Queen Liz Carrier with Full F-35B compiment versus?

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.

How does the QE F-35B compare to other navies

Poll ended at 11 Oct 2020, 03:13

The French and Charles De Gaul are 2nd to US?
0
No votes
The British are better, 2nd to the U.S
9
75%
The Chinese are now 2nd
3
25%
The Indian navy is 2nd
0
No votes
The Japanese are 2nd
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 12

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3221
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post09 Oct 2020, 07:51

spazsinbad wrote:That an F-35B can STO at RN Max Take off weight has been mentioned a few times in appropriate threads. I guess it needs quoting again? Stand by to STANDBY. First quote is from an RAF URL no longer available but perhaps wayback machine?


Thank you spazsinbad! I should've searched a bit harder before asking, but I was too lazy it seems... :wink:

Anyway, it's pretty damn impressive that F-35B can haul so much fuel and weapons without catapult. It gets close to Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale M using catapults. Bringback weight also seems to be extremely impressive without arresting gear and again gets close to those aircraft using arresting gear. Especially considering that B doesn't need to carry EFTs or separate targeting pod.
Offline

old_rn

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015, 08:57

Unread post09 Oct 2020, 09:15

jessmo112 wrote:Do strike weapons come into play?
Keep in mind that the Brits only have paveway to sink ships with ATM. The French have scalp and exocet.
Do you have confidence that F-35s could make it into gravity bomb range?

I believe that Spear 3 will be quite capable of disabling the SAM capability of any ship (or task force). A swarm of 32 Spear 3 (4 * 8 for 4 F35B) at 140km would be very effective? One could then close to 10km with Paveway IV? Of course 12 F35B strike would be 96 Spear 3, or 192 if they carried "extras" on the inboard pylons......
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4154
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Oct 2020, 13:06

No way the J-20 or J-31 go to sea, mostly due to the already mentioned weight growth/inadequate engines. Hell, the ones for the current land based aircraft are questionable.

But also ask yourself this: What are the odds a country (including the US) is able to design a full up stealth bird, AND build it such that its carrier qualified - first time out of the gate?

Just not happening...
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1131
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post09 Oct 2020, 16:12

I find it strange when people say J-20 can't be navalised because it lack thrust?!?

J-20B use two AL-31FM2 or its clone WS-10B, with max thurst of 290kN.

We can compared it with Tomcat A and D, A had 112kN max thrust 224kN, D max thrust 249kN.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-engine.htm
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post09 Oct 2020, 20:18

old_rn wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:Do strike weapons come into play?
Keep in mind that the Brits only have paveway to sink ships with ATM. The French have scalp and exocet.
Do you have confidence that F-35s could make it into gravity bomb range?

I believe that Spear 3 will be quite capable of disabling the SAM capability of any ship (or task force).


Through exhaustion?
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 01:28

milosh wrote:I find it strange when people say J-20 can't be navalised because it lack thrust?!?

J-20B use two AL-31FM2 or its clone WS-10B, with max thurst of 290kN.

We can compared it with Tomcat A and D, A had 112kN max thrust 224kN, D max thrust 249kN.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-engine.htm


Its not just thrust ratio, but thrust to weight.
The Tomcat from day one had the heavy stuff out of the box. The J-20 probably weighs as much as a Tomcat NOW! And its not even navalized!
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 354
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 05:35

Milosh suggests that J-20 still has favorable TWR comparable to F-14 even navalized and by that logic ought to handle at least the same. I'm wondering why we have all these supercomputers crunching black magic aerodynamics when we can just dial in a couple numbers into a hand held calculator??? The J-20 must have a much different L/D ratio from the F-14 at approach speeds and I don't find a simple TWR comparison convincing at all.

Also just another thing nobody has pointed out is that the J-20 is a limousine of an aircraft and the eye-hook distance could be pretty tremendous. I don't think it's impossible for the J-20 to be navalized, you can fly a lot of stuff off a carrier and call it a day if you really wanted to, but I'm doubtful of it making a good naval aircraft especially in terms of safety and sustainability.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1131
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 07:13

@jessmo112

BUT J-20 now have lot more engine power then F-14A! So you add lot of weight and still have better T/W ratio then F-14A. With 290kN empty carrier variant of J-20 could weight 23.3tons and have same T/W as F-14A.

