Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

I'm referring to simple combat performance. Given the choice between a four-ship of JSFs with AWACS and tanker support and a four-ship of Raptors with the same support, for an OCA/DCA/SEAD mission, I would unhesitatingly choice the Raptors. With such a high-performance aircraft, quirks are to be expected, but you're right in that ththe fighter has some issues which need to be fixed as soon as humanly possible.

My main point was in regards to public relations/recruitment. An aircraft that is seen as performance-limited, glitchy without gaining anything for it (and potentially a flying coffin unless the structural issues are resolved) will not generate the large crop of prospective pilots necessary to keep the fleet in the air. I've already heard things about a major pilot shortfall coming up, and plan to try to help fill this if I know I have a good shot at a reliable aircraft I'm comfortable with.

I realize that the F135 lift fan doesn't generate 55K by itself. My point was the STOVL variant nominally generates 42K of thrust, with 22K of dry thrust out the motor nozzle, 18K from the list fan, and 2K from the roll nozzles. This 42K is accomplished without the use of afterburner. Now how is this only 1K less thrust than the nominal 43K WET thrust ? I believe the lift fan is more efficient in thust than air flow through the turbines due to compression loses. Or it has something to do with software settings via flight profile that allow the motor to do more work than nominally required in horizontal flight, which may be temp. related. That is why I was hoping TEG would check in.

My whole point was just because the STOVL variant generates 55K of thrust does not mean 55K of wet thrust out the motor nozzle for an A or C model. They may of uprated the dry thrust on the STOVL from 22K to say 30K, with 22K thust from the lift fan for a total of 55K.

That does not mean you can just take the nominal 43K wet thust and add 28%, when the STOVL variant PROPULSION SYSTEM is the test variant. Now if it is an 28% uprating on just an F135 motor, I stand corrected.

You're confusing lift thrust(fan + motor), with forward thrust(motor only, which is what the 28% refers to). The lift fan is limited by the gearing and size. It doesn't have 28% excess capacity.

50,000 lbs. would still be quite valuable though. I'm just happy this engine is working like it should and not facing too many enormous issues.

How is an oxygen problem related to programming? As the Concurrency report states, while software is a few months behind schedule, there are no apparent problems with the code. Most of the issues are with the onerous release demands imposed on the programmers (SDD and LRIP).

There is little to worry about programming and the core flight systems. Aircraft must meet have flight standards and regulations in order to be considered airworthy... these are among the most heavily tested systems and there are multiple redundancies. I think you can infer from the concurrency report that there aren't any major issues in this area (or they would have called it a high risk).

By comparison, F-22 entered service with alot of software glitches, but they didnt affect the flight systems. They might be issues in other areas, but they can be rectified over time without endangering the crew or airframe.




I don't have the precise numbers, but by 2016 the F/A-18E will probably have the same level of functionality and software challenges. However its incremental approach meant that it was completed over 20+ years, unlike the 8 for the F-35.

Nobody else is doing it, partly because nobody else can.



You're sounding overly dramatic and pretty misleading. You state that the F-22 is "indisputably the best fighter in the world." Sure if you only look at it in the narrow terms of raw performance figures. However then you start talking about its software system, which means you must start considering software reliability and broader statistics on maintenance and sortie availability. Within those criteria the F-22 drops pretty quickly as the "best fighter." Its unbelievably costly, requires inordinate amounts of maintenance to keep flying, and is still riddled with dangerous design flaws. Its software remains quite buggy, and its flight systems pose a significant threat to pilots life. Sure the F-22 is the best performance fighter, its about the absolute worst however for actual sustainment (maybe besides the B-2.)

It reminds me of the F-111 during the Cold War. Sure it was an amazing platform, able to deliver pinpoint atomic weapons quickly across Europe. But it required alot of maintenance to keep flying, thus decreasing its availability to undertake these operations.

As I noted in another thread the F-35 is different from the F-22 because it included the Navy's participation. This meant that the project had to meet stringent sortie availability and reliability metrics set out by that service, unlike the F-22. If I was a flight student in the USAF today and wanted to chose between the two.. I'd probably go with the F-35 (you might have no choice the way the F-22 has been going lately.

"thestealthfighterguy"]
They have only tested to 34K and are hoping Someday" for 38.5 K.

Not even close to ready. "won't be ready for several years , well beyond even initial operational capability." So in ten years the Russians "could" equal the by then 20 year old F119. WOW!

The 43K of the F135 is the specification. "Not the Rated Thrust" Also "CLASSIFIED" but more than 43K. P&W have now tested to 28% over that specification or 55 K.

Blocks are just groupings manufactured to a structural standard off the assembly line.