F-35 has longger leg than Su-35

[wrightwing]

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.

I posted it over on the airshow thread.

"The F-35’s maneuverability is all the more impressive because, unlike the F-16s that perform at air shows, the Joint Strike Fighter flying the demonstration this week is fully combat-ready. Flynn’s F-35A will move easily through complex aerial maneuvers loaded with everything it needs to go to war."

“All of those airplanes that do air shows—the Hornet, Viper—they are all slicked off without all the external stores,” Flynn said. “They are a party trick at an air show, versus a combat-configured F-22 or F-35.”

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

But if you look at the quote it always says full WEAPONS load. Nothing about fuel. Don't get me wrong, AFAIK nothing else can carry a GBU-31 and hit 9G. I just expect the maneuver weight to be closer to 47 or 50klbs. And there would be nothing wrong with that! A "Full Internal" F-35 is going to be down to ~50klb by the time the climb to cruise is done (or nearly so). If the Wm is 53klbs then it has a Wm that is 83% higher than We, whereas the Tomcat at 57klb is only 30% higher than We.

Honestly as this point not much surprises me with this plane, it may be 53klb, but I have not seen a source say full fuel AND full weapons.

[sferrin]

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.

I've heard the same thing several times over the years; that the Mach 1.6 and 9Gs is with full internal fuel and weapons load.

[sferrin]

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.

No way any Tomcat of any kind was 67,000lbs empty.

[magitsu]

"The F-35’s maneuverability is all the more impressive because, unlike the F-16s that perform at air shows, the Joint Strike Fighter flying the demonstration this week is fully combat-ready. Flynn’s F-35A will move easily through complex aerial maneuvers loaded with everything it needs to go to war."

“All of those airplanes that do air shows—the Hornet, Viper—they are all slicked off without all the external stores,” Flynn said. “They are a party trick at an air show, versus a combat-configured F-22 or F-35.”

That quote doesn't really translate. Only US and UK have stripped out show planes. Most fly combat planes.
spazsinbad's quote is more on point.

If Hanche confirms this, I'll believe it without batting an eye.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

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.

No way any Tomcat of any kind was 67,000lbs empty.

I think he means the lightest Tomcat is over 10,000 heavier than an F-35A when empty.

[doge]

How's this? It is written as "full load of fuel and missiles"...(but missile only?)
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ghter.aspx

Stealth also permits (and requires) internal fuel and weapons carriage. The Air Force F-35 variant, fully loaded for combat, can pull nine-G turns with a full load of fuel and missiles. This cannot be done by fighters lugging along external weapons and fuel tanks.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

How's this? It is written as "full load of fuel and missiles"...(but missile only?)
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ghter.aspx

Stealth also permits (and requires) internal fuel and weapons carriage. The Air Force F-35 variant, fully loaded for combat, can pull nine-G turns with a full load of fuel and missiles. This cannot be done by fighters lugging along external weapons and fuel tanks.

Which is a 3,700lb discrepancy between the weight of two AIM-120s and two GBU-31s. So this does nothing to invalidate my thought that the weight limit is ~50,000lb. This does shed light on two things however. 1) the heavy hardpoints are rated to 9G with 2,000lb class weapons. 2) There is no CG issues for max G/AoA that require the forward tank to be emptied.

[basher54321]

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.

No way any Tomcat of any kind was 67,000lbs empty.

Yes as Spurts commented - was talking about the relative difference in weight between empty and design that has typically been seen on previous designs.

[wrightwing]

But if you look at the quote it always says full WEAPONS load. Nothing about fuel. Don't get me wrong, AFAIK nothing else can carry a GBU-31 and hit 9G. I just expect the maneuver weight to be closer to 47 or 50klbs. And there would be nothing wrong with that! A "Full Internal" F-35 is going to be down to ~50klb by the time the climb to cruise is done (or nearly so). If the Wm is 53klbs then it has a Wm that is 83% higher than We, whereas the Tomcat at 57klb is only 30% higher than We.

Honestly as this point not much surprises me with this plane, it may be 53klb, but I have not seen a source say full fuel AND full weapons.

Combat configured includes fuel.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Combat configured includes fuel.

Fuel? yes. Topped off, just disconnected from the tanker, 9.25 tons of it? Not specified.

You all know I am a huge fan of the engineering marvel that is the F-35, but whenever something is said (good or bad) I also look at what is NOT said.

With regard to 9G 50Aos, the only time "full internal fuel" has been stated was in association with a missile loadout.

9G 50AoA with "Full internal payload", the load that to me is the ~5,100lb dual GBU-31 with AMRAAMs is never listed as full fuel.

The real significance of "combat configured" is that any similarly configured plane would have 2-3 EFTs, Targeting Pods, and likely Jammer Pods. That is what even an empty F-35 has on it all the time. Euro-Canards always have IRST and ECM, but not maximum fuel or A2G targeting pods.

[spazsinbad]

How is this for a quote from the mouth of the HOARSE: CHECK VIDEO & SECOND ARTICLE QUOTES from VIDEO.

The F-35’s High Angle of Attack Explained
12 Jul 2016 LM PR

"...The F-35 was also designed to turn at nine Gs, with a full load of internally-stored fuel and weapons, far outclassing any enemy jet with their externally-mounted missiles and fuel tanks...."

Source: https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the ... -explained

Inside the F-35 Lightning II - the invisible fighter jet
29 Oct 2015 Erica Elkhershi

"...“I see everything that happens, 360 degrees around me, at astonishing distances,” said Billy Flynn, F-35 Lightning II pilot. “I use centrifusion, the power of competing, to tell me what’s important or not.”... [OH GAWD]

...The F-35 has a 43,000 pound thrust class engine which pushes the aircraft to 1.6 times the speed of sound and 700 nautical mph. It pulls 9G - “and it does all of that full of bombs, full of fuel, full of missiles”, Mr Flynn added.

Fourth generation fighter jets, which the F-35 is replacing, need external fuel tanks to fly long distances in combat, and they carry bombs and missiles on the exterior of the aircraft.

“When you do you create drag, you slow the aeroplane down. It can’t go super sonic(sic) anymore, it can’t pull at maximum G & it can’t accelerate quickly,” Mr Flynn said. “My aeroplane does all of that full of bombs, full of missiles, full of fuel.”"

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03 ... ghter-jet/

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Thanks Spaz. Those are the statements I was looking for. Fifty three k it is.

[mixelflick]

At this point, I think it's safe to say LM really nailed it. Although it might not satisfy ALL requirements for "supermaneuverability", it has most. And I suspect there's more of the envelope to come, which if the Paris demo is any indication should be downright scary to adversaries.

This aircraft is now rolling off the assembly lines, and every day that passes the F-35 proliferates across the globe. Owning a Flanker, even a late series SU-30MKI, SM or SU-35 is going to be at a distinct disadvantage. Russia has no comparable strike aircraft. They have the SU-34, but I have to believe the RCS on that bird is HUGE, and no way it can perform 9g turns, etc with its external load.

Frankly, India would do well to stop pouring $ down the PAK FA hole and instead start lobbying Washington for an export exception..