Forum: Program and politics

arkadyrenko wrote:

About the F-35 vs the Typhoon. The Typhoon should be able to fit 4 - 6 AAMs in minimal drag configuration. (flush with the airframe).

Here, the airframe drag becomes an issue. The F-35 appears to have a larger frontal area than the Typhoon. (A consequence of needing to internally stow 2000lb bombs.) That means in a baseline situation the F-35 will fly slower than the Typhoon (also means that the Typhoon can go supersonic with a lower fuel cost than the F-35). Isn't it odd that the Typhoon, with its two motors outputting less than the F-35's one motor, can super-cruise while the F-35's super-cruse has always never been conclusively proven? The airframe of the F-35 does not appear to be as conducive to high speed flight, compared to the F-22, the Eurofighter Typhoon, or the PAK FA. That is not to diminish the F-35, it is just to say that the F-35 wasn't built to be a high speed interceptor.

If we're using the M1.5 standard, then neither the Typhoon, nor the F-35 can supercruise. If we're using M1 as the standard, then it's entirely likely that the F-35 will be able to exceed that, on dry thrust.

F-16.net Sponsor

What's re range of a Typhoon vs an F-35A on internal fuel and the drag of 4-6 AAMs?

I didn't say the Typhoon would have better performance than the F-35, only that it would be good. I don't have figures for either aircraft but let's look at a comparison between the two.

The Typhoon has a foreplane which will provide lift at supersonic speeds while the F-35's tailplane will be providing a downwards force.

The Typhoon's wing is speed optimized while the F-35's is range/payload optimized.

Frontal area vs external stores has been covered but not quantitatively.

Engine and inlet efficiency at supersonic speeds. Probably the same optimization as the wings.

Cooling of the burner. This is something conveniently left out by the F-35 haters. Evidently, the F-35 has some kind of cooling system for the burner that lets it run on burner for extended times so that the plane doesn't melt. That might be a big factor. This one is dismissed by all the Sukhoi fanboys including a particular Sukhoi fanboy who fancies himself an analyst and knows how to make lots of pretty pictures. The Sukhoi has the fuel capacity to melt its back end before it runs out of gas. Does the Typhoon have some means of staying on burner for extended periods? Does it even have the fuel capacity to need this system? Just because you have an engine that can do x thrust and the plane carries y amount of fuel and has z L/D at supersonic speeds doesn't mean we can calculate how far you can go on burner at some speed in real life. That is where the F-35 may have an edge here but I don't know for sure.

I've always seen the figure 10 minutes on burner for most planes. If we have a generic supersonic interceptor where the sfc is 1.5 and the plane has a L/D of 8 and its weight is 32,000 pounds than it needs 4000 pounds of thrust to fly and 6000 pounds per hour fuel flow. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I just woke up.) You can put my figures in a better ball park but the plane above can fly for quite some time with a fuel fraction between .2 and .3. I chose 8 as L/D as Concorde had 7 and it gave me round numbers to use.

It seems that the burner cooling does matter. Go ahead and correct away with the numbers above as it seems to give much longer range than real planes have. I just want to start a quantitative discussion on the burner cooling issue.

Thumper3181 wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

arkadyrenko wrote:

What the SAM sites will do is a "shoot and scoot;" flick the radar on see what is happening, then shift the radar off. That will be helped with bistatic radar / decoy radar emitters. The first will give the general location and the second will mask the location of the real emitters. Second, the F-35 flight won't be able to do SEAD, because it will be already tasked with an objective. Finally, new SAM site strategy places protection batteries around the radar emitters. But in either case, having VLO or LO depending on your definition, will help the F-35.

The existence of datalinks, however, isn't such a great proposition, especially over longer ranges.

The problem with the F-35, at least for Japan, is twofold. First, does the plane have the kinematics to be an interceptor? Odds are no. Thus Japan will need a proper replacement for the F-15. I've seen an article saying that Japan is upgrading the F-15's, that gives a suggestion for the F-35's role. Second, the F-35 will take a long time to be delivered. If the Japanese with for a fighter in the next 5 years, they have to accept a lower ability.

The question is: what does the F-35 add for Japan's security? I bet it'll be anti-ship strike.

I believe, in their parlance, it is referred to as 'anti-landing craft' strike ( Laughing

), but I agree with you. The F-35 would need to have much higher max speed to serve as an interceptor. From this, we can either assume that the JASDF will be flying F-15Js for the foreseeable future, or the ATD-X will be Japan's pseudo-Raptor for the A2A arena. Frankly, Japan is probably the one country that could pull off something comparable to a Raptor in a reasonable time frame.

What makes you think that an F-15, a Typhoon, or any other jet is going to be able to fly at M1.6 for any length of time with a combat load out? What makes you think that any other jet once it jettisons it's external fuel tanks so that it can make it's top speed is going to have a better fuel state than a F-35?

Tell me is there a jet out there that is unaffected by the drag induced by external weapons stores? Your argument, which is clearly based on max speed is flawed. The F-35 will be a fine interceptor as it has none of the aerodynamic disadvantages of 4 gen jets.

What makes you think that an interception mission is going to last for such a short period of time?? Your statement that the F=35 has none of the aerodynamic disadvantages of 4th-gen fighters is incorrect. It cannot carry a meaningful A2A load internally.

Don't forget that the F-35, IIRC, is the first fighter to have a variable AB. This means that the EF has to go full AB or not at all, while the F-35 can go 5/10/20/.../.../100% AB to fit whatever speed he is trying to maintain.

Since when is 4-6 internal AAMs not "meaningful "?

SpudmanWP wrote:

Don't forget that the F-35, IIRC, is the first fighter to have a variable AB. This means that the EF has to go full AB or not at all, while the F-35 can go 5/10/20/.../.../100% AB to fit whatever speed he is trying to maintain.

Since when is 4-6 internal AAMs not "meaningful "?

It will be meaningful when it is accomplished and found to be both safe and practical during testing.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Don't forget that the F-35, IIRC, is the first fighter to have a variable AB. This means that the EF has to go full AB or not at all, while the F-35 can go 5/10/20/.../.../100% AB to fit whatever speed he is trying to maintain.

Since when is 4-6 internal AAMs not "meaningful "?

I love how the critics always use the Block III version, to base arguments on. 6 should be the number people focus on, as that will be the most representative capability(and perhaps more, once JDRADM arrives). Additionally, an intercept mission need not be in full stealth configuration, so external AAMs, can also be carried.

southernphantom wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Don't forget that the F-35, IIRC, is the first fighter to have a variable AB. This means that the EF has to go full AB or not at all, while the F-35 can go 5/10/20/.../.../100% AB to fit whatever speed he is trying to maintain.

Since when is 4-6 internal AAMs not "meaningful "?

It will be meaningful when it is accomplished and found to be both safe and practical during testing.

Have you seen any indications, that it would be unsafe/impractical? There are plenty of legitimate questions one can have about the F-35, but this one seems whimsical. Perhaps, it can't carry 8 SDBs, or 2 2k JDAMs either, using your premise.

Think about it, lead F-35s (4-6) internal AAMs and follow-on (50nm back) having a total of 14 BVR AAMs.

They could even license Boeing "Weapon Pod" design from the International F-18 and hide those external AAMs in LO pods (and bringing the total AAMs up to 22 BVR AAMs). The LO pods should let the F-35 get a lot closer before launch and enable a much better PK.

Before you say it, yes that is a ridiculous number of missiles and will never see combat

From: http://www.sldinfo.com/moving-from-the- ... the-f-35a/

"Malone: One, that’s right. And guess what? The clean configuration only requires military power to takeoff. Operators will have the option to not use afterburner in order to take off in a clean training configuration and so that potentially may help lower noise abatement in the surrounding community.

If you have a lot of ordnance on the wings, if you put it in its most heavy weight condition with let’s say external stores, then you’d have to use afterburner in order to takeoff. But if you’re in a clean configuration, even with internal stores, you would still be able to do a military power takeoff, which is not using the full thrust of the engine in order to make your takeoffs."

Two things here. No AB on takeoff means less fuel used. the other is that the acceleration must be pretty good.

Incorrect on the burner. PW F100 started with 5 stages 30 years ago, current -229 is 11 stage. Not all or nothing, lights softly at 86 degrees PLA, increases through 135 degrees. If you are not watching fuel flow, or if it is not pretty dark so you can see the flame, it is smooth enough that you can barely tell you transitioned from Mil to burner.

wrightwing wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Don't forget that the F-35, IIRC, is the first fighter to have a variable AB. This means that the EF has to go full AB or not at all, while the F-35 can go 5/10/20/.../.../100% AB to fit whatever speed he is trying to maintain.

Since when is 4-6 internal AAMs not "meaningful "?

It will be meaningful when it is accomplished and found to be both safe and practical during testing.

Have you seen any indications, that it would be unsafe/impractical? There are plenty of legitimate questions one can have about the F-35, but this one seems whimsical. Perhaps, it can't carry 8 SDBs, or 2 2k JDAMs either, using your premise.

The JDAM is proven, and the SDB packs are already in use. The 6x AMRAAM delivery systems haven't been seen on anything, and the confined nature of the internal bays suggest that the system may be of the type the USAF has hated since the F-23 (i.e. a malfunction on one could brick the entire bay). Hopefully these concerns won't come up, but it's possible that they will.

southernphantom wrote:

The JDAM is proven, and the SDB packs are already in use. The 6x AMRAAM delivery systems haven't been seen on anything, and the confined nature of the internal bays suggest that the system may be of the type the USAF has hated since the F-23 (i.e. a malfunction on one could brick the entire bay). Hopefully these concerns won't come up, but it's possible that they will.

Au contraire, they've already done studies on the 6 missile load out, and noted that there is indeed room(without an F-23 style launcher configuration), or need to change the mold lines.

wrightwing wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

The JDAM is proven, and the SDB packs are already in use. The 6x AMRAAM delivery systems haven't been seen on anything, and the confined nature of the internal bays suggest that the system may be of the type the USAF has hated since the F-23 (i.e. a malfunction on one could brick the entire bay). Hopefully these concerns won't come up, but it's possible that they will.

Au contraire, they've already done studies on the 6 missile load out, and noted that there is indeed room(without an F-23 style launcher configuration), or need to change the mold lines.

Well, I stand corrected then.

southernphantom wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Don't forget that the F-35, IIRC, is the first fighter to have a variable AB. This means that the EF has to go full AB or not at all, while the F-35 can go 5/10/20/.../.../100% AB to fit whatever speed he is trying to maintain.

Since when is 4-6 internal AAMs not "meaningful "?

It will be meaningful when it is accomplished and found to be both safe and practical during testing.

Have you seen any indications, that it would be unsafe/impractical? There are plenty of legitimate questions one can have about the F-35, but this one seems whimsical. Perhaps, it can't carry 8 SDBs, or 2 2k JDAMs either, using your premise.

The JDAM is proven, and the SDB packs are already in use. The 6x AMRAAM delivery systems haven't been seen on anything, and the confined nature of the internal bays suggest that the system may be of the type the USAF has hated since the F-23 (i.e. a malfunction on one could brick the entire bay). Hopefully these concerns won't come up, but it's possible that they will.

Most F16's fly with not more than two or four AA missiles. So what's your problem?

Forum: Program and politics

Japan F-35 Decision Genuinely Based Upon Capability