The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[SOC]

More idiocy:

"Despite being seven years overdue, the F-35, as of March 6, 2013, had yet to"...hey, given that in a few days it'll be MARCH 2014, maybe using current data would make a difference? Wait nevermind, that falls under the concept of credible journalism.

"The STOVL requirement also necessitated the F-35 have smaller wings that provide less lift and negatively impact the performance of the aircraft. Worse yet, these elements of the F-35 cannot be altered because it would decrease the commonality among the three variants and thus drive costs even higher."...hello? F-35C? Did they shrink it's wings down and I didn't notice? Regardless of the fact that you already lack wing commonality across the board, another easy to recognize fact that a credible journalist would "expose", the idea of actually altering the F-35A wing somewhat would be stupid for reasons outside of commonality.

"the F-35′s already questionable stealth advantage is constantly being eroded"...yes, one of the only parts of the article that come close to being sensible, but still missing the bigger picture. You cannot tout the F-22 as a world-beater and yet use the "stealth is going away" argument for why the F-35 is not. The only thing right now big enough to be a true VLO platform is the B-2. Counterintuitive to a degree, yes, but guess what: physics cares not for marketing and rhetoric. Scotty couldn't change it, neither can LockMart. That's the other problem here: as a Westboro Journalist, it makes it hard to get the really important points you might accidentially make across.

"Conclusion: Failure-35"...conclusion, learn to 1) do research, 2) recognize what month and year it is, and 3) know what you're talking about.

 

[sferrin]

"Conclusion: Failure-35"...conclusion, learn to 1) do research, 2) recognize what month and year it is, and 3) know what you're talking about.

If one made knowledge of the topic being presented a journalistic requirement there would be a lot of dead air on the tube.

 

[SOC]

If one made knowledge of the topic being presented a journalistic requirement there would be a lot of dead air on the tube.

Makes you consider what's worse: distorting the truth or just making stuff up to fit your agenda, or not knowing what the right stuff is in the first place.

 

[sferrin]

If one made knowledge of the topic being presented a journalistic requirement there would be a lot of dead air on the tube.

Makes you consider what's worse: distorting the truth or just making stuff up to fit your agenda, or not knowing what the right stuff is in the first place.

Now apply it across the board and consider national news. And, god help us, politicians.

 

[quellish]

The only thing right now big enough to be a true VLO platform is the B-2.

What I think you mean here is that the B-2 has reduced observables over a broad range of frequencies - broader than the F-22 or F-35. Which is true. When talking "VLO or LO" though it's across whatever the targetted frequencies are. The F-22 and F-35 aren't intended to have significantly reduced observables in the same bands as the B-2 (or, even, each other), so comparisons can be difficult. LOEXCOM looks at the targetted frequencies for example, not something like an average over the whole spectrum.

When someone makes these kinds of comparisons between different platforms it can be very difficult to keep it apples to apples.

 

[SOC]

What I think you mean here is that the B-2 has reduced observables over a broad range of frequencies - broader than the F-22 or F-35.

...and it's able to do that partly because it's a physically larger platform.

When talking "VLO or LO" though it's across whatever the targetted frequencies are.

Certainly true, but something that's LO against a wider range of frequencies is inherently more survivable from that standpoint than something that's only able to compete with a smaller window.

The F-22 and F-35 aren't intended to have significantly reduced observables in the same bands as the B-2

Because for the most part it's not possible for the smaller airframes. There are ways, but they either definitely aren't viable for smaller platforms or represent something I'm relatively confident neither fighter possesses.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

How is the B-2 able to accomplish that by the means of simply being a larger machine? Heavier RAM that is more effective against a wider range of frequencies?

Regarding that article how is the layout "unusually wide" F-35, *that* much worse than all of the competition. The Super Hornet for example isn't exactly the sleekest design you'll ever see. Some people seem to think the Chinese J-31 is what the F-35 would be without those compromises made for STOVL, but it's just as damn wide.

And the F-35 "could only have one engine"? Is he under the impression that the USAF ever wanted two engines for the JSF? Or does he not realize how much larger a fighter with two F135s would have to be? Certainly not in Canada's price range.

In my opinion if there is any single major flaw with the F-35 design it's that it has gotten too heavy. All of the JSF specs from earlier days I've seen had the upper "target area" for empty weight as 26,500 lbs for the CTOL variant and 30,000 for the STOVL/CV The figures on the lower end were 4,000 lbs less than that. With all three variants being anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 lbs over the upper end target weight, well, that and the impact it has has me more concerned than anything else.

 

[quellish]

...and it's able to do that partly because it's a physically larger platform.

Correct, larger in relation to the "physical" size of the wavelength. Lower frequency, larger corresponding physical size. You want your super-stealth... thing... to be sized to some multiple of that wavelength (again, this is a simplification but works for discussion).
This chart gives a reasonable idea of the relationship between frequency and physical wave length:
http://www.hottconsultants.com/techtips/freq-wavelength.html
How that applies to stealth turns into a more complicated discussion. (Not directed at SOC, providing background to those who are not familiar with radio)

Certainly true, but something that's LO against a wider range of frequencies is inherently more survivable from that standpoint than something that's only able to compete with a smaller window.

Yes, but that's survivability, and RCS is just one axis on the survivability graph. VLO vs. LO vs RO though runs into the letter of the law - the distinctions may seem blurred, but when it comes to export controls, etc. they do try and be pretty explicit. If the RCS is X it's RO, X-20 it's LO, X-50 VLO, etc. - and each of those categories comes with some interesting conditions. And now we're getting into new territory with "ULO/XLO", ultra low observables or "extreme low observables", which falls under VLO in terms of LOEXCOM but will probably be formally recognized soon.
Which yes, basically is all semantics. But the distinctions are important for legal and policy reasons, but the actual values for each category are difficult to get without being covered in funny colored tape.

Because for the most part it's not possible for the smaller airframes. There are ways, but they either definitely aren't viable for smaller platforms or represent something I'm relatively confident neither fighter possesses.

It's possible, but the tradeoffs are not worth it. The B-2 has VERY different needs than the F-22 or F-35, just like the AGM-129 has VERY different needs from all three.
The AGM-129 has a very, very good signature even compared to the B-2.
(If you're down looking at each from behind with a fighter radar)

 

[Sundog]

Regarding that article how is the layout "unusually wide" F-35, *that* much worse than all of the competition. The Super Hornet for example isn't exactly the sleekest design you'll ever see for example. Some people seem to think the Chinese J-31 is what the F-35 would be without those compromises made for STOVL, but it's just as damn wide.

And the F-35 "could only have one engine"? Is he under the impression that the USAF ever wanted two engines for the JSF? Or does he not realize how much larger a fighter with two F135s would have to be? Certainly not in Canada's price range.

First, the F-35 is much more "stubby" from an area rule stand point than any legacy fighter around. That's why it is very slow to accelerate from Mach .9 to Mach 1.2, which is usually used to compare a fighters transonic capabilities. We do know this is partly due to the lift fan requirement, as it demands a lot of frontal area in front of the center of mass. That's why I've always stated that, operationally at least, the F-35 will be primarily a subsonic aircraft. Especially the F-35C. But these really are stealthy strike fighters, not air superiority fighters. The U.S.A.F. has stated over and over that these aircraft require F-22's to survive in a high threat environment. Also, the Navy has already indicated that they will use the F-35C more as a stealthy mini AWACS to direct the fight due to the high Situational Awareness systems on board the aircraft.

As for the twin engine versus a single engine, the author of that article muddied up the reasons. It's single engine due to the problems of making a twin engine VL aircraft. If you lose an engine on twin engine VL aircraft, the good engine would immediately flip the aircraft and slam it into the ground. Technically it would be possible to cross connect the engines/thrust vectors, but you start to add so much weight by doing that, that it loses advantages rapidly. Now, the reason they bring up twin engines is because the Navy would certainly prefer a twin engine airplane, and Canada as well, due to having to fly long distance over water/inhospitable terrain. They don't mean twin F135's, they mean two smaller engines versus the single massive F135.

 

[Sundog]

Yes, but that's survivability, and RCS is just one axis on the survivability graph. VLO vs. LO vs RO though runs into the letter of the law - the distinctions may seem blurred, but when it comes to export controls, etc. they do try and be pretty explicit. If the RCS is X it's RO, X-20 it's LO, X-50 VLO, etc. - and each of those categories comes with some interesting conditions. And now we're getting into new territory with "ULO/XLO", ultra low observables or "extreme low observables", which falls under VLO in terms of LOEXCOM but will probably be formally recognized soon.
Which yes, basically is all semantics. But the distinctions are important for legal and policy reasons, but the actual values for each category are difficult to get without being covered in funny colored tape.

In general, do you know if the ULO/XLO "rating" includes active visual stealth?

 

[quellish]

In general, do you know if the ULO/XLO "rating" includes active visual stealth?

To the best of my knowledge it is only used to describe RCS. IR signature is quantified and categorized differently. Visual signature there is something of a standard for, but as far as I know that hasn't been formally adopted by DoD. When the radar signature is in the "better than VLO" range, other signatures become dominant.
Signatures other than RCS have become much more important in the last 10 years than they had been previously. The SSSSHHH-60 and bird-like Stalker UAV seen in Pakistan are obvious examples.

 

[LowObservable]

CM - If you take a ruler to plan-views of a variety of current fighters, you will find that the F-35 has an unusually broad body between the wing attachments. Because of all the stuff that has to go in there; because overall length has been kept to less than that of the smaller Classic Hornet; and because the sides have to flare outwards.


On the A/B the outboard wings are relatively short, because of the span constraint imposed by the USMC.

 

[sferrin]

CM - If you take a ruler to plan-views of a variety of current fighters, you will find that the F-35 has an unusually broad body between the wing attachments. Because of all the stuff that has to go in there; because overall length has been kept to less than that of the smaller Classic Hornet; and because the sides have to flare outwards.


On the A/B the outboard wings are relatively short, because of the span constraint imposed by the USMC.

 

[malipa]

You can easily see the problem of the F-35 -> It's wings are too small. It's maximum flight altitude is 25,000.0 feet. Comparing it with the F-22, that is less than half of the wanted flight altitude. The reason? The marines wanted a Vtol aircraft, and this gives the aircraft a smaller wing, less range and it becomes heavier. The F-35B is a great aircraft, but only for that role. Maybe an European consortium to replace the F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen? This would also give France, and if England were smart and change their Queen Elisabeth-class into electrocatapult carriers, a great opportunity for a sufficient stealth carrier aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

You can easily see the problem of the F-35 -> It's wings are too small.

Funny how you saw that but missed the main point - it's fuselage (which also provides lift) is WIDE

 

[malipa]

The big problem of such a big fuselage is that is gives way to much drag. And if you compare it to the T-50 or the F-22, the fuselage is to bulky.

 

[sferrin]

The big problem of such a big fuselage is that is gives way to much drag. And if you compare it to the T-50 or the F-22, the fuselage is to bulky.

And if you compare it to a similarly loaded F-16, F/A-18, or AV-8B (you know, the airplanes it's replacing) it's much cleaner (less drag) because it carries it's weapons internally. See below:

 

[malipa]

But it won't be stealth with pylons and it isn't fast enough and agile enough with or without pylons. The T-50 could be able to spot it with it's IRTS and the F-35 will be toast.

 

[sferrin]

But it won't be stealth with pylons

Why would it need pylons?

and it isn't fast enough and agile enough with or without pylons.

You do realize it's superior to everything it's replacing when carrying comparable payloads right? So if the F-35 "isn't fast enough or agile enough" what does that say about everything it's replacing?

The T-50 could be able to spot it with it's IRTS and the F-35 will be toast.

Sure. Because the T-50 will use it's super levcons and plasma stealth to out maneuver HOBS missiles right? :

 

[Colonial-Marine]

How does the Rafale get away with having a rather unusually shaped fuselage that, although more shapely, still appears relatively wide?

I don't believe China is yet on the level with the US, Russians, or Europeans in aircraft design but if their J-31 is supposed to be their F-35 without those STOVL related compromises, why does it have a similarly wide fuselage?

Considering the "picture framing" done to increase the area of the F-35C's wing, it seems like the USAF didn't necessarily have to accept the same sized wing as the F-35B. Although that certainly hasn't helped the acceleration of the F-35C, yet from my understanding a lot of that variant's acceleration time increase is due to transonic buffeting issues as opposed to simply being a sluggish design which is the argument I hear from many these days.

 

[LowObservable]

The fuselage provides lift. A brick will provide lift at the appropriate speed and alpha, but not very efficiently. Note that most heavily blended designs have high sweep and curvature on the body or Lerx, developing much of their lift on the leading edge. I have not see anything that suggests that F-35 is designed to use body lift in the same way as a MiG or Su.

 

[sferrin]

The fuselage provides lift. A brick will provide lift at the appropriate speed and alpha, but not very efficiently. Note that most heavily blended designs have high sweep and curvature on the body or Lerx, developing much of their lift on the leading edge. I have not see anything that suggests that F-35 is designed to use body lift in the same way as a MiG or Su.

It meets the requirements and the pilots say it maneuvers as good as an F-16 or Hornet. What more do you want?

 

[SpudmanWP]

You can easily see the problem of the F-35 -> It's wings are too small. It's maximum flight altitude is 25,000.0 feet.

I think you meant 50,000 feet, where it has already flown to. At least you were half right

14 November 2012: Max Altitude
Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson flew F-35A AF-4 to the 50,000-foot altitude design limit during a setup for a test run at 45,000 feet. This flight was the first time an F-35 was flown to its maximum altitude.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=116

 

[LowObservable]

Well, the (undemanding) requirements meet the F-35, which is sort of the same thing.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

 

[sferrin]

Well, the (undemanding) requirements meet the F-35, which is sort of the same thing.

And yet none of your vaunted Eurocanards can meet the requirements.

 

[AeroFranz]

Well, the (undemanding) requirements meet the F-35, which is sort of the same thing.

And yet none of your vaunted Eurocanards can meet the requirements.

Is this groundhog day? Has anyone suggested the US buy EF2000, Gripen, or Rafale? Airplanes of an earlier vintage and designed to different requirements, specifically a higher emphasis on AA and a secondary AG capability? The F-35 needs to stand on its own merits, not in comparison to something else.

Performance shortcomings - real or imaginary- of other aircraft are of little comfort to an F-35 pilot in a sticky situation demanding getting the hell out of dodge pronto.

 

[sferrin]

Well, the (undemanding) requirements meet the F-35, which is sort of the same thing.

And yet none of your vaunted Eurocanards can meet the requirements.

Is this groundhog day? Has anyone suggested the US buy EF2000, Gripen, or Rafale? Airplanes of an earlier vintage and designed to different requirements, specifically a higher emphasis on AA and a secondary AG capability? The F-35 needs to stand on its own merits, not in comparison to something else.

Performance shortcomings - real or imaginary- of other aircraft are of little comfort to an F-35 pilot in a sticky situation demanding getting the hell out of dodge pronto.

Well seeing how it's Eurocanards and Super Hornets constantly trotted out as the better replacements for the F-35 why shouldn't they be compared?

 

[quellish]

I don't believe China is yet on the level with the US, Russians, or Europeans in aircraft design but if their J-31 is supposed to be their F-35 without those STOVL related compromises, why does it have a similarly wide fuselage?

It has two engines.

 

[AeroFranz]

EF2000, Rafale, and Gripen are of a different generation, optimized for different missions, and can be effective as stop-gaps in some missions because of some overlap in capabilities, but that's the extent of it. That's what the Typhoon will do for some time to come because of delays in the F-35 program.
Typhoons will be retired around 2030-ish, which doesn't take you far enough to be able to say that you can live without the F-35, because what else will be available then?
Forget about other aircraft no longer relevant in the time frame we are dealing with.
No, the issue is, when the air forces that signed up for it will finally get it, will they get an effective aircraft? We already know it will not have the performance and price stipulated. That worries me.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

It has two engines.

Which in terms of total thrust aren't likely to exceed what the single F135 can do by any significant margin. If the J-31 is an example of what the F-35 could be without the STOVL related constraints it doesn't seem to offer much over the "compromised" F-35.

