Forum: General F-35 Forum

There has been much criticism about the F-35 giving up too much for its stealth. Surely, it is slower than the F-22 and it won't handle with similar authority at extreme altitudes or at air shows. But if we take a step back and consider what an F-35 without stealth is, we can say that it is a fighter which:-

(1) Meets or exceeds F-16 flight and agility performance -- which is more than sufficient to be successful all A2A or A2G missions.
(2) Has ~2.5x the F-16's range on internal fuel and superior range with external fuel.
(3) Has superior ordnance carrying and delivery capability than the F-16.
(4) Has internal ordnance carriage which maximizes performance and range on most missions.
(5) Has a significantly superior radar, EW and optronics suite compared to any 4th or 4.5 gen type.
(6) Has significantly superior networking and data-linking capabilties compared to any 4th or 4.5 gen type.
(7) Has a lower logistical footprint than 4th and 4.5 generation fighters.
(8.) Has the most advanced pilot and situational awareness interface in the world.
(9) Has a unit cost similar to, or lower than, all 4.5 generation fighters.
(10) Is available in CTOL, CV or STOVL versions to suite all operational needs.

In other words, an F-35 without ANY stealth is still fighter which is in most ways better and more effective than the newer jets on the market such as the Rafale, Typhoon or Super Hornet. This raises the question - kind of dynamic improvement the JSF could have if it didn't go for a golf ball sized RCS? The answer is that it'll probably be a little bit more agile which still won't make a difference when it comes to dodging AAMs. It'll also probably be a little bit faster -- 10~15% faster operationally -- which again makes very little difference in determining aerial combat or strike effectiveness. It'll also probably be somewhat cheaper, which is probably make it attractive to the lower end of the market (ala Gripen). IMHO, the design choices are correct and the overall package achieved is unequalled.

F-16.net Sponsor

.... once Block III avionics proves itself. Wink

As usual, your post is very thoughtful and informative. I do think, however, that evaluating the worth of the F-35 by stacking it against the F-16 is a bit of a straw man comparison. I'd hope that there'd be significant advances in engine, avionics, and airframe design in the past 30 years. Of course, the F-16 has been updated as well, but within the constraints of its original design.

In comparison with the 4.5 generation fighters, I think a couple of things remain to be seen. The Gripen likely has comparable networking and datalinking capabilities. I think it may be too early to make cost comparisons. Likewise, I think we'll have to see whether the logistical footprint is smaller in comparison with 4.5 fighters. I think cost comparisons are also complicated by strategic factors and so comparing the costs of planes perhaps is a bit of a red herring. Although the Griphen, Rafale and Eurofighter may be expensive, I do understand the Europeans desire to maintain their aerospace industry.

Take away stealth and the whole Navy's reason for buying the F-35C kinda evaporates, doesn't it? Even though it may have superior aerodynamics, it's not being tasked for the air superiority / interceptor role.

Well, lets put it this way... if you take the sixteen as a base line and go to say a Rafale, what you see is a very marginal improvement in cruise speed maybe ~Mach 0.1 faster (Mach 1.3 clean vs 1.2 clean ideal altitude and conditions; less when carrying a typical warload) and practically no improvement in top speed. You also speed an incremental improvement in turning performance whose value even in a dog fight is questionable. That is basically what the airframe achieves. This is basically the paradigm of the Eurocanards -- the Typhoons a little more so and the Gripens a little less so.

If you go from a sixteen to an F-35, stealth aside, you are choosing huge range and persistence improvement over the marginal speed and agility improvements you see with the Rafale. You are also putting in internal weapon bays which allows the aircraft to achieve its maximum aerodynamic performance when carrying about 4000 lbs of bombs and 2 AAMs or 4~6 AAMs. This is something which is not possible with the Rafale for instance because a similar mission profile will require 4~6 weapons, an equivalent number of pylons and a tank or two in the air stream. These alone may very well negate the marginal aerodynamic advantage of the Rafale when both aircrafts are flying clean. One can certainly argue that this is a better set of improvements than going a tiny bit faster and turning a tiny bit sharper.

Remember, we are not talking radars, avionics, stealth or anything else. We are simply trying to distill whether the F-35 airframe performance is competitive or the choices of its performance targets vs those of other aircrafts are the correct ones.

That question dwindles around my mind for some time now: Does the F-35 have the 9g capabilities of the Viper or is it more limited ? I'd imagine the answer is yes, but I'd like some more educated response....

The term eurocandard is used here quite frequently.
IMHO you can't compare them this way.

Gripen is an aircraft lighter than F-16 for country defence. It has networking capabilities right now and can operate from 800m runways.
What it lacks is thrust, range and stores.

In terms of airframe performance Rafale and Typhoon are superior to Gripen. Rafale is a better striker right now, Typhoon a brute A2A fighter.

F-35 will be a good long range striker. Its A2A performance? It will never supercruise (sweep angle), sustained turn will be no better than F-16 (thrust, wingloading).

So the overall performance depends on its stealth features. If they work as advertised - good.

Otherwise I'd be cautios operating against uprated Su-30s, Mig-35s and similar 3,5 gen. aircrafts.

But still US has a large numerical superiority over possible opponents and the F-22.

seat_dreamer wrote:

That question dwindles around my mind for some time now: Does the F-35 have the 9g capabilities of the Viper or is it more limited ? I'd imagine the answer is yes, but I'd like some more educated response....

The USAF and STOVL versions are 9-g rated but the CVN version is 7-g rated with an over-ride switch. I wonder if instantaneous and sustaind g-capabilities are significantly different from gen-4 fighters.

Mike

dwightlooi wrote:

There has been much criticism about the F-35 giving up too much for its stealth. Surely, it is slower than the F-22 and it won't handle with similar authority at extreme altitudes or at air shows. But if we take a step back and consider what an F-35 without stealth is, we can say that it is a fighter which:-

(1) Meets or exceeds F-16 flight and agility performance -- which is more than sufficient to be successful all A2A or A2G missions.
(2) Has ~2.5x the F-16's range on internal fuel and superior range with external fuel.
(3) Has superior ordnance carrying and delivery capability than the F-16.
(4) Has internal ordnance carriage which maximizes performance and range on most missions.
(5) Has a significantly superior radar, EW and optronics suite compared to any 4th or 4.5 gen type.
(6) Has significantly superior networking and data-linking capabilties compared to any 4th or 4.5 gen type.
(7) Has a lower logistical footprint than 4th and 4.5 generation fighters.
(8.) Has the most advanced pilot and situational awareness interface in the world.
(9) Has a unit cost similar to, or lower than, all 4.5 generation fighters.
(10) Is available in CTOL, CV or STOVL versions to suite all operational needs.

In other words, an F-35 without ANY stealth is still fighter which is in most ways better and more effective than the newer jets on the market such as the Rafale, Typhoon or Super Hornet. This raises the question - kind of dynamic improvement the JSF could have if it didn't go for a golf ball sized RCS? The answer is that it'll probably be a little bit more agile which still won't make a difference when it comes to dodging AAMs. It'll also probably be a little bit faster -- 10~15% faster operationally -- which again makes very little difference in determining aerial combat or strike effectiveness. It'll also probably be somewhat cheaper, which is probably make it attractive to the lower end of the market (ala Gripen). IMHO, the design choices are correct and the overall package achieved is unequalled.

"In other words, an F-35 without ANY stealth is still fighter which is in most ways better and more effective than the newer jets on the market such as the Rafale, Typhoon or Super Hornet."

Yes, but so is the F-22. What the F-35 cannot do that the F-22 does:

1) Supercruise w/o burners lit
2) Multiple (6+) BVR missiles
3) Sortie generation rate is higher with the 22 when going after mud moving missions (due to supercruise) Though it cannot carry the 2K pounders, in this era pinprick bombing missions because we're losing our guts to actually win with overwhelmingly devastating our enemies, its unlikely the 2K pound munitions are going to be dropped more than the 1/2 ton type, not to mention the new upcoming 1/8 pounders.
4) F-22 can drop its a2g munitions at very high and very fast airspeeds thus giving that much extra distance between plane/pilot and target (Hence the 22 is much safer for the crew and plane)
5) Though there are libraries of information about a2a turning engagagements, the F-22 will have the F-35 beat in this scenario as well. If the 22 runs out of airspeed in a verticle climb, due to its TWIN (and this is the key) vectoring exhaust nozzels, the 22 can still swing around and point its nose in damned near any direction needed to get a shot off. The F-35 cannot do this.
6) Safety: the F-22 has 2 engines. If one glowing hole goes cold then there's a 2nd one to safe plane and pilot.
7) Its very very likely that the new plane being developed in Russia will be a supercruiser: we're going to 183 of our own supercruising bird and likely "the bad guys" are going to have a hell of a lot more.

See, many want to compare the 22&35 to the 15&16, but keep in mind that the F-16 was (or is) superior to the Eagle in many aspects. And those aspects are not something that can plugged into the F-15 because its a black or grey box with some micro's in it; its because the F-16 airframe/engine combo simply provide better capabilities than the F-15. In no way, shape, matter, or form is the airframe/engine combo in the F-35 superior to the F-22.

I don't see the fiscal common sense in developing an airplane that is less capable of a plane we already have in production. Its not enough to say, 'well it can carry 2 2000 pounders and the 22 can only carry 2 1000 pounders." Are we really going to spend 350+ billion dollars for an extra 2000 total pounds of internal bomb bay capability? Certainly looks like it.
I have to wonder in this last Iraq/Afgan war, how many 2000 pound bombs were dropped and how many were of the 1000 pound class weapons? I bet you anything that we dropped more 1000 pound bombs. The F-22 also has room for growth potential: it can certainly be outfitted with IR junk and CCD cameras to give the total all around view to the pilot that the F-35 has.

fox100 wrote:

Are we really going to spend 350+ billion dollars for an extra 2000 total pounds of internal bomb bay capability?

No, you're doing it because your Marines and Navy want to fly stealth too, and because you need something radically better than the Typhoon to sell to other countries. Of course if the AF is a nice customer too, it wouldn't be bad for LM to have an extra customer ! Wink

A few things:-

(1) Nobody is saying that the F-35 is dynamically as high performance as the F-22. The argument is that the F-35 is dynamically good enough because a little bit more speed and turning performance -- such as what you find in a Typhoon -- does not really improve a fighter's A2A effectiveness tangibly.

CheckSix wrote:

F-35 will be a good long range striker. Its A2A performance? It will never supercruise (sweep angle), sustained turn will be no better than F-16 (thrust, wingloading).

(2) If by "supercruise" you mean Mach 1.7 cruise, no chance in hell. And it is not just about wing sweep. Wing sweep is a small part of it and you can have a less swept wing out perform a more highly swept one in supersonic flight. And the lack of sweep will matter a lot more close to Mach 2 than it does at say Mach 1 because the shock induced drag rise will not be linear. But given the planform, overall aerodynamic cleanliness and its 28,000 lbs of dry thrust rating, the F-35 has a very good chance of flying in the Mach 1.1~1.3 range without burners. Let's put it this way... if it doesn't do that, then it'll also have a hard time reaching 1200 mph on A/B which it is supposed to do. If it does turn out to be a marginal supercruiser and with a top speed around Mach 1.8 at altitude it'll be roughly where the Rafale is, and there is nothing shabby about it. We'll have to wait to find out, but currently nobody is claiming anything but the exceeding of expectations in aerodynamic qualities.

(3) Sustained turn may or may not be better than an F-16. It is supposed to be equal or better, so equal may be the case. But wing loading is actually lower and there is no disadvantage in thrust to weight ratio. The lifting contribution of the fuselage shaping and other factors may favor the F-35. dynamic thrust may also be favorable to the F-35 because of intake performance. Hence, it can also be better. Again we'll have to wait and see.

The point is, again, is not whether the F-35 is an inferior platform dynamically comparable to the F-22. The point is that it is a platform whose physical performance is competitive all alternative designs against which it has been compared to and criticized.

fox100 wrote:

Are we really going to spend 350+ billion dollars for an extra 2000 total pounds of internal bomb bay capability?

No, we are spending ~$280 billion dollars on 2400+ fighters which are good enough to dominate the enemy with. If we spend the same amount of money on Raptors we'll only get about 800.

People thought the F-16 was useless in the 70s too. If we had the F-15, why did we need the F-16? (this, we should all know, is a rhetorical question;)) I think the airframe will more than prove itself.

swanee wrote:

People thought the F-16 was useless in the 70s too. If we had the F-15, why did we need the F-16? (this, we should all know, is a rhetorical question;)) I think the airframe will more than prove itself.

The F-15/16 hi/lo mix has indeed proven itself quite formidable. It's a good policy because it can let you have more quantity and quality without sacrificing too much of one for the other. Together the Kill ratio for the F-15 and F-16 is something like 180-0... Cool

The F-22/35 is the same thing just taken in a 5th generation flavor.

swanee wrote:

People thought the F-16 was useless in the 70s too. If we had the F-15, why did we need the F-16? (this, we should all know, is a rhetorical question;)) I think the airframe will more than prove itself.

The original F-16 was designed (largely) by the same folks that designed the F-15 and were unhappy with the final product due do AF/DoD interference. That is to say that the F-16 was designed by "outsiders" and it was the USAF itself who was asking, 'What the hell is it good for when we already have the F-15?' Most of you guys are too young to remember the birthing process of those 2 airplanes.

Again, stated simply: the F-16 surpasses the F-15 in many performance parameters. The F-35 surpasses the F-22 in exactly ZERO perfromance parametes. I remember when the boys in blue flying F-15s were making comments that they couldn't believe they were waxed by a puny F-16. We're not likely to ever hear the same from the F-22 stick jockeys.

It took quite a while for the 16 to earn its due place in the USAF and does anyone remember the nickname "lawn dart" that was given to the F-16 relatively early in its career?

The F-35 is being designed by the establishment for the establishment with 10 tons of gold plating. Its no wonder that this wonder weapon is costing nearly 400 billion dollars and has a perfromance chart whose area under the curve is ~1/2 that of the F-22.

Whats better: lots of high performance airplanes, or a few high performance airplanes and lots of underachievers whose only "saving grace" is an extra 2000 total internal a2g munitions? With enough F-22's no one would even need that extra 2k lbs of internal munitions. Sortie rates, time over targets, survivability, ect ect.... all better with the F-22.

Where's the glory or common sense in flying low and slow and wide open to be fired on by every 16 year old kid who can shoot a gun? We saw (practically) that same scnenario when in Vietnam we sent out Buff's into hot airspace at altitudes (much) lower than they could actually fly at and bomb at.... A lot of guys lost their lives or spent a lot of time in Hanoi because they were not allowed to exploit their true capabilites. Now you want design a plane thats going to go in low and slow rather than do the high altitude standoff attacks at Mach 1.5+ airspeeds.

fox100 wrote:

The F-35 is being designed by the establishment for the establishment with 10 tons of gold plating. Its no wonder that this wonder weapon is costing nearly 400 billion dollars and has a perfromance chart whose area under the curve is ~1/2 that of the F-22.

Whats better: lots of high performance airplanes, or a few high performance airplanes and lots of underachievers whose only "saving grace" is an extra 2000 total internal a2g munitions? With enough F-22's no one would even need that extra 2k lbs of internal munitions. Sortie rates, time over targets, survivability, ect ect.... all better with the F-22.

Actually there is ONE physical performance parameter at which the F-35 beats the F-22 -- range. The F-35 weighs about 70~75% as much as the F-22, it has half as many engines, it has a more efficient engine and it carries 80% of the F-22's fuel load. And, I doubt the performance curve is 1/2 that of the F-22. But the important thing is not whether it beats the F-22 in physical performance. The important thing is that it has, IMHO, a better set of design goals.

The F-35 equals the physical performance of adversaries and competitors, while retaining the all important stealth characteristics and offering more advanced sensory and pilot interface packages than the F-22. In doing so, it cuts its construction cost to 1/3 that of the F-22 and allows three times as many airframes to be bought. It is a better set of design priorities because speed and agility are not as important as stealth, sensors and OODA enhancing aids, and reducing the unit cost to 33% that of the F-22 is ESSENTIAL.

When you get down to the basics, it is very simple.... Is flying a little higher and a little faster more important or is putting out three times as many aircrafts which are still good enough to dominate the enemy more important?

Everything's fine... but what about WVR fight ? Without under wing pylons with short range missiles, you have only AMRAAMs and canon. How would that work in dogfight with any modern fighter when its performance is only as good as theirs ? Not well I think.

So far you can't put AIM-9X inside because it's LOBL missile, and when in firing position it can't see much, and the only proven LOAL missile so far is Python 5.. which simply won't fit inside the weapons bay.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 without Stealth