F-35A vs. F-105D
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is another question: the F-35A has an engine that develops about 14,000 pounds more thrust than a F-105D (sans afterburner) and about 20,000 pounds of additional thrust in afterburner. Yet, the F-105D dramatically out preforms the F-35A in every flight dynamic metric. How can this be?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt it out performs F35A in every flight regimen. I would hazard a guess that the instantaneous and sustained turned rates in the F35 are far better than then F-105, as would be instantaneous and sustained G. Additionally these days you have consider the systems on the a/c and the ability to employ those systems as a flight characteristic, in which case there is no comparison.
But the fundamental difference is the F35 'performance' is optimised for Low Observability and so there is always going to be a slight compromise in terms of pure airframe performance to maximise (or minimise) radar cross section. As for the F-15 - great aircraft. But its not going to last that long in the type of airspace that F35 was designed to go up against.
But the fundamental difference is the F35 'performance' is optimised for Low Observability and so there is always going to be a slight compromise in terms of pure airframe performance to maximise (or minimise) radar cross section. As for the F-15 - great aircraft. But its not going to last that long in the type of airspace that F35 was designed to go up against.
Last edited by AutoBit; 13th Apr 2016 at 02:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. Does the F-22, which is also optimized for low observability, incorporate the same crippling airframe compromises?
Last edited by Channel 2; 13th Apr 2016 at 03:22.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok. The discussion here is about F35 v F105 not F35 v F16. How would an F105 do against a F16?
That report has been well documented, and also well countered.
Finally the F22 has thrust vectoring which the F35 doesn't…..and neither does/did the F105. So back to the original discussion: F35 against F105 and my money's on F35.
That report has been well documented, and also well countered.
Finally the F22 has thrust vectoring which the F35 doesn't…..and neither does/did the F105. So back to the original discussion: F35 against F105 and my money's on F35.
Originally Posted by Channel 2
Does the F-22, which is also optimized for low observability, incorporate the same crippling airframe compromises?
Evertonian
Reading this thread, I decided to look up some more info on the F-105 and found the following article. I share the link for your edification only...
Joint Strike Fighter = Thunderchief II? / Back to the Future in Battlefield Interdiction
Joint Strike Fighter = Thunderchief II? / Back to the Future in Battlefield Interdiction
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something we can never know is how well the 105 would have done from day 2 onwards on the Viernam war if the enemy SAMs had been properly targeted.
Our day 2 onwards theory for this thread is likely to assume that SAMs had been targeted to make life in the air easier. The 105 never had that luxury.
Our day 2 onwards theory for this thread is likely to assume that SAMs had been targeted to make life in the air easier. The 105 never had that luxury.
To compare one Vietnam era airframe to one current/future airframe is somewhat disingenuous. What matters is the total resources required to complete the task.
In Vietnam, to bomb a bridge for instance, in addition to the bomb carrying F105, the following aircraft would have been required:
I'm sure others could add to this list.
If the F35 can identify and either destroy, avoid or not be spotted by SAM sites, then that potentially removes the need for Wild Weasels. If (big if...) it can provide its own air to air protection, that rolls the whole attack into one aircraft, and with guided bombs or missiles, the number of attempts required is reduced, so the attack force can be smaller still.
The cost per airframe is higher, but the resources required per attack are smaller, provided the kit is as good as is it says on the tin.
In Vietnam, to bomb a bridge for instance, in addition to the bomb carrying F105, the following aircraft would have been required:
- Wild Weasels to identify and take out SAM sites
- Air to Air Interceptors to provide top cover
- Combat SAR in case anyone was shot down
- Air cover for the combat SAR
- Tankers for all the above
I'm sure others could add to this list.
If the F35 can identify and either destroy, avoid or not be spotted by SAM sites, then that potentially removes the need for Wild Weasels. If (big if...) it can provide its own air to air protection, that rolls the whole attack into one aircraft, and with guided bombs or missiles, the number of attempts required is reduced, so the attack force can be smaller still.
The cost per airframe is higher, but the resources required per attack are smaller, provided the kit is as good as is it says on the tin.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 aerial victories and a book titled: "F105 Thunderchief MiG killers of the Vietnam War" are somewhat incongruous accolades for an aircraft with "essentially zero air-to-air capability".
And separately, putting GPS and a few glass panels in a Thud would not make it a modern attack aircraft that would be effective in today's air warfare environment. That environment has changed dramatically since Vietnam. I'd wager that even a very experienced Thud driver with multiple MiG kills over Vietnam if given a choice between a "modernized" Thud, an F-15E, an F/A-18E, and an F-35, he would not choose the Thud. Even if his choice was limited to the Thud and F-35, I'd wager he would not choose the Thud.
The Thud operated in the most heavily defended airspace known up to then. She carried the strike mission very well until losses in accidents and combat ran the numbers down to where she'd lived out her useful life and was replaced, of course, with the ubiquitous mighty Fox-4.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. Does the F-22, which is also optimized for low observability, incorporate the same crippling airframe compromises?
The F-22 is optimized for air-to-air. It has two engines. The F-35 was mandated by the government to have only one. That's a huge "compromise" all by itself. The F-22 is essentially single role and is single service and is optimized for that role and that service. Like so many other fighters, it is kind of a point design. The F-35 was mandated by the government to be multi-role, multi-service, AND multi-national. That requires LOTS of "compromises," the vast majority unrelated to stealth. The F-22 is optimized as an air superiority fighter and is a lousy bomber. The F-35 is optimized as a tactical bomber yet has a damn good fighter capability. The F-22 was so expensive that less than 200 will ever be built (including test airframes). Literally thousands of F-35s will be built. Quantity has a quality all its own.
@KenV "The F-22 was so expensive that less than 200 will ever be built (including test airframes). Literally thousands of F-35s will be built. Quantity has a quality all its own."
Not to pick an argument with you, but I don't think the question should be to choose between F-22 or F-35, but I think its a damn crime that fewer than 200 F-22's were built. Such a waste of development costs and such a loss of potential military capability. And by the time the piper is paid, an awful lot more will have been paid for the F-35 than optimistically estimated when the F-22 buys were stopped. To build thousands of F-35's and less than 200 F-22's was a disastrous and wasteful political decision that will leave us wanting in the air superiority arena for decades to come. Just a lonely taxpayer's lament.
Not to pick an argument with you, but I don't think the question should be to choose between F-22 or F-35, but I think its a damn crime that fewer than 200 F-22's were built. Such a waste of development costs and such a loss of potential military capability. And by the time the piper is paid, an awful lot more will have been paid for the F-35 than optimistically estimated when the F-22 buys were stopped. To build thousands of F-35's and less than 200 F-22's was a disastrous and wasteful political decision that will leave us wanting in the air superiority arena for decades to come. Just a lonely taxpayer's lament.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35A Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan, minimum dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN) [That number may go to 32,000+ in the future.] in afterburner: 43,000 lbf (191 kN)
The F-35A's nominal thrust is significantly above what a F-4E could ever produce with two engines.
F-4E Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J79-GE-17A axial compressor turbojets, both engines combined produced: dry thrust: 23,810 lbf (10.8 kN), in afterburner: 35,690 lbf (158.8 kN)
The "tanks are full" thrust to weight ratio are quite similar. F-35A = .87 versus F-4E = .86.
However, the F-4E could do Mach 2.2 until it ran out of gas, while the F-35A struggles to achieve Mach 1.2, for a matter of seconds, (or until the vertical stabilizers over-temp and the sensors red-light the panel.)
Despite having near equal thrust to weight ratios, the F-4E outperforms the F-35A in every flight metric. And in most performance parameters, the F-4E shames the F-35A.
Why? Seriously. Why?
Last edited by Channel 2; 13th Apr 2016 at 17:40.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite having near equal thrust to weight ratios, the F-4E outperforms the F-35A in every flight metric. And in most performance parameters, the F-4E shames the F-35A.
Quoting the T/W ratios and postulating some very pointed assertions makes me a little suspicious, if you'll forgive me. Beyond the few similarities you mention (i.e. one of the F-35's missions) I'd say they're pretty much apples and oranges.
You clearly have an agenda in this little thought experiments and I'll leave it at that.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to pick an argument with you, but I don't think the question should be to choose between F-22 or F-35, but I think its a damn crime that fewer than 200 F-22's were built.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the F-4E could do Mach 2.2 until it ran out of gas, while the F-35A struggles to achieve Mach 1.2, for a matter of seconds, (or until the vertical stabilizers over-temp and the sensors red-light the panel.)
Despite having near equal thrust to weight ratios, the F-4E outperforms the F-35A in every flight metric. And in most performance parameters, the F-4E shames the F-35A.
Why? Seriously. Why?
Despite having near equal thrust to weight ratios, the F-4E outperforms the F-35A in every flight metric. And in most performance parameters, the F-4E shames the F-35A.
Why? Seriously. Why?
And contrary to your claim that F-35 verticals limit its speed, the top speed is driven by the fixed engine inlets. The Phantom goes mach 2.2 because it has variable inlets. By your measure, the F-4 is superior to the F-22, which is also mach limited due to fixed inlets. High mach flight is of very limited value in modern air combat, and why the F-16 and F-18 are also mach limited due to fixed inlets. Do you really claim the F-4 "outperforms in every flight metric" the F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35 because it's variable inlets give it a higher mach top end than those aircraft?
just a little humor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excerpts from:
F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers
Overall, the most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in a visual engagement was its lack of energy maneuverability. [...] Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.
Pitch Rate
Insufficient pitch rate exacerbated the lack of EM. Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over time. The average Nz [“Nz” definition: Nose to Z axis / Pitch axis] achieved during the breaks or turn circle entries were typically ~6.5 [Definition: 6.5 g] or less despite a rapid full aft stick pull and then decreased as energy depleted and the aircraft slowed on the limiter. (You can forget about a clean F-35A being a “9g fighter” in the Z axis because it just won’t do it. And when they start hanging externals on it, that number is going to get way worse.) Insufficient pitch rate also occurred at slower speeds such as during gun run attempts. Instead of catching the bandit off-guard by rapidly pull aft to achieve lead, the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution.
High Angle of Attack
Due to the energy and pitch rate limitations described above, there were not compelling reasons to fight in this region. [...]
High Angle of Attack Blended Region
The flying qualities in the blended region (20-26 degrees AOA) were not intuitive or favorable. This was especially frustrating because as the sortie progressed, it was apparent that the aircraft fought best at the lower end of this alpha whether turning or established in a tree/scissors; so the lateral/directional control was often unpredictable. [...] Since this aircraft seemed to fight best near 20 degrees, [!!!] controls should not be blended near this region.
Guns Defense
No effective guns defense was found during this test. [...] For unloaded-roll-pull jinks, [The devastating word being: “unloaded.”] the slow pitch rate was evident in both the unload and the pull. [...] The result was a target [the F-35A] that was changing shape/attitude but not actually moving out of the piper. Higher alpha usually just resulted in a larger planform target.
Last edited by Channel 2; 13th Apr 2016 at 21:36.