It does two tricks: press-ups and it's Klingon cloaking device.
"Request radar vectors" "Sorry, Mate. Can't see you. :E |
Engines - the development contract was awarded in November 1996 - they choice of the F-35 over the Boeing X-32 was made as you say in 2001 but they'd already been working on it for 6 years
|
@ICBM
Yes, you may well be correct that I am misinformed, if you would care to elucidate further that would indeed be of benefit to this "thread".
Would you care to also correct the notion that the performance specification of the various AC marks has been recently revised to give a more realistic view of the aircraft's real world performance. all the best gr. #1082 refers |
Originally Posted by ICBM
(Post 7248241)
Out of a choice of every platform that the west will have in the next 20-30 years, not counting Raptor, I would go to war in F-35 every time.
Ironically, for your statement, F-35C has the worst transonic acceleration of all three variants. The C should be the version with the best turn rates of all three. Especially at high altitudes. It has a pretty low wing loading and span loading and a quite moderate sweep. Despite being limited at 7,5g it should have excellent STR and ITR. I expect it to be a good rate and an excellent radius fighter. At lower altitudes it should be a quite capable low speed performer with relatively little energy bleed in turns thus mitigating the probably less than stellar transonic acceleration in straight and level flight. I expect the 'A' to have acceptable but not terribly good turn rates, due to 9g capability and relatively high wing loading best turn performance being at rather high speeds (probably even higher than F-16). Fits at least to USAF 'speed is life' paradigm. Will bleed energy significantly in hard turns. The 'B' combines worst of both worlds: Even higher wing loading than the 'A' (starfighter like wing loading :E) and lowest g limit of all three being detrimental in high speed energy fight. Neither rate nor radius fighter. I see virtually no part in the envelope where I expect it to be competiive against a capable oppenent wrt kinematic performance. I still have difficulties to understand why not a medium size wing (between 'A' and 'C' size) with a little more sweep to improve acceleration has been chosen for the conventional main version (aka the 'A'). I'm afraid that is part of the price ithe F-35 pays for the modular approach to implement a conventional and a carrier borne version with the same basic wing structure. For my personal tatse maybe a bit too much compromise. |
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
It does two tricks: press-ups and it's Klingon cloaking device.
"Request radar vectors" "Sorry, Mate. Can't see you. |
The 'B' combines worst of both worlds: Even higher wing loading than the 'A' (starfighter like wing loading http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/evil.gif) and lowest g limit of all three being detrimental in high speed energy fight. Neither rate nor radius fighter. A bit like a Buck Rogers version of one of these then? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ter,_JG_74.jpg #1082 refers... YES I'm waiting to see if anyone else picks up on the similarity of "the deal" |
Oh, and as for Kandahar's runway length, there are non-STOVL types out there that could work from the minimum operating strip (MOS) using Pneumatic Arresting Gear (ie. cables) to land and their vast amount of SEP to get airborne. For example, a Super Hornet can get off unassisted on ~400m and then use the arrestor gear for any aborted take offs in the overrun. |
Yes, you may well be correct that I am misinformed, if you would care to elucidate further that would indeed be of benefit to this "thread". The C should be the version with the best turn rates of all three. Especially at high altitudes. It has a pretty low wing loading and span loading and a quite moderate sweep. Despite being limited at 7,5g it should have excellent STR and ITR. I expect it to be a good rate and an excellent radius fighter. At lower altitudes it should be a quite capable low speed performer with relatively little energy bleed in turns thus mitigating the probably less than stellar transonic acceleration in straight and level flight. I expect the 'A' to have acceptable but not terribly good turn rates, due to 9g capability and relatively high wing loading best turn performance being at rather high speeds (probably even higher than F-16). Fits at least to USAF 'speed is life' paradigm. Will bleed energy significantly in hard turns. The 'B' combines worst of both worlds: Even higher wing loading than the 'A' (starfighter like wing loading ) and lowest g limit of all three being detrimental in high speed energy fight. Neither rate nor radius fighter. I see virtually no part in the envelope where I expect it to be competiive against a capable oppenent wrt kinematic performance. It does two tricks: press-ups and it's Klingon cloaking device. "Request radar vectors" "Sorry, Mate. Can't see you. |
This aircraft isn't a high-g, high SEP dogfighter - I say again, this isn't a high-g, high SEP dogfighter. It was never touted as such, wasn't designed as such, wasn't required as such and won't end up as such. Perhaps you would like to direct your assertion to the Integrated Test Force at Pax River and ask the question 'can the -B only pull 5g and does it also fail to accelerate transonically?' Then you will have elucidated everything you need to on that subject. From my perspective I can tell you that your statement in incorrect, however I did caveat it that if you load the jet up enough, and fly high enough, you will get to a point where you will only be able to pull 5g due to Ps and induced drag which brings me on to..... Rgds again gr. #1082 refers |
Originally Posted by ICBM
(Post 7248596)
This aircraft isn't a high-g, high SEP dogfighter - I say again, this isn't a high-g, high SEP dogfighter. It was never touted as such, wasn't designed as such, wasn't required as such and won't end up as such. You want that then get LM to re-open the production line and make the F-22 (Air Supremacy Fighter) carrier capable, somehow finding the inordinate amount of money and American 'will to sell' along the way.
Unfortunately apart from USAF the F-35 will have to do these missions as well for a lot of countries. So it is required to be capable at least to some extent in classic air combat. Or you put all your money on stealth and hope that in the next 50 years no one finds a way around that. Good luck with that... Additionally, the huge quantity of internal fuel that -C carries (with the same sized donk as -B and -A) means, simply, that yes it's ITR will be fantastic however at mid-high fuel weights it will quickly bleed energy and the STR will be inferior. Light-weight is a different matter. Just to give some perspective: Thrust: ~195kN. Empty Weight: ~15.000 kg (?). Wing area: 62,02m^2. => T/W: ~1,30 (airframe w/o fuel) wing loading empty: 242kg m^2 span loading empty: 1145 kg/m wing sweep: 35° internal fuel: 9.100kg For comparison: Su30: Thrust: 246kN Empty weight: ~18.500kg Wing Area: 63,20 m^2 => T/W: 1,33 (airframe w/o fuel) wing loading empty: 293 kg/m^2. span loading empty: 1258 kg/m wing sweep: 42° Internal fuel 10185kg As you see also the SU-30 has a massive fuel capacity (even higher compared to the wing area than F-35C). Undoubdtedly with full internal fuel both take quite a hit wrt performance. But in a comparable configuration the C shouldn't be that far from the undoubtedly very good Air superiority fighter the SU-30 is. That said a specific problem of the F-35 compared to the SU appears to be zero-lift drag/transonic drag. That seems to be quite high and will negatively impact SEP and thus acceleration, climb and to some extent STR. The point I'm trying to make is that the C might be closer to other very good A2A fighters in some important key parameters than one might think at first glance. Closer than the other versions at least. That said, the F-22 is in a league completely of its own and it is a pity they did not make more of these fabulous (albeit EXPENSIVE) birds. |
The take off roll of a Super Hornet at SL/ISA max weight is ~3700ft and ~1500ft at minimum weight - all within the capability of what was at Kandahar at the time. Putting in a temporary arrestor system can be done in a matter of hours.
So, like the previous poster said, the Harrier and/or VSTOL wasn't the only option available... LJ |
Glojo,
Sorry to cause you pain, my friend. Only 50% tongue in cheek, of course. Has an aircraft ever been developed and, maybe, brought into service with this much expert, public scrutiny before? We have to be careful because, as we all know, British military aviation policy is made here. :ok: |
So, like the previous poster said, the Harrier and/or VSTOL wasn't the only option available... Why were the only strike platforms flown out of Kandahar the USMC Harrier and then the UK Harrier? Why did they wait to put in cables? Probably because the runway had large chunks missing out of it and was being repaired one half at a time. The Harrier was the only realistic option along with the A10. |
GR,
So you don't have the information either, is that correct? Henra, That said a specific problem of the F-35 compared to the SU appears to be zero-lift drag/transonic drag. That seems to be quite high and will negatively impact SEP and thus acceleration, climb and to some extent STR. Leon, The take off roll of a Super Hornet at SL/ISA max weight is ~3700ft and ~1500ft at minimum weight - all within the capability of what was at Kandahar at the time. Putting in a temporary arrestor system can be done in a matter of hours. |
Non-VSTOL using short strips (MOS), temporary matting and temporary arrestor gear is nothing new. This picture was taken 30 years ago in a little place called the Port Stanley Airport in the Falkland Islands...
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6219/6...a600bde2_z.jpg Plus, check out the SCL! Stanley Airport is about 3,000ft long and F18E/F has bags more SEP, lift and capability! :ok: |
Plus, check out the SCL! Stanley Airport is about 3,000ft long and F18E/F has bags more SEP, lift and capability! Plus this article has a different version of the runway length in the FI's to allow the Phantom to operate from it. Aviation News >> 1435 Flt Says Goodbye Tornado, Hello Typhoon - Global Aviation Resource |
iRaven,
Good point, well made. lj101, I'm sorry, the idea of altitude and temp, valid though it clearly is to aerodynamics, deliberatly misses/avoids, Raven's point. Go back and re-think. |
With the Falkland Islands retaken this detachment returned home on the 14th July to prepare for deployment to Port Stanley and the ongoing defence of the Island itself. The Phantoms were unable to deploy until October however, with the Port Stanley runway in need of extension by some 2000ft and the installation of several RHAG (rotary hydraulic arrestor gear) units which would provide shorter landing runs and minimise wear to the Phantom's brakes |
Courtney
I have thought about it and stand by my post. Go away and check out the devil in the detail of the linked article. |
Well, your quote is incorrect and, once again, the point is being well and truly avoided. 29 Sqn did not go home between Ascension and Stanley. Had the Harriers been capable of doing the FI air defence, they would never have bothered extending the runway and then moving the real AD jets down there.
And here's the point. The new carriers will need proper AD. Carriers are extremely high value assets. Fast jets are not. But the first issue in chosing your carrier-borne jets is "can it defend the carrier". Then we should look at all the other capabilities. The aircraft we choose will dictate the carrier's configuration. As things stand, the current choice MAY not cut it. If the bad guys get to the carrier and sink it, there's no point in even discussing what else she or her jets can do. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.