of the actuation system became unacceptable. The only answer was to add separate stabilizers and change the wing to a trapezoidal planform"

From page 71 of "Ultimate Fighter" by Bill Sweetman, Zenith Press, 2004

Kaboom. Accept it. Move on.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 13:54
by zero-one
quicksilver wrote:No, YOU have failed to prove YOUR point. YOU provide proof of your claim.


I failed??? When?
My point is common sense, any additional maneuvering requirement is for combat purposes not for carrier approaches.
There are many far less maneuverable Naval aircraft that had very little trouble approaching the aircraft carrier.

https://sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-3 ... y-fighter/
Stealth is just one enabler of a 5th Generation fighter and in actuality we’ve had stealth in the past, but until the F-22 it wasn’t coupled with combat agility. Consider the B-2 and F-117. Both are very stealthy but lack agility, so much so that they could only be deployed at night.

The F-22 and the F-35, which also employ stealth, were designed for agility.


So from the beginning combat maneuverability was a component of the design, but the Navy wanted more because apparently they had enough agility to dogfight if needed but not enough to land on a carrier?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 14:29
by marsavian
The USAF is not prepared to take the acceleration hit due to the extra weight and drag of the big wing for any additional turn benefits under corner velocity which is why the A does not have the C wing. All designs are trade offs and A/B/C all made their own to suit their own missions, A basically has to get in and out of combat arenas quickly so acceleration is key. Basically the F-35 was shaped initially from the (X-35)B and the A and the C then derived from that base. Now it maybe sometime in the future when current orders are close to being filled that LMT looks at making a sleeker longer more streamlined A fuselage and marrying it with a C wing so acceleration hits are minimized or even cancelled with possible supercruise and greater Mach and endurance ensuing from this hybrid evolution but it certainly did not have the time or inclination to propose such a vehicle at design birth, it just had to meet all three service requirements cost-effectively with minimal changes from the STOVL base model.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:21
by weasel1962
For the benefit of non-pilot blokes like meself, in simple english, I always had the impression the F-18E had an increased wing area to reduce approach speeds so the plane can land more safely on the carrier. Assumed the F-35C just carried on what the USN learnt from the Super Hornet esp when a larger wing didn't really have a big impact on rcs.

Don't recall when the E got the bigger wings that the USN were arguing that the E was more maneverable than the C/D. Maybe I missed that. Interesting to read the comments.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:43
by quicksilver
“...but not enough to land on a carrier?”

Correct.

Aerodynamics 101 — make the jet heavier (i.e. increase bring-back) and you need more lift, particularly if you hold the approach airspeed constant (which they did by actually specifying one, which they had not previously done).

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:49
by zero-one
No wait, I understand the requirement for increased lift as an obvious benefit for carrier bring back loads. What I'm saying is why did Boeing get compelled to add a tail?
I mean correct me if I'm wrong but the tail, specifically the tail design of the X-32 which extends far back from the aircraft's CG is used to increase the momentum arm, increasing pitch authority and pitch rates.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:51
by quicksilver
“My point is common sense.”

Do you have a link to that?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:52
by mixelflick
So let me as this question: If we want to bring back some of that acceleration performance, let's say equal to the F-35A, and the airframe can't really be changed, is the only solution a more powerful engine?

If so, how much more powerful? Something tells me it'll have to be north of 50,000lbs of thrust. Hopefully, another triumph of thrust over aerodynamics like the F-4?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 16:06
by quicksilver
Yes.

Search PW ‘Growth Option 1.0’ and/or ‘Growth Option 2.0’

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 16:17
by quicksilver
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf

For basic primer on ship stuff affecting aircraft design.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 16:34
by zero-one
quicksilver wrote:
“My point is common sense.”


Do you have a link to that?


Common QS, you're better than this.

Fine. To me, just for me, when you request for additional maneuverability your reasoning is probably combat related not carrier approach related. And since neither side has sent links on why the Navy requested for additional maneuverability then lets just say both sides are false, maybe its specifically for airshows, recruitment purposes or the new TopGun film, who knows.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 17:01
by steve2267
Wow. Flynn sure has a big mouth! One little tweet about snowboarding prompts pages upon pages of teeth gnashing and clothes rending over how "I wish the A had the C wing" --or-- "I wish the C could accelerate like the A, then ittud be purrfekt!"

I don't think I've seen internet bloviators so argue with bona fide nasal radiators and not simply take them at their word. Pressing the nasal radiator to "prove" his point relating to Aerodynamics 101 and Basic Aircraft Design Performance 101 -- priceless!!!

Thanks to QS and EllBeeKay for taking the time to patiently respond to these questions -- MORE than once. But if it hasn't sunk in by now... not sure if it ever will. EllBeeKay, thank you especially for your earlier BFM energy "point" treatise. It put words to thoughts I've had for a while.

ZeekOne, do you lack basic reading comprehension abilities? You recently wrote:
ZeroOne wrote:No wait, I understand the requirement for increased lift as an obvious benefit for carrier bring back loads. What I'm saying is why did Boeing get compelled to add a tail?
I mean correct me if I'm wrong but the tail, specifically the tail design of the X-32 which extends far back from the aircraft's CG is used to increase the momentum arm, increasing pitch authority and pitch rates.


Because I'm curious what part of QS' patient explanation, especially the emboldended part, you do not understand?

quicksilver wrote:"The most influential requirement was the Navy's insistence on a large bring-back payload. By the time JIRD 3 was issued in 1998, the Navy had increased its total bring-back weight comprising fuel and weapons from 8000 to 9000 pounds and specified approach speed which had previously been left to the contractors discretion."
"Lockheed Martin could deal with this problem by enlarging the carrier-based JSF's wing, gaining low speed performance at the expense of transonic acceleration and speed. Boeing's tailless delta was in a more difficult position. The Navy requirements drove the size of the trailing edge controls upwards, but as Boeing sought to increase pitch authority with larger ailerons, the weight of the actuation system became unacceptable. The only answer was to add separate stabilizers and change the wing to a trapezoidal planform"

From page 71 of "Ultimate Fighter" by Bill Sweetman, Zenith Press, 2004


So here is a case where NOT a 9gee gee-whiz-better-dogfighting-requirement, but a basic get-back-on-the-boat-safely requirement necessitated not just a wing size change, but an entire planform arrangement change.

Before I became a private piston-poppin' pilot, all I wanted to learn was how to design airfoils. Airfoil design was where it's at. Nothing else matters. Performance? Phooey. Takes a back seat to airfoils. Once I learned to fly, gee, it was really nice that the wings stay attached. I guess structures is kind of important too. Man, it's taking forever to get to Sioux City from Denver in this Cessna 172. A BIGGER motor (powerplant / performance) sure would be nice. Once I finally crawled into a Bonanza... WOW, these controls are SO much nicer than that Cessna that drove like a truck with loose steering. But... my son did puke halfway to Ogden because of that Bonanza boogey. A wee bit more stability would be nice in the Bo. I guess that's just the price to pay for fantastic roll feel. Hmmm... Josh, you'll just have to learn to suck it up...

There IS A LOT MORE to aircraft design / analysis / performance than just 9gees or getting to 1.2 Mach in XX seconds.

For those that wish the Cee monster could get the go-juice like the Aye stubby... well, as long as the jets remain kissing cousins, any bigger motor you stuff in the Cee will just make the Aye go that much faster. So the Cee will NEVER catch the Aye.

Regarding bigger motors... if memory serves, the GO 1.0 F135 block upgrade proposed by P&W had in its genesis a program by the Navy to improve the engine's hot section (increased turbine temps, I think) which yielded NOT more engine thrust, but increased fuel efficiency that the Navy was (and is) after. It didn't sound like much, only 2-3% (though it may have been 5%), for which the Navy gladly spent millions of dollars. I could ask... why did the Navy spend so much money on increasing fuel efficiency, and not making the Cee accelerate more like the Aye... --OR-- making it dogfight better. But they didn't. They wanted better gas mileage.

The Navy could have specified a 9g aircraft in the C. Why didn't they? They could have made that a spec. Maybe it's not all that important to them. Maybe the trade-off's necessary to get their would have broken the bank, engineering-wise -- or the program, $$-wise, to make it happen.

Watching a bloviator tell a nasal radiator to "prove" his point that the bigger C's wing was enlarged to meet a (mundane) land-on-the-boat requirement and not to improve "dogfight" performance is really rich. Can't make this stuff up. How audacious can you be?

Keep up this obtuseness, though, and these great resources who are patiently willing to share their experience, wisdom, and knowledge will decide they have better things to do with their time than beat their head (and keyboard fingers) against an internet rock.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 17:25
by steve2267
Z1 -- what are you hung up on? The Navy's 5g spec, which is higher than the Air Force / USMC 4.whatever spec? :doh:

As QS and EllBeeKay have patiently explained, the Cee's wing was sized by the back-to-the-boat landing (speed) requirements. A happy by-product of that wing is that the Cee turns really nicely (per Billie Flynn).

Perhaps the better question is NOT why is the Cee turning spec higher than the Aye/Bee but why can't the Aye & Bee sustain more gees than the Cee? Perhaps its not that the Cee's wing is so big... but that the Aye/Bee's wing is TOO SMALL! (HORROR!)

I could very well see some back-and-forth / give-and-take between the JPO and LM having gone something like this:

LM: Well... we can't make that sustained Gee spec and keep everything else the same. I mean, we could increase the wing size, but that will increase structural weight, and correspondingly, drag -- both induced and wave/form and skin friction. Acceleration will suffer.

Air Force: But we like that acceleration... I miss my Zipper.

USMC: We just want the fan...

LM: Well, we could lengthen it to reduce form drag, but it's still going to get heavier...

USMC: ...oh, and it has to fit through that hole in the boat...

LM: Well, then we can't lengthen it. If we could drop down from the 2000lb bomb requirement to thousand pounders...

Air Force: But we like our Mk-84's...

USMC: We just want the fan...

LM: Well, we did design the F-16... so we are something of aerodynamic wizards... but not even our Skunk Works boys can change the laws of physics... I just called them and checked to be sure. They mentioned some super secrete seance program, codename Ghost Whisperer, where they were trying to contact Sir Newton to see if he'd revise his laws so they could tweek Navier and Stokes equations... but so far he's not answering... So I'm sorry gentleman, we're between an acceleration and a hard lift place. Until Isaac revises his laws, you're going to have to choose... acceleration -- straightline, or centripetal...

Air Force: Oh, all right... we just like to go fast. We still get to keep our 9g requirement?

LM: Yes sir.

Air Force: Good. As long as it's higher than Navy!

USMC: Yeah, and the Navy can't float like a butterfly neither...

LM: There's just one other thing... while we're at it... If you have to have those Mk-84's... we're going to be 8 seconds slow to 1.2 Mach. It's a little worse with the Killer Bee. The hump from the fan you see..

