Forum: General F-35 Forum

Gums wrote:

Salute!

O.K., alloy, here's why.......

We faced Strella's in 1972 right there in 'nam.

A year later the IAF faced them over the Sinai, plus the SA-6, which could track right down in the weeds/sage brush.

Stingers came along and were used to great effect in the 'stan, mostly versus helos.

Then came SA-8's, which could be tracked optically, so I didn't e ven know I was being tracked and kilt until the de-brief at Red Flag one day.

Then came 'raqi I and then 'raqi II. and the beat goes on.

Sure, I would like a stealthy platform I could use down low and maybe 300 knots to 400 knots that could turn on a dime and visually acquire the threats to our grunts and then destroy them.

Lesson from this old fart and others here - the techno-geek stuff looks good on paper and works today for a small group of fanatics on a hill a mile away. But when the bad guys are a hundred yards away and the GPS goes tits-up or your sensors have a problem or your datalink is jammed or, or or. Then you better be able to hit the bad guys and the stoopid JDAM has to be dropped as a dumb bomb, just like the old days. And when was the last time the dude practiced that? How good was he?

Oh yeah, then there's the big gun. Launch and leave. Jamming ineffective, point and shoot, etc. Accuracy within 15 or 20 meters.

Trust us. We would like the Romulan cloaking device and super-accurate weapons that never hit the wrong target and never took a hit from some crazy using a primitive missile or RPG or even a 12.7 mm gun, optically aimed. Real world is a bit different.

Gums sends....

Salute!

Gums your right about the need for an air intridiction type aircraft such as the A-10. Every time the Air Force builds one they fly it till the rivets fall out and then some. Just look at how long they flew the Douglas A-26 Invaders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eaYnfyb71I

But if I had my druthers I would rather be in a F-35 at altitude sniping ground targets from above. Or using the F-35 as an observation platform to bring my supporting ground fire on target.

F-16.net Sponsor

cola wrote:

alloycowboy wrote:

Cola..... You would be correct but you need to look at the "Wetted Aspect Ratio" of the F-35 and F-16 as both aircraft are blended wing lifting bodies and not P-51 Mustangs.

Yes well, the "wetted" area of the F35 is even larger than AR, compared to F16's.
What's your point??

My point is if you actually look at wetted aspect ratio for the F-35 you might get a shocking suprise.

Wetted Aspect Ratio=wing span/wetted area

http://img246.imageshack.us/i/typhoonvsf35apc5.jpg/

twintwinsingle wrote:

popcorn wrote:

What's the alternative twintwinsingle? I think BFT is really the way to go.. enhance it, make it cheaper so everyone has it.. it will take time. In the meantime the upgraded Warthogs are still around with emphasis on the upgraded. They've had more than their share of friendly fire/collateral damage even flying low and slow.

Frat isn't the issue. A-10's, F-16's, F-15E's, Tornado's etc. have and I'm sure will in the future Frat folks, Sadly. The issue is mission accomplishment. CAS is a mission set, not a single mission. The F-35 is built to execute digital CAS only...period dot. BFT is great but there will always, always, always be guys on the battlefield that need support that you didn't expect to have to support. They will likely not ever have BFT. CAS is such a hard mission to be good at, across the mission sets it entails, that it almost requires an A-10-like jet. A newer, better, jet than the A-10, that we'll never get. I continue to say that the F-35 will be a great SEAD and Deep Strike jet. It will be a great BVR A-A jet. It will not be even a good CAS jet in the next 20 years. It will not be good post merge A-A. Great jet, just not great at everything.

Personally, I think the CAS mission is clearly evolving. Excalibur, ATACMS, and other precision ground-based systems where available can deliver devastating power on-call 24X7. If there is a need for an aircraft to fly low and slow over some future battlefield, maybe it should be pilotless because SHORADS are becoming deadlier all the time. I'm for giving digital CAS, as you put it, the opportunity to prove it can best get the job done at least risk to friendlies and pilots alike.

alloycowboy wrote:

My point is if you actually look at wetted aspect ratio for the F-35 you might get a shocking suprise.

Wetted Aspect Ratio=wing span/wetted area

http://img246.imageshack.us/i/typhoonvsf35apc5.jpg/

The wetted area isn't what you showed here.
This is a front cross section (FCS) in the link...two different things.
You can't read wetted area from cross sections.

Anyway, F35 has roughly double FCS of the EF and more than twice, compared to F16.
Also, it has much smaller AR and comparable wing loading to F16.

So, the F35 has draggier wings and fatter fuselage.
How do you figure, it'll turn better than the F16, then?

shep1978 wrote:

Sorry to be so bold but can anyone actually vouch for twintwinsingle being who he claims he is? I'm just curious thats all. Apologies if everything checks out...

Everything he has said so far is perfectly consistent with who he claims to be.

If he is a fake he is a very well informed one, in either case you ought to treat him as someone that knows what he is talking about.

Twintwinsingle-

I understand your skepticism about some of the new gadgetry in the F-35, but I think you are a little off on its basic flight performance. It is true that it was not designed with as heavy an emphasis on pure air to air performance as the F-16, but that does not mean its performance will be deficient.

As far as maneuverability is concerned the F-35 was designed to combine the better aspects of an original F-18 and an F-16. If these goals are met, and flight tests suggest they will be, then the F-35 will be a pretty hot jet in WVR.

I know I am rehashing things a bit here, but let me see if I can summarize.

The F-35 carries weapons, fuel, and its targeting pod/IRST internally.

The F-16 on the other hand is about as close to an engine with wings as you will ever see.

This makes an empty weight comparison between the two impossible to win for the F-35, and largely irrelevant anyway.

In actual practice the advantage will shift to the F-35. Why? Because under almost any realistic circumstances the F-35 will be at a lower fuel state. (Measured as a percentage of its maximum, not by available range or endurance.)

At 50% fuel an F-35 has a similar power to weight ratio as an F-16 on full internal fuel. (An F-16 that just dropped its tanks.) The F-35 in this scenario would still have greater range and staying power than the F-16, and with its weapons stored internally would be less draggy.

You are of course correct that if an F-35 with a full or almost full fuel load found itself unexpectedly entering into WVR combat it wouldn't have the option of dropping its tanks, but with proper planning the likelihood of this would be low.

One obvious precaution would be not to always take on a full fuel load. This is already standard procedure for Su-27/30 series aircraft.

They are capable of carrying a huge fuel load, but if they aren't planning on covering very long distances they don't use their auxiliary(internal) tank to avoid exactly the problem you are describing.

Like the Su-30, the F-35 has the ability to carry a huge fuel load and cover long distances. If a huge fuel load is not needed, don't load it. Even with a partial fuel load an F-35 will have longer range/greater endurance than an F-16 with a couple tanks.

Or to put it another way, pick a radius, and decide how long you want to stay/fight there, and load an F-16 and F-35 up with the fuel to do the job. Even ignoring its BVR advantages the F-35 will still be the more capable aircraft in the target area. Sure the F-35 has the fuel capacity to go farther, stay/fight longer or both, but if you are worried about getting to the area of operation with too much fuel you don't have to carry it in the first place.

Additionally, while the F-35's fuel dump capability won't be able to shed pounds as quickly as dropping tanks on an F-16, with a reasonable amount of warning it will be able to cut weight. It will have a heck of a radar and EW system, that combined with its stealth and networking should cut down on the likelihood of it finding itself in a WVR fight with little or no warning.

No solution is perfect, but the F-35's approach is the best available with today's technology.

Does dumping fuel reveal one's position in any way?

Last edited by Gums on Jan 01, 2011 - 03:12 AM; edited 1 time in total

Salute!

Yeah, mad, dumping gas is like a huge arrow pointing at you.

As we say, " an eyeball contact is better than a thousand mile radar contact".

Second point - to Hobo [edited, and sorry popcorn). Can't have too much gas. As twin has pointed out, in a dire emergency you can jettison tanks. But that's your last ditch maneuver. I personally like the internal gas ratio of the F-35. The Sluf had a great deal of gas internally and we had outstanding range and "hang time". The Viper also had a decent fuel fraction. And remember that one of the performance specs was "x" range, which the new jet seems to have.

The A2A role of the F-35 is not the same as for the Raptor. The thing looks like it will be "capable" but not "superior" to everything else flying, nor was it required to be.

A clean jet is a good jet. The Viper is drag limited, not weight limited. We saw that in the first few months with family models carrying the centerline tank versus clean ones and the "A" models. And the graph posted shows parasite drag versus induced drag. Basic parasite drag slows level acceleration way more than induced drag, especially if you bunt a bit to lower AoA. Same for energy bleed even while pulling hard. As with the Viper ( and not the Super Bug), the FLCS limits your max AoA and resulting bleed rate due to induced drag. Hell, the French delta planes and the Deuce I flew a century ago could do a bat turn and then be sitting there at 80 knots and falling like a leaf.

If I had to visit a high-threat area today or 20 years from today, I would take the F-35. The LO feature is worth more than all the avionics combined. The good fuel fraction is also very comforting.

Gums sends....

P.S. We need an Army grunt or a Jarhead to talk here about CAS when the friendly jet is in the stratosphere.

Gums,

Which aircraft do you believe the F-35 will not be "superior" to in A2A?

Anything that cannot meet its sortie rate. It doesn't have to win every battle, it has to win the war.

Salute!

Shin, the F-22 is clearly superior in a knife fight or BVR. I think some of the new Russian designs and the Typhoon are better close in. And then sumbudy will come up with a handful of very stealthy fighters. Not many, but enuf to make things tough. Might even be drones, huh?

Mad is correct about sortie rate. We were not tasking the F-117 at two or three sirties per day in 'raqi I or II. There come a scenario where sortie rate is paramount. Hell, that's the point Sprey and the fighter mafia was making 30 years ago.

Happy New Year all!

Poof!

Gums...

Gums wrote:

Second point to popcorn. Can't have too much gas. As twin has pointed out, in a dire emergency you can jettison tanks.

I think you may have mistaken me for someone else; I don't recall commenting on the fuel issue.. Surprised

Gums wrote:

Salute!

Shin, the F-22 is clearly superior in a knife fight or BVR. I think some of the new Russian designs and the Typhoon are better close in. And then sumbudy will come up with a handful of very stealthy fighters. Not many, but enuf to make things tough. Might even be drones, huh?

Mad is correct about sortie rate. We were not tasking the F-117 at two or three sirties per day in 'raqi I or II. There come a scenario where sortie rate is paramount. Hell, that's the point Sprey and the fighter mafia was making 30 years ago.

Happy New Year all!

Poof!

Gums...

Thanks for the answer. BTW, your posts about CAs have taught me a a lot.

Gums....

Do you for see there being many close in aerial dog fights? It really seems given the new technology that seems like a bad thing to do?

Salute!

Tellya the truth, alloy, a knife fight is not the preferred option.

45 years ago, we wished we had never abandoned the Korean War tactics. Shoot, these new, cosmic missiles make a dogfight ancient history. Yeah, right. And the suckers would have a 95 percent Pk. That was true if they guided and the target wasn't turning at 20 deg/sec. The 'winder was the closest thing to an extended range gun and worked very well. We had the Crusader, the Migmaster, and it had 'winders and a cannon. We finally got a cannon on the DoubleUgly, but most kills were still missiles.

Then we have ROE. Yep, let us hose away before a visual to confirm the TFT. I think most of the 'rocky kills were within visual range, although we did much better BVR than in 'nam due to AWACS.

Twin, Snake and I are simply pointing out that you don't base your entire concept of operations on the neat, new, cosmic avionics or weapons. They are just icing on the cake. GREAT icing. That was the point Sprey, et al were making back in the early seventies. We had just had our noses rubbed by a handful of "less capable" jets and had forgotten some of the basics.

I want the new stuff. I especially want the LO. But I shall train my men and women to hold their own when all the gadgets fail or become degraded or they are on their own with no outside help except their wing. Sure, we will train to use our gadgets and develop tactics that exploit their capabilities. And we will also train for "plan B".

That's my story and I'm stick in' to it.

Try to find one of Sprey's articles called "Quality, quantity or training" . From mid seventies. I don'agree with much of Sprey's thinking since then, but he had us thinking and we got the Viper, Hornet and Warthog. We also did pretty well in the Balkans and Iraq.

Gums sens....

[quote="hobo"]

shep1978 wrote:

As far as maneuverability is concerned the F-35 was designed to combine the better aspects of an original F-18 and an F-16. If these goals are met, and flight tests suggest they will be, then the F-35 will be a pretty hot jet in WVR.

So the F-35 is still comparable to the F-16 in some circumstances regarding turning ability if they had to merge etc. But isn't the point TTS making that he wants a platform that's better than the F-16 - more like the F-22 or Typhoon say to bring weapons on target quicker.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Lightning II Documentary (Criticisms)