Official statement: The F-35 CAN Supercruise.

Design and construction
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 23:04

wrightwing wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: You've pretty much just said everything I've said about why the F-35 is the way it is. As for what I would change, that's pretty much pointless speculation; I've long since vented my spleen about what should have been done differently. All I'll say is that three separate programs would have been best: more expensive, but still best

Given an unlimited budget, 3 separate jets might've been nice, as would 750 Raptors with cheek arrays/IRSTs/HMDs,120 B-2s, and F-14 Tomcat 21s for the Navy instead of Super Hornets.

We're in complete agreement. The F-35 is simply the best of a bad situation, and wishful thinking about what could have been isn't going to benefit anyone. Those who want to cancel the JSF now simply aren't living in the current reality, or have an emotional attachment to one of its predecessors or competitors.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 23:29

1st503rdsgt wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote: You've pretty much just said everything I've said about why the F-35 is the way it is. As for what I would change, that's pretty much pointless speculation; I've long since vented my spleen about what should have been done differently. All I'll say is that three separate programs would have been best: more expensive, but still best

Given an unlimited budget, 3 separate jets might've been nice, as would 750 Raptors with cheek arrays/IRSTs/HMDs,120 B-2s, and F-14 Tomcat 21s for the Navy instead of Super Hornets.

We're in complete agreement. The F-35 is simply the best of a bad situation, and wishful thinking about what could have been isn't going to benefit anyone. Those who want to cancel the JSF now simply aren't living in the current reality, or have an emotional attachment to one of its predecessors or competitors.


Agree 100%. Until the specs were frozen for the F-35 I was a big proponent of building more F-22's and revising the capabilities of the F-35 downward to control cost. But that is not an option (now that I see the F-22 maint. issues I see why to a large degree) going forward so we make due with what we have.

I think a lot of people have gone overboard with the idea that the F-35 is some sort of dog. It reminds me a lot of some of the US fighters in WWII honestly. The P-51 was best in the world at a lot of things. But aircraft like the Hellcat were simply good in a lot of areas and solid airplanes. They got the job done all the same.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Nov 2012, 23:38

What areas could have been reduced to reduce cost significantly?

The highest portion of the cost is the avionics and that cannot be reduced and still stay effective.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post07 Nov 2012, 01:06

bigjku wrote:
cola wrote:
megasun wrote:Sure F-35A has more "half-fuel" and equipments than 16/18. But...

...even with full internal fuel, an F16 still does a ~0.3g more than the F35A, while maintaining a significantly longer range.


Can it do this while carrying a targeting pod, an ECM pod and weapons?

Are we sure we aren't just running afoul of "things that are classified"?
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post07 Nov 2012, 02:31

Oh looky, were back to the same old question? Looking at costs, is one F-22 better then two or three networked F-35's? The answer is no. With three networked F-35's you can triangulate the position of any opposing fighter and get a weapons firing solution which negates any speed and manuvering advantage the F-22 has. The F-22 is only superior in a one on one aircraft engagement. When you have multiple aircaft engaging the F-22 is really is much of an advantage because it really can't use its speed and manuvering to maximum advantage.
Offline
User avatar

Vipernice

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 21:06

Unread post07 Nov 2012, 03:08

Good info but you can tell he's not trying to sell it as something really useful. A 150 mile dash is short and can't really be used anyway unless you have a assured air supremacy. That's far too short of a distance to be using supersonic (and I presume afterburner to take it up to speed) near weapons release as supersonic flights increase the IR image (not to mention the use of afterburner before that). Not that I know how good the F-35 can deal with temperature increases but even only a 1% difference to the outside atmosphere will help out IRST systems.

Spudman I've heard it's more like 10%.
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post07 Nov 2012, 04:22

"supersonic (and I presume afterburner to take it up to speed) near weapons release as supersonic flights increase the IR image"

Wouldn't it be a tradeoff? If you are going supersonic, your a-pole range will be significantly longer than a shot at slower speed, the extra range would largely negate the larger IR sig.

