F-35 has longger leg than Su-35

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

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2543
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post18 Jun 2017, 08:35

6 missiles is coming in Block 4, though they're currently working on SACM, which would 12 missiles internally.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1681
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Jun 2017, 15:59

No surprise it has such long legs. What is surprising, is the amount of internal fuel they packed into this baby. 18,000lbs? and 19,000 in the F-35C? Amazing..

All that fuel with no external store drag and just one engine... I agree the 6 AMRAAM loaded is badly needed, but I keep wondering about those 2 external 9x's she carries. If these can be carried while still maintaining it's VLO status, that's a game changer. Because now we are at 6 AAM's, a load not uncommon for Flankers to carry.

The difference being, the drag and RCS associated with those two 9x's has to be nominal, at least in comparison to 6 draggy AAM's on an already draggy airframe. The 9x is also referred to as a "near BVR missile", which will again play to the F-35's strengths.

Besides, if it's really capable of guiding the AAM's or SAM's of other platform's, it's going to be a long day for the enemy. As for it's ability to carry a whopping 22,000lbs of weapons at full loadout, that is a phenomenal achievement. You don't hear about it much from twin engine jets, nevermind a single engine!
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1253
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post18 Jun 2017, 19:14

doge wrote:I found a New range and radius.

Range >2,800km
Radius 1,390km



I like the Beast mode but still trying to work out where 14 x AMRAAMs & 2 x Windies can be carried if depicting an internal load of 4 only - is there triple mount AMRAAM pylon somewhere?
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post18 Jun 2017, 20:09

basher54321 wrote:I like the Beast mode but still trying to work out where 14 x AMRAAMs & 2 x Windies can be carried if depicting an internal load of 4 only - is there triple mount AMRAAM pylon somewhere?

Can it be anything but with internal 6 due Block 4? But yes, then it would be weird to present only 4 internal with stealth.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post18 Jun 2017, 20:34

It is certainly odd - if you're using twin ejector racks you do only have space for 8x AMRAAMs external + 2x AIM-9Xs. Maybe the PR department person made the incorrect assumption that you could fit another twin rack on the centreline? :mrgreen:

Then again, as I understand it, neither 12x or 14x AMRAAMs will be a Block 3F thing, as while twin ejector racks have been fitted, etc on static test airframes, I haven't seen or heard of any being flight tested (or even seen / heard of singular AMRAAMs being externally flight tested). I get the feeling that maybe they're just talking about the jets potential / physical capability should the customers wish to have it realised.
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 638
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 05:36

There is definitely test photos of F-35s carrying externally mounted AMRAAMs. Don't know if they were actually launched but they were carried.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 07:14

Sure you're not thinking of this F-22?

Image

The only photos of F-35s carrying twin ejector racks were ones like this:

Image

The only external AMRAAMs I've seen are in graphics like this:

Image
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2163
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 08:34

PhillyGuy wrote:4 missiles still in stealth mode? Really LM, you're killing me here. I thought there was room and they were going to configure 6 in there. Otherwise great range and reach, to deliver 4 freaking missiles in counter air?

Unreal.


Besides F-35, there is only one other aircraft currently that can carry 4 or more missiles in stealth mode. Carrying 4 is great when the enemy can't see you or doesn't even know you are there. This means you can maneuver to really good firing position which mean kill probability is improved a lot. No need to fire shots near the edge of envelope to force enemy to evade but each shot can be taken in nearly perfect conditions. So one F-35 might well kill equal amount of enemy aircraft with loadout of 4 missiles as non-VLO platform with 8.

Btw, many fighters carry only 4 to 6 missiles in realistic combat configurations. Of course there is room for 6 AMRAAMs in internal bays but and it seems it will get that capability in fairly near future. If and when those 5th gen optimized missiles become reality, F-35 will carry a lot of missiles.

Naturally some F-35s can be used as missile trucks in non-stealthy mode to mop up any survivors. Even then they will have much lower RCS than any other fighter besides F-22. And those fully stealthy F-35s can guide the missiles fired by those less stealthy F-35s or even other platforms.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2163
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 09:18

mixelflick wrote:No surprise it has such long legs. What is surprising, is the amount of internal fuel they packed into this baby. 18,000lbs? and 19,000 in the F-35C? Amazing..

All that fuel with no external store drag and just one engine... I agree the 6 AMRAAM loaded is badly needed, but I keep wondering about those 2 external 9x's she carries. If these can be carried while still maintaining it's VLO status, that's a game changer. Because now we are at 6 AAM's, a load not uncommon for Flankers to carry.

The difference being, the drag and RCS associated with those two 9x's has to be nominal, at least in comparison to 6 draggy AAM's on an already draggy airframe. The 9x is also referred to as a "near BVR missile", which will again play to the F-35's strengths.

Besides, if it's really capable of guiding the AAM's or SAM's of other platform's, it's going to be a long day for the enemy. As for it's ability to carry a whopping 22,000lbs of weapons at full loadout, that is a phenomenal achievement. You don't hear about it much from twin engine jets, nevermind a single engine!


And let's not forget F-35 is capable of 7 to 9Gs and Mach 1.6 with all that fuel and full internal weapons load along with targeting pod/IRST system and very powerful EW system (most aircraft will need external pods to hope matching that). No wonder USMC Lt. Gen. Jon Davis called it "King Kong killing machine". Talk about game changer...
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1681
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 13:13

Wow.

I didn't know the F-35 could pull 9g's with a full load of internal fuel? With a 5,700lb weapons load, OK makes sense (no drag). But 9g on full internal fuel?

Color me impressed... :)
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2543
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 15:43

mixelflick wrote:Wow.

I didn't know the F-35 could pull 9g's with a full load of internal fuel? With a 5,700lb weapons load, OK makes sense (no drag). But 9g on full internal fuel?

Color me impressed... :)

With internal fuel/weapons, the F-35 has no envelope restrictions. That's why it's a game changer kinematically, as well as from a situational awareness/stealth standpoint.
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 638
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 18:52

Dragon029 wrote:Sure you're not thinking of this F-22?



Yeah I was mistaken. Had the F-22 image stuck in my mind as the F-35. You're right I can't find any external AMRAAM pictures, only air to ground munitions, fuel tanks and AIM9s.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3144
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 19:32

wrightwing wrote:With internal fuel/weapons, the F-35 has no envelope restrictions. That's why it's a game changer kinematically, as well as from a situational awareness/stealth standpoint.


Can I get a link or source for this? I have a hard time believing a maneuver weight of 53,000lb.
"Spurts"

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19396
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 20:20

Billie Flynn has the floor in this article & IIRC he says similar in videos or other articles - there may be others saying same.
IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ‘better than or equal to’ Typhoon or Super Hornet
07 Feb 2013 Dave Majumdar

"...Flynn says "that the F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon, which most would say has the best performance of those four fourth-gen jets," says Flynn, who is a former test pilot for the Eurofighter and Lockheed F-16. All variants of the F-35 are capable of flying at Mach 1.6 and 50° angle-of-attack, he says. The A and C models have a maximum speed of 700 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS-1296 km/h) while the F-35B can fly at 630 KCAS (1167 Km/h). The A, B and C variant are rated at 9g, 7g and 7.5g's respectively....

...If one were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35's, "It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there," Flynn says. That applies even to the F-35 B and C models with their respective 7g and 7.5g limits. "You're not going to see any measurable difference between the aircraft," Flynn says. In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter, he says...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-382078/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1253
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 20:41

He has said it a few times over the years and it does seem out of the ordinary for fighter jet design - if that is the case may account for some of the high empty weight figure.

I suppose in terms of that weight figure the F-14D did have a design weight of 57,000 lb (if my source is correct) but of course was about 10K lbs heavier at empty.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: loke and 6 guests