Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by mcraptor on Feb 08, 2013 - 04:51 PM; edited 1 time in total

Quote:

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

So they're implying it's transonic acceleration is better than a Typhoon???

Sorry but that's outright bullshit. If LM want a race, we'll race them for pinks (of their entire company). Very Happy

bigjku wrote:

If we are going to match up the weapons outfit to compare you also need to match up the gas and range. A Eurofighter with no gas tanks is not going very far.

Commonly stated bullshit. A Typhoon's range without drop tanks is 2900km, ferry range with 3 drop tanks in 3800km. Clean or with an A-A load it's 2nd only to the Raptor. An F-35A on internal fuel manages 2200km. More fuel doesn't necessarily mean you can go further.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by spazsinbad on Feb 08, 2013 - 05:09 PM; edited 3 times in total

So - right - everybody is lying. They all should start playing 'Liar's Dice' (look it up). Here are some more old lies.... Devil

And of course you will find the earlier discussion (because this is a repeat post) on this forum elsewhere. Without NATOPS or equivalent for all the named aircraft this is a damn boring conversation.

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... erformance

"...A Familiar Flight Envelope
The F-35 program is also making headway in clearing the flight envelope to begin training at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. There have been few surprises, Kelly said.

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.

Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.

Beyond visual range, the aircraft's radar and stealthiness will enable it to dominate the skies, Thomas said...."
_______________

Then there is this precursor to the change that so gets up people's noses but as I recall it has already been repeated recently but whatever...

Note these articles are written by Dave Majumdar who I will acknowledge tries to be even handed but also stacks the deck as already pointed out by 'hobo' [for the article that starts this thread]. He may turn out to be another younger Bill Sweetman if he goes feral. Very Happy

I might point out I lost respect for whatever knowledge Sweetman claims to possess when he made that awful 'liars post' about range for the F-35 some years ago now. What a travesty.... but I digress. Rolling Eyes

Joint Strike Fighter may miss acceleration goal By Dave Majumdar 18 Jan 2012

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... al-011812/

I think someone at LM has been forced into doing a propaganda operation to douse the fires caused by the cuts to sustained turn and acceleration performance posted in another thread.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ct-381683/

It mentions that the F-35C now takes 43s longer to get from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2. Well the Typhoon takes less than 40s in total, so no dice.

Why would you compare the C to the Typhoon rather than the A?

bigjku wrote:

Why would you compare the C to the Typhoon rather than the A?

It's really not going to make a difference.

The F-35A started off at 61s, that's now down to 69s. The article is an outright lie to gloss over the earlier article. The very suggestion is farcical to anyone with a modicum of physics knowledge.

mcraptor wrote:

I think someone at LM has been forced into doing a propaganda operation to douse the fires caused by the cuts to sustained turn and acceleration performance posted in another thread.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ct-381683/

It mentions that the F-35C now takes 43s longer to get from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2. Well the Typhoon takes less than 40s in total, so no dice.

Do you know what the range of a Typhoon is on internal fuel? Compared to a F-35? I'd say the F-35 has the edge. Throw 4xAIM-120s into the package, the F-35 still has the edge. The Typhoon would require external tanks for the same weapons load and range, to "match" the F-35.

hb_pencil wrote:

neurotech wrote:

You did say "Bug" right, not SuperBug?

I'm being pedantic but the F/A-18E/F doesn't have the RCS of a "barn door" when clean, that title belongs to a F-15 or Su-27 with exposed fans. The F/A-18E/F has a RCS of about ~0.1-0.15 m2 depending on what source. The F-16C has a RCS of about 1.5m2, right? The F/A-18C RCS is ~2.5 m2, which isn't that great, but still less than the F-15, which is ~10-15m2, that really does have the RCS of a barn doeor.

Well that might be true for the F/A-18E front on, but isn't the Shornet's signal profile a classic bowtie? thus its advantages start declining in relation to the other fighters once you stray from its frontal axis?

Yes, the F/A-18E is optimized lowest front-on, but does have some reduction in side RCS, compared to the F/A-18C.The side panels are RAM covered, and aligned for reduced side RCS as well, but I wouldn't quite call it "all aspect LO" like the F-22 or F-35.

neurotech wrote:

Do you know what the range of a Typhoon is on internal fuel? Compared to a F-35? I'd say the F-35 has the edge. Throw 4xAIM-120s into the package, the F-35 still has the edge. The Typhoon would require external tanks for the same weapons load and range, to "match" the F-35.

I was referring only to the acceleration here.

With 2x2000lb bombs and AAMs the range equation might balance out in favour of the F-35A/C (not F-35B) but running with a minimum AA load the range of a Typhoon on internal fuel is 2900km (3800km with 3 drop tanks). Second only to the F-22.

The range of the F-35A/C is 2200/2500km. The C is slightly better because of the larger wings, but its small wings and larger body/weight do it no favours when running clean or AA.

bumtish wrote:

Bowman has two notes in superscript: 1 and 2. No information on loading is provided for acceleration and the sustained G.

Check spazsinbad's post from Feb 08, 2013 - 12:59 AM (page 1, lower picture).
There's the explanation underlined in red.

No idea if Bowman's stuff is the real deal, but LM released similar figures for 240-3 (published by AW), so there's no much reason not to be.

mcraptor wrote:

neurotech wrote:

Do you know what the range of a Typhoon is on internal fuel? Compared to a F-35? I'd say the F-35 has the edge. Throw 4xAIM-120s into the package, the F-35 still has the edge. The Typhoon would require external tanks for the same weapons load and range, to "match" the F-35.

I was referring only to the acceleration here.

With 2x2000lb bombs and AAMs the range equation might balance out in favour of the F-35A/C (not F-35B) but running with a minimum AA load the range of a Typhoon on internal fuel is 2900km (3800km with 3 drop tanks). Second only to the F-22.

The range of the F-35A/C is 2200/2500km. The C is slightly better because of the larger wings, but its small wings and larger body/weight do it no favours when running clean or AA.

I think the range figures you quote (wikipedia?) are with CFTs on the Typhoon, but the acceleration figures are without. Apparently internal fuel capacity is "classified"

cola wrote:

Quote:

IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ‘better than or equal to’ Typhoon...

It's exactly this kinda dumb advertisement that generates the animosity for both, the program and the client that orders such an advertisement, in the first place.
Not sure what is LM trying to achieve with this kinda posture and while this may impress amateurs, LM's increasingly becoming a laughing stock of the profession.

Did LM write that headline? Or is Dave M. getting the max out of this story and his anonymous sources? Question

I have read domestic violence complaints that were written to be less inflammatory than this piece.

mcraptor wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Why would you compare the C to the Typhoon rather than the A?

The very suggestion is farcical to anyone with a modicum of physics knowledge.

Enlighten us. Sources as well please

neurotech wrote:

I think the range figures you quote (wikipedia?) are with CFTs on the Typhoon, but the acceleration figures are without. Apparently internal fuel capacity is "classified"

Nah, internal fuel only. That's the advantage of a light aircraft, narrow body and big wings.

f414/euro/gripenng/sbug wrote:

Enlighten us. Sources as well please

I've seen the performance specification first hand. I can't be more specific than that. It's not like it's even close in terms of acceleration.

The F-35A started off at 61s:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html

which then became 69s:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ct-381683/

I'm sure that people here that have the slightest clue about US 4th gen aircraft, will tell you that the claim to be better than 4th gen aircraft with AA loads is completely wrong, even though the Typhoon is a step up from those.

Seriously, get a grip, I can't believe you're even questioning this. This is just LM's attempt to gloss over the lowering of the performance specification with unproven, BS claims.

The Typhoon has about the same thrust as the F-35, and it's lighter and has less drag with just AA missiles. It also has a lower BPR, which will likely make for far better acceleration above Mach 0.8.

All in all, there's no reason I could think of to justify this guy's claims even if I didn't know them to be flat-out wrong anyway.

mcraptor wrote:

Commonly stated bullshit. A Typhoon's range without drop tanks is 2900km, ferry range with 3 drop tanks in 3800km. Clean or with an A-A load it's 2nd only to the Raptor. An F-35A on internal fuel manages 2200km. More fuel doesn't necessarily mean you can go further.

First off, the F-22's range is actually one of the poorest of all the fighters... the commonly stated combat radius is 410+100 supercruise.

Based on some EADS slides, a Eurofighter combat radius (8 missiles+3 tanks) is around or above 750nm miles, unlikely to be over 800. The Super hornet (with 3 tanks and 4 missiles) is 700. Its quite likely that the F-35's on internal fuel will be around the Eurofighter with four or six missiles.

mcraptor wrote:

The Typhoon has about the same thrust as the F-35, and it's lighter and has less drag with just AA missiles. It also has a lower BPR, which will likely make for far better acceleration above Mach 0.8.

The BPR of a F135 is 0.2, half the 0.4 BPR of a EJ200 engine.

With minor mods, the F135 could get up to ~48,000 Lbs in service, but resulting in decreased service life, unless further upgrades to the hot stage and a few other parts are made. What this means that if the USAF/USN and partners want more performance, they can get it, but it would involve more development costs.

Remember that Billy Flynn has flown F/A-18s (NOT Super Hornets btw), F-16s, Typhoons and now F-35s so he'd probably have a better idea than most people what the performance of each jet actually is.

hb_pencil wrote:

First off, the F-22's range is actually one of the poorest of all the fighters... the commonly stated combat radius is 410+100 supercruise.

Okay, I don't have specifics on the F-22 but I strongly believe what you're telling me to be utter garbage. The Raptor has several things going for it that the F-35 doesn't:

More fuel;
Larger wings;
Relatively smaller body (smaller internal bays); and
Thrust vectoring (which also improves cruise performance).

Combat radii are non-specific because they can refer to many different flight profiles, e.g. supersonic low level interdiction, high-level intercept, CAP etc. Basically, without specifics, it means nothing. Maximum range however is exactly what it states.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

LM F-35 kinematics ‘better than or equal to’ Typhoon/Shornet