Btw if you compare J-20 to A-5 Vigilante things are even more favorable for J-20, to have same T/W ratio as A-5 it would need to be 28.4tons heavy.

So as you can see thrust isn't problem for carrier version of J-20.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1131
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 08:20

jessmo112 wrote:Its not just thrust ratio, but thrust to weight.
The Tomcat from day one had the heavy stuff out of the box. The J-20 probably weighs as much as a Tomcat NOW! And its not even navalized!


If you use T/W ratio of F-14A, J-20 can grow to 4tons (23.4tons) and have same T/W ratio as F-14A.

If you use A-5 Vigilante as example, J-20 can get 9tons of additional weight and have same T/W ratio as A-5.

So "lack" of thrust doesn't exist if you want to make carrier version of J-20.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 09:29

milosh wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:Its not just thrust ratio, but thrust to weight.
The Tomcat from day one had the heavy stuff out of the box. The J-20 probably weighs as much as a Tomcat NOW! And its not even navalized!


If you use T/W ratio of F-14A, J-20 can grow to 4tons (23.4tons) and have same T/W ratio as F-14A.

If you use A-5 Vigilante as example, J-20 can get 9tons of additional weight and have same T/W ratio as A-5.

So "lack" of thrust doesn't exist if you want to make carrier version of J-20.


And what about glide slope? You not only need theust but you have to get the J-20 to trap at 140 knots..
BTW if you think the Chinese numbers for J-20 are accurate your fooling yourself. Empty space is heavy.
Max thrust doesn't tell the entire story either.
Your comparing J-20 to F-14 in afterburner. I can launch the Moon off a carrier with AB. Are all carrier launches full re-heat Full AB? Doesn't this present more issues?
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 09:47

Note like I said before you can make almost anything launch at full AB, but you get into other problems.

This Quara post talks about issues with the F-14 Needing AB to get off deck.


https://www.quora.com/Why-do-US-Navy-F- ... fterburner

The Chinese engines already have reliability issues, and now your going to put the plane in a navalized enviorment
With demanding AB launches each day.
Not to mention a flameout at launch even with a ski-jump will put you in the sea at full AB because of yaw forces with seconds to recover.
How many hours are the Chinese and Russian spinoff engines rated for?
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1131
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 15:12

jessmo112 wrote:Note like I said before you can make almost anything launch at full AB, but you get into other problems.


If USN could afford F-18 and F-14A taking off each time on full AB, I don't see why PLAAN can't afford same with J-20.

F-14A engine surely wasn't known as reliable one and F-14A had much bigger problem if one engine flameout then J-20 would have. J-20 have FBW and FADEC and it doesn't have spaced engines which is very important in case of flameout.

It is nonsense to build super carriers and then rely just on J-15.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 23:13

The issue with heavy AB usage for takeoff, particularly for LO inlets, is hot gas ingestion.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post10 Oct 2020, 23:46

marauder2048 wrote:The issue with heavy AB usage for takeoff, particularly for LO inlets, is hot gas ingestion.


He doesn't get all of these issues. He simply compares nunbers and thinks if the U.S. can do it China can do it.
If the J-20 was capable of being navalized it would be done already.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1131
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post11 Oct 2020, 08:20

jessmo112 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The issue with heavy AB usage for takeoff, particularly for LO inlets, is hot gas ingestion.


He doesn't get all of these issues. He simply compares nunbers and thinks if the U.S. can do it China can do it.
If the J-20 was capable of being navalized it would be done already.


No I write just about "lack" of thrust. That isn't problem.Of course J-20 would need to get fat and probable bigger wing, but as I point out there is enough reserve of thrust to that be done.

And no way they could use some J-20C from carriers they have now. Type-001 and 002 don't have catapult and aren't suited for big fighters.

In fact Soviets didn't even plan to use those carriers with Su-33 expect for training, MiG-29K was what was planed for them but then USSR collapsed.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests