F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair g limits on their own mean very little. If you did 2 v 2 A-A F-35 v F-16/Rafale/Typhoon/F-18 in a permissive RoE environment I suspect the Kill:loss would be about 50:0. In a less permissive RoE environment the legacy types will probably get a few kills so maybe 20:1?
Everything else has been sacrificed for stealth and, for the -B, VSTOL. You can't have everything (although they are trying hard)!
Will it look as cool at airshows? Will it impress small boys with g figures? No and no, but they aren't in the requirements afaik.
Everything else has been sacrificed for stealth and, for the -B, VSTOL. You can't have everything (although they are trying hard)!
Will it look as cool at airshows? Will it impress small boys with g figures? No and no, but they aren't in the requirements afaik.
Hmmm, given the fact that in mock combat things haven't always gone x:0 for the much more capable and stealthy F-22, people throwing around (purely hypothetical - F-35 is still pretty much a paper plane wrt combat performance) figures like these make me scratch my head: LM spokes person or over- enthusiastic fan?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO you have a short memory, you put up a link on 1/4 and were explained what was going on
are you really going to believe that clown sweetman over greenknight?
GreenKnight121
are you really going to believe that clown sweetman over greenknight?
GreenKnight121
Indeed... the modification to the MV-22 on-deck engine-running procedure for idle running in excess of 10 minutes requires shutting down one engine and either putting a portable heat-shield under the running engine or parking the aircraft with the running engine over the catwalk rather than the deck... thus the need to relocate or protect the items on the catwalk & deck-edge.
These mods are for MV-22 operation, NOT for F-35B operation!
Nearly every heat-related modification to USN LHA/LHD/LPD/LSDs is for MV-22, not F-35B.
Since the MV-22 issues have been known and the "fixes" finalized for several years, one might ask why these changes weren't made earlier in LHA-6 construction.
The answer is, simply, money. This question has come up before in regards to all sorts of changes on all sorts of ships (the instance I remember was changes to the LPD-17 class unrelated to aircraft), and those with experience pointed out that in the modern era of pre-outfitted modular construction, making changes during construction was about twice as expensive as making the same changes after construction was completed!
These mods are for MV-22 operation, NOT for F-35B operation!
Nearly every heat-related modification to USN LHA/LHD/LPD/LSDs is for MV-22, not F-35B.
Since the MV-22 issues have been known and the "fixes" finalized for several years, one might ask why these changes weren't made earlier in LHA-6 construction.
The answer is, simply, money. This question has come up before in regards to all sorts of changes on all sorts of ships (the instance I remember was changes to the LPD-17 class unrelated to aircraft), and those with experience pointed out that in the modern era of pre-outfitted modular construction, making changes during construction was about twice as expensive as making the same changes after construction was completed!
In fairness, LO was saying that the eflux doesn't melt ships, but mentioned the effects of heating cycles on metal decks.
Those are very precise figures there. Love to know where you got them. Given that F-35 hasn't done any operational manoeuvring, training or evaluation yet, I'd say your crystal ball is highly advanced.
You are right that g limits alone are not complete indicators and that was why we started with g/rate/radius/SEP graphs and why I said the best way to compare on paper is to put those graphs side by side. However, I would say that given even just similar characteristics, the higher g is usually going to turn inside the lower g jet. Unless one needs 600 knts to pull 9g whilst the other can only do 8, but at 300.
Originally Posted by Backwards PLT
If you did 2 v 2 A-A F-35 v F-16/Rafale/Typhoon/F-18 in a permissive RoE environment I suspect the Kill:loss would be about 50:0. In a less permissive RoE environment the legacy types will probably get a few kills so maybe 20:1?
You are right that g limits alone are not complete indicators and that was why we started with g/rate/radius/SEP graphs and why I said the best way to compare on paper is to put those graphs side by side. However, I would say that given even just similar characteristics, the higher g is usually going to turn inside the lower g jet. Unless one needs 600 knts to pull 9g whilst the other can only do 8, but at 300.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 30th May 2013 at 14:25.
Since the comments in the cited article came directly from the CNO or were an official on-the-record follow-up to the CNO's remarks, it seems fairly clear that the mods have 
-all to do with the V-22, where the heating problems are different (lower energy, longer exposure) and seem to have been solved procedurally,
As for the melting decks, many shills and trolls have been challenged to identify one JSF critic who said it would do that, and so far none has ever done so. It's a strawman argument that works on the ill-informed, and we know who they are.
-all to do with the V-22, where the heating problems are different (lower energy, longer exposure) and seem to have been solved procedurally, As for the melting decks, many shills and trolls have been challenged to identify one JSF critic who said it would do that, and so far none has ever done so. It's a strawman argument that works on the ill-informed, and we know who they are.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, I found a f-15e one,
yes the f-15 will burn more fuel for the same distance traveled, but to keep it simple and is close enough for this, to have 1/2 a fuel load of a f-35 = 9klb for A2a and the trip home
I didn't include the 4 missile weapon weight on the f-15
it still comes out +1g to the f-35 when you consider the g is non liniar, not much and the deg/sec ~12 is very close, which is more relavent to the turn
I'm very surprised or I have the wrong end of the stick...value your input on this
TO 1F-15E-1 Flight Manual F-15E Aircraft
the f-15E is about 32k op empty
f-35a 50% fuel load = 9k
weight 41k
page 521
15kft m.8
sus ~ 5.5g
deg/sec ~12
@LO, anything sweetman says, I'd want the original eval to see what was really said ..do you know who did the original OT&E USN lhd 6 report?
yes the f-15 will burn more fuel for the same distance traveled, but to keep it simple and is close enough for this, to have 1/2 a fuel load of a f-35 = 9klb for A2a and the trip home
I didn't include the 4 missile weapon weight on the f-15
it still comes out +1g to the f-35 when you consider the g is non liniar, not much and the deg/sec ~12 is very close, which is more relavent to the turn
I'm very surprised or I have the wrong end of the stick...value your input on this
TO 1F-15E-1 Flight Manual F-15E Aircraft
the f-15E is about 32k op empty
f-35a 50% fuel load = 9k
weight 41k
page 521
15kft m.8
sus ~ 5.5g
deg/sec ~12
@LO, anything sweetman says, I'd want the original eval to see what was really said ..do you know who did the original OT&E USN lhd 6 report?
Last edited by JSFfan; 30th May 2013 at 14:50.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.”
When an F-4 can point the nose post stall like an F-35 we can compare the two.
Simple answer, JSFfan. You've got a very old TO-1F-F15E-1 (know as the Dash One) there - did you really expect to find the current one on the internet? One of the big differences is in the smallish print at the top of the page you're using. It's for the old jet with F100-PW-220 engines. Current standard is F100-PW-229. You'd be short by around 16,000lbs, which is a sod of a lot.
I think I can see what you're trying to get at here. Unless you can be absolutely sure that the data for each type is built on exactly the same circumstances and assumptions and that you've got the right data, you won't get a terribly meaningful comparison, I'm afraid.
If your quest was to compare F-35 vs F-15E turn rate/radius/g/SEP, it's fairly intuitive. Why would you want to put an F-15 up to do just the air-to-air role? Well, I suppose you can turn it into that config in the air - very quickly if you need to - so no tanks or bombs here. Using similar, representitive combat weights,
F-15, low wing loader (auw/608), 58,000lbs thrust.
F-35, high wing loader (auw/480), 43,000lbs thrust.
The F-15 will turn better. It can also do HOBS launches.
As for fuel consumption, I deliberately said the F-15E with the bigger engines would be different to the F-15C, not necessarily higher. At max thrust, it will be higher, but that isn't necessarily the case for cruise, endurance, etc.
I think I can see what you're trying to get at here. Unless you can be absolutely sure that the data for each type is built on exactly the same circumstances and assumptions and that you've got the right data, you won't get a terribly meaningful comparison, I'm afraid.
If your quest was to compare F-35 vs F-15E turn rate/radius/g/SEP, it's fairly intuitive. Why would you want to put an F-15 up to do just the air-to-air role? Well, I suppose you can turn it into that config in the air - very quickly if you need to - so no tanks or bombs here. Using similar, representitive combat weights,
F-15, low wing loader (auw/608), 58,000lbs thrust.
F-35, high wing loader (auw/480), 43,000lbs thrust.
The F-15 will turn better. It can also do HOBS launches.
As for fuel consumption, I deliberately said the F-15E with the bigger engines would be different to the F-15C, not necessarily higher. At max thrust, it will be higher, but that isn't necessarily the case for cruise, endurance, etc.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFfan,
1g sustained turning capability is more important from the SEP point of view than the rate of turn, because the rate of turn difference of 1°/sec would after a minute of turning, still keep the target within your vertical acquisition brackets.
High SEP however, allows you to rapidly change energy levels, which makes it easier to engage and disengage and gives you larger margin for errors and when push comes to shove, you usually get the last word in vertical.
Since today almost everyone has HOBS missiles, the people wouldn't want to come close in and slow down, so the SEP imperative is perhaps even higher.
In BVR combat, it's like CM said. High SEP allows rapid energy recovery to maintain the vector, which is a good way to kill the missile right at the start.
1g sustained turning capability is more important from the SEP point of view than the rate of turn, because the rate of turn difference of 1°/sec would after a minute of turning, still keep the target within your vertical acquisition brackets.
High SEP however, allows you to rapidly change energy levels, which makes it easier to engage and disengage and gives you larger margin for errors and when push comes to shove, you usually get the last word in vertical.
Since today almost everyone has HOBS missiles, the people wouldn't want to come close in and slow down, so the SEP imperative is perhaps even higher.
In BVR combat, it's like CM said. High SEP allows rapid energy recovery to maintain the vector, which is a good way to kill the missile right at the start.
Glad Rag,
Assuming the F-4 is the bigger circle there, I note it is now in a very good firing position against the other aircraft there. A nice lag Fox 1. F-4 wins again! QED.
Assuming the F-4 is the bigger circle there, I note it is now in a very good firing position against the other aircraft there. A nice lag Fox 1. F-4 wins again! QED.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 30th May 2013 at 16:08.
Because that is where you will be within seconds when doing really high AoA stuff.
That might be an option when going up 1v1 against an F-4. For any other scenario I'm not that confident that this will end well for you...
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, Nitro I want to thank you both helping me get the gist of it, this is how much of a pleb I am, I tried looking up SEP with maneuverability and only found september... is 'energy' similar and is along the line I'm thinking?
when the NATOPS manual for the f-35 is online..it's going to be a lot easier, but that's not this year
I know it isn't the conop of a f-15 and I doubt it is of the f-35 either, it is just an arbitrary M.8/15kft number before the contract was even awarded
the f-15 snots the f-35, but I honestly thought it would be by a much greater margin
CM, it's just a rough look at a generic strike f-15, the new one would be better again. The only reason I'm using 41klb is that's just the chart.. it is the same as a empty f-15 and 9k fuel ..didn't count the weight of missiles
the other charts are thousands too different
sorry I should have said.. my example was that the f-15 had dropped his 2x2000 and they were gps preloaded so he didn't need ir/laser targeting pod ..saved some weight for the trip home
when the NATOPS manual for the f-35 is online..it's going to be a lot easier, but that's not this year
I know it isn't the conop of a f-15 and I doubt it is of the f-35 either, it is just an arbitrary M.8/15kft number before the contract was even awarded
the f-15 snots the f-35, but I honestly thought it would be by a much greater margin
CM, it's just a rough look at a generic strike f-15, the new one would be better again. The only reason I'm using 41klb is that's just the chart.. it is the same as a empty f-15 and 9k fuel ..didn't count the weight of missiles
the other charts are thousands too different
sorry I should have said.. my example was that the f-15 had dropped his 2x2000 and they were gps preloaded so he didn't need ir/laser targeting pod ..saved some weight for the trip home
Last edited by JSFfan; 30th May 2013 at 17:08.
SEP is Specific Excess Power. Energy can mean all sorts of things, but generally think altitude and airspeed. For a given weight/config/altitude/g loading if the number is positive, the aircraft is accelerating and/or climbing, if negative it's slowing down and/or descending. So the zero SEP line gives you sustained g. Of course, for combat, sustained turn, may not be the one you need. If you're willing to descend or fight at a lower altitude, you'll get to best g/turn rate and can go to the structural g limit. That's the thing that makes Typhoon such a potent jet - in that regime it's really awesome.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 30th May 2013 at 17:12.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks, I get it now..so thinking energy was close and I wasn't arse wrong..I think I'm slowly learning
agree with the sus not being the beeall..it's just when everything T/W/L/D is balanced
agree with the sus not being the beeall..it's just when everything T/W/L/D is balanced
Last edited by JSFfan; 30th May 2013 at 17:16.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Boyd again..... Energy–maneuverability theory
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backwards PLT, it's early days and when the f-35 is flown in exercise, we will get an idea
for me, I won't be surprised if the f-22's computer geek little brother gets free internet and cable
thanks orac, I'll do some reading
for me, I won't be surprised if the f-22's computer geek little brother gets free internet and cable
thanks orac, I'll do some reading
Last edited by JSFfan; 30th May 2013 at 17:34.