 

[Sundog]

Which in terms of total thrust aren't likely to exceed what the single F135 can do by any significant margin. If the J-31 is an example of what the F-35 could be without the STOVL related constraints it doesn't seem to offer much over the "compromised" F-35.

The J-31 has a much better area rule and fineness ratio when compared to the F-35. It's because they were designed for different missions. It isn't nearly as wide as an F-35 when compared with it's fineness ratio. The J-31 is wide like the F-22 is wide. The width is distributed along the length much better than it is on the F-35.

Here's a nice reference for you to read with regard to Volume Wave Drag.

I think you'll also enjoy this reference, as it covers many aircraft design issues and their pro's and cons; Warning, it's a PDF file.
Advanced Aircraft Design 2: Summary

 

[LowObservable]

And yet none of the in-service, combat-proven alternative fighters can meet all the KPPs that the JSF might possibly start to meet in 2019 or 2020, after 25 years and $55 billion in R&D.

FTFY

As the IOC gap between the F-35 and any other aircraft widens to more than a decade (more than two decades in the case of Gripen), the argument that they can't do everything the JSF does becomes irrelevant.

If the JSF remains unaffordable, or if the balance of higher and lower capabilities versus alternatives does not justify the price, older aircraft are the only fallbacks available. To take a parallel example, the Apache will never meet the Comanche's stealth requirement. But it is the Comanche replacement by default because the Comanche flunked affordability and the Army now favors it over a less capable armed recon/utility helo.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The J-31 has a much better area rule and fineness ratio when compared to the F-35. It's because they were designed for different missions. It isn't nearly as wide as an F-35 when compared with it's fineness ratio. The J-31 is wide like the F-22 is wide. The width is distributed along the length much better than it is on the F-35.

Here's a nice reference for you to read with regard to Volume Wave Drag.

I think you'll also enjoy this reference, as it covers many aircraft design issues and their pro's and cons; Warning, it's a PDF file.
Advanced Aircraft Design 2: Summary

Comparing the F-35 to the F-22 I can see very clear differences, yet I'm having a harder time seeing them when compared to the J-31. I'm guessing we don't yet have accurate exact dimensions for the J-31 yet wingspan, wing sweep, fuselage length and width all seem quite similar to the F-35. And is it not safe to also assume it is a multi-role fighter intended to typically operate at lower altitudes than the larger J-20?

 

[sferrin]

The J-31 has a much better area rule and fineness ratio when compared to the F-35. It's because they were designed for different missions. It isn't nearly as wide as an F-35 when compared with it's fineness ratio. The J-31 is wide like the F-22 is wide. The width is distributed along the length much better than it is on the F-35.

Here's a nice reference for you to read with regard to Volume Wave Drag.

I think you'll also enjoy this reference, as it covers many aircraft design issues and their pro's and cons; Warning, it's a PDF file.
Advanced Aircraft Design 2: Summary

Comparing the F-35 to the F-22 I can see very clear differences, yet I'm having a harder time seeing them when compared to the J-31. I'm guessing we don't yet have accurate exact dimensions for the J-31 yet wingspan, wing sweep, fuselage length and width all seem quite similar to the F-35. And is it not safe to also assume it is a multi-role fighter intended to typically operate at lower altitudes than the larger J-20?

Look at the J-31 and the F-35 from the side.

 

[sferrin]

And yet none of the in-service, combat-proven alternative fighters can meet all the KPPs that the JSF might possibly start to meet in 2019 or 2020, after 25 years and $55 billion in R&D.

FTFY

As the IOC gap between the F-35 and any other aircraft widens to more than a decade (more than two decades in the case of Gripen), the argument that they can't do everything the JSF does becomes irrelevant.

If the JSF remains unaffordable, or if the balance of higher and lower capabilities versus alternatives does not justify the price, older aircraft are the only fallbacks available. To take a parallel example, the Apache will never meet the Comanche's stealth requirement. But it is the Comanche replacement by default because the Comanche flunked affordability and the Army now favors it over a less capable armed recon/utility helo.

There were 100+ Commanches produced? That's news to me. Admit it, you just want the F-35 gone so more Eurcanards can be sold. You'd be just as hot against the F-35 (like you were against the F-22) even if there were NO problems.

 

[LowObservable]

Just a reminder - irrelevant, hostile and repetitive posts don't get a response. That's a threefer.

 

[sferrin]

Just a reminder - irrelevant, hostile and repetitive posts don't get a response. That's a threefer.

Funny, I thought it was perfectly accurate.

 

[Triton]

"Why the F-35 is Essential for Canada -- Part 1"
February 23, 2014

by Edward Wu
Defence Watch Guest Writer

Source:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/23/why-the-f-35-is-essential-for-canada-part-1/

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been much maligned in the press recently, some of it fairly, and some of it unfairly. In order to separate what is important to Canada, one does need to take a step back and look at the empirical evidence to make an accurate assessment of the choices available to Canada.

Speed

The F-35 was designed primarily to replace the mainstay of the USAF and USN tactical aviation fleet; namely, the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet. A number of criticisms take issue with the F-35’s supposed lack of speed. It should be noted that the F-35’s top speed of Mach 1.6 is achievable while carrying a militarily useful load; meaning that a F-35A that’s configured with a pair of 2000lb bombs, two air to air missiles, and enough fuel to fly to a target 300nm out and back will be able to achieve its top speed.

Other legacy fighters, such as the F/A-18, F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15, Gripen, etc cannot achieve their top speeds with any external ordinance. The reason for this is that external ordinance creates parasitic drag, degrading aircraft performance. Furthermore, the top speeds of many legacy fighters can only be achieved for very short durations because of the low internal fuel fraction of these aircraft. The F-35, as a percentage of its maximum take-off weight, can carry over 26% of its maximum take-off weight as fuel internally, meaning that the F-35 can sustain its top speed for longer.

Acceleration

A number of criticisms have been leveled against the F-35 for missing acceleration performance targets. It should be noted that the acceleration performance targets were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet, meaning an aircraft with no weapons or any external fuel tanks or ordinance.1 When flying with the F-16 chase aircraft, some test pilots have reported that the F-35 will out accelerate the F-16 chase aircraft while flying in the high subsonic range.2 Other pilots have reported that the F-35’s acceleration is comparable to an F-16 Block 50 as well.3

Furthermore, stealth fighters, such as the F-22 and F-35 carry their weapons and their fuel internally compared to legacy aircraft. This means that the F-22 and the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, thus rendering any comparison to a legacy aircraft invalid because a legacy fighter’s configuration drastically changes when loaded with weapons, external fuel, targeting and jamming pods.

Thus, from the information that can be gathered, the F-35 acceleration performance is on par or superior to the F-16, and thus is competitive compared to other legacy fighters.

Maneuverability

The F-35 has been unfairly criticized regarding its ability to maneuver as well as many of its opponents. The truth is that the F-35’s performs just as well as any legacy fighter today.

The F-35’s Performance Parameters laid out in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) sheds light on the exact performance requirements that are being demanded from the F-35.

The requirement for all three variants is to provide a platform that will have a positive exchange ratio during air combat maneuvering (ACM) engagements against “high performance threats that employ helmet mounted cueing and high off-boresight weapons.”4 Furthermore, the ORD goes on to state that the JSF must further possess high angle of attack (AOA) capabilities “similar in nature to (or better than) the F-18C.”5

In particular, the F-35A is being required to meet a threshold requirement for a 9.0 G capability at 60% fuel and no air-to ground ordnance remaining. In addition to the high-end requirement, the USAF also provides for a more realistic scenario of high altitude, large payload performance.

In addition, reports from operational test pilots have shed some light on the performance of the F-35. One test pilot, Billie Flynn, mentioned that if one “were to overlay the energy-maneuverability (E-M) diagrams for the F/A-18, F-16 or Typhoon over the F-35′s, It is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there.” 6

There has been some criticism in regards the Billie Flynn’s statement here. It should be noted that Billie Flynn is a highly qualified test pilot. He is the director of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots,7 and thus has staked his reputation on being an objective test pilot, having worked with NASA, the Canadian Forces, Lockheed Martin, the USAF and the Eurofighter consortium. Flynn also has the experience to make such a statement, with extensive experience flying the F/A-18, F-16, and the Eurofighter Typhoon as a test pilot in either operational or in an testing environment.

Thus, if we believe his statement (and we have no reason not to), it appears that the F-35 is at the very minimum, comparable with other legacy jet fighters flying today.

The F-35A is being required to have the capability of performing a 30 degree bank turn while still maintaining a 1000 foot per minute climb at 30,000 feet with a combat load-out of two external 370 gallon fuel tanks, two external 2000lb JDAM, two internal 2000lb JDAM, two internal AIM-120 missiles, and a fully loaded gun at standard military thrust at Mach 0.9 as it’s must meet performance requirement. Furthermore, the F-35 is being desired to achieve to have the capability of performing a 45 degree bank turn while still maintaining a 2500 foot per minute climb at 30,000 feet with the same payload as above as its objective performance requirement.

Another problem is that the test parameters actually are unfairly negative to both the F-22 and the F-35 because they both have significantly increased internal fuel capacity compared to most other fighter aircraft. The F-35 carries internally roughly the same amount of fuel as an F-16 with full drop tanks. The issue is that the test parameters are set at a set % of internal fuel capacity. This means that the F-35 (and likewise the F-22) are carrying significantly more payload weight than comparable aircraft in this metric.

One cannot make blanket statements regarding the maneuverability of the F-35 without looking at the context, and the exact load out of the aircraft in question. As an example, if were to look at the F-16C flight manuals, one would be lead to think that the F-16 is a more maneuverable aircraft all around compared to the F-35.

However, closely look at the F-16’s performance charts, one can see it states that the F-16 can only achieve its highest turn rate with nothing hanging off the aircraft per the drag index (no weapons, external tanks, etc), and at a gross vehicle weight of 20,000 lbs at maximum afterburner. Considering that the empty weight of a F-16C is around 18,900lbs, there’s only about 1,100lbs of weight left for everything else, including fuel, the pilot and any stores. At this weight, a F-16C per this chart will do roughly 17 deg/s in an instantaneous turn at 15,000lbs and Mach 0.8.

Other data indicates what happens if you increase speed or weight. An F-16C with 4,500lbs of fuel and a pair of AIM-120′s will tip the scale at over 24,000lbs. Per the data, you loose roughly 4 deg/s at that increased weight and fuel. Thus, any comparison between the performance of the F-35 and any current legacy fighter is technically invalid until one can normalize the load outs between the aircraft involved otherwise it would be comparing apples to oranges.

 

[RyanC]

If the JSF remains unaffordable, or if the balance of higher and lower capabilities versus alternatives does not justify the price, older aircraft are the only fallbacks available.

Nailed it. F-35 was supposed to be a cheap, affordable aircraft. Sure; it wouldn't have the sheer performance or stealth of a F-22; but it would cost only slightly more than a late model F-16; while offering a huge jump in capabilities vs said F-16.

The big elephant in the room is that it's now going to cost more than a F-22 for a good bit until enough are produced to bring down the unit cost -- but nobody wants to be the ones stuck with early model F-35s that cost a lot, and don't have all the capabilities. :-\

It's why I believe ultimately, F-35 production will be curtailed and the winner by default will be a F-18H for both USAF and USN.

 

[sferrin]

If the JSF remains unaffordable, or if the balance of higher and lower capabilities versus alternatives does not justify the price, older aircraft are the only fallbacks available.

Nailed it. F-35 was supposed to be a cheap, affordable aircraft. Sure; it wouldn't have the sheer performance or stealth of a F-22; but it would cost only slightly more than a late model F-16; while offering a huge jump in capabilities vs said F-16.

The big elephant in the room is that it's now going to cost more than a F-22 for a good bit until enough are produced to bring down the unit cost -- but nobody wants to be the ones stuck with early model F-35s that cost a lot, and don't have all the capabilities. :-\

It's why I believe ultimately, F-35 production will be curtailed and the winner by default will be a F-18H for both USAF and USN.

Why would the USAF spend $$$ for a marginal Super Hornet when they could just buy more F-15s?