I can see this capability as only being an advantage. F-35 is highly likely to have a better idea of where an enemy is first and will get itself to altitude very early. It can dash into firing range without the need to light up AB at all within the range limits of IRST's. Fire, turn away, nose down to help accelerate with a short burst of full AB, then cruise away again. Should the opponent/s evade the missiles and give chase, they'll have serious issues with fuel and due to the time it'll take to catch the fleeing F-35's, it'll allow more F-35's to set up to engage the pursuers.
Offline
User avatar

Vipernice

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 21:06

Unread post07 Nov 2012, 08:43

I think it would be dangerous to assume the F-35 would have "a better idea of where an enemy is first". Besides other sensors, IRST is getting to become pretty good and on fighters passively scanning over their sector for hostile threats the distance to a F-35 that lights up afterburner for a coming supercruise dash and weapons release will be from what I can see close to if not within range of fighter's IRST. I believe it would be wise to stay off AB and also supercruise that close to a protected target and maintain low profile.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3784
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post07 Nov 2012, 16:06

Vipernice wrote:I think it would be dangerous to assume the F-35 would have "a better idea of where an enemy is first". Besides other sensors, IRST is getting to become pretty good and on fighters passively scanning over their sector for hostile threats the distance to a F-35 that lights up afterburner for a coming supercruise dash and weapons release will be from what I can see close to if not within range of fighter's IRST. I believe it would be wise to stay off AB and also supercruise that close to a protected target and maintain low profile.


IRSTs are getting better, but to assume that they are superior to VLO signature reductions, huge advantages in network centric warfare/third party data sharing, not to mention the capabilities of the APG-81/EOTS/DAS...., is perhaps overstated.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post07 Nov 2012, 20:18

Vipernice wrote:Good info but you can tell he's not trying to sell it as something really useful. A 150 mile dash is short and can't really be used anyway unless you have a assured air supremacy. That's far too short of a distance to be using supersonic (and I presume afterburner to take it up to speed) near weapons release as supersonic flights increase the IR image (not to mention the use of afterburner before that). Not that I know how good the F-35 can deal with temperature increases but even only a 1% difference to the outside atmosphere will help out IRST systems.

Spudman I've heard it's more like 10%.

Wasn't the breakdown of component costs in the Budget documentation?

With all the comments like an F-35 costs $65m with the following Government Furnished Equipment... like engines, radar, some black boxes, etc. etc. The actual figures have been released before.
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3030
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post07 Nov 2012, 20:33

EOTS & DAS reduce pilot workload and the man-machine interface is built for minimal delay. I doubt it will be over-rated.
Offline

wilhelm

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012, 21:57
  • Location: New Zealand

Unread post18 Nov 2012, 23:14

count_to_10 wrote:Did you catch this?
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.


But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS. Within visual range stealth doesnt work, and you can lock on using IRST to track their engine exhaust. Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported, additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology. Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5. Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post18 Nov 2012, 23:30

wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements and they require Visual Identification, furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS.

So... where do the BVR missiles go again?

Image
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Nov 2012, 23:47

wilhelm wrote:But US fighter pilots arent cleared for BVR engagements
That depends on the situation.
wilhelm wrote: and they require Visual Identification,
Not always. The F-35 can ID an adversary using any number of methods (over 600) that are not available to any other US fighter. When a VID is needed, EOTS can provide that at almost 50nm, well outside typical WVR ranges.
wilhelm wrote:furthermore for such engagements the F35 will need to carry Externally mounted long range weapons which mess up their RCS.
The F-35 can carry 4 internal BVR missiles at IOC and plans are in the works to carry more.
wilhelm wrote:Also the F35 does not feature the F22s x band stealth because that is prohibited from being exported,
Sorry, but you are COMPLETELY wrong on this point.
wilhelm wrote: additionally all of its modern competitors feature L band radar which defeats the stealth technology.
The only verified airborne L-Band usage has been a proposed upgrade for Flankers that would fit in the wing leading edges. Due to it's small size, it's effectiveness vs any stealth aircraft is questionable.
wilhelm wrote:Additionally the F14 could do like mach 2.5.
The F-15 has been above m1.2 while in combat maybe a handful of times. The drag penalty is tremendous when armed. The F-35 was designed with this combat history in mind.
wilhelm wrote:Most engagements are likely to be within visual range, and radars can be actively jammed.
Historically, the range of missile combat has been getting longer and longer, not shorter.

btw, Welcome to F-16.net, but you seriously need to do some research before posting so much "info" that is contrary to what is know already about the program.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post18 Nov 2012, 23:53

The F-15 has been above m1.2 while in combat maybe a handful of times. The drag penalty is tremendous when armed. The F-35 was designed with this combat history in mind.

Spud, is there a missing "not" or "never" in that?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Design & Construction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest