Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by hcobb on Jan 11, 2012 - 04:28 AM; edited 2 times in total

Heavy metal in single engine strike fighters.
(Thuding fixed, compare against a pair of starfighters if you dare!)

F-105D / F-35A
Empty: 12.5 tons / 13.3 tons
MTOW: 23.8 tons / 31.8 tons
Payload: 11 tons / 18 tons
Wing load: 93 lb/sf / 91.4 lb/sf
Afterburner: 109 kN / 191 kN
T/W: 0.74 / 0.87
Combat radius: 680 nm / 590 nm (internal only)
Vulnerability to ground fire: lights up like a match (both)

So all things considered, I'd rather have the F-35. If conformal fuel tanks were added the F-35 would lose in no categories against the museum piece. So next time some "expert" compares the two aircraft you should shout back that they are totally wrong, the Lead Sled had a distinguished combat career.

F-16.net Sponsor

That is...
utterly hilarious. A little oversimplified (Electronics and LO) but still... Laughing

Anyone ever play that Top Trumps game.............

One teeny, weeny little typo..... Laughing

outlaw162 wrote:

One teeny, weeny little typo..... Laughing

Yep. last I checked, the Zipper wasn't a strike fighter......

Eh, they have a similar design idea: a medium strike focused fighter class airplane. The F-35 will have better A2A than the F-104D, relative to its peer threats, both were designed as a bomber first, fighter second.

Er, do you mean F-105D? F-104 was a lightweight fighter of its day, and the -D was a two-seater. The F-104 did some A-G though.

maus92 wrote:

Er, do you mean F-105D? F-104 was a lightweight fighter of its day, and the -D was a two-seater. The F-104 did some A-G though.

Mostly as a nuclear delivery system. While it could carry bombs, it wasn't really designed for that sort of use.

whooops, replace F-104 with F-105....

I am not naming names but some one needs to put down the scotch bottle.

Are we talking about the starchief or the thunderfighter here?

The range and T/W ratios are a little off.

Well these are WickedPedia numbers, not reality. Gimmie a source for your numbers and I'll push them in.

Salute!

Gotta remember the environment that the Thud flew in back from 1965 to 1971. New threats ( SA-2), a very competent integrated air defense system, a motivated enemy, etc.

The Thud was tough and didn't "go up like a match". But you can only take so many of those 57mm and 85mm hits and survive.

Zipper never got a chance to haul "two" eggs to Hanoi and bomb. It may have been harder to hit, but couldn't carry much. Also didn't have many deployed to see how it would have done A2A.

SLUF had the legs, not as good as the F-35, but was the only strike jet during Linebacker II that didn't need to refuel. Only other plane that didn't refuel was the EB-66 ECM jet, and we both flew outta Korat. We could also carry the same bomb load as a WW2 Bi17, heh heh.

The F-35 looks like a "fast" SLUF with LO characteristics and cosmic nav/bombing gear. So I would take one any day on those missions back in 1972. Times have changed, drastically, but the F-35 seems to be well-equipped to handle the new threats and mission requirements.

Gums sends...

P.S. IMPORTANT: We local Zoomies have a tour of the Eglin F-35 wing next Friday - 20 January. Get to talk with pilots, see the sim and join one squadron for happy hour after the tour. Anybody local can PM me for access.

http://www.dailyairforce.com/707/F35As- ... 584nm.html

Quote:

But programme officials are also debating whether to change how the range of the F-35A is calculated, the source said. The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft's combat radius, the source said.

As for T/W ratios, you need to look at the weight that the F-35 will likely be fighting at(>1:1), not the weight at the end of the runway. It also depends on what the actual thrust level turns out to be.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Baby Seal vs Lead Sled