USMC: Gotta have that fan. Love the fan...

Air Force: Ok... so we relax the sustained gee-spec a bit, a wee bit slower to 1.2 Mach, but we keep the Mk-84s and a higher gee-spec than the Navy? Done! The roosskies can't see us anyway...

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 17:47
by steve2267
As an aside... as I've re-read what I have written, I could see where some people might get a little bent. I am not going to change what I wrote.

However, I will note that experienced military aviators such as quicksilver, and (I presume) lbk000, have been very kind to take the time to share their knowledge and experience.

Basically telling them they are wrong, or challenging them to prove their point, when the person arguing has NOT proven theirs (by any stretch of the imagination), is REALLY rich.

On the other hand, if the person stating the naval aviator is wrong had some bona fides along the lines of fighter test pilot for XXX or I was Harry Hillaker's protege, well, then that would be a slightly different argument. But I have not seen any such bona fides, nor writing style or substance to suggest such a case.

To wit, if you have a question, ask it in a polite fashion. I have observed nothing but generous, polite responses on this forum. If you still don't get it, but keep asking questions in a polite manner, I think you will continue to receive polite responses. If you keep asking the same question, and the answers don't seem to be getting through... then at some point, expect to be chidingly treated like a box of rocks, internet troll, or AI trollbot that has got stuck in some sort of goto loop. Come across as a know-it-all or a bloviator -- or tell experienced naval aviators they are wrong -- and I think one can reasonably expect to get stomped.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 18:24
by lbk000
steve2267 wrote:However, I will note that experienced military aviators such as quicksilver, and (I presume) lbk000, have been very kind to take the time to share their knowledge and experience.

Sorry, gotta stop you there -- I don't have the honor of being one of the Real McCoys here. I've had... "military-esque" experiences, but I can at best only claim to be an amateur historian. My understanding of BFM and energy is abstracted from sampling as many airplane simulations as I can -- and while I would never for one moment pretend that they deliver the full experience, sampling a wide range of approximated characteristics can give insights on the topic that books alone have trouble expressing. Being able to experience the difference in characteristics of aircraft through a wide range of time periods in particular was instructive on the changing doctrinal demands and the varied mindsets of their creators.

I do think that, as lacking as simulators are in fidelity to the real thing, they are still more effective than books alone. However, hints gleaned from information in writing are absolutely necessary as guidelines to reconstruct procedures (and by extension, mindsets, which is the real object of value) in the sandbox of simulation, otherwise it can rapidly devolve into a purely autoerotic exercise.
One of the big problems with books is that the priority of the information given is rarely established. Yet priority is the lynchpin in forming correct decisions, as prioritization is what creates the hierarchy that materializes form (gotta be "making heads and tails..."). In creating interest and drama, false prioritizations are often unwittingly emphasized -- cherry picking just combat accounts to cater to audience interest factors into the formation of a false impression on the dynamics of armed conflict. There's also a lot of bogus and myths that sensationalist authors love to perpetuate (F-15 TWR allowing vertical acceleration is particularly infamous), and so in respect to being held to limitations and structure of reality, simulations have an advantage in fidelity over the written account. It's a sort of check and balance thing.

Segueing back to the topic of the thread... priority is everything, and everything I've learned points to the fact that tactical level considerations such as WVR, and within WVR, flat turning capability, as a matter of far lesser priority than higher-level matters with near-strategic impact such as response time (speed, range, and endurance) and even higher beyond that, availability (basing, safety, and serviceability). This hierarchy is what supports that the correct attribution to F-35C design is owed to the carrier landing requirement, and any positive impact it has on flat turning capability is purely ancillary.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 19:09
by steve2267
Well, ya fooled me.

Nevertheless, I have found your posts to be well written and cogent, adding to the pool of knowledge found here or adding understanding of said pool. And for that I thank you.

To some points you made earlier about the larger wing of the F-35C... I suspect the Cee may stop quicker than the Aye as in addition to the larger wing area, it also has larger control surfaces -- the stabilators being larger plus it has ailerons. I look forward to reading comments in the future from some pilots who have flown both and may comment on this topic.

One day while I was perusing the Hellenic F-16C Block 50/52 PIlot AIM / FM, specifically the doghouse plots, I was pondering how an F-35 B / C could possibly hang with other fighters in BFM / ACM, as several pilots had noted you really couldn't tell the difference in performance vis-a-vis F-35A vs F-35B vs F-35C. HOW COULD THIS BE I thought if the F-35A is a 9g aircraft, and the other aircraft are only 7 and 7.5g airframes? The two answers I came up with were first perhaps one is not fighting at (or sustaining for very long) 9g or 9g very long and second, what if this "decelerates faster than a car" (comment by Maj Dolbe Hanche) and "accelerates faster than an F-16C Block 50" ability means a pilot could rapidly decelerate to his best turn speed to turn (rate) with (or possibly inside -- outradius) his opponent, then rapidly accelerate as he unload the aircraft. This second thought led me to wonder if it would not be possible then, for a 7.5g F-35C or 7g F-35B to slow down to his best turning speed (I dunno -- 300 knots?) while his opponent rockets around at 400+ knots grunting through (and tiring himself out from) a 9g rate. Without complete Ps curves for the three different models, this "guess" cannot be tested. But, to me anyway, it smells true. It makes me look forward to the day when I read new comments or statements by F-35 pilots about the performance of their steed.

In the one communication I had with a Bee driver, he stated the Hornet could (barely) outradius him, but he could outrate the Hornet. He said a clean Viper (think airshow clean) could (barely) outrate him, but he could outradius the Viper. Combined with the reports of truly carefree handling, the ability to slow faster than a car and out-accelerate a Block 50 Viper, it leaves me with a picture of an idiot savante WVR BFM/ACM machine that can effortlessly beat you at this, and effortlessly transition to another BFM regime or tactic if one idea isn't working out. It makes me wonder what I don't know rather than questioning Air Force / USMC / USN specs. What don't I know? And the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 21:30
by lbk000
Well, one thing I see a lot of is the implication of the G as an absolute metric of performance. It's not.
Pulling more G does not guarantee you are outfighting the other guy.

Wtf does that mean?
Firstly an anecdote. Playing against a friend in mock head to head merges, I too once thought that G can be used as a metric of performance. Combined with the mantra I heard down the grapevine that "speed is life" I would enter a merge as fast as I possibly could (450kts or so) and then pull until I encountered blackout, which I considered a "good sign" because it meant I was pulling G's. Then I'd get smashed. I asked, "Wow how are you turning around faster than me?" after about the 4th time this happened. He didn't explain it to me at the time, but I later discovered that I wasn't considering the geometric portion of the fight. My opponent was winning because he attempted to pull fewer G's than me by entering the turn at a lower speed, and the coupling of the smaller turn radius with the speed at which he went through his turn brought his nose around on me sooner. You've heard of this phenomenon of course, this is the neighborhood of the magical "corner speed" turn.

Here's how I really started to understand the relationship of airspeed to angles to G (the turn diagrams never really helped):

At low separation ranges like this, little speed and consequently little G is required to produce a large apparent angle change. This why missile jinking requires a certain proximity, and why flying at the missile is (er... was) safer and more effective for kinematic avoidance than flying away. With the right geometry, a 4G pull can require a missile to pull over 20G's to intercept.
angle1-1.jpg
angle1-2.jpg

At greater separation distances, more work needs to be done to produce angular changes. The defending aircraft here must accelerate to a higher airspeed to move through the attackers field of view, and consequently be loaded to higher G.
angle2-1.jpg
angle2-2.jpg

So effective maneuvering exists between two desires: on one end is the need to be as close to the opponent as possible in order to effect the greatest apparent angular changes, and on the other end the necessity to keep yourself aloft by keeping enough air moving over your wings. The "harmonious compromise" here is the max sustained rate turn, it's the slowest, smallest turn you can make that you can maintain. If you sacrifice more airspeed for the smaller radius, you encounter maximum instantaneous rate before the compounding losses in energy catches up with you and drags your airfoil into ineffectiveness. When pilots tell you "speed is life" they just mean that you need to try to keep the air moving over your wings so you don't end up sliding off the doghouse.

You're probably tired of hearing me say this, but again, all airfoils are designed with a particular airspeed band. It is the relationship between your aircraft's design goal speed versus the opponent's aircraft's design goal speed that determines how you fight them.

An F-16 against an FA-18 cannot challenge the latter to a radius contest. It would be suicidal. Think of it as playing chicken limbo; the FA-18 is a nearly straight-winged aircraft when it comes down to it (20 degree sweep!) and it will always be able to go one rung lower than the F-16. So the F-16 will want to keep the ball in its court: running fast circles around the FA-18 until, by gaining one degree at a time, it winds up behind the FA-18. The FA-18 would love nothing more than to sucker the F-16 down into it's home turf: wallowing around as slow as the F-16 is stupid enough to go, because the FA-18 is the master of all the domain below, like, 300kias. Down at 280, 250 knots, you will be extremely hard pressed to generate 6G's; the only way you may be able to do it is by an AoA excursion resulting in massive deceleration... well now you've got no airspeed! Oops! Starting to see why talking purely in terms of G's is silly?

The situation turns on its head in a contest between an FA-18 and an A6M. Even without going into a numerical comparison, the A6M can be readily assumed to be far superior to the FA-18 in turn rate and radius. The A6M becomes master of the low speed dominion, the undisputed king of chicken limbo (at least in this matchup). The FA-18 suddenly takes on the role that the F-16 did in the previous matchup; it has to keep the A6M at arms length until its nose is pointed at it. It needs to use its far superior topend speed to move itself around... although for the FA-18 in this case, the discrepancy between its performance and the A6M is far too great to simply "run circles around" because the A6M is almost like a static turret and can always keep it's nose pointed at the FA-18 due to the combination of how small its turn radius and rate are. The FA-18 can recourse to an even simpler tactic by abusing the A6M's slow speed -- it can just fly away, do a U-turn, and shoot it. But let's just say that FA-18 decided to be greedy and turn against the A6M. I'm not going to do the math but I'll tell you that it won't take anywhere close to 6G's at 130kts for the A6M to easily win the contest.

Takeaway #1: Every discrepancy in performance represents an opportunity to exploit.
Takeaway #2: Your best airspeed is relative, your best G is also dynamic.

As a side note, this concept of "suckering" the other guy is, to me, the Human heart of aerial dogfighting; this is where the pilot egotism really expresses itself. Anyone who tries to play copycat with his opponent in DACT is most susceptible to getting suckered: he will be promptly led by the nose down to his opponent's favorite dark airspeed alley and ended. Experienced pilots all know what their best game is, and they will each keep insisting on only playing that game. The pilot that caves to the other guy's routine first, loses.

A lot of people also want to know, which is better, rate fighting or radius fighting? The reason I made up the two scenarios above is the disclaimer: you are never always the rate fighter, nor will you ever always be the radius fighter. Against a dirigible, even a biplane becomes a rate fighter. For me, the deciding factor is the fact that rate fighting generally has the initiative in engaging, and the freedom of disengaging. That really tips the theoretical scales in favor of faster, more energetic designs.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 22:59
by quicksilver
http://robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/NAVAIR_2002_71.pdf

For those inclined to more understanding of carrier suit’ and aircraft design; an excellent reference which includes substantial historical references.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 00:14
by marauder2048
quicksilver wrote:http://robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/NAVAIR_2002_71.pdf

For those inclined to more understanding of carrier suit’ and aircraft design; an excellent reference which includes substantial historical references.


Lockheed had proposed a common planform for all variants; the Navy version would have used blown flaps
(adapted roll control jets from the STOVL version) but the Navy was and is hostile to boundary layer control as
evidenced in part by its rather perfunctory treatment in that paper.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 00:17
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 00:39
by popcorn
steve2267 wrote:It makes me wonder what I don't know rather than questioning Air Force / USMC / USN specs. What don't I know? And the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.


So true, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 01:14
by quicksilver
It would be interesting to understand how new knowledge (gained in development and flight test since 2002) has altered the authors’ views.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 05:03
by spazsinbad
Robert Heffley PDFs: https://www.robertheffley.com/pages/bib ... d_Analysis

Outer-Loop Control Factors for Carrier Aircraft, Robert Heffley Engineering TR-RHE-NAV-90-1, 1 Dec 1990. (.pdf 900 KB)

https://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/ ... 0_TR_1.pdf

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 08:10
by zero-one
steve2267 wrote:If you keep asking the same question, and the answers don't seem to be getting through... then at some point, expect to be chidingly treated like a box of rocks, internet troll, or AI trollbot that has got stuck in some sort of goto loop. Come across as a know-it-all or a bloviator -- or tell experienced naval aviators they are wrong -- and I think one can reasonably expect to get stomped.

Easy there, No need to get fired up. no one here is asking in an unpolite fashion. So far all I've seen is a healthy discussion of opinions, to which I'd like to thank all of you. QS, LBK and Spaz. Thank you.


I'm trying to find documentations on the Navy's requirement for their JSF. So far I've seen that they changed their bring back load requirement and their maneuvering requirement and if I'm reading some the comments correctly they are related. I was thinking they were separate

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 08:46
by zero-one
lbk000 wrote:
Takeaway #1: Every discrepancy in performance represents an opportunity to exploit.
Takeaway #2: Your best airspeed is relative, your best G is also dynamic.


Great insights..
This was also explained beautifully by GM, a Hornet driver here:
https://fightersweep.com/4210/dogfighti ... 18-hornet/
Generally speaking, a 1-circle fight can be considered a radius fight and a 2-circle fight can be considered a rate fight. This is illustrated below:


The trend today seems to be to combine both, since the Su-27, top end air superiority fighters can now excel in both radius and rate fights.

I'm curious though, is it easier to upgrade a radius fighter into a rate fighter by simply putting in bigger motors (i.e. Advanced superhornet proposal) or to make rate fighters into Radius fighters by some FCLWAS wizardry or TVC (i.e. J-10

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 09:26
by spazsinbad
The F-35C is not worth a damn if it cannot meet the KPPs required of it, especially carrier landing. Perhaps a 'dog' F-35C could operate ashore (not on the carrier) but there would not be many of them eh. The Shornet MkIII would rool AvNav.

For the life of me I cannot see how the design of the F-35C as a JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER gets separated into many parts (that you would have) competing against each other. Brilliant engineers with all kinds of expertise tossed that salad and only screwed up with the AHS Arresting Hook System because they were given 'a decimal point in the wrong place set of numbers' from NavAir (these people were 'wire brushed' according to the Amirable of the time). Now the F-35C is a '3 wire machine' meeting all the requirements. Sure there were some glitches otherwise early on - but solved. F-35C newbies now know how to strap in tightly (properly) so soon there will be an USN IOC for the F-35C. :twisted: Even Marines can fly it. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 21:41
by XanderCrews
steve2267 wrote:Z1 -- what are you hung up on? The Navy's 5g spec, which is higher than the Air Force / USMC 4.whatever spec? :doh:

As QS and EllBeeKay have patiently explained, the Cee's wing was sized by the back-to-the-boat landing (speed) requirements. A happy by-product of that wing is that the Cee turns really nicely (per Billie Flynn).

Perhaps the better question is NOT why is the Cee turning spec higher than the Aye/Bee but why can't the Aye & Bee sustain more gees than the Cee? Perhaps its not that the Cee's wing is so big... but that the Aye/Bee's wing is TOO SMALL! (HORROR!)

I could very well see some back-and-forth / give-and-take between the JPO and LM having gone something like this:

LM: Well... we can't make that sustained Gee spec and keep everything else the same. I mean, we could increase the wing size, but that will increase structural weight, and correspondingly, drag -- both induced and wave/form and skin friction. Acceleration will suffer.

Air Force: But we like that acceleration... I miss my Zipper.

USMC: We just want the fan...

LM: Well, we could lengthen it to reduce form drag, but it's still going to get heavier...

USMC: ...oh, and it has to fit through that hole in the boat...

LM: Well, then we can't lengthen it. If we could drop down from the 2000lb bomb requirement to thousand pounders...

Air Force: But we like our Mk-84's...

USMC: We just want the fan...

LM: Well, we did design the F-16... so we are something of aerodynamic wizards... but not even our Skunk Works boys can change the laws of physics... I just called them and checked to be sure. They mentioned some super secrete seance program, codename Ghost Whisperer, where they were trying to contact Sir Newton to see if he'd revise his laws so they could tweek Navier and Stokes equations... but so far he's not answering... So I'm sorry gentleman, we're between an acceleration and a hard lift place. Until Isaac revises his laws, you're going to have to choose... acceleration -- straightline, or centripetal...

Air Force: Oh, all right... we just like to go fast. We still get to keep our 9g requirement?

LM: Yes sir.

Air Force: Good. As long as it's higher than Navy!

USMC: Yeah, and the Navy can't float like a butterfly neither...

LM: There's just one other thing... while we're at it... If you have to have those Mk-84's... we're going to be 8 seconds slow to 1.2 Mach. It's a little worse with the Killer Bee. The hump from the fan you see..

USMC: Gotta have that fan. Love the fan...

Air Force: Ok... so we relax the sustained gee-spec a bit, a wee bit slower to 1.2 Mach, but we keep the Mk-84s and a higher gee-spec than the Navy? Done! The roosskies can't see us anyway...



2000 lb bomb was yet another navy requirement. I've taken this "extreme" position before, (but why not once more in thread that compares all 3 varaints??) the F-35C NOT the F-35B as so many claim is the problem child. Its the most different the Navy desire to have 2K bombs lead to a weight increase that then had to be tamped down with the SWAT effort which lead to huge delays. Irony being what is is the service that was the biggest pain in the butt with the F-35 program is also the service that has the Super Hornet and seems very happy with them (that will change of course)


F-35C has the most specific requirements and is the most specialized and least export desired variant. Hindsight being what it is, the program would have gone a lot smoother without the C, and for those of you who studied your history F-35B despite the variants alphabetical placement was the "first" version of the "JSF" as its origins and the liftfan breakthrough go back to pre JSF days. Then, when the USAF was touring the Skunk Works they showed the theoretical STOVL plane the Marines had inquired about and told them they could switch the lift fan out for a Fuel tank, and the USMC and USAF teamed up with fairly modest goal believe it or not. The USMC was more than happy to acquiesce to any air force request providing they got to keep the STOVL aboard. from what I can tell the 2 services were pretty like minded. Both were fine with 1000 pounders for example.


Yes thats right. I'm telling you the navy CVN requirements are less forgiving than asking for a hovering, mach capable stealth fighter that handles like an F-18.

And now if you'll indulge a quick rant. Americans don't understand the USMCs need for an on call STOVL like they do the USN's need to shoot an airplane off the front of a ship with a catapult because of all the highyl successful public relations of the US Marines, There is on movie involving CVN Aviation we simply can't usurp:

Image


So thats why most everyone else uses STOVL from ships, but only the US is weird and wrong for doing so according to joe public.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 22:06
by SpudmanWP
To be fair, the "requirement" is not what drove up the weight... It was LM's FK up in calculating the weight of "empty space".

This is why all 3 variants were overweight.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 22:09
by steve2267
XanderCrews wrote:
2000 lb bomb was yet another navy requirement. I've taken this "extreme" position before, (but why not once more in thread that compares all 3 varaints??) the F-35C NOT the F-35B as so many claim is the problem child. Its the most different the Navy desire to have 2K bombs lead to a weight increase that then had to be tamped down with the SWAT effort which lead to huge delays. Irony being what is is the service that was the biggest pain in the butt with the F-35 program is also the service that has the Super Hornet and seems very happy with them (that will change of course)


Ironic then... that without that (Navy) 2000lb bomb requirement, the fuselage might possibly be more streamlined / narrower, enough that LM might have been able to give the Air Force their 8 seconds back on the transonic acceleration KPP. Also, with less weight (e.g. less structure etc), LM might have been able to meet the Air Force & USMC KPP for sustained turn rate. Would be an interesting question for someone on the F-16 design team if LM could have met those KPPs (transonic accel & sustained turn gee) were it not for the 2000lb bomb KPP. If so, that would be an interesting demonstration of the cascading effect requirements can have on performance metrics.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 22:11
by steve2267
SpudmanWP wrote:To be fair, the "requirement" is not what drove up the weight... It was LM's FK up in calculating the weight of "empty space".

This is why all 3 variants were overweight.


I have not heard this before. Spudman can you elaborate or provide some references, or do I need to go fastidiously search the SWAT thread?

Your statement is somewhat surprising to me as LM had built the F-117 and the F-22 both which have a fair bit of "empty space."

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 22:14
by SpudmanWP
Ironic then... that without that (Navy) 2000lb bomb requirement, the fuselage might possibly be more streamlined / narrower, enough that LM might have been able to give the Air Force their 8 seconds back on the transonic acceleration KPP.
I doubt it since the difference in the diameter from a 1k JDAM and a 2k JDAM is only a combined 8 inches....

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 23:30
by quicksilver
Anything that would reduce the frontal cross section of the jet would likely be of benefit wrt trans’c accel. Run a plumb line visually from the lower outside corner of the intake to the tail boom and note where 8 inches might matter on the lower fuselage contour along the weapon bays. Perhaps some reduction in trim drag...

Look at a head-on pic of the jet and note how the weapons bays extend like sponsons below the fuselage.

The flip side of ‘weapons bay too big’ is ‘greater weapons flexibility’ and ‘room for growth’ that would eventually need to be accommodated, preferably w/o changing the outer mold line of the jet.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 23:53
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:To be fair, the "requirement" is not what drove up the weight... It was LM's FK up in calculating the weight of "empty space".

This is why all 3 variants were overweight.


I have not heard this before. Spudman can you elaborate or provide some references, or do I need to go fastidiously search the SWAT thread?

Your statement is somewhat surprising to me as LM had built the F-117 and the F-22 both which have a fair bit of "empty space."


To my understanding, Spud is right, although I might characterize it as a surprise to LM when it happened. The parametrics they used in preliminary design proved to be flawed when they got around to use of finite element models later in the design process. Aiui there also were some features of the design that were intended to enable ease of manufacture and the anticipated high production rates that were problematic as well.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 01:06
by quicksilver

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 02:50
by steve2267
quicksilver wrote:Here ya go Stevie --


Thanks quick.

Weight Watchers How a team of engineers and a crash diet saved the Joint Strike Fighter.

By Joe Pappalardo Air & Space Magazine November 2006

<snip>
...
The program’s initial focus on affordability also added weight. Off-the-shelf parts cost less but weigh more because they are not optimized for a fighter. To get bulk quantities of replacement parts for a lower cost might require using a heavier component. It soon became obvious that the plan to use common parts among the variants—a strategy that would lower costs and streamline future maintenance demands—was also bulking up the F-35.

Initial estimates of how much a part will weigh are based on its volume and material. But they are just estimates; the actual weight is another matter. A heftier hose, a wider screw, a thicker panel—in dribs and drabs, the weight steadily increases.

Even in a world of precision design tools, weight estimates still depend on data from previous aircraft. That turned out to be a problem as the crowded interior and the demands of the design translated into poundage. “Legacy estimating techniques just don’t work with this family of airplanes,” says R.J. Williams, Lockheed’s vice president of F-35 Air Vehicle Development.

Art Sheridan says that cost, not weight, was the most important measurement during the early history of the program. “The focus was very much on affordability at the time,” he says. “People realized there was a penalty to be paid, and that was included in the weight estimates. It was higher than we thought.”

No matter the reason, when weight became the enemy, the SWAT team concentrated its effort on reducing it, as well as reducing the bureaucratic hoop-jumping that can slow a redesign. “The number one commitment was to remove obstacles and make quick changes,” Sheridan says.

...
<snip>

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/weight-watchers-13117183/?all


I had previously read that article, but did not recall the quote about legacy estimating techniques not working with the F-35 program. One large example of that affordability focus is seen in the initial concept of the quick-mate joints which added a lot of weight. IMO, the reason they did not work has more to do with the initial focus on affordability with which I doubt the F-117 and F-22 had to contend; they certainly did not use quick-mate joints. The second aspect of the F-35 program for which the F-117 and F-22 did not have to account was a family of aircraft, initially designed to be as common as possible. The concept of cousin parts grew out of SWAT. The third difference between the F-35 and the earlier Nighthawk and Raptor was the fact that one F-35 was a STOVL aircraft and had a lift fan. However, I did not observe in this article that the STOVL design or its "empty spaces" caused the problems as much as the initial emphasis on affordability which resulted in using non-weight-optimized COTS parts and quick-mate joints.

Thanks again for the link. Twas good to read it once again.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 03:21
by spazsinbad
Same URL as above but ALL pages for ease of reading/making PDF pages - just FOURTEEN YEARS ago now. YIKES.
Weight Watchers How a team of engineers and a crash diet saved the Joint Strike Fighter.
Nov 2006 Joe Pappalardo Air & Space Magazine

"...On the F-35 STOVL variant, the F-35B, the weapons bays must share internal space with an enormous lift-fan engine, which enables the vehicle to hover and land vertically, and with the engine’s ducts. The wide cavities demanded for these components contribute to weight gain because they compromise the best layout for the aircraft’s load-bearing structure. Creating an airplane around these systems is akin to designing a human skeleton after the organs have been installed. It forced the airframe team to adopt a heavier design….

...By the end of February 2006, Lockheed Martin had paid out more than $1.2 million to employees for ideas....

...In October 2004, the Defense Acquisition Board signed off on more than 500 recommendations, officially making the STOVL weight loss attack team a success. In eight months, the Lockheed engineers cut a total of 2,700 pounds from the F-35B. The effort also trimmed 1,300 pounds from the other variants. Comfortable with that legacy, SWAT faded, with accolades, into company history, but an estimated 20 ideas a week still turn up in the Weight Improvement Program office...."

Source: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... 17183/?all

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 07:50
by zero-one
steve2267 wrote:Ironic then... that without that (Navy) 2000lb bomb requirement, the fuselage might possibly be more streamlined / narrower, enough that LM might have been able to give the Air Force their 8 seconds back on the transonic acceleration KPP. Also, with less weight (e.g. less structure etc), LM might have been able to meet the Air Force & USMC KPP for sustained turn rate. Would be an interesting question for someone on the F-16 design team if LM could have met those KPPs (transonic accel & sustained turn gee) were it not for the 2000lb bomb KPP. If so, that would be an interesting demonstration of the cascading effect requirements can have on performance metrics.


They still might. Will Block 4 have any significant weight gains? The Thrust increase will be 10% if I remember correctly, and if the weight stays the same or maybe even drops, we could meet the original performance KPPs.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 07:54
by spazsinbad
Can you itemize these 'original performance KPPs' & how there are now 'different KPPs'? Why were original KPPs changed?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 08:01
by zero-one
Now that you say it. I'm not sure they were changed in the first place. If I remember the statement in that infamous 2013 spec change. It went along the lines of, the JPO expressed interest to reduce the transonic acceleration and sustained G rates of all 3 models.

Key word was "expressed interest". I'm not sure if those interest were actually implemented

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 08:10
by spazsinbad
Why not find out? Good to be accurate with your words/ideas - rather than inaccurate.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 08:38
by zero-one
Here we go:
viewtopic.php?t=21926

The program announced an intention to change
performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn
performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending
the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by
8 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air
vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations.


Were those intentions actually implemented?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 09:14
by spazsinbad
Can't you find out? Go to thread - search that thread or another or the INTERNET using 'intention' for example....

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 09:42
by zero-one
If you go to the thread you'll see that the general consensus is. Without a specified weight, altitude and speed, the parameters cannot be used to draw a conclusion. No mention if the spec change was actually implemented in the first place.

Buddy, if you already have the answer then please post it, if not, then what you're doing isn't helping the discussion which was actually raised by Steve in the first place not me. I'm just trying to help.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 09:56
by spazsinbad
No - I do not have the answer - hence my question. Now my question: why use those phrases if they cannot be backed up?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 10:05
by zero-one
Okay, well I thought maybe somebody had the answer.
I just thought that maybe we're paying too much attention in that 8 second transonic acceleration figure as well as the sustained G change when all they said was they "expressed intention" to change it. They may have not really gone through with it.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 10:41
by marsavian
It was changed.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 10:43
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:It was changed.

Now we're getting somewhere.
Mind if you could post the link to that :D

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 14:15
by spazsinbad
My understandings of KPPs Key Performance Parameters are contained in the SAR F-35 Selected Acquisition Report 2019.

BUT "Classified Performance information is provided in the classified annex to this submission" - good luck with that.

Latest SAR 2019: download/file.php?id=27020 (0.7Mb) A two page PDF of KPPs as seen in the GIF below is attached below. CLICK the graphic and then CLICK AGAIN to zoom in to read it, there are some nice changes such as the new STO length.

Someone could search for this "Requirements Reference Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Change 3 dated August 19, 2008 as modified by Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum 040-12 dated March 16, 2012"

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 15:04
by mixelflick
Let's just all focus on getting a more powerful motor.

Easiest way to end these performance issues :)

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 21:42
by XanderCrews
steve2267 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
2000 lb bomb was yet another navy requirement. I've taken this "extreme" position before, (but why not once more in thread that compares all 3 varaints??) the F-35C NOT the F-35B as so many claim is the problem child. Its the most different the Navy desire to have 2K bombs lead to a weight increase that then had to be tamped down with the SWAT effort which lead to huge delays. Irony being what is is the service that was the biggest pain in the butt with the F-35 program is also the service that has the Super Hornet and seems very happy with them (that will change of course)


Ironic then... that without that (Navy) 2000lb bomb requirement, the fuselage might possibly be more streamlined / narrower, enough that LM might have been able to give the Air Force their 8 seconds back on the transonic acceleration KPP. Also, with less weight (e.g. less structure etc), LM might have been able to meet the Air Force & USMC KPP for sustained turn rate. Would be an interesting question for someone on the F-16 design team if LM could have met those KPPs (transonic accel & sustained turn gee) were it not for the 2000lb bomb KPP. If so, that would be an interesting demonstration of the cascading effect requirements can have on performance metrics.



even more "ironic" when NG rolls out the Block III weapons pod for Super Hornet and its largest single bomb is 1000 pounds :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 21:54
by SpudmanWP
IIRC the "weapon pod" is NOT part of the F-18 Block 3 plan, only the CFTs.

Btw, the acceleration and turning numbers for the F-35 are NOT KPPs (there are only ~9) but are instead KPIs (there are over 400).

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 22:07
by spazsinbad
Where do we find this list of KPIs? Key Performance Indicators? Or something else? That was my point about citing KPPs.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 22:14
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC the "weapon pod" is NOT part of the F-18 Block 3 plan, only the CFTs.

Btw, the acceleration and turning numbers for the F-35 are NOT KPPs (there are only 6) but are instead KPIs (there are over 400).



Well the whole thing was a mockup. Its about the least efficient way one can imagine to carry weapons...

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 23:04
by quicksilver
XanderCrews wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC the "weapon pod" is NOT part of the F-18 Block 3 plan, only the CFTs.

Btw, the acceleration and turning numbers for the F-35 are NOT KPPs (there are only 6) but are instead KPIs (there are over 400).



Well the whole thing was a mockup. Its about the least efficient way one can imagine to carry weapons...


If one looks at the pics of the pod mounted on the jet, it appears it would be hard to load wps in the pod w the pod on the jet. Very poor pod-ground clearance.

To my knowledge, the KP-whatevers are not public info.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 23:14
by SpudmanWP
The KPIs and KPPs were all laid out in the JSF ORD.. Good luck getting that.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2018, 05:29
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:


They still might. Will Block 4 have any significant weight gains? The Thrust increase will be 10% if I remember correctly, and if the weight stays the same or maybe even drops, we could meet the original performance KPPs.

10% on the low end, and possibly 20%.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2018, 07:08
by weasel1962
Edited for posting fiction.