Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 17:10
by SpudmanWP
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.


This confirms two things.
1. LM does not consider just going over M to be supercruising.
2. It can :)

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.

The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a "maintenance margin," O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s "always better than the spec." Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations.


You read that right, the F-35's RCS gets BETTER over time, not worse through normal use.

Much, much more at the jump.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 17:42
by BDF
Not terribly surprising. Now the more interesting questions are at what altitude(s) can it sustain said Mach point and how much does does it effect range? Yes they say a dash of 150nm but that really doesn't tell us much. Good to hear the program is progressing and the jet is delivering promised capability.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 17:45
by SpudmanWP
From what I have read, supercruising uses 75%-100% more gas per mile than going m0.9. So if it's 150 at M1.2 then that would be about 250-300 subsonic.

RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 17:46
by sprstdlyscottsmn
First time I have read that it excels n the transonic.

RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 17:52
by sferrin
I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)

Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 18:44
by count_to_10
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:First time I have read that it excels n the transonic.

One of the first things I heard was that it was designed from the ground up for transonic.

RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 18:58
by count_to_10
Did you catch this?
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 19:02
by sketch22
As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 19:07
by count_to_10
O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps "is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B" with no additional pods or internal systems.

Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical questions: "Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?" Then he said, "There’s a capability here."

:whistle: 8)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 19:22
by SpudmanWP
count_to_10 wrote:Did you catch this?
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.
That's been known for a while.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-4408.html

Nov 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 19:35
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:
Nov 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.


Except that according to Ben Rich the F-117's RCS was the size of a marble. :?:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 19:39
by SpudmanWP
Maybe they were being conservative. I was using it more as a gauge on how the different platforms relate to each other.

F-22 < F-35 < B-2 < F-117.

They may also be talking about either one aspect of it's RCS or overall RCS...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:02
by sketch22
SpudmanWP wrote:They may also be talking about either one aspect of it's RCS or overall RCS...

Do you mean like frontal RCS vs rear RCS?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:10
by falconedge
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:13
by falconedge
SpudmanWP wrote:From what I have read, supercruising uses 75%-100% more gas per mile than going m0.9. So if it's 150 at M1.2 then that would be about 250-300 subsonic.

can you explain why it still consume more gas if it is supercruise :)
btw how much gas the afterburner mode consume compared to normal dry thrust :?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:15
by SpudmanWP
sketch22 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:They may also be talking about either one aspect of it's RCS or overall RCS...

Do you mean like frontal RCS vs rear RCS?


No specifics were given, just
O’Bryan said the F-35 is an all-aspect stealth aircraft—that is to say, stealthy from any and all directions.



falconedge wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:From what I have read, supercruising uses 75%-100% more gas per mile than going m0.9. So if it's 150 at M1.2 then that would be about 250-300 subsonic.

can you explain why it still consume more gas if it is supercruise :)
btw how much gas the afterburner mode consume compared to normal dry thrust :?


Drag above mach is more than drag below mach.

For example if it only takes 75% of mil to maintain mach .9 and 100% to maintain m 1.2, then you will obviously use more gas per mile at m 1.2 than m .9.

It's a real drag ;)

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:17
by SpudmanWP
n/a

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:41
by discofishing
falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )


The Concorde was able to do the same thing. There's a video somewhere on youtube about this.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:44
by spazsinbad
Don't forget the F-35s have a variable afterburner. Some pilots have reported 'supercruising' in minimum A/B for example without specifying MACH as I recall - likely this info on this forum. HoKay?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:49
by count_to_10
discofishing wrote:
falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )


The Concorde was able to do the same thing. There's a video somewhere on youtube about this.

Generally, if you have a drag dominated top speed for a given thrust level, then you approach that speed asymptotically while at that thrust. It should formally take you forever to reach that speed unless you boost up above it with afterburner.

Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:50
by gtx
sferrin wrote:I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)


Probably...but he will spin it as a bad thing somehow :roll:

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 20:51
by aceshigh
Good news, cheers :cheers:

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 21:47
by neurotech
IMO the whole F-35 Supercruise issue is partly marketing on LMs part.

Some jets (F-16s, Gripen) can fly supersonic in non-afterburner flight, but nowhere near the F-22s M1.8, which was LMs justification for the $140m F-22 over the Boeing F-15. Surprisingly, the Super Hornet will go supersonic above FL400 without burners, if the pylons are removed from the wings.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 21:53
by SpudmanWP
BS

Image

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 21:57
by Scorpion82
falconedge wrote: can you explain why it still consume more gas if it is supercruise :)
btw how much gas the afterburner mode consume compared to normal dry thrust :?


The faster the aircraft the more compressed is the air that's entering the intake. The result the engine will thus generate more thrust and that means its consumption grows as well.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 22:07
by cola
SpudmanWP wrote:This confirms two things.
2. It can

Spudman...150 miles at M1.2/tropopause is about 13 minutes, worth of flying.
Since when, 13 minutes out of 4 hours theoretical max. endurance, classifies as "cruising"?
F16 also does dash supersonic in dry...that's not supercruising.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 22:14
by SpudmanWP
Given that this is a LM quote, think of it in terms of their earlier quotes about the F-22's range and it's supercruise ability.

310+100nm


http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

In other words, it's a dash not the total ability.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 22:25
by cola
Yes well, dash isn't cruising.
Not even O'Bryan claims the F35 supercruises.
Why giving such a pompous and misleading thread headline, then?

Also, not sure what is F18E's NATOPS supposed to prove.
The "fastest" configuration (1) still has two wing pylons and two AMRAAMs.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 22:29
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:BS

Image

Thanks for the NATOPS page. I already have a copy of the F/A-18 E/F NATOPS Manual and familiar with the page you quote. The Super Hornet in the fleet flies with pylons on the wings which contributes significantly to the Supersonic drag. I specifically said without pylons for a reason. The page shows that the baseline configuration (1) is "AIM9(2) + AIM120(2)", which is not clean configuration.

The F/A-18E/F had issues with weapons separation, leading to canted pylons being used to ensure safe separation. This results in considerable Supersonic drag.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 22:31
by count_to_10
This seems to hinge on definition of "supercruise".
If the definition is "maintain 1+ M without afterburner", then the F-35 does.
If the definition is "1.5+ M" or includes "does not loose significant range", then it doesn't.
When the term was first coined, the former was how it was used.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 22:43
by SpudmanWP
Cola, the NATOP was to show Neurotech that the F-18E CANNOT supercruise, even clean. This is especially true above FL400 as he claimed.

If you will look at the pic, you will notice that the difference between #1, #2, #3, and #4 at full MIL is very small and that #2 is with a centerline tank and #3 & #4 are with pylons. Given that #1 is with conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, flying totally clean would not be much faster.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 22:51
by sferrin
neurotech wrote:the Super Hornet will go supersonic above FL400 without burners, if the pylons are removed from the wings.


And how many weapons will the Super Hornet be carrying with no pylons? :roll:

Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 22:53
by lamoey
gtx wrote:
sferrin wrote:I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)


Probably...but he will spin it as a bad thing somehow :roll:


Probably something like this:

"further proof of failure surface with information that the doomed fighter falls way short of promised range"

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 23:16
by Scorpion82
neurotech wrote:Thanks for the NATOPS page. I already have a copy of the F/A-18 E/F NATOPS Manual and familiar with the page you quote. The Super Hornet in the fleet flies with pylons on the wings which contributes significantly to the Supersonic drag. I specifically said without pylons for a reason. The page shows that the baseline configuration (1) is "AIM9(2) + AIM120(2)", which is not clean configuration.

The F/A-18E/F had issues with weapons separation, leading to canted pylons being used to ensure safe separation. This results in considerable Supersonic drag.


2 x Sidewinder plus 2 x AMRAAM is not an overly draggy configuration and if it is the standard configuration using the tip launchers and fuselage stations that's hardly of relevance wrt the hardpoints. In addition the envelope chart clearly demonstrates that the best performance is achieved below 40000 ft.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 23:22
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:Cola, the NATOP was to show Neurotech that the F-18E CANNOT supercruise, even clean. This is especially true above FL400 as he claimed.

If you will look at the pic, you will notice that the difference between #1, #2, #3, and #4 at full MIL is very small and that #2 is with a centerline tanks and #3 & #4 are with pylons. Given that #1 is with conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, flying totally clean would not be much faster.

That page does not specifically state that the pylons were not fitted to the jet for the quotes figures. It also mentions "Combat Gross Weight" which implies the jet was not configured for airshow performance when measuring those figures.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 23:22
by falconedge
count_to_10 wrote:
discofishing wrote:
falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )


The Concorde was able to do the same thing. There's a video somewhere on youtube about this.

Generally, if you have a drag dominated top speed for a given thrust level, then you approach that speed asymptotically while at that thrust. It should formally take you forever to reach that speed unless you boost up above it with afterburner.

:? what you mean ? , so in basic after the F-35 fly faster than mach 1.2 even if the pilot reduce thrust ,it still fly for 150 miles before decelerate to subsonic speed right ? :?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2012, 23:44
by sferrin
falconedge wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
discofishing wrote:
falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )


The Concorde was able to do the same thing. There's a video somewhere on youtube about this.

Generally, if you have a drag dominated top speed for a given thrust level, then you approach that speed asymptotically while at that thrust. It should formally take you forever to reach that speed unless you boost up above it with afterburner.

:? what you mean ? , so in basic after the F-35 fly faster than mach 1.2 even if the pilot reduce thrust ,it still fly for 150 miles before decelerate to subsonic speed right ? :?


Image

AB to get over the hump.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 00:08
by neurotech
Scorpion82 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Thanks for the NATOPS page. I already have a copy of the F/A-18 E/F NATOPS Manual and familiar with the page you quote. The Super Hornet in the fleet flies with pylons on the wings which contributes significantly to the Supersonic drag. I specifically said without pylons for a reason. The page shows that the baseline configuration (1) is "AIM9(2) + AIM120(2)", which is not clean configuration.

The F/A-18E/F had issues with weapons separation, leading to canted pylons being used to ensure safe separation. This results in considerable Supersonic drag.


2 x Sidewinder plus 2 x AMRAAM is not an overly draggy configuration and if it is the standard configuration using the tip launchers and fuselage stations that's hardly of relevance wrt the hardpoints. In addition the envelope chart clearly demonstrates that the best performance is achieved below 40000 ft.

That is a trade-off between engine performance and drag at varying altitudes. The curve would be different without canted wing pylons, as they contribute to the drag significantly.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 01:19
by handyman
falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_diver ... ach_number

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 01:20
by SpudmanWP
neurotech wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Cola, the NATOP was to show Neurotech that the F-18E CANNOT supercruise, even clean. This is especially true above FL400 as he claimed.

If you will look at the pic, you will notice that the difference between #1, #2, #3, and #4 at full MIL is very small and that #2 is with a centerline tanks and #3 & #4 are with pylons. Given that #1 is with conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, flying totally clean would not be much faster.

That page does not specifically state that the pylons were not fitted to the jet for the quotes figures. It also mentions "Combat Gross Weight" which implies the jet was not configured for airshow performance when measuring those figures.
You're grasping at straws. I've shown you an official doc that says that not only can it not supercruise, but that it'er performance above 40k actually gets worse.

Do you have any official doc that says otherwise?

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 01:52
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:
neurotech wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Cola, the NATOP was to show Neurotech that the F-18E CANNOT supercruise, even clean. This is especially true above FL400 as he claimed.

If you will look at the pic, you will notice that the difference between #1, #2, #3, and #4 at full MIL is very small and that #2 is with a centerline tanks and #3 & #4 are with pylons. Given that #1 is with conformal AMRAAM and wingtip Sidewinders, flying totally clean would not be much faster.

That page does not specifically state that the pylons were not fitted to the jet for the quotes figures. It also mentions "Combat Gross Weight" which implies the jet was not configured for airshow performance when measuring those figures.
You're grasping at straws. I've shown you an official doc that says that not only can it not supercruise, but that it'er performance above 40k actually gets worse.

Do you have any official doc that says otherwise?

I'll check if the test pilot interviews are available online, going back before pylons were fitted to EMD jets for weapons separation testing.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 02:07
by cola
Spudman,
unless I'm mistaking, neurotech is a SH backseater, so I don't see much point in arguing here, particularly because the difference is marginal.
Besides, this graph doesn't specify engine trim and I've seen several Hornet's official docs, with sub-standard performance due lowly trimmed engines.
It's possible that this measurement has been done on such a line jet and neurotech may just be right.
Also, there isn't definitive declaration on AMRAAM mount for the graph and I think I remember this particular config. was defined elsewhere in the document, with AMRAAMs mounted on outboard pylons, but I'm not sure, so...

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 02:12
by seruriermarshal
Wow great news :)

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 04:53
by sferrin
cola wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:F16 also does dash supersonic in dry...that's not supercruising.



Armed, for 13 minutes as part of a longer mission? That would be "no" to all of the above.

Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 05:19
by 1st503rdsgt
sferrin wrote:I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)

His only recourse is to assert that the USAF is flat-out lying, completing his journey from respected industry journalist to conspiracy-blogger kook. Then again, most of AVweek's readership is probably more interested in new flight-apps for the latest iPad.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 07:14
by megasun
cola wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:This confirms two things.
2. It can

Spudman...150 miles at M1.2/tropopause is about 13 minutes, worth of flying.
Since when, 13 minutes out of 4 hours theoretical max. endurance, classifies as "cruising"?
F16 also does dash supersonic in dry...that's not supercruising.


13 minutes, or maybe less than that.
Why is there such a limitation of 150 miles? Obviously fuel doesn't burnt out in 13 minutes or 150 miles, then I take the aircraft is decelerating under military thrust, and after 150 miles, its speed is below Mach 1.2.

Now image what this claimed dash scenario can be. If I want to max the dash distance, I would afterburn to max speed then switch to max military thrust and hope it maintain longer above Mach 1.2. If the average speed during this 150 miles is higher than Mach 1.2, then the duration would be less than 13 minutes.

Anyway, I'm confident that F-35 can perform no less than Gen 4 fighters in term of speed, but it is not designed for supersonic like F-22 was. F-22 can do, for what I remember, 41 minutes of M1.5.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 07:29
by johnwill
sferrin wrote:
Image

AB to get over the hump.


sferrin's drag coefficient curve helps to explain why AB is needed to get past mach 1 and mil is enough to keep the F-35 at 1.2. However, the actual drag at those speeds increases much more than does the coefficient. To get drag, the coefficient must be multiplied by some constants and by velocity squared. So even if the coefficient were constant, drag goes up by velocity squared. That explains why more fuel is needed at 1.2 than at 0.95, using mil at both speeds.

Yes, other forms of drag (induced, trim) change as speeds goes up, but for this discussion, they are irrelevant.

Engine thrust does increase with speed up to a point, then drops as airplane speed starts to approach exhaust velocity.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 08:07
by neurotech
johnwill wrote:Engine thrust does increase with speed up to a point, then drops as airplane speed starts to approach exhaust velocity.

Certain aircraft, most notably the MiG-25, have an engine/intake combination that will produce thrust above M2.5 with the main limitation being engine core temperature. The engine will still produce thrust past the point overtemp, with more fuel being burnt as speed increases.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 11:48
by Scorpion82
neurotech wrote:That is a trade-off between engine performance and drag at varying altitudes. The curve would be different without canted wing pylons, as they contribute to the drag significantly.


And who says that these performance envelopes are based on a pylons fitted configuration? That the aircraft are regularly flown with empty wing pylons fitted doesn't mean that the performance envelopes in the FM are based on this configuration. AA standard load-out is 2 x AIM-9 and 2 x AIM-7/AIM-120 with the former being fitted to the wing tip rail launchers and the later being fitted to the fuselage stations. That's apparently the cleanest configuration used in the FM enevelope charts. And even if we'd assume that the wing pylons are being fitted it won't change the fact that the best performance is achieved at altitudes below 40k ft. The envelope curve would change in width and that's it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 12:20
by thegroundeffect
falconedge wrote:
sketch22 wrote:As I've mentioned in another thread, I chatted with "Hog" from the 461st and he confirmed that yes the F-35 can indeed supercruise. It takes afterburner to get past the sound barrier but once hes supersonic he can pull the power back to mil and it'll stay there around Mach 1.2.

:? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )


From Mach .8 the drag on an aircraft wil start to incease significantly and will peak at Mach 1. After mach 1 the aerodynamic drag wil decrease, thus making it possible to fly faster with lower thrust. This is a characteristic that can only be found in aircraft. And this is the reason why legacy aircraft had to 'dive through' the sound barrier because they lacked the thrust to plow through it.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 12:34
by cola
megasun wrote:Why is there such a limitation of 150 miles? Obviously fuel doesn't burnt out in 13 minutes or 150 miles...

A good question...However, there are lot of parameters missing here.
If this is done in ideal conditions, then I'd say there's a structural limit present, probably overheating.
Maybe the engine is being pushed over 43klb of thrust, for this performance...there were hints the F135 is capable of 50klb thrust.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 13:16
by munny
Interesting article and confirmation of a number of things. 6 missiles internal coming, maneuverability, ability to take over the shoulders shots, all aspect stealth, supercruise.... looks like it's slowly and surely beating the 4.5th (tiffy, rafale, su) gens into obsolescence.

The article mentioned stealth being second to the F-22's. On the whole I agree due to the F-22 side surface cant angles yielding RCS an order of maginitude better (but the F-22 needs that because of the altitude it operates at). I still maintain that if materials are the same on aircraft leading edges, the F-35 should still have a better frontal, specular RCS. The F-35 is smaller and doesn't have any resonance causing cavities like the F-22's intakes.

Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 13:47
by munny
sferrin wrote:I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)


If LowObservable on key publishing forums is in fact BS, then this is all he's got.

"As far as the AFA story goes, it should be read in a conjunction with the briefer's record of statements and predictions since he first became a public spokesman for the program."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 15:19
by count_to_10
johnwill wrote:
sferrin's drag coefficient curve helps to explain why AB is needed to get past mach 1 and mil is enough to keep the F-35 at 1.2. However, the actual drag at those speeds increases much more than does the coefficient. To get drag, the coefficient must be multiplied by some constants and by velocity squared. So even if the coefficient were constant, drag goes up by velocity squared. That explains why more fuel is needed at 1.2 than at 0.95, using mil at both speeds.

Yes, other forms of drag (induced, trim) change as speeds goes up, but for this discussion, they are irrelevant.

Engine thrust does increase with speed up to a point, then drops as airplane speed starts to approach exhaust velocity.

I thought military power was a fuel pump rate. Are you saying that, at subsonic speeds, military power is less than full pump speed? I guess I could see that, if there is some other limitation on thrust.

Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 15:29
by 1st503rdsgt
munny wrote:
sferrin wrote:I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)


If LowObservable on key publishing forums is in fact BS, then this is all he's got.

"As far as the AFA story goes, it should be read in a conjunction with the briefer's record of statements and predictions since he first became a public spokesman for the program."

Top link in a Google search: "Key Publishing Ltd: Europe's Leading Aviation Publisher"

nuff said

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 16:01
by Scorpion82
count_to_10 wrote:I thought military power was a fuel pump rate. Are you saying that, at subsonic speeds, military power is less than full pump speed? I guess I could see that, if there is some other limitation on thrust.


It's always about the right mix of fuel AND air. The fuel feed must be adjusted to the amount of air that's being available to the engine and that is dependent on speed and altitude due to compressability of the air which is linked to airspeed and the density of air linked to altitude. The fuel/air mix must be kept within a certain ratio, otherwise the engine will flame out. Whether too much air or fuel both isn't good.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 17:50
by sferrin
johnwill wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Image

AB to get over the hump.


sferrin's drag coefficient curve helps to explain why AB is needed to get past mach 1 and mil is enough to keep the F-35 at 1.2.


That's all I was trying to show.

Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 17:54
by sferrin
munny wrote:
sferrin wrote:I wonder if Bill Sweetman will tell us about this at Ares. ;-)


If LowObservable on key publishing forums is in fact BS, then this is all he's got.

"As far as the AFA story goes, it should be read in a conjunction with the briefer's record of statements and predictions since he first became a public spokesman for the program."


LOL Not surprised. :lmao:

RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 20:00
by falconedge
how far can the F-35 fly at top speed mach 1.6 ? , if it can only fly for 150 miles at mach 1.2 then the distance it can fly at mach 1.6 will even shorter right ?
btw even the F-22 which is designed to supercruise can only maintain mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km ) :shock: not very impress if go know that F-22's ferry range is over 3000 km :?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 20:11
by bigjku
falconedge wrote:how far can the F-35 fly at top speed mach 1.6 ? , if it can only fly for 150 miles at mach 1.2 then the distance it can fly at mach 1.6 will even shorter right ?
btw even the F-22 which is designed to supercruise can only maintain mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km ) :shock: not very impress if go know that F-22's ferry range is over 3000 km :?


Compared to what exactly? The main point to be noted with the F-22 is that it can fly faster for longer than any fighter that can hope to kill it can. With the F-35 I think the main takeaway here is that the thing is plenty fast enough to deal with legacy fighters quite well.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 20:30
by 1st503rdsgt
falconedge wrote:how far can the F-35 fly at top speed mach 1.6 ? , if it can only fly for 150 miles at mach 1.2 then the distance it can fly at mach 1.6 will even shorter right ?
btw even the F-22 which is designed to supercruise can only maintain mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km ) :shock: not very impress if go know that F-22's ferry range is over 3000 km :?

Here's a dirty little secret that might save you from being shocked into a heart-attack. Most "supersonic" fighters rarely fly at supersonic speeds.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 21:29
by cywolf32
Wow, and the ego's continue. Not impressive? Show another acft which can do this with a regular combat load and maintain a 9G envelope. Show me another fighter acft with production AESA capabilities on par. Show me another acft built in 3 separate configurations of a fifth gen nature. Honestly, I am sick and tired of innate discussion about this program. If you can possibly do something better, do it. Otherwise, your wasting my time typing this ridiculous response. It amazes me still today that people cannot grasp what is being asked of the F-35.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 21:36
by Scorpion82
There are enough aircraft out there capable of pulling 9 g with a combat load. There's nothing special about this per se. The question to ask what that combat load includes and what's the g envelope?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 21:46
by sferrin
1st503rdsgt wrote:Here's a dirty little secret that might save you from being shocked into a heart-attack. Most "supersonic" fighters rarely fly at supersonic speeds.


Dude, if it says in the brochure that an aircraft's max speed is Mach 2.2 and it's range is 1200 miles then that means it can go Mach 2.2 for 1200 miles. Geez. ;-)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 22:02
by bigjku
Scorpion82 wrote:There are enough aircraft out there capable of pulling 9 g with a combat load. There's nothing special about this per se. The question to ask what that combat load includes and what's the g envelope?


I would say that the relevant measure would be pulling that turn carrying 4,000 pounds of bombs and 2 AAM's. I don't think anything else can do that.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 22:06
by 1st503rdsgt
sferrin wrote:Dude, if it says in the brochure that an aircraft's max speed is Mach 2.2 and it's range is 1200 miles then that means it can go Mach 2.2 for 1200 miles. Geez. ;-)

And it had better do it no matter what the weather conditions are or what altitudes are flown. :lmao:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 22:22
by alloycowboy
1st503rdsgt wrote:And it had better do it no matter what the weather conditions are or what altitudes are flown. :lmao:


The important thing to note here is that the F-35 is optimized to work in the transonic speed range unlike the F-22 which is optimized to work in the supersonic speed range. So the F-35 is a much more useful airplane as it is designed to be its most efficient when flying at speeds where the airplane spends most of its time.

I think this is one of the reasons why the Pentagon clipped the F-22's wings.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2012, 23:14
by cywolf32
Show me one acft that can pull 9g's with a similar combat load installed, I beg you!!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 00:04
by quicksilver
cywolf32 wrote:Wow, and the ego's continue. Not impressive? Show another acft which can do this with a regular combat load and maintain a 9G envelope. Show me another fighter acft with production AESA capabilities on par. Show me another acft built in 3 separate configurations of a fifth gen nature. Honestly, I am sick and tired of innate discussion about this program. If you can possibly do something better, do it. Otherwise, your wasting my time typing this ridiculous response. It amazes me still today that people cannot grasp what is being asked of the F-35.


Trust you mean 'inane'... :wink:

It's kinda like some of the National Parks -- i.e. don't feed the (trolls).

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 00:11
by neurotech
Scorpion82 wrote:There are enough aircraft out there capable of pulling 9 g with a combat load. There's nothing special about this per se. The question to ask what that combat load includes and what's the g envelope?

Source for that? :D

F/A-18 - 7.5G Limit - Except F-18 (aka Swiss Hornet) is cleared to 9G envelope A/A only.
F-16 is < 7.5G Max with A/G loadout.

F-15 is cleared to 9.0G Max with A/G loadout. ~ 250 jets in US Service.
The F-22 is also cleared to 9.0G with A/G loadout. 180 jets in Service.

The F-22 & F-35 without external stores can still have a combat load-out internally for A/G deployment. A 4th Gen fighter without external stores is basically an airshow jet. Has any A/G combat mission been flown in a F-16 without wing stores?

Edit: 220 F-15E Strike Eagles as well. The 250 F-15s are referenced above are F-15C/D Eagle's most of which are 9G rated. All F-15A/Bs are now retired from USAF/ANG service.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 00:39
by megasun
cywolf32 wrote:Show me one acft that can pull 9g's with a similar combat load installed, I beg you!!


Well, I actually doubt the envelope would be quite limited for F-35 to make a 9G turn "with a full load of fuel and missiles", considering the weight and Wing Loading ratio, especially sustained turn.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 02:03
by johnwill
thegroundeffect wrote:
From Mach .8 the drag on an aircraft wil start to incease significantly and will peak at Mach 1. After mach 1 the aerodynamic drag wil decrease, thus making it possible to fly faster with lower thrust. This is a characteristic that can only be found in aircraft. And this is the reason why legacy aircraft had to 'dive through' the sound barrier because they lacked the thrust to plow through it.


That is a profoundly untrue statement. The drag on an airplane starts to increase as soon as the takeoff roll begins. What you are saying is true for the drag coefficient, but not drag. Drag is drag coefficient multiplied by dynamic pressure and a reference area, usually nominal wing area. Dynamic pressure is density times velocity squared, with appropriate unit adjustments.

So, while drag coefficient may peak at mach 1, drag generally increases above mach 1, depending on how quickly the coefficient peak drops off compared to velocity increase.

Your statement about only airplanes can fly (move) faster with less thrust is also not true. Planing boats possess the same characteristic, something like passing through the back side of the power curve for an airplane.

Third and fourth generation legacy fighters have no trouble punching through the mach in level flight. If they dive to go supersonic, it's to save fuel.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 02:47
by XanderCrews
falconedge wrote: ferry range


Finally someone brings up the true measurement of a warplane. :P

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 02:56
by velocityvector
XanderCrews wrote:
falconedge wrote: ferry range


Finally someone brings up the true measurement of a warplane. :P
I wanna hear about the pee tube. All three genders.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 03:52
by neurotech
johnwill wrote:Third and fourth generation legacy fighters have no trouble punching through the mach in level flight. If they dive to go supersonic, it's to save fuel.

"no trouble" ? An F-16 or F/A-18? and with how what external stores configuration?

Wing tanks and combat A/G bomb load?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 04:36
by johnwill
Obviously, there's no point in going supersonic with tanks and A/G bomb load, even if they were cleared to do so. So my statement referred to A/A loadings.

Re: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 10:26
by linkomart
SpudmanWP wrote:http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.


This confirms two things.
1. LM does not consider just going over M to be supercruising.
2. It can :)



Well.. I'm not so sure that is what he is saying.
He says it is not technically a supercruising aircraft... But that it can fly at M 1.2 for about 150miles, without using fuel-gulping afterburner...

You can argue that he is saying that it flies with a low setting on the afterburner... that is not that fuel gulping as full AB.
Because, 150 nm sounds very short range if youre going in military power, considering the fuel fraction on the F-35.
caveat: I have not made any calculations, just used my humble experience.

my 5 cent.
linkomart
(/RAF at ARES)

Re: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 14:01
by Conan
linkomart wrote:Well.. I'm not so sure that is what he is saying.


What he is saying is black and white. It can do ... not using afterburner...

He says it is not technically a supercruising aircraft... But that it can fly at M 1.2 for about 150miles, without using fuel-gulping afterburner...


Correct. And the USAF and L-M definition of "supercruise" is?

Remarkably different to everybody else's... Because they only consider what the F-22A is capable of as "true" supercruise, because THAT is what the term was coined for.

When they say the F-35 isn't a supercruiser, they mean that it won't do M1.5+ on dry thrust. Not that it cannot exceed M1.0 on dry thrust, something even the F-16 has done.

You can argue that he is saying that it flies with a low setting on the afterburner... that is not that fuel gulping as full AB.
Because, 150 nm sounds very short range if youre going in military power, considering the fuel fraction on the F-35.
caveat: I have not made any calculations, just used my humble experience.

my 5 cent.
linkomart
(/RAF at ARES)


You can argue that. Of course you have to put words into his mouth to do so.

So can I put words into his mouth too? Okay, I read his statement as meaning the F-35 can make 0.5 past lightspeed...

Re: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 14:51
by linkomart
Conan wrote:You can argue that. Of course you have to put words into his mouth to do so.


Nae, I'm not really interested in putting words in to someone's mouth. What I want to do is to translate PR salesmans language in to easy to understand facts that me as a simple engineer can understand. Cause what's said by a salesman is not always exactly the truth, and if it have to be the truth, there is bound to be a caveat in a strange passus of the sentence that only a lawyer can understand and translate...

OK, a little rant, sorry about that.

It's just that, with the fuel volume of the F-35, the thrust of the engine and the supposed sfc (compared to for instance a F-100) the 150 mile range (not RoA) sounds too low for just going in military power.

150 mile (nautical) at M=1.2 is about 11 minutes.. give or take.
max thrust is (dry) 28000 lbf and with a SFC at about 0.89 that would be 28000 x 0.89 x 0.1875 = 4672 lbs, far from the 18480 lbs fuel stated to be in the F-35.
My numbers just don't add up, but thats presumably just me...
and, yes I know that his statement can be range from a cap or so, and that thate really isn't enough info to do any calculations, but still, I'm not convinced that it really can go that supersonic without AB


my 5 cent.

Re: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 15:02
by sferrin
linkomart wrote:but still, I'm not convinced that it really can go that supersonic without AB


my 5 cent.


So LM says it's cruised at Mach 1.2 armed without afterburner and you say they're lying because. . .?

Re: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 15:09
by SpudmanWP
sferrin wrote:
linkomart wrote: you say they're lying because. . .?

He's LM...

I so called it ;)

Re: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 15:22
by linkomart
sferrin wrote:So LM says it's cruised at Mach 1.2 armed without afterburner and you say they're lying because. . .?


He (O'Bryan I presume) said "The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners." and I'm just sceptical to if there is a caveat somewhere in that statement.

But sferrin you are right, he says that it cruises supersonic without using afterburner. Not saying straight and level, not saying at what weight, not saying at what ISA temmperature, not saying that the engine is ok afterwards. Not explaining how he got that range figure.
But one can assume that everything is standard and ok.

I'm just sceptical and don't believe everything I read on the internet....

Re: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 15:33
by Conan
linkomart wrote:
Conan wrote:You can argue that. Of course you have to put words into his mouth to do so.


Nae, I'm not really interested in putting words in to someone's mouth. What I want to do is to translate PR salesmans language in to easy to understand facts that me as a simple engineer can understand. Cause what's said by a salesman is not always exactly the truth, and if it have to be the truth, there is bound to be a caveat in a strange passus of the sentence that only a lawyer can understand and translate...

OK, a little rant, sorry about that.

It's just that, with the fuel volume of the F-35, the thrust of the engine and the supposed sfc (compared to for instance a F-100) the 150 mile range (not RoA) sounds too low for just going in military power.

150 mile (nautical) at M=1.2 is about 11 minutes.. give or take.
max thrust is (dry) 28000 lbf and with a SFC at about 0.89 that would be 28000 x 0.89 x 0.1875 = 4672 lbs, far from the 18480 lbs fuel stated to be in the F-35.
My numbers just don't add up, but thats presumably just me...
and, yes I know that his statement can be range from a cap or so, and that thate really isn't enough info to do any calculations, but still, I'm not convinced that it really can go that supersonic without AB


my 5 cent.


He said 150 miles (not nautical...) of dash. He didn't say ANYTHING about cruise, climb, joker or bingo fuel states or any such information you might need to accurately calculate things...

I would hope an engineer might wait for all the facts before starting his (said for convenience) calculating, but I guess we've seen other engineers be less picky about performing calculations for their "analysis" on the F-35 in a near complete absence of facts, so should we really be surprised it's happening again?

Mr O'Bryan is a Vice President of L-M. Not exactly sales level and he's an ex-USN F/A-18 Hornet driver to boot, so one might suggest he has an idea of what he's talking about, beyond merely the company line...

Re: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 16:16
by sferrin
linkomart wrote:
sferrin wrote:So LM says it's cruised at Mach 1.2 armed without afterburner and you say they're lying because. . .?


He (O'Bryan I presume) said "The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners." and I'm just sceptical to if there is a caveat somewhere in that statement..


Not sure how it could say anything other than what it says. It's pretty clear.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 16:32
by wrightwing
cola wrote: F16 also does dash supersonic in dry...that's not supercruising.


Not with 5,000lbs of weapons, targeting/jamming pods, and EFTs.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 16:43
by wrightwing
falconedge wrote: :? what you mean ? , so in basic after the F-35 fly faster than mach 1.2 even if the pilot reduce thrust ,it still fly for 150 miles before decelerate to subsonic speed right ? :?


The afterburner is to break the sound barrier, not to maintain M1.2. Once thru the sound barrier, there's less drag to deal with, so dry thrust is sufficient to maintain speed.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 16:46
by bigjku
wrightwing wrote:
cola wrote: F16 also does dash supersonic in dry...that's not supercruising.


Not with 5,000lbs of weapons, targeting/jamming pods, and EFTs.


I think those last three things are what are really important. If you don't just count the weapons but the EW stuff the F-35 is carrying that is suddenly a lot of things you need hanging off your F-16 of F-15 or Eurofighter to make it do what the F-35 is doing.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 16:53
by wrightwing
falconedge wrote:how far can the F-35 fly at top speed mach 1.6 ? , if it can only fly for 150 miles at mach 1.2 then the distance it can fly at mach 1.6 will even shorter right ?
btw even the F-22 which is designed to supercruise can only maintain mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km ) :shock: not very impress if go know that F-22's ferry range is over 3000 km :?


The F-22 supercruise range figures are generally given as a radius, not straight line distance. If the 150nm figure given is a radius, then the total distance at M1.2 might be as much as 300nm.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 16:58
by m
Remember I did read an article about the Swedish Saab Viggen. Flying at top speed, run out of fuel in less than five minutes.

Did some calculation. May I am wrong, but got this:

F22
mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km )

Mach 1.82 = 2229.5546 kilometers per hour / 1203.86317 nmi per hour

60 min = 3600 sec > 8,3% = 298.8 sec <> 4.98 min

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 17:05
by m
F35
Mach 1.2 for 150 miles (or 150 nmi?)

- 150 nautical miles = = 277.8 kilometers = 172 mi
- 150 miles = 241.401 km = 130.34644US nmi


Mach 1.2 = 1470.036 kilometers per hour / 793.75594 nmi per hour

150 nmi = 277.8 kilometers

60 min = 3600 sec > 10.2 % = 376.2 sec <> 6.12 min

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 18:53
by neurotech
m wrote:Remember I did read an article about the Swedish Saab Viggen. Flying at top speed, run out of fuel in less than five minutes.

Did some calculation. May I am wrong, but got this:

F22
mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km )

Mach 1.82 = 2229.5546 kilometers per hour / 1203.86317 nmi per hour

60 min = 3600 sec > 8,3% = 298.8 sec <> 4.98 min

Max. Speed is usually with internal fuel tanks only. Most 3rd Gen fighters would run out of usable fuel in less than 10 minutes of AB Max speed flight. The F-4 may be an exceptions in 3rd Gen fighters.

If you mean 4th gen Saab Gripen then it has a more efficient GE 404 engine although still a relatively low fuel fraction, like most fighters.

Conformal tanks are relatively new feature on "smaller" jets like the F-16, although I suspect it would still reduce top speed having them on the jet.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 19:26
by BDF
m wrote:Remember I did read an article about the Swedish Saab Viggen. Flying at top speed, run out of fuel in less than five minutes.

Did some calculation. May I am wrong, but got this:

F22
mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km )

Mach 1.82 = 2229.5546 kilometers per hour / 1203.86317 nmi per hour

60 min = 3600 sec > 8,3% = 298.8 sec <> 4.98 min



Remember the F-22's 100nm figure is listed as part of a combat radius. Therefore the supersonic range is 200nm. We also don't know how fast the F-22 operates when supercruising in these mission profiles. It could be as high as M1.8 but its probably a more economical M1.5 but at a higher altitude (the F-22 as with most jets reach top speeds in the mid to high 30s)

There's too many unknowns with the F-35 quote. We don't know it's exact impact on fuel burn so we don't know how much range is sacrificed for that 150nm dash. We also don't know at what altitudes it can fly supersonic without the blower. This is important because it can directly affect fuel burn as well as the geometry of an engagement. Personally I'd be surprised if the F-35 can supercruise at the same altitudes as the F-22 which would imply a lower specific range. It's still a nice capability to have.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 20:33
by Scorpion82
neurotech wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:There are enough aircraft out there capable of pulling 9 g with a combat load. There's nothing special about this per se. The question to ask what that combat load includes and what's the g envelope?

Source for that? :D

F/A-18 - 7.5G Limit - Except F-18 (aka Swiss Hornet) is cleared to 9G envelope A/A only.
F-16 is < 7.5G Max with A/G loadout.

F-15 is cleared to 9.0G Max with A/G loadout. ~ 250 jets in US Service.
The F-22 is also cleared to 9.0G with A/G loadout. 180 jets in Service.

The F-22 & F-35 without external stores can still have a combat load-out internally for A/G deployment. A 4th Gen fighter without external stores is basically an airshow jet. Has any A/G combat mission been flown in a F-16 without wing stores?

Edit: 220 F-15E Strike Eagles as well. The 250 F-15s are referenced above are F-15C/D Eagle's most of which are 9G rated. All F-15A/Bs are now retired from USAF/ANG service.


Dude combat isn't automatically AG and the "9 G with AG loadout" is rather questionable for ANY type!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 20:57
by neurotech
Scorpion82 wrote:Dude combat isn't automatically AG and the "9 G with AG loadout" is rather questionable for ANY type!

A CAP mission is not a 9G profile. When was the last dogfight in a F-16 in actual combat?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 21:24
by 1st503rdsgt
Scorpion82 wrote:the "9 G with AG loadout" is rather questionable for ANY type!

Yeah, I'm also not finding confirmation for that figure; seems a bit of a stretch. The actual g-limits for various loadouts must be classified, though it's possible that they simply don't know yet.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 21:46
by neurotech
1st503rdsgt wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:the "9 G with AG loadout" is rather questionable for ANY type!

Yeah, I'm also not finding confirmation for that figure; seems a bit of a stretch. The actual g-limits for various loadouts must be classified, though it's possible that they simply don't know yet.

The F-15E would be 9G with usable A/G loadout, but I don't have the F-15E documents for confirmation. The F-22 is 9G rated with weapons(missiles) loaded, but could be limited by internal rack limits.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 21:51
by spazsinbad
Some clues here (best to read entire article).

F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed Aviation Week & Space Technology Mar 5, 2009 By Andy Nativi

Original article no longer found here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... dline=F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed

BUT... Go here for it [top of page]: http://rnzaf.proboards.com/index.cgi?bo ... 78&page=19

"...Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon’s TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the “ideal” air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.

The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration — also known as the 240-4 — are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 22:12
by Scorpion82
Two missiles in the bays = AMRAAMs

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 22:36
by southernphantom
1st503rdsgt wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:the "9 G with AG loadout" is rather questionable for ANY type!

Yeah, I'm also not finding confirmation for that figure; seems a bit of a stretch. The actual g-limits for various loadouts must be classified, though it's possible that they simply don't know yet.


That sort of data is going to be in the airframe's Dash-One. I'm looking at a 1-F-4E-1 from 1979 right now, and the G limits on most AG stores are +5.0G/-1.0G, with the exception of AGM-65, which is +6.0G/-3.0G. A2A stores approach airframe limits, and the 'Winder is +6.5G/-3.0G.
I'm truly not sure which of these are inherent limitations of the store, which are structural-related, and which involve the suspension system, but it's fairly safe to say that modern A2A stores have higher G-tolerances than an AIM-7E, for instance.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 22:38
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:"...Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon’s TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the “ideal” air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.

The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration — also known as the 240-4 — are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay...."

Just two? :? The piece is still a bit sparse on definitive details (and old). I guess we'll have to leave the question of g-loading to the fanboys until better information is available

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 22:44
by spazsinbad
Spoken by a true NAF YOB. :D

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2012, 23:05
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Spoken by a true NAF YOB. :D

Ya lost me...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 00:30
by megasun
spazsinbad wrote:... But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67;
acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.;
a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.;
and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft.
Moreover, [b]an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay...."


These sound not as good as F-16C with 2 missiles + half fuel, as mentioned here:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1804.html
F-16 has better max speed, acceleration, sustained turn capability.
"370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft." This I take as instantaneous turn capability.
F-35A sounds more comparable to F-18C.

Image
F-16 sustained turn capability

Sure F-35A has more "half-fuel" and equipments than 16/18. But
Nevertheless, the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat. For one, it is not designed to conduct engagements in a high-speed, high-altitude, sustained turning environment.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 00:53
by spazsinbad
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meanin ... ion-of/naf NAF a backwards FAN

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/YOB YOB a backwards BOY

NAF YOB = a backwards FAN BOY. Defs of NAF & YOB may vary according to taste.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 00:55
by delvo
That was a very strangely constructed statement. Not only does the "without fuel-gulping afterburner" allow two possible meanings (either "without any afterburner", or "with afterburner at a low setting that doesn't gulp fuel like full afterburner would", but also, while we can infer that the range they gave was the maximum, it doesn't actually say "up to" or anything like that, so it could just be an example, not the maximum.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement:

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 01:12
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/naf NAF a backwards FAN

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/YOB YOB a backwards BOY

NAF YOB = a backwards FAN BOY. Defs of NAF & YOB may vary according to taste.

Eh, can't really say I've ever really been a fan of the F-35; I actually find the program rather disappointing for the most part. My support of the thing is nothing more than the sad acquiescence of a grownup who can't think of anything better. For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official stateme

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 01:20
by spazsinbad
I don't care either way what you like or not.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official sta

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 01:35
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:I don't care either way what you like or not.

Jeez, what fell into your soup? Did you think I was calling you a "NAF YOB"? I know better than that. All I said is that there's no good source on the F-35's g-loading envelope yet, so we may as well let the fanboyz fight about it for now.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 01:38
by spazsinbad
Why use the 'fan boy' term at all? And I don't like flies in my soup.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement:

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 01:51
by alloycowboy
1st503rdsgt wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/naf NAF a backwards FAN

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/YOB YOB a backwards BOY

NAF YOB = a backwards FAN BOY. Defs of NAF & YOB may vary according to taste.

Eh, can't really say I've ever really been a fan of the F-35; I actually find the program rather disappointing for the most part. My support of the thing is nothing more than the sad acquiescence of a grownup who can't think of anything better. For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.


Well some one has to love the fat girls!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Offi

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 02:21
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Why use the 'fan boy' term at all?

Perhaps an example. I've already mentioned that I like the Gripen and find the F-35 disappointing. Does that mean I think the USAF should buy planes from Saab? Absolutely not; one has to be realistic.

Were I a fanboy, I could make endless arguments about how the Gripen is better in this way or that, and take endless jabs about every F-35 shortcoming (real or imagined) while ignoring the fact that what works for Sweden is simply too small for the USAF. The F-35 draws more than its fair share of fanboy ire because it's going to replace so many sentimental favorites whilst possibly driving others out of production, and over-sentimentality is the essence of being fanboy.

I support the F-35 program because I can't come up with a clear, logical argument for anything else. That doesn't mean I like it; I simply have to accept facts as they are now. All my ideas for fixing the JSF mess involve time-travel back to 1996.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement:

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 02:27
by 1st503rdsgt
alloycowboy wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Eh, can't really say I've ever really been a fan of the F-35; I actually find the program rather disappointing for the most part. My support of the thing is nothing more than the sad acquiescence of a grownup who can't think of anything better. For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.

Well some one has to love the fat girls!

To paraphrase Carlos Mencia: "Why did my wife and I get married? Because she's the best that I could get and I'm the best that she could get... and we both realized that at the same time!"

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement:

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 03:27
by neurotech
alloycowboy wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.

Well some one has to love the fat girls!

The F-20 was quite light compared to previous jets. The problem was that the F-20 was a 9G jet but unfortunately the test pilots weren't used to a 9G jet. 2 fatal crashes didn't help sell the jet.

The Saab Gripen is also an excellent jet for defense of a small country, not so good for long range CAP.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement:

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 04:06
by 1st503rdsgt
neurotech wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: For the record, I would consider myself a fan of the following: F-22 (of course), F-20, Gripen, and F-15 ACTIVE.

Well some one has to love the fat girls!

The F-20 was quite light compared to previous jets. The problem was that the F-20 was a 9G jet but unfortunately the test pilots weren't used to a 9G jet. 2 fatal crashes didn't help sell the jet.
The Saab Gripen is also an excellent jet for defense of a small country, not so good for long range CAP.

... or long range anything. Like I said, just a fan: ain't nothing rational about it.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official stateme

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 06:10
by alloycowboy
@1st503rdsgt.... I am just teasing of course. The F-20 Tiger Shark was a good airplane it just wasn't as good as an F-16 which is why it got no orders. As for the F-35 what would you change on the airplane?

Since every aircraft is designed around its jet engine you really wouldn't want to change that being the F-135 engine is the highest thrust engine available. Since the F-35 engine size, mass flow requirements and weapons bays dictate that you must use side air intakes that pretty much forces you into an airframe of the size and shape of the F-35. So really the only thing left to change is who supplies the avionics and systems.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official sta

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 06:22
by 1st503rdsgt
alloycowboy wrote:@1st503rdsgt.... I am just teasing of course. The F-20 Tiger Shark was a good airplane it just wasn't as good as an F-16 which is why it got no orders. As for the F-35 what would you change on the airplane?

Since every aircraft is designed around its jet engine you really wouldn't want to change that being the F-135 engine is the highest thrust engine available. Since the F-35 engine size, mass flow requirements and weapons bays dictate that you must use side air intakes that pretty much forces you into an airframe of the size and shape of the F-35. So really the only thing left to change is who supplies the avionics and systems.

You've pretty much just said everything I've said about why the F-35 is the way it is. As for what I would change, that's pretty much pointless speculation; I've long since vented my spleen about what should have been done differently. All I'll say is that three separate programs would have been best: more expensive, but still best

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official sta

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 15:10
by wrightwing
1st503rdsgt wrote: You've pretty much just said everything I've said about why the F-35 is the way it is. As for what I would change, that's pretty much pointless speculation; I've long since vented my spleen about what should have been done differently. All I'll say is that three separate programs would have been best: more expensive, but still best


Given an unlimited budget, 3 separate jets might've been nice, as would 750 Raptors with cheek arrays/IRSTs/HMDs,120 B-2s, and F-14 Tomcat 21s for the Navy instead of Super Hornets.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 17:07
by m
neurotech wrote:
m wrote:Remember I did read an article about the Swedish Saab Viggen. Flying at top speed, run out of fuel in less than five minutes.

Did some calculation. May I am wrong, but got this:

F22
mach 1.82 for 100 nm (185 km )

Mach 1.82 = 2229.5546 kilometers per hour / 1203.86317 nmi per hour

60 min = 3600 sec > 8,3% = 298.8 sec <> 4.98 min

Max. Speed is usually with internal fuel tanks only. Most 3rd Gen fighters would run out of usable fuel in less than 10 minutes of AB Max speed flight. The F-4 may be an exceptions in 3rd Gen fighters.

If you mean 4th gen Saab Gripen then it has a more efficient GE 404 engine although still a relatively low fuel fraction, like most fighters.

Conformal tanks are relatively new feature on "smaller" jets like the F-16, although I suspect it would still reduce top speed having them on the jet.


Thanks for your explanation. I am no expert, just calculated the given nmi and distance.
It’s only “a fure” in min, without knowing circumstances like drag, wind, climate etc. etc.
As well without the unknowns of both jets

Less than five min. concerned the Saab Viggen I did read about, not the Saab Gripen

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 21:55
by cola
megasun wrote:Sure F-35A has more "half-fuel" and equipments than 16/18. But...

...even with full internal fuel, an F16 still does a ~0.3g more than the F35A, while maintaining a significantly longer range.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 22:14
by bigjku
cola wrote:
megasun wrote:Sure F-35A has more "half-fuel" and equipments than 16/18. But...

...even with full internal fuel, an F16 still does a ~0.3g more than the F35A, while maintaining a significantly longer range.


Can it do this while carrying a targeting pod, an ECM pod and weapons?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official sta

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 23:04
by 1st503rdsgt
wrightwing wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: You've pretty much just said everything I've said about why the F-35 is the way it is. As for what I would change, that's pretty much pointless speculation; I've long since vented my spleen about what should have been done differently. All I'll say is that three separate programs would have been best: more expensive, but still best

Given an unlimited budget, 3 separate jets might've been nice, as would 750 Raptors with cheek arrays/IRSTs/HMDs,120 B-2s, and F-14 Tomcat 21s for the Navy instead of Super Hornets.

We're in complete agreement. The F-35 is simply the best of a bad situation, and wishful thinking about what could have been isn't going to benefit anyone. Those who want to cancel the JSF now simply aren't living in the current reality, or have an emotional attachment to one of its predecessors or competitors.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official sta

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 23:29
by bigjku
1st503rdsgt wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: You've pretty much just said everything I've said about why the F-35 is the way it is. As for what I would change, that's pretty much pointless speculation; I've long since vented my spleen about what should have been done differently. All I'll say is that three separate programs would have been best: more expensive, but still best

Given an unlimited budget, 3 separate jets might've been nice, as would 750 Raptors with cheek arrays/IRSTs/HMDs,120 B-2s, and F-14 Tomcat 21s for the Navy instead of Super Hornets.

We're in complete agreement. The F-35 is simply the best of a bad situation, and wishful thinking about what could have been isn't going to benefit anyone. Those who want to cancel the JSF now simply aren't living in the current reality, or have an emotional attachment to one of its predecessors or competitors.


Agree 100%. Until the specs were frozen for the F-35 I was a big proponent of building more F-22's and revising the capabilities of the F-35 downward to control cost. But that is not an option (now that I see the F-22 maint. issues I see why to a large degree) going forward so we make due with what we have.

I think a lot of people have gone overboard with the idea that the F-35 is some sort of dog. It reminds me a lot of some of the US fighters in WWII honestly. The P-51 was best in the world at a lot of things. But aircraft like the Hellcat were simply good in a lot of areas and solid airplanes. They got the job done all the same.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2012, 23:38
by SpudmanWP
What areas could have been reduced to reduce cost significantly?

The highest portion of the cost is the avionics and that cannot be reduced and still stay effective.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2012, 01:06
by count_to_10
bigjku wrote:
cola wrote:
megasun wrote:Sure F-35A has more "half-fuel" and equipments than 16/18. But...

...even with full internal fuel, an F16 still does a ~0.3g more than the F35A, while maintaining a significantly longer range.


Can it do this while carrying a targeting pod, an ECM pod and weapons?

Are we sure we aren't just running afoul of "things that are classified"?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2012, 02:31
by alloycowboy
Oh looky, were back to the same old question? Looking at costs, is one F-22 better then two or three networked F-35's? The answer is no. With three networked F-35's you can triangulate the position of any opposing fighter and get a weapons firing solution which negates any speed and manuvering advantage the F-22 has. The F-22 is only superior in a one on one aircraft engagement. When you have multiple aircaft engaging the F-22 is really is much of an advantage because it really can't use its speed and manuvering to maximum advantage.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2012, 03:08
by Vipernice
Good info but you can tell he's not trying to sell it as something really useful. A 150 mile dash is short and can't really be used anyway unless you have a assured air supremacy. That's far too short of a distance to be using supersonic (and I presume afterburner to take it up to speed) near weapons release as supersonic flights increase the IR image (not to mention the use of afterburner before that). Not that I know how good the F-35 can deal with temperature increases but even only a 1% difference to the outside atmosphere will help out IRST systems.

Spudman I've heard it's more like 10%.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2012, 04:22
by munny
"supersonic (and I presume afterburner to take it up to speed) near weapons release as supersonic flights increase the IR image"

Wouldn't it be a tradeoff? If you are going supersonic, your a-pole range will be significantly longer than a shot at slower speed, the extra range would largely negate the larger IR sig.

I can see this capability as only being an advantage. F-35 is highly likely to have a better idea of where an enemy is first and will get itself to altitude very early. It can dash into firing range without the need to light up AB at all within the range limits of IRST's. Fire, turn away, nose down to help accelerate with a short burst of full AB, then cruise away again. Should the opponent/s evade the missiles and give chase, they'll have serious issues with fuel and due to the time it'll take to catch the fleeing F-35's, it'll allow more F-35's to set up to engage the pursuers.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2012, 08:43
by Vipernice
I think it would be dangerous to assume the F-35 would have "a better idea of where an enemy is first". Besides other sensors, IRST is getting to become pretty good and on fighters passively scanning over their sector for hostile threats the distance to a F-35 that lights up afterburner for a coming supercruise dash and weapons release will be from what I can see close to if not within range of fighter's IRST. I believe it would be wise to stay off AB and also supercruise that close to a protected target and maintain low profile.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2012, 16:06
by wrightwing
Vipernice wrote:I think it would be dangerous to assume the F-35 would have "a better idea of where an enemy is first". Besides other sensors, IRST is getting to become pretty good and on fighters passively scanning over their sector for hostile threats the distance to a F-35 that lights up afterburner for a coming supercruise dash and weapons release will be from what I can see close to if not within range of fighter's IRST. I believe it would be wise to stay off AB and also supercruise that close to a protected target and maintain low profile.


IRSTs are getting better, but to assume that they are superior to VLO signature reductions, huge advantages in network centric warfare/third party data sharing, not to mention the capabilities of the APG-81/EOTS/DAS...., is perhaps overstated.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2012, 20:18
by neurotech
Vipernice wrote:Good info but you can tell he's not trying to sell it as something really useful. A 150 mile dash is short and can't really be used anyway unless you have a assured air supremacy. That's far too short of a distance to be using supersonic (and I presume afterburner to take it up to speed) near weapons release as supersonic flights increase the IR image (not to mention the use of afterburner before that). Not that I know how good the F-35 can deal with temperature increases but even only a 1% difference to the outside atmosphere will help out IRST systems.

Spudman I've heard it's more like 10%.

Wasn't the breakdown of component costs in the Budget documentation?

With all the comments like an F-35 costs $65m with the following Government Furnished Equipment... like engines, radar, some black boxes, etc. etc. The actual figures have been released before.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2012, 20:33
by madrat
EOTS & DAS reduce pilot workload and the man-machine interface is built for minimal delay. I doubt it will be over-rated.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2012, 23:14
by wilhelm
count_to_10 wrote:Did you catch this?
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.


But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS. Within visual range stealth doesnt work, and you can lock on using IRST to track their engine exhaust. Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported, additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology. Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5. Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2012, 23:30
by 1st503rdsgt
wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS.

So... where do the BVR missiles go again?

Image

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2012, 23:47
by SpudmanWP
wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements
That depends on the situation.
wilhelm wrote: and they require Visual Identification,
Not always. The F-35 can ID an adversary using any number of methods (over 600) that are not available to any other US fighter. When a VID is needed, EOTS can provide that at almost 50nm, well outside typical WVR ranges.
wilhelm wrote:furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS.
The F-35 can carry 4 internal BVR missiles at IOC and plans are in the works to carry more.
wilhelm wrote:Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported,
Sorry, but you are COMPLETELY wrong on this point.
wilhelm wrote: additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology.
The only verified airborne L-Band usage has been a proposed upgrade for Flankers that would fit in the wing leading edges. Due to it's small size, it's effectiveness vs any stealth aircraft is questionable.
wilhelm wrote:Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5.
The F-15 has been above m1.2 while in combat maybe a handful of times. The drag penalty is tremendous when armed. The F-35 was designed with this combat history in mind.
wilhelm wrote:Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.
Historically, the range of missile combat has been getting longer and longer, not shorter.

btw, Welcome to F-16.net, but you seriously need to do some research before posting so much "info" that is contrary to what is know already about the program.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2012, 23:53
by count_to_10
The F-15 has been above m1.2 while in combat maybe a handful of times. The drag penalty is tremendous when armed. The F-35 was designed with this combat history in mind.

Spud, is there a missing "not" or "never" in that?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2012, 23:59
by 1st503rdsgt
SpudmanWP wrote:
wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements
That depends on the situation.
wilhelm wrote: and they require Visual Identification,
Not always. The F-35 can ID an adversary using any number of methods (over 600) that are not available to any other US fighter. When a VID is needed, EOTS can provide that at almost 50nm, well outside typical WVR ranges.
wilhelm wrote:furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS.
The F-35 can carry 4 internal BVR missiles at IOC and plans are in the works to carry more.
wilhelm wrote:Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported,
Sorry, but you are COMPLETELY wrong on this point.
wilhelm wrote: additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology.
The only verified airborne L-Band usage has been a proposed upgrade for Flankers that would fit in the wing leading edges. Due to it's small size, it's effectiveness vs any stealth aircraft is questionable.
wilhelm wrote:Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5.
The F-15 has been above m1.2 while in combat maybe a handful of times. The drag penalty is tremendous when armed. The F-35 was designed with this combat history in mind.
wilhelm wrote:Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.
Historically, the range of missile combat has been getting longer and longer, not shorter.

btw, Welcome to F-16.net, but you seriously need to do some research before posting so much "info" that is contrary to what is know already about the program.

Could have spared yourself. Seeing as he hasn't bothered to ask any questions, I don't think he really cares to have anything explained to him.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:03
by SpudmanWP
count_to_10 wrote:
The F-15 has been above m1.2 while in combat maybe a handful of times. The drag penalty is tremendous when armed. The F-35 was designed with this combat history in mind.

Spud, is there a missing "not" or "never" in that?
What part?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:12
by XanderCrews
wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS. Within visual range stealth doesnt work, and you can lock on using IRST to track their engine exhaust. Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported, additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology. Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5. Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.


You are really outdoing yourself here man. LOL. Wow. Everything you put up there is utterly false. Where are you getting your information?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:14
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
The F-15 has been above m1.2 while in combat maybe a handful of times. The drag penalty is tremendous when armed. The F-35 was designed with this combat history in mind.

Spud, is there a missing "not" or "never" in that?
What part?
:doh:
Never mind -- misread what you wrote.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:15
by 1st503rdsgt
XanderCrews wrote:
wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS. Within visual range stealth doesnt work, and you can lock on using IRST to track their engine exhaust. Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported, additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology. Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5. Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.

You are really outdoing yourself here man. LOL. Wow. Everything you put up there is utterly false. Where are you getting your information?

Obviously APA.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:18
by count_to_10
1st503rdsgt wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS. Within visual range stealth doesnt work, and you can lock on using IRST to track their engine exhaust. Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported, additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology. Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5. Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.

You are really outdoing yourself here man. LOL. Wow. Everything you put up there is utterly false. Where are you getting your information?

Obviously APA.

I thought APA was more pro F-22?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:20
by borntoholdout
The fastest I've even heard of for an F- 14/15/16 or 18 in combat is 1.4 mach. If my memory is correct "Dozer" (sorry can't remember his name) hit 1.4 mach intercepting a Mig-29 in Gulf War 1. I think he held that speed for almost 30 sec. :D

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:23
by SpudmanWP
The APA has painted itself into a corner.

By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.

Things are going to get real interesting when VMFA-121 shows up at its first Red Flag.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:23
by f-22lm
count_to_10 wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS. Within visual range stealth doesnt work, and you can lock on using IRST to track their engine exhaust. Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported, additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology. Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5. Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.

You are really outdoing yourself here man. LOL. Wow. Everything you put up there is utterly false. Where are you getting your information?

Obviously APA.

I thought APA was more pro F-22?
Billy Sweatman :D.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:29
by 1st503rdsgt
count_to_10 wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS. Within visual range stealth doesnt work, and you can lock on using IRST to track their engine exhaust. Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported, additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology. Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5. Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.

You are really outdoing yourself here man. LOL. Wow. Everything you put up there is utterly false. Where are you getting your information?

Obviously APA.

I thought APA was more pro F-22?

Not anymore. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth/
I like how David Axe refers to Carlo Kopp's fanboy site as an "independent think-tank." Word to the wise... the word "independent" in relation to any publication generally translates as "isolated from any relevant source of information."

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:38
by count_to_10
Not anymore. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth/
I like how David Axe refers to Carlo Kopp's fanboy site as an "independent think-tank." Word to the wise... the word "independent" in relation to any publication generally translates as "isolated from any relevant source of information."


I find that "independent" usually is a way of saying "purely partisan, but not technically associated with us".

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:51
by XanderCrews
1st503rdsgt wrote:Not anymore. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth/
I like how David Axe refers to Carlo Kopp's fanboy site as an "independent think-tank." Word to the wise... the word "independent" in relation to any publication generally translates as "isolated from any relevant source of information."


I think that it is incredible thata Carlo Kopp analysis of pictures is called a "first scientific examination"

If APA rated women:

Image

assessment: Total disaster. Not beautiful. Not Russian.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 00:58
by spazsinbad
SALT (look it up - movie). :D [OK - I did http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944835/plotsummary ]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Superc

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 01:13
by neurotech
FYI The F-14A/B/D had fixed intakes for most of its service life. This limited the speed to 2.0

The F-15 Can go at least Mach 1.2(Mach 2.0+ as I recall) with 4 missiles on conformal plyons. Remember the incident when the Oregon ANG alert jets went supersonic up to Seattle?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 01:33
by borntoholdout
neurotech wrote:FYI The F-14A/B/D had fixed intakes for most of its service life. This limited the speed to 2.0

The F-15 Can go at least Mach 1.2(Mach 2.0+ as I recall) with 4 missiles on conformal plyons. Remember the incident in Portland when the Oregon ANG alert jets went supersonic?


I think the F-15 is combat limited to 1.78m. I THINK. I've been wrong before. :thumb:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 01:51
by neurotech
borntoholdout wrote:
neurotech wrote:FYI The F-14A/B/D had fixed intakes for most of its service life. This limited the speed to 2.0

The F-15 Can go at least Mach 1.2(Mach 2.0+ as I recall) with 4 missiles on conformal plyons. Remember the incident in Portland when the Oregon ANG alert jets went supersonic?


I think the F-15 is combat limited to 1.78m. I THINK. I've been wrong before. :thumb:

That sounds like the limit of the CFTs, I couldn't find confirmation of that figure, so I could be mistaken. A pilot would have some major explaining to do (at minimum) if they ran out of fuel in combat operations because they were flying too fast.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 02:31
by borntoholdout
From what can find on Google the 1.78m is for the "C" with 4 mraam's and 2 aim-9's. I'm posting from a smart phone and can't seem to post a link. What do you know? They'll even let stupid people have these. :shock:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 03:50
by Conan
SpudmanWP wrote:The APA has painted itself into a corner.

By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.

Things are going to get real interesting when VMFA-121 shows up at its first Red Flag.


They are sort of, kind of, reluctantly coming around to admitting that Australia does in fact need something and the vapour-ware F-22A (as far as employing it in RAAF service is concerned) is no longer any chance.

There has been a bit of mumbling that "maybe" the F-15SE is what RAAF should be chasing now that it's preferred choices are unavailable or buried in the ground. Such has hardly been whole-heartedly supported even within their own ranks however and they haven't produced a single work supporting the idea.

It's more akin to the image of a disappointed enthusiast, kicking stones and dirt around aimlessly whilst staring downwards and mumbling that maybe the F-15SE would do...

The ironic thing is, that since they were publicly destroyed in front of the Senate Committee, the F-22A production finished and the F-111's were buried, they've produced almost nothing of note, short of official complaints, which shows just how much they "care about what's best" for Australia...

One of the principal tasks required of defence by Government is to provide options for the Government to fulfill our required national security tasks.

That APA has been wedded so wholly to it's dreams and demonstrably unable to intellectually identify any other possible options to meet our needs once their dreams were shown to be nothing more than hot air, demonstrates clearly just how amateur these men really are and how unsuitable they are for any sort of role in assessing, let alone meeting our tactical and strategic platform / capability requirements.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 04:19
by XanderCrews
Conan wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The APA has painted itself into a corner.

By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.

Things are going to get real interesting when VMFA-121 shows up at its first Red Flag.


They are sort of, kind of, reluctantly coming around to admitting that Australia does in fact need something and the vapour-ware F-22A (as far as employing it in RAAF service is concerned) is no longer any chance.

There has been a bit of mumbling that "maybe" the F-15SE is what RAAF should be chasing now that it's preferred choices are unavailable or buried in the ground. Such has hardly been whole-heartedly supported even within their own ranks however and they haven't produced a single work supporting the idea.

It's more akin to the image of a disappointed enthusiast, kicking stones and dirt around aimlessly whilst staring downwards and mumbling that maybe the F-15SE would do...

The ironic thing is, that since they were publicly destroyed in front of the Senate Committee, the F-22A production finished and the F-111's were buried, they've produced almost nothing of note, short of official complaints, which shows just how much they "care about what's best" for Australia...

One of the principal tasks required of defence by Government is to provide options for the Government to fulfill our required national security tasks.

That APA has been wedded so wholly to it's dreams and demonstrably unable to intellectually identify any other possible options to meet our needs once their dreams were shown to be nothing more than hot air, demonstrates clearly just how amateur these men really are and how unsuitable they are for any sort of role in assessing, let alone meeting our tactical and strategic platform / capability requirements.


Damn, well put! APA can basically be summarized as "Anything but the F-35. whatever Russia/China has is better, unless its whatever aircraft we will never get but desperately want, based on these made up stats" If the F-15SE can fill that void for them, I expect them to ride it until the next best (imaginary) thing shows up.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 04:29
by Conan
XanderCrews wrote:Damn, well put! APA can basically be summarized as "Anything but the F-35. whatever Russia/China has is better, unless its whatever aircraft we will never get but desperately want, based on these made up stats" If the F-15SE can fill that void for them, I expect them to ride it until the next best (imaginary) thing shows up.


Yep, they are doing what they've accused virtually everyone else of. "Dooming themselves to irrelevancy..."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 04:53
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:Damn, well put! APA can basically be summarized as "Anything but the F-35. whatever Russia/China has is better, unless its whatever aircraft we will never get but desperately want, based on these made up stats" If the F-15SE can fill that void for them, I expect them to ride it until the next best (imaginary) thing shows up.

Considering there are "NATO" spec. MiG-29s now, I'm surprised they don't suggest the RAAF buy re-engined Su-30MKs with French/Israeli avionics.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 05:57
by borntoholdout
F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 06:02
by 1st503rdsgt
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 06:21
by neurotech
1st503rdsgt wrote:
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Yeah, I remember the Flanker surviving a bird strike and keep running with its KD-36DM engine management system :D

91-4008 Took-off from Dobbins AFB, Georgia on a planned cross country ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. Shortly after take-off and during rendezvous with two chase F-15s at 1335 hours the F-22 ingested a 8.5 pound Loon in its right engine. Surprisingly even though a lot of damage to the engine, the engine continued to operate normally.

Damage to the aircraft was to the intake and the engine itself. The engine could not be repaired.


Note: For those who don't get the joke. The KD-36DM is the ejection seat. The engines are AL-31s which seem to have a service life of ~600 Hours.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 08:37
by gtx
I keep imagining Carlo Kook buried with his beloved F-111s under the rubbish dump...with Goon alongside him :lol: :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 08:40
by Conan
neurotech wrote:Considering there are "NATO" spec. MiG-29s now, I'm surprised they don't suggest the RAAF buy re-engined Su-30MKs with French/Israeli avionics.


One of the Senators who was clearly fed up with them, put that very point to them in front of the Senate. They didn't like that option because in their words, "it'd only give us parity..." Not the overmatch they say their option would.

Attempting reason or logic with that bunch is a waste of time...

/ignore

is the only effective approach with them and for the large part has been successfully implemented by RAAF and Government for years.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 08:50
by gtx
Was that the same session where CK was dragged kicking and screaming out of the Senate Enquiry?

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2012, 12:52
by spazsinbad
At least this other blogger addresses some of the points made in the original article sparking this thread - so in effect it is 'almost' on topic for this thread.

Air Force Magazine on the Latest From the F-35 Mavens Part 1 of How Ever Many it Takes 18 Nov 2012 by 'SMSgt Mac'

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -f-35.html

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 01:24
by haavarla
neurotech wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Yeah, I remember the Flanker surviving a bird strike and keep running with its KD-36DM engine management system :D

91-4008 Took-off from Dobbins AFB, Georgia on a planned cross country ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. Shortly after take-off and during rendezvous with two chase F-15s at 1335 hours the F-22 ingested a 8.5 pound Loon in its right engine. Surprisingly even though a lot of damage to the engine, the engine continued to operate normally.

Damage to the aircraft was to the intake and the engine itself. The engine could not be repaired.


Note: For those who don't get the joke. The KD-36DM is the ejection seat. The engines are AL-31s which seem to have a service life of ~600 Hours.


Why post stuff that "seems"..
When you can post stuff that "IS".

AL-31FM1 has service life of 2000 hour.
AL-31FM2 has service life of 3000 hour.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1615

And the Flanker does not have F119 engines equivelent.
Its two totaly different engines.
It has this instead:

117S has service life of 4000 hour.

http://npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 02:52
by neurotech
haavarla wrote:
neurotech wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Yeah, I remember the Flanker surviving a bird strike and keep running with its KD-36DM engine management system :D

91-4008 Took-off from Dobbins AFB, Georgia on a planned cross country ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. Shortly after take-off and during rendezvous with two chase F-15s at 1335 hours the F-22 ingested a 8.5 pound Loon in its right engine. Surprisingly even though a lot of damage to the engine, the engine continued to operate normally.

Damage to the aircraft was to the intake and the engine itself. The engine could not be repaired.


Note: For those who don't get the joke. The KD-36DM is the ejection seat. The engines are AL-31s which seem to have a service life of ~600 Hours.


Why post stuff that "seems"..
When you can post stuff that "IS".

AL-31FM1 has service life of 2000 hour.
AL-31FM2 has service life of 3000 hour.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1615

And the Flanker does not have F119 engines equivelent.
Its two totaly different engines.
It has this instead:

117S has service life of 4000 hour.

http://npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64

So 600 hours was a little low for total service life.. my bad..I still would be surprised if an AL-31 or AL-41(117S) can go more than 600 hours without an overhaul. Perhaps That_Engine_Guy will make an appearance, and confirm. I personally doubt the engine could get to 4000 hours without MAJOR rebuild during overhaul. Maybe they and make a Blisk fan/compressor stage like the F119, but until that is in FULL production and in service powering a jet fighter, its speculation as to reliability. Pratt & Whitney F119 engines have been in service for over 10 years. GE F414 engines, have been in service over 10 years as well.

The F119 is probably the most reliable engine ever flown in a jet fighter, and the F135 would be close, but hasn't really passed "oh s**t" test of a real in-flight emergency after a FOD incident.

How many Sukhoi pilots have ejected/crashed from a FOD/Bird Strike incident? More than the zero F-22 pilots?

Edit: Wikipedia page states a Saturn 117S engine has a TBO of 1000 hours. We shall see.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 04:26
by munny
Conan wrote:By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.


APA are all for the F-15SE now, well Peter Goon is at least. Don't think Kopp wants to humiliate himself further by trying to sell that SE as a lower RCS aircraft than the F-35 like he's trying to do with the PAK FA, despite his own evidence.

Goon has gone batshit crazy on Australian aviation forums lately though, so who knows if he's serious/lucid.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 04:46
by hb_pencil
Got any links? I do enjoy a good trainwreck from time to time.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 05:05
by neurotech
munny wrote:
Conan wrote:By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.


APA are all for the F-15SE now, well Peter Goon is at least. Don't think Kopp wants to humiliate himself further by trying to sell that SE as a lower RCS aircraft than the F-35 like he's trying to do with the PAK FA, despite his own evidence.

Goon has gone batshit crazy on Australian aviation forums lately though, so who knows if he's serious/lucid.

I would be surprised if the PAK FA had a lower RCS than the F-15SE or F-35. All reports so far indicate the F-15SE has RCS higher than the F-35 as well.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-3

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 11:01
by haavarla
neurotech wrote:
haavarla wrote:
neurotech wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
borntoholdout wrote:F-119's in a flanker... Will a f414 fit in an mig-29?

Sorry... :offtopic:

APA has already claimed that the Flankers are running an F119 equivalent.
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html (you'll have to scroll down)

Yeah, I remember the Flanker surviving a bird strike and keep running with its KD-36DM engine management system :D

91-4008 Took-off from Dobbins AFB, Georgia on a planned cross country ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. Shortly after take-off and during rendezvous with two chase F-15s at 1335 hours the F-22 ingested a 8.5 pound Loon in its right engine. Surprisingly even though a lot of damage to the engine, the engine continued to operate normally.

Damage to the aircraft was to the intake and the engine itself. The engine could not be repaired.


Note: For those who don't get the joke. The KD-36DM is the ejection seat. The engines are AL-31s which seem to have a service life of ~600 Hours.


Why post stuff that "seems"..
When you can post stuff that "IS".

AL-31FM1 has service life of 2000 hour.
AL-31FM2 has service life of 3000 hour.

http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=1615

And the Flanker does not have F119 engines equivelent.
Its two totaly different engines.
It has this instead:

117S has service life of 4000 hour.

http://npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64

So 600 hours was a little low for total service life.. my bad..I still would be surprised if an AL-31 or AL-41(117S) can go more than 600 hours without an overhaul. Perhaps That_Engine_Guy will make an appearance, and confirm. I personally doubt the engine could get to 4000 hours without MAJOR rebuild during overhaul. Maybe they and make a Blisk fan/compressor stage like the F119, but until that is in FULL production and in service powering a jet fighter, its speculation as to reliability. Pratt & Whitney F119 engines have been in service for over 10 years. GE F414 engines, have been in service over 10 years as well.

The F119 is probably the most reliable engine ever flown in a jet fighter, and the F135 would be close, but hasn't really passed "oh s**t" test of a real in-flight emergency after a FOD incident.

How many Sukhoi pilots have ejected/crashed from a FOD/Bird Strike incident? More than the zero F-22 pilots?

Edit: Wikipedia page states a Saturn 117S engine has a TBO of 1000 hours. We shall see.


All good.
As long as the engine operate in all parameters between each TBO.
All jet engines has a given TBO, so its a moot point.
I'll post this vid for info about how far NPO Saturn whom developed the 117S jet engine. Russia has an exellent take on special alloys that require heat resistance requirement. Like these fan blade shown in this vid.
They are made of ceramic matrices alloy. Briliant stuff, makes it withstand very high temp.
It possess the injection RTM composite fabrication technology used in Snecma's Leap 1B composite fan.
Whatch from 05:00 min
http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=370942

Anyway, my point is, Russian jet engine are designed in a different mindset from western jet Engines.
Russian Engines are more T/W focused. Due to their light weight, and high Thrust output(high temp), it quite logical that they have shorter life service.
In short, Russian Engines are more maxed out.

There is no equall to the 117 engines that are used on Pak-Fa when it come the T/W ratio.
The 117 engine has 15.000kgf of thrust, and is 150 kilo lighter if we compair it with the AL-31FM1 engines, which dry weight is 1,570 kilograms.
A T/W ratio at 10,56:1 Not bad at all.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 12:38
by spazsinbad
Gibberish.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 15:31
by count_to_10
neurotech wrote:
munny wrote:
Conan wrote:By demonizing the F-35 and putting all it's hopes on the F-22, it no longer has any plane to pin it's hopes on for an effective AU fighter.


APA are all for the F-15SE now, well Peter Goon is at least. Don't think Kopp wants to humiliate himself further by trying to sell that SE as a lower RCS aircraft than the F-35 like he's trying to do with the PAK FA, despite his own evidence.

Goon has gone batshit crazy on Australian aviation forums lately though, so who knows if he's serious/lucid.

I would be surprised if the PAK FA had a lower RCS than the F-15SE or F-35. All reports so far indicate the F-15SE has RCS higher than the F-35 as well.

I find it hard to believe that the Silent Eagle has anywhere near as low a RCS as the F-35.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Su

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 19:31
by neurotech
count_to_10 wrote:
neurotech wrote:I would be surprised if the PAK FA had a lower RCS than the F-15SE or F-35. All reports so far indicate the F-15SE has RCS higher than the F-35 as well.

I find it hard to believe that the Silent Eagle has anywhere near as low a RCS as the F-35.

The F-15SE is too expensive and a decade too late. Sorry Boeing. The F-15E airframe (servicing/maintenance wise) didn't change that much, from the 70s designed F-15B. The F/A-18E/F is significant improvement over the F/A-18C/D when it comes to maintenance requirements, panel access etc.

On a related topic, the F-117 used a surprising amount of "available" components from other jets like the F/A-18 and F-16 (F-5 for HAVE BLUE). If the DoD really wanted a stealth F-15, they could take the engines (F110 or F100), take the mission systems off a F/A-18E/F or F-15E/K/SG, but keep the "outline" of a smaller F-22. Estimated put the program cost (prototype + EMD) in the $10-$20bn range, but it would be a real 5th gen fighter.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2012, 22:34
by borntoholdout
The SE is only stealthy form head on. It's not all aspect stealth. Yes weapons pods do help some. Ground based radars will still see you way out. On a bombing mission when you get over enemy held ground radars can see you. In an all aspect stealth they will have a much harder time. Now on an interception mission the lower RCS head on will make it harder for the attacking aircraft to see your intercepter. This is the problem with the eurofighters "lower" RCS. :2c:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2012, 00:37
by count_to_10
What about the intakes? The leading edges still appear to be perpendicular to the axis -- not good for forward RCS.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CA

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2012, 01:26
by borntoholdout
Your very right. I don't think the SE's rcs is as good as the f-35. But in theory is much better the a standard eagles.[/img]

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2012, 04:09
by munny
In a word, there's-no-f*%@#g-way the Silent eagle has a better RCS from ANY aspect, especially from the side. One of the things I can comment on with reasonable confidence is the comparison of aircraft specular RCS based on shaping features.

Kopp botched the following article in relation to F-35 RCS in comparison to the PAK FA.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

He refuses to mention at what angle the side of an F-35 becomes a bright target. He knows its around 22-25 degrees below horizontal, but still persists in saying the PAK FA has a better RCS profile even though his own simulation proves otherwise. He's simulated the F-35's side before, made a vague, false comment of the result and did not post a polar diagram to back himself up.

I doubt he would ever dare to say the SE is a stealth fighter. That aircraft is merely Goon's latest man-crash due to its speed I'd say.

To witness Goon's fall into bubbling at the mouth insanity, just copy and paste the following line into google and read some of his attacks on Andrew McLaughlin. He REALLY has it in for this guy and is stalking him in the comments section of that site like a certified fruitloop:

australianaviation.com.au "Peter."

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2012, 07:21
by Conan
munny wrote:In a word, there's-no-f*%@#g-way the Silent eagle has a better RCS from ANY aspect, especially from the side. One of the things I can comment on with reasonable confidence is the comparison of aircraft specular RCS based on shaping features.

Kopp botched the following article in relation to F-35 RCS in comparison to the PAK FA.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

He refuses to mention at what angle the side of an F-35 becomes a bright target. He knows its around 22-25 degrees below horizontal, but still persists in saying the PAK FA has a better RCS profile even though his own simulation proves otherwise. He's simulated the F-35's side before, made a vague, false comment of the result and did not post a polar diagram to back himself up.

I doubt he would ever dare to say the SE is a stealth fighter. That aircraft is merely Goon's latest man-crash due to its speed I'd say.

To witness Goon's fall into bubbling at the mouth insanity, just copy and paste the following line into google and read some of his attacks on Andrew McLaughlin. He REALLY has it in for this guy and is stalking him in the comments section of that site like a certified fruitloop:

australianaviation.com.au "Peter."


Whilst Peter Goon certainly has his issues, that poster is not him. I strongly suspect it's one of the lunatic types who follow him around the web, the type who infest ELP's blog and continually re-assure him that whatever garbage he is sprouting today is "right"...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruis

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2013, 18:31
by That_Engine_Guy
falconedge wrote: :? it quite hard to understand , i dont get it , if the pilot pull the power back then the force will be decrease how could the f-35 still able to remain it's speed ???
( i mean it physics :shock: )


In trans-sonic flight, a shock wave will build at the leading edge of the aircraft. The additional thrust of MAX power will punch the aircraft through the sound-barrier (and offending drag) then the throttle can be reduced to MIL power. The drag above MACH 1 is lower than the drag at MACH 0.95 and requires less thrust to maintain speed.

falconedge wrote:can you explain why it still consume more gas if it is supercruise :)
btw how much gas the afterburner mode consume compared to normal dry thrust :?


In 'supercruise' the pilot would have the throttle at or very near MIL (100% power of the engine without the augmentor).

So follow me here, I'll use be using basic numbers as a relative thing to compare...

MIL power consumes 1
MAX power consumes 4

Now if you're flying at supercruise, your engine is buring '1' fuel to do MACH 1.2
If you're doing MACH .9 your throttle can be set much lower, say '0.7' and your saving fuel
Try MACH 1.5 and your throttle is set to 4

Now if you were to plug fuel flows in, and multiply by the 'representative figures' given, you can see where speed costs fuel.

This is much the same as people driving 70MPH using more fuel than people driving at 55MPH. Same car, same motor, same load, same distance. But to make the trip faster you WILL use more fuel.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG