F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Simply comparing rate/radius/g/SEP graphs works for 2v2/many v many as well as it does for 1v1 - your coordination, tactics and ability become much bigger factors as the numbers grow.
As I said, it's somewhat ridiculous comparison in this instance, but no less fun. In the article The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change, the author uses a strange way of approaching it and some of his explanations are not quite right - not that those bits make any difference to his overall analysis. To be honest, a far more simple and less contestible argument would just be to put the rate/radius/g/SEP graphs next to each other, but I doubt we'll be seeing that for the F-35 anytime soon!
Do remember, though, that HMS, off-boresight weapons, AIM9-X/ASRAAM and lock-after-launch aren't exclusive to F-35. We could even do off-boresight in the old F4!
Anyway, a list of turn rates from one of the same sources as Spaz's link which gives the simple answer to comparative turn rates. All figures are degrees per second:
F-18E: 11.1
F35A: 11.3
Mirage 2000: 11.5
F-18C: 12.5
F-15C 13.7
F-16A: 14.3
As I said, it's somewhat ridiculous comparison in this instance, but no less fun. In the article The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change, the author uses a strange way of approaching it and some of his explanations are not quite right - not that those bits make any difference to his overall analysis. To be honest, a far more simple and less contestible argument would just be to put the rate/radius/g/SEP graphs next to each other, but I doubt we'll be seeing that for the F-35 anytime soon!
Do remember, though, that HMS, off-boresight weapons, AIM9-X/ASRAAM and lock-after-launch aren't exclusive to F-35. We could even do off-boresight in the old F4!
Anyway, a list of turn rates from one of the same sources as Spaz's link which gives the simple answer to comparative turn rates. All figures are degrees per second:
F-18E: 11.1
F35A: 11.3
Mirage 2000: 11.5
F-18C: 12.5
F-15C 13.7
F-16A: 14.3
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 29th May 2013 at 11:58.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The "Bearded One" has been corresponding again with the MOD... and apparently not happy at being passed down the line for reply ...
He clearly doesn't like the F-35B ...
Sharkey's World Blog
He clearly doesn't like the F-35B ...
Sharkey's World Blog
Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 29th May 2013 at 12:15.
Good to see that the poor old chap's still struggling on. Keeps his carer and nappie-changer in work.
You're right, Coff, he really doesn't like the F-35B, does he. Sadly, he's even further behind the issues than we are here in PPRuNe!
And he was writing that to the Minister!
Anyway, a couple of things to help him out. Excuse me, but I'll need to shout for a mment, you know how the old bloke's hearing has been lately:
SHARKEY! HEY, SHARKEY, WAKE UP A MINUTE. I WAS READING YOUR BLOG. NO, YOUR BLOG! ALL THOSE THINGS YOU SAID WERE WRONG WITH THE F-35B, YOU COULD HAVE TALKING ABOUT SEA HARRIER. REMEMBER THE SEA HARRIER?
ALSO, YOU ACCIDENTALLY USED THE F-18A COST ESTIMATES TO BUILD YOUR CASE FOR BUYING F-18E. READ THIS THREAD AND YOU'LL SEE WHERE MANY OF YOUR POINTS ARE WRONG.
NOW DRINK YOUR MILK AND GET NURSE TO PUT YOUR RUG ON YOUR KNEES.
Silly old sod.
You're right, Coff, he really doesn't like the F-35B, does he. Sadly, he's even further behind the issues than we are here in PPRuNe!
The Super Hornet is already operating with state of the art cutting edge technologies and aircraft sensors, certain of which will not be available to the F-35. It is also a true multirole aircraft that, according to both Lockheed Martin and Boeing, is almost as stealthy as the F-35.
And he was writing that to the Minister!
Anyway, a couple of things to help him out. Excuse me, but I'll need to shout for a mment, you know how the old bloke's hearing has been lately:
SHARKEY! HEY, SHARKEY, WAKE UP A MINUTE. I WAS READING YOUR BLOG. NO, YOUR BLOG! ALL THOSE THINGS YOU SAID WERE WRONG WITH THE F-35B, YOU COULD HAVE TALKING ABOUT SEA HARRIER. REMEMBER THE SEA HARRIER?
ALSO, YOU ACCIDENTALLY USED THE F-18A COST ESTIMATES TO BUILD YOUR CASE FOR BUYING F-18E. READ THIS THREAD AND YOU'LL SEE WHERE MANY OF YOUR POINTS ARE WRONG.
NOW DRINK YOUR MILK AND GET NURSE TO PUT YOUR RUG ON YOUR KNEES.
Silly old sod.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 29th May 2013 at 13:25.
Ooh, it keeps getting better. Just got to the but about
It makes me feel all warm and glowing inside to know that the RAF's conspiracy over the decades is still managing to bring so much angst into the Bearded Idiot's declining years.
When our then Defence Secretary, the Right Honourable Denis Healey MP, decided that Britain no longer needed Strike Aircraft Carriers and cancelled the new carrier project CVA01, he did so on the explicit advice from the Royal Air Force that “the RAF could and would provide effective air defence for the Fleet throughout the oceans of the world and therefore Strike Aircraft Carriers were not needed.” The Defence Secretary accepted this forcefully presented argument which was supported by totally misleading/false data concerning what land-based air could actually do many miles from shore or from friendly airfields.
It makes me feel all warm and glowing inside to know that the RAF's conspiracy over the decades is still managing to bring so much angst into the Bearded Idiot's declining years.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 29th May 2013 at 12:56.
We kept our carriers because our Admirals fought back against the kind of parochial crap the RAF pulled on Mr Healey (if the narrator there is accurately depicting how it all went down ... )
We had to fight again with the Air Force after Gulf War "roles and missions" debates ran wild over whose rice bowl would get kicked over. They once again wanted to do away with A-10, but the other three services backed them down. Good thing, the Hawg is still flying, and doing great things.
We had to fight again with the Air Force after Gulf War "roles and missions" debates ran wild over whose rice bowl would get kicked over. They once again wanted to do away with A-10, but the other three services backed them down. Good thing, the Hawg is still flying, and doing great things.
Yeah, the way it's told is sort of how it happened, Wolf. Although, in reality, the RAF were actually just trying to be dead mean to the Navy because they didn't like each other and the Navy had been calling the RAF names and telling tales. The RAF even managed to get the Army to give the Navy a chinese burn once and take their lunch money.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply comparing rate/radius/g/SEP graphs works for 2v2/many v many as well as it does for 1v1 - your coordination, tactics and ability become much bigger factors as the numbers grow.
in bold is what I've read f-15 pilots saying... it's a dumb idea to get into a turning fight and it's up to your wingman/others to save your arse
Do remember, though, that HMS, off-boresight weapons, AIM9-X/ASRAAM and lock-after-launch aren't exclusive to F-35. We could even do off-boresight in the old F4!
F-18E: 11.1
F35A: 11.3
Mirage 2000: 11.5
F-18C: 12.5
F-15C 13.7
F-16A: 14.3
F35A: 11.3
Mirage 2000: 11.5
F-18C: 12.5
F-15C 13.7
F-16A: 14.3
I'm happy to continue with the 4.6g f-35a but the f-35c has 5g sus turn
for an apple apple, lets use the f-35a strike mission with 50/60% fuel fraction left for a2a and add the targeting pod etc
it was f18c and f-16/50 but no matter, I though the f-15 would of been the match but its 28/32k empty / 13k fuel
when you add the extra fuel/pod for a 590nm strike, I think even that would come back to the sus of a f-35...I don't have the knowledge to do the drag maths of 2x2000. 2xaim120 and flir pod. ingress alt
if you could be bother to do it..it would add to the debate
just for interest..the original f-35a was going to be 450+nm 25k empty and 13k fuel, till they wanted to extend mission, being able to weapon load 18k day 2 didn't help either
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th May 2013 at 14:34.
Yeah, the numbers came from the same ******** site as Spaz's link and, therefore has the same issue with putting the link here. It's
http://elementsofpower.blagspat.co.u...ed-g-spec.html
and again copy the URL into your browser's address line and change the As to Os in blagspat.
http://elementsofpower.blagspat.co.u...ed-g-spec.html
and again copy the URL into your browser's address line and change the As to Os in blagspat.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 29th May 2013 at 14:45.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, off the chart there.. thanks
as to the rest of my post?
and you still havent commented on the ~4.6g being from around 2001
as to the rest of my post?
and you still havent commented on the ~4.6g being from around 2001
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th May 2013 at 15:16.
Well, just on the g issue for a moment, to be honest ~5g sustained for a modern 'fighter' is very poor - I'm guessing that was what prompted Henra to think about the comparison to the F4. 20 years ago, I was teaching USAF F-15 students BFM where they would be expected to employ max available g - in that case 9g - and they would be expected to maintain that until forced to slow down at the combat floor (or base height if you prefer).
While you are generally quite right about the importance of g/rate/radius becoming more apparent once WVR, it does also have an effect at range when exchanging BVR shots. You want the bad guy's missile to see a big, rapid increase in sightline rate to force it to burn energy by making a BIG navigation turn (make his missile's constant of proportionality work for you)either to re-establish the collision or to avoid being somewhere it doesn't want to be. The best way to do that is a max performance turn using best sustained g once your first shot is in the air.
We don't have enough information available to do the calculations about turn perfomance and drag on the F-35. But just consider the subjective issues. The airframe is a drag machine to start with, given that big frontal area because if the internal weapons, the wing loading is high, it has a very powerful motor. So, in a turning fight, it starts with a lot of drag, overcome by a lot of thrust. Assuming they don't plan to try to fight at 50 degrees aoa (just because they can) I think its perfomance will not be too badly affected by the relatively small additional drag index of a couple of pylons with some extra AAMs strapped onto them.
Yeah, I know the max sustainable g was reduced a long time ago. I used it as an example because, it's one of the performance areas that often gets eroded during the develop, production and in-service phases of aircraft. I think LM were lucky to be allowed to let that one slip by. Remember that the key performance parameters don't usually go down to that level of detail, so sustainable g was never likely to be one. KPPs tend to be more like sortie generation rates, combat radius, weapons load, survivability, etc. Sustainable g would than become one of the factors that influences 'survivaility'. If you see what I mean.
While you are generally quite right about the importance of g/rate/radius becoming more apparent once WVR, it does also have an effect at range when exchanging BVR shots. You want the bad guy's missile to see a big, rapid increase in sightline rate to force it to burn energy by making a BIG navigation turn (make his missile's constant of proportionality work for you)either to re-establish the collision or to avoid being somewhere it doesn't want to be. The best way to do that is a max performance turn using best sustained g once your first shot is in the air.
We don't have enough information available to do the calculations about turn perfomance and drag on the F-35. But just consider the subjective issues. The airframe is a drag machine to start with, given that big frontal area because if the internal weapons, the wing loading is high, it has a very powerful motor. So, in a turning fight, it starts with a lot of drag, overcome by a lot of thrust. Assuming they don't plan to try to fight at 50 degrees aoa (just because they can) I think its perfomance will not be too badly affected by the relatively small additional drag index of a couple of pylons with some extra AAMs strapped onto them.
Yeah, I know the max sustainable g was reduced a long time ago. I used it as an example because, it's one of the performance areas that often gets eroded during the develop, production and in-service phases of aircraft. I think LM were lucky to be allowed to let that one slip by. Remember that the key performance parameters don't usually go down to that level of detail, so sustainable g was never likely to be one. KPPs tend to be more like sortie generation rates, combat radius, weapons load, survivability, etc. Sustainable g would than become one of the factors that influences 'survivaility'. If you see what I mean.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 29th May 2013 at 15:52.
USAF estimates F-35 will cost $32,000 per hour to operate
and how are they planning to pay for it?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, can you point out my pleb mistake? other than I'm using c and adding weight to make it an E
it has to be there because this doesn't make sense [i haven't forgotten your post, but I'd like this cleaned first]
I found the f-15a/c manual
TO 1F-15A-1 Flight Manual USAF F-15 Series A, B, C, D Block 7 and Up, Change 5, 01-Mar-1986
the f-15E is about 32k op empty
eqiv f-35a 50% fuel load 9k assume same gpm, I think this is to the f-15 advantage
total weight 41k
page 391 for 41k weight
15kft m.8
sus ~ 5.2g
deg/sec ~12
it has to be there because this doesn't make sense [i haven't forgotten your post, but I'd like this cleaned first]
I found the f-15a/c manual
TO 1F-15A-1 Flight Manual USAF F-15 Series A, B, C, D Block 7 and Up, Change 5, 01-Mar-1986
the f-15E is about 32k op empty
eqiv f-35a 50% fuel load 9k assume same gpm, I think this is to the f-15 advantage
total weight 41k
page 391 for 41k weight
15kft m.8
sus ~ 5.2g
deg/sec ~12
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th May 2013 at 23:18.
I'm not sure what maths you're trying to do there; I don't think you'll be able to calculate sustained g by using the F-15C and adding weight. The C and E are very different aircraft. For example, the E has internal structural changes, considerably bigger engines (sorry, more powerful and, therefore different fuel flows), more fuel, and (obviously) a much bigger payload.
I've never flown the E, but I know that stripped down into a standard a-a role, its performance is similar to the C (which could also carry the CFTs) and fully loaded for its Strike mission it will go somewhat further than a F-35 (also fully loaded).
If you're trying to add F-15E to the list of turn rates, though, none of the above will do it I'm afraid. Similarly, I'm not sure you'll be able to do any kind of combat effectiveness, range or survivability calcs. Although I haven't looked for them, you may find some of that info in the public domain already calculated, but do be aware that it may not be based on the same set of assumptions that the earlier figures used.
Hope that helps.
I've never flown the E, but I know that stripped down into a standard a-a role, its performance is similar to the C (which could also carry the CFTs) and fully loaded for its Strike mission it will go somewhat further than a F-35 (also fully loaded).
If you're trying to add F-15E to the list of turn rates, though, none of the above will do it I'm afraid. Similarly, I'm not sure you'll be able to do any kind of combat effectiveness, range or survivability calcs. Although I haven't looked for them, you may find some of that info in the public domain already calculated, but do be aware that it may not be based on the same set of assumptions that the earlier figures used.
Hope that helps.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New F35 for USMC requires changes to LHD/LhA
U.S. Navy Details Amphibious Ship Mods Required For F-35
Interesting piece about the changes that are needed to make the F35B work on the US "small" carriers;
Interesting piece about the changes that are needed to make the F35B work on the US "small" carriers;
Navy officials say the modifications “are intended to offset the increased stresses associated with JSF exhaust. The exhaust patterns and flight characteristics of the F-35 required the shielding, relocation and removal of vulnerable systems that could sustain damage during flight operations, such as antennas, life rafts, life rails, safety nets and JP-5 fuel stations.”
Additionally, the Navy says, “The unique heat signature of the F-35 has required reinforcement of the flight deck to alleviate stresses from the heat of the jet, as well as modifying the flight deck coating to reduce erosion caused by jet exhaust associated with increased thrust. Specific system modifications that are unique to F-35 will also require the installation of new voltage regulators and rectifiers. Expanded mission capabilities of the F-35 have also required enhanced munitions throughput and systems capabilities to facilitate increased ordnance delivery and aircraft associated support equipment.”
Some of the detailed modifications include relocating or shielding features such as the Phalanx close-in-weapon system and Rolling Airframe Missile and NATO Sea Sparrow missile launchers, and protecting fueling stations.
The WSC-8 satcoms antenna will also be moved, and the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) system is being expanded.
The changes confirm that Lockheed Martin and the Marine Corps issued erroneous statements in early 2010 regarding the environmental effects of the F-35B’s exhaust. At that time, a company spokesman said that “extensive tests” had shown that “the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”
....
The mission for VFA-121 and other early F-35B units is uncertain. Out of the weapons cleared in the Block2B/3I software standard, only the laser-guided bomb is considered useful for close air support (CAS), which is the primary mission of embarked AV-8Bs, and none of the 2B weapons are suitable for use against quickly moving targets or for a situation in which the risk of collateral damage is high. (The centerline gun pod is not included in 2B/3I.)
The F-35B lacks the Rover (remote video receiver) technology, developed since the requirement for the aircraft was written. Rover has been defined as minimum essential equipment for CAS in some theaters; according to some military sources, the Marines have explored the idea of adding a Rover-equipped external targeting pod to the F-35B until an internal solution is available.
Additionally, the Navy says, “The unique heat signature of the F-35 has required reinforcement of the flight deck to alleviate stresses from the heat of the jet, as well as modifying the flight deck coating to reduce erosion caused by jet exhaust associated with increased thrust. Specific system modifications that are unique to F-35 will also require the installation of new voltage regulators and rectifiers. Expanded mission capabilities of the F-35 have also required enhanced munitions throughput and systems capabilities to facilitate increased ordnance delivery and aircraft associated support equipment.”
Some of the detailed modifications include relocating or shielding features such as the Phalanx close-in-weapon system and Rolling Airframe Missile and NATO Sea Sparrow missile launchers, and protecting fueling stations.
The WSC-8 satcoms antenna will also be moved, and the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) system is being expanded.
The changes confirm that Lockheed Martin and the Marine Corps issued erroneous statements in early 2010 regarding the environmental effects of the F-35B’s exhaust. At that time, a company spokesman said that “extensive tests” had shown that “the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”
....
The mission for VFA-121 and other early F-35B units is uncertain. Out of the weapons cleared in the Block2B/3I software standard, only the laser-guided bomb is considered useful for close air support (CAS), which is the primary mission of embarked AV-8Bs, and none of the 2B weapons are suitable for use against quickly moving targets or for a situation in which the risk of collateral damage is high. (The centerline gun pod is not included in 2B/3I.)
The F-35B lacks the Rover (remote video receiver) technology, developed since the requirement for the aircraft was written. Rover has been defined as minimum essential equipment for CAS in some theaters; according to some military sources, the Marines have explored the idea of adding a Rover-equipped external targeting pod to the F-35B until an internal solution is available.
And after having also been able to open @SpazSindbads Link (
) I still feel it is rather in the F-4 ballpark of sustained performance than in the F-16 ballpark.Due to the latest lowering of the KPP's it is a rather un- daring assumption that the Low figure in the linked document applies to the Real World F-35(A). And that effectively puts it into F-4 territory (yes, the slatted one but still even the lighter and somewhat more maneuverable German F-4F are completely outclassed by F-16s in BFM).
So when nitpicking (eqializing fuel weight) you might find that the F-35 has some small advantages in turning fights against an F-4 (does that even hold true for the F-4F?) but that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of its WVR capabilities.
Last edited by henra; 30th May 2013 at 10:41.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question, arising from kbrockman's post: the F-35 is supposed to be stealthy, and yet I'm reading about an engine which runs so hot it'll melt ships. I'm also reading about a large engine which is needed to push a draggy shape around the sky, and which is very noisy.
Erm... stealth?
Erm... stealth?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G Forces
Just as a FYI, comparing the F35 with one of its contemporaries, the French Rafale.
It has a couple of soft sustained G-limits, 9.0/-3.2 for A2A, in the A2G role with a heavy load (up until 21000lbs) at MTOW it is limited to 5.5/-3.2G.
Mind you these are all soft limits, in all regimes it can be pushed to +11G's if the need arises.
BTW it also has a 30°AoA limit in A2A or 20°in heavy A2G, without loosing altitude (demonstrated AoA during flight test is +100°).
The F35 might have 50°AoA but I somehow seriously doubt it will keep its altitude anywhere past 20°AoA.
That is only the Rafale, I can only imagine what a Eurofighter might do, certainly with the max 23,000Lbs emergency war power setting.
Let alone an F22 with its enormous lift generating (clean) body and 2D vectoring massively powerful engines.
The F35 certainly seems to be in a disadvantaged position with most of these fighters, I can only guess what will happen once external weapons, pods or fuel tanks are needed, which I guess will be fairly often given the F35's limited bays (unlike the F22).
It has a couple of soft sustained G-limits, 9.0/-3.2 for A2A, in the A2G role with a heavy load (up until 21000lbs) at MTOW it is limited to 5.5/-3.2G.
Mind you these are all soft limits, in all regimes it can be pushed to +11G's if the need arises.
BTW it also has a 30°AoA limit in A2A or 20°in heavy A2G, without loosing altitude (demonstrated AoA during flight test is +100°).
The F35 might have 50°AoA but I somehow seriously doubt it will keep its altitude anywhere past 20°AoA.
That is only the Rafale, I can only imagine what a Eurofighter might do, certainly with the max 23,000Lbs emergency war power setting.
Let alone an F22 with its enormous lift generating (clean) body and 2D vectoring massively powerful engines.
The F35 certainly seems to be in a disadvantaged position with most of these fighters, I can only guess what will happen once external weapons, pods or fuel tanks are needed, which I guess will be fairly often given the F35's limited bays (unlike the F22).
Last edited by kbrockman; 30th May 2013 at 11:11.
Cold Collation - It doesn't "melt" ships, but the combo of blast and heat/cool cycles raises fatigue issues. As for the back-end IR signature, there are things you can do with a round nozzle in military power, but basically not very much. If you're serious you go 2D, but the weight penalty eats your lunch. Just as well that the F-35 is faster than any known advers... wait, what?
I hope nobody spent too much time following SpazSinbad's link. I've skimmed that a couple of times and can't figure out the guy's point. But in the country of the blind... the fankiddies think he's an authority of some kind.
Nobody should be surprised about the F-35's kinematics. The goal was always "comparable to legacy" which always raised doubts - if you were an F-16 at the high speed end and an F-18 at low speed, that was good; the other way around, not so much. And of course many slow-witted people have been suckered by the "fifth-generation" flimflam, which carries the subliminal message that all "Gen4" aircraft are the same.
I hope nobody spent too much time following SpazSinbad's link. I've skimmed that a couple of times and can't figure out the guy's point. But in the country of the blind... the fankiddies think he's an authority of some kind.
Nobody should be surprised about the F-35's kinematics. The goal was always "comparable to legacy" which always raised doubts - if you were an F-16 at the high speed end and an F-18 at low speed, that was good; the other way around, not so much. And of course many slow-witted people have been suckered by the "fifth-generation" flimflam, which carries the subliminal message that all "Gen4" aircraft are the same.