The F-35 is a piece of garbage!

[pauldun170]

range is always an issue



that doesn't mean it couldn't have been better




the benefits are more thrust and less development expense

also the F135 has a huge bypass ratio (for a fighter engine) which might be efficient for cruise but isn't great at rapidly changing thrust scenarios




no matter how much you squint, the F-35 is NOT the F-16. It is a heavy plane. It's empty weight is more than an F-15C! It would work better with more thrust and bigger wings. It would also provide more growth potential.

What does your twin engined, large winged fighter with an internal load look like and how much will it cost to manufacturer and support over several decades.

F-135 is in LRIP and cost are continuously dropping.

Assuming that your theoretical design were to be be built, GE would revamp the G414 into a new design.
Take a Super Hornet. Add internal bays. Add internal fuel capacity in the 15K-20K lb class. Design it to handle estimate fuel consumption of dual engined design and drag associated with an aircraft that has internal bays and massive fuel storage.

Picture a giant J-31 being sold at F-15K\Rafale\EF2000 prices

 

[Blackjack200]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ansatlantic-flight-riat-farnborough/86580962/



that's a heckuva a lot of refuelling

How low do you think they let the tanks get over the Atlantic Ocean? Are you serious?

Compare the range on the F-35 to the F-22, the F-35A has much better range.

 

[tynopik]

What does your twin engined, large winged fighter with an internal load look like and how much will it cost to manufacturer and support over several decades.

adding a few feet of wing and slightly larger body isn't going to materially impact the cost

F-135 is in LRIP and cost are continuously dropping.

which will never eliminate the massive up-front R&D cost

could have just stuck with the F119

Assuming that your theoretical design were to be be built, GE would revamp the G414 into a new design.
Take a Super Hornet. Add internal bays. Add internal fuel capacity in the 15K-20K lb class. Design it to handle estimate fuel consumption of dual engined design and drag associated with an aircraft that has internal bays and massive fuel storage.

Picture a giant J-31 being sold at F-15K\Rafale\EF2000 prices

with twin F119s i think a better comparison would be an affordable f-22

 

[tynopik]

How low do you think they let the tanks get over the Atlantic Ocean? Are you serious?

Compare the range on the F-35 to the F-22

Let's compare it to an F-15

 

[Blackjack200]

Let's compare it to an F-15

You want to compare the range of a 5th generation single engine multi-role fighter to the range of a 4th generation multi-engine air to air specialist?

Okay, but it's not easy to find the range of a combat loaded F-15C with no drop tanks. The range stats I looked for all included conformal tanks and three external tanks. Not an apples to apples comparison with a fighter that will generally carry its fuel internally.

I chose the F-22 because it's apples to apples.

 

[Blackjack200]

adding a few feet of wing and slightly larger body isn't going to materially impact the cost

I'm not sure where you get that, but a twin engine fighter would have been substantially more expensive. Look at the Eurocanards.

which will never eliminate the massive up-front R&D cost

could have just stuck with the F119

The F119 is not a suitable engine. It's a low bypass turbofan designed for supercruise.

with twin F119s i think a better comparison would be an affordable f-22

And what would have made it affordable? The F-22 is a twin F119 fighter with low RCS, internal weapons and fuel, and an advanced AESA radar. How would a twin engine F-35 be different?

 

[pauldun170]

I'm not sure where you get that, but a twin engine fighter would have been substantially more expensive. Look at the Eurocanards.



The F119 is not a suitable engine. It's a low bypass turbofan designed for supercruise.



And what would have made it affordable? The F-22 is a twin F119 fighter with low RCS, internal weapons and fuel, and an advanced AESA radar. How would a twin engine F-35 be different?

The F-35 is an aircraft that is set to replace thousands of aircraft world wide.
Not every operator has the defense budget or the requirement to operate large twin engined aircraft.

The requirements driving the F-35 are not the same as those that drive F-22\F-15 class fighters nor should they be.

Tynopik is basically arguing that we should build an updated F-22 instead of an F-35.
The problem with that is that only a subset of F-35 class customers want F-22 class capability and costs. Even if by some miracle we were to build Tynopiks imaginary "F-22B" in the same numbers, the costs will still be significantly higher per unit as well as overall lifetime program cost.
Since the reality would be less orders for such an aircraft because not everyone has money to throw around, cost would be obscene.

 

[pauldun170]

adding a few feet of wing and slightly larger body isn't going to materially impact the cost



which will never eliminate the massive up-front R&D cost

could have just stuck with the F119



with twin F119s i think a better comparison would be an affordable f-22

Wait...you complain about the F135 being huge but now you are recommending 2 F119s? A heavier engine, with less thrust that is the same size?

Lets take a step back and instead of F-135, they went with 2 GE414's.
Diameter on the F-135 is 46 inches and it weighs around 3700lbs. Max thrust is 40K-45K

Diameter on the GE414 is around 35 inches where each on weighs around 2500lbs.
with a max thrust of 26K. 52K combined

For the F-135, your airframe has to feed one engine leading to 46 inch fan.
For a dual GE414s, your airframe has to deal with feeding both engines which at bare minimum are taking at least taking up 6 feet of fans.Since you have to route the airflow in away to mask the blades from radar, you have additional space within the frames to route the air.

 

[norseamd]

Comparing the F-35 to the F-15 is probably not going to mean shit, because basically all American fighters are short range aircraft.

Due to sheer American ignorance, and only dealing with fighting 3rd world countries where America could move carriers anywhere there was water without fear of anti-shipping attacks, America has shit ranged aircraft.

IIRC, the only long ranged American fighter aircraft might have been the F-14.

Of course .....

Edit: F-14 is notably longer ranged than F/A-18 Super Hornets, but apparently not F-35s. F-15Cs seem to have some pretty good range however.

 

[Blackjack200]

The problem with that is that only a subset of F-35 class customers want F-22 class capability and costs. Even if by some miracle we were to build Tynopiks imaginary "F-22B" in the same numbers, the costs will still be significantly higher per unit as well as overall lifetime program cost.
Since the reality would be less orders for such an aircraft because not everyone has money to throw around, cost would be obscene.

The F135 is really a fantastic piece of technology that allowed Lockheed Martin to build a tremendously capable single engine aircraft. Forgetting the extra cost that comes with the extra size of a twin engine jet, engine procurement and maintenance costs represent a huge portion of any fighter program. Halving those costs is a huge plus for the F-35. :thumbsup:

Comparing the F-35 to the F-15 is probably not going to mean shit, because basically all American fighters are short range aircraft.

Due to sheer American ignorance, and only dealing with fighting 3rd world countries where America could move carriers anywhere there was water without fear of anti-shipping attacks, America has shit ranged aircraft.

IIRC, the only long ranged American fighter aircraft might have been the F-14.

Of course .....

Edit: F-14 is notably longer ranged than F/A-18 Super Hornets, but apparently not F-35s. F-15Cs seem to have some pretty good range however.

I really don't get where all this range stuff is coming from. The F-35 has good range.

 

[pauldun170]

The F135 is really a fantastic piece of technology that allowed Lockheed Martin to build a tremendously capable single engine aircraft. Forgetting the extra cost that comes with the extra size of a twin engine jet, engine procurement and maintenance costs represent a huge portion of any fighter program. Halving those costs is a huge plus for the F-35. :thumbsup:

The F119 is rumored to be an under rated engine (published stats are 35K but its really in 40K class) and the F135 has allegedly been benched in the 45K+ range.

PW know their stuff.

It's going to be interesting to see how PW adapts the F135 for B-21 usage.
I'd also imagine its gong to serve as the foundation for the adaptive engine once that program gets in full swing.

 

[norseamd]

I really don't get where all this range stuff is coming from. The F-35 has good range.

Any potential major war with the Russians or Chinese, especially against the Chinese over the Pacific.

 

[pauldun170]

I really don't get where all this range stuff is coming from. The F-35 has good range.

F-14 combat radius
500 nm Hi-Med-Hi strike profile
380 nm Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi strike profile

F-35A is more (600+)
F-35C is much more (approaching 700)
F35B is probably low to mid 500's

 

[norseamd]

F-14 combat radius
500 nm Hi-Med-Hi strike profile
380 nm Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi strike profile

F-35A is more (600+)
F-35C is much more (approaching 700)
F35B is probably low to mid 500's

F-15E combat radius: 790 nm

F-15C combat radius: 1061 nm

 

[pauldun170]

F-15E combat radius: 790 nm

F-15C combat radius: 1061 nm

Try again

 

[norseamd]

Try again

Whats the difference between combat radius and max combat radius?

 

[JEDIYoda]

I just love listening to all these experts on this subject.......way too funny! Probably not one of you is an aeronautical engineer......

 

[norseamd]

I just love listening to all these experts on this subject.......way too funny! Probably not one of you is an aeronautical engineer......

And so are you?

 

[norseamd]

Try again

Ok, so you have not responded to my previous comment, so what are they?

 

[Blackjack200]

F-35 goes a perfect 8-0 against Red Air flying F-15Es. And yes, apparently it included WVR combat.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=48322

They may have great range but they got shot out of the fucking sky. Gonna be a lot more stories like this. The F-35 is an ass kicker.

From Page 3 of the thread:

IMO, F-15Es were used for many reasons. Closeness and conveniency were likely an important factor.

Besides, F-15Es are very well equipped for air superiority missions, in some ways even better than F-15Cs. They have identical or very similar radars (APG-63 or APG-70 MSA or APG-63(V)3 or APG-82 AESA) for air-to-air missions and the same EW suite. Both C and E-models can and do use JHMCS, AMRAAM and AIM-9X, so they are all very capable in air-to-air combat. Both are also 9 G airframes and some E-models have more powerful engines to make up heavier weight (391st uses these more powerful-229 equipped aircraft AFAIK). E-models have the advantage of carrying and being able to fully use latest targeting pods which can act as very powerful IRST system in air-to-air combat. Having WSO allows pilot concentrate on flying and WSO concentrate on finding targets with all those sensors as F-15s lack sensor fusion capabilities. IMO, F-15E as an aggressor is probably second only to F-22 in overall capability as an aircraft. Of course C-model pilots concentrate more on air-to-air combat and might have advantage in some air-to-air combat skills and mindset but there is nothing in E-model that makes it any less capable in air-to-air combat.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[pauldun170]

Ok, so you have not responded to my previous comment, so what are they?

List the combat radius of an f15c or f15e without external droptanks.

If we are to compare apples to apples where f35 combat radius is listed without droptanks then f15 should be listed with the same criteria. Preferably the values should be based on the same mission profile.

Combat radius is typically published based on mission profile and loadout. If all you are doing is blindly googling away then you going to end up misinformed.

You should also understand what is meant by mission profile and the impact on range.

A Google search on an f15c will likely result in a combat radius based on hi hi hi with 2-3 droptanks. A search on an f15e will result in a figure based on hi lo hi with cfts and probably droptanks.

 

[Brian Stirling]

List the combat radius of an f15c or f15e without external droptanks.

If we are to compare apples to apples where f35 combat radius is listed without droptanks then f15 should be listed with the same criteria. Preferably the values should be based on the same mission profile.

Combat radius is typically published based on mission profile and loadout. If all you are doing is blindly googling away then you going to end up misinformed.

You should also understand what is meant by mission profile and the impact on range.

A Google search on an f15c will likely result in a combat radius based on hi hi hi with 2-3 droptanks. A search on an f15e will result in a figure based on hi lo hi with cfts and probably droptanks.

In fairness, the F15C/E will use drop tanks whereas the F35 will not as best I can tell. Certainly when it comes shootin time the tanks would be dropped if they had them.

So, if the F15C/E can carry it's combat load AND drop tanks up to the engagement phase then it doesn't much matter after that as they will have dropped them.


Brian

 

[norseamd]

In fairness, the F15C/E will use drop tanks whereas the F35 will not as best I can tell. Certainly when it comes shootin time the tanks would be dropped if they had them.

So, if the F15C/E can carry it's combat load AND drop tanks up to the engagement phase then it doesn't much matter after that as they will have dropped them.


Brian

Not to mention that the F-15 are not low observable aircraft, so not carrying droptanks might seem pointless.

 

[pauldun170]

In fairness, the F15C/E will use drop tanks whereas the F35 will not as best I can tell. Certainly when it comes shootin time the tanks would be dropped if they had them.

So, if the F15C/E can carry it's combat load AND drop tanks up to the engagement phase then it doesn't much matter after that as they will have dropped them.


Brian

Do not assume that the F35 will not use droptanks.

 

[pauldun170]

Not to mention that the F-15 are not low observable aircraft, so not carrying droptanks might seem pointless.

Older aircraft carry drop tanks because "why not"
The F-35 have requirements to perform missions where LO is required so that have huge internal fuel tanks.
Older aircraft like the F-15\G-16\Super Hornet cannot perform those missions.
The missions where F-35's and legacy aircraft overlap will result in F-35 tossing on droptanks.

As for the F-15, its is one of least stealth aircraft in the air today and will be one of the first planes to be detected.

So to say the F-35 has shitty range is nonsense.
Folks are pulling numbers on legacy aircraft packing 3 droptanks and comparing it to a brand new aircraft where the published numbers are based on one particular mission profile that none of the legacy aircraft can even perform.

To say that an F-15C with 2 droptanks on a Hi-HI-Hi mission profile has better range than F-35 on internal fuel only is pointless.
If you are going to try and compare range on aircraft that will be performing similar missions, then at least use apples to apples comparisons.

The F-35 will be getting external fuel tanks.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...greater-autonomy-f-35-fighter-force/82619792/

Once data becomes public than compare away.