David Hingtgen Posted February 4, 2010 Posted February 4, 2010 Well it's not going to be an upgrade in speed nor agility, that's for sure. I think mainly it's going to be sensors/avionics. Plus the "occasionally used" possibility for first-day stealth.
Ghost Train Posted February 4, 2010 Posted February 4, 2010 In what way is the F-35 going to be an upgrade over the F-16/F-18s it's going to replace? Most of the discussions I have read seem to focus on it's cost and number built rather then what it can do. The national debate is completely absorbed by compensation orders and noise/emission worries. Any sites or magazine issues that anyone wouldn't mind recommending on it's performance and future roles? They look more l33t.
Bowen Posted February 4, 2010 Posted February 4, 2010 Anyways---first F-15SE batches will not have canted fins. Boeing said they will be re-introduced later in the program. (though IMHO, that means it's likely we'll never see them in service) Why'd they decide to do that?
Nied Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 In what way is the F-35 going to be an upgrade over the F-16/F-18s it's going to replace? Most of the discussions I have read seem to focus on it's cost and number built rather then what it can do. The national debate is completely absorbed by compensation orders and noise/emission worries. Any sites or magazine issues that anyone wouldn't mind recommending on it's performance and future roles? Stealth for one, it wraps the same same load an F-16 or baby Hornet carries inside the fuselage. So you've got the same warload being carried by an aircraft that will be exceedingly difficult to detect. Of course if you want to ditch stealth you could get close to F-15E levels of ordinance hanging off the wings/internal bays. Then of course you have the avionics which are likely the best to ever fly on an aircraft, the Helmet mounted sight actually allows you to look through the plane!
David Hingtgen Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Why'd they decide to do that? Quicker/easier to test. Seems like the first/main thing they want to do is make the FAST pack do what it was originally designed to---carry missiles! Live-fire tests this summer. Also, radar upgrades, though likely the same as the latest F-15C's have. Making it "stealthy" will come later. So new weapons/avionics first, airframe changes later.
Bri Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Stealth for one, it wraps the same same load an F-16 or baby Hornet carries inside the fuselage. So you've got the same warload being carried by an aircraft that will be exceedingly difficult to detect. Of course if you want to ditch stealth you could get close to F-15E levels of ordinance hanging off the wings/internal bays. Then of course you have the avionics which are likely the best to ever fly on an aircraft, the Helmet mounted sight actually allows you to look through the plane! Should I read that as that the F-35 is primarily an attack craft with secondary air to air capability? Most of the smaller European partners in the project are going to use it as their main air defense fighter. The lightweight F16s were ideal for that role. I guess a stealth plane will give it an advantage and off course good integration with other NATO systems. I can't help but wonder that later generation F-16s pretty much offer the same but with a proven track record.
VF-19 Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 The point of the past few posts has been discussing planes where the ENTIRE assembly pivots as a whole (thus the terms "all-moving" and "slab"). There's nothing interesting about a plane with a fixed fin and a movable rudder. Yikes... I'm kinda shuddering at the thought of the stresses on that single pivot point...
Nied Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Should I read that as that the F-35 is primarily an attack craft with secondary air to air capability? Most of the smaller European partners in the project are going to use it as their main air defense fighter. The lightweight F16s were ideal for that role. I guess a stealth plane will give it an advantage and off course good integration with other NATO systems. I can't help but wonder that later generation F-16s pretty much offer the same but with a proven track record. No you shouldn't. In a stealthy config a JSF can carry 4-6 AAMs internally (again roughly equivalent to what a F-16 or Baby Hornet actually carry in a conflict) so any nation using it in an air superiority role isn't losing anything there. People seem to get hung up on the fact that the F-35 only matches a clean F-16 in performance, but the fact of the matter is when an F-16 actually goes to war it can't match it's own clean performance. An F-16 on a mission is going to have several thousand pounds of fuel taking up a quarter of it's pylons it's going to have all sorts of ordinance hanging off the rest making it tough to pull more than a handful of Gs or get much past the sound barrier. A F-35 will be able to reach it's top speed with a full warload (mach 1.6, which just happens to be the top speed of an F-16 with only a pair of sidewinders and single droptank). It'll be able to pull 9Gs with the equivalent of the F-16's three droptanks of gas inside. Add stealth, a radar that does triple duty as a jammer and ELINT gear, an IRST array that allows the pilot to look through the floor of his/her cockpit, and low speed handling on par with the Super Hornet, and I'm having trouble seeing how it's not better than an F-16.
David Hingtgen Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Looks are everything when it comes to public perception of how bad-ass a plane is. F-16 wins there.
Nied Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Looks are everything when it comes to public perception of how bad-ass a plane is. F-16 wins there. This is what a F-35 will look like going to war, and here's an F-16 with the same warload. You tell me which looks sexier.
Graham Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 I seem to recall reading in one of my books that the F-35 can't use Sidewinders in its internal weapons bays, as the IR seeker head is partially blocked even with the missile extended on its launch trapeze. If this is true, then it is limited to AMRAAM in the self-defence A2A role, which is not the most suitable option for close-in defense as I understand it. IMO, lack of a close-in IR homing missile would seem to be a definite disadvantage, especially combined with the lack of a gun on some models. While there's the arguement that the F-35 is not supposed to get into a knife fight, crap does hit the fan and if and when it does, I can see the F-35 pilot having serious trouble. While both the F-22 and F-35 are 'supposed' to fight at BRV and that is their forte, many times in recent history political considerations (not military ones), have prohibited firing at BRV and required WVR visual identification/clarification of a target before engagement. Remember, rules of engagement are often set by the politicians not the military and more often than not don't favor the good guys. Graham
Vifam7 Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) I seem to recall reading in one of my books that the F-35 can't use Sidewinders in its internal weapons bays, as the IR seeker head is partially blocked even with the missile extended on its launch trapeze. If this is true, then it is limited to AMRAAM in the self-defence A2A role, which is not the most suitable option for close-in defense as I understand it. IMO, lack of a close-in IR homing missile would seem to be a definite disadvantage, especially combined with the lack of a gun on some models. It shouldn't be a problem since the latest AIM-9X Sidewinder has "Lock-on after launch" capability. While there's the arguement that the F-35 is not supposed to get into a knife fight, poo does hit the fan and if and when it does, I can see the F-35 pilot having serious trouble. While both the F-22 and F-35 are 'supposed' to fight at BRV and that is their forte, many times in recent history political considerations (not military ones), have prohibited firing at BRV and required WVR visual identification/clarification of a target before engagement. Remember, rules of engagement are often set by the politicians not the military and more often than not don't favor the good guys. IIRC the one of the requirements for the F-35 was agility equal to or better than that of the F-16. In clean configuration, it should be better than a F-16 with missiles hanging everywhere. Edited February 5, 2010 by Vifam7
David Hingtgen Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 The F-35 is officially "comparable to" the F-16 in agility. And if it was .0001% better in some part of the envelope, you know the official word would be that it was "superior to" the F-16. Anyways---I think the nations that are going to have the ASRAAM as the main missile for the F-35 have the right idea. As for F-16 looks---uber-fugly hump-backed UAE (and Greek and Israeli) ones don't count.
electric indigo Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 There still is the point that the F-35 costs a yet-unknown shitload of money.
Nied Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) The F-35 is officially "comparable to" the F-16 in agility. And if it was .0001% better in some part of the envelope, you know the official word would be that it was "superior to" the F-16. Anyways---I think the nations that are going to have the ASRAAM as the main missile for the F-35 have the right idea. As for F-16 looks---uber-fugly hump-backed UAE (and Greek and Israeli) ones don't count. While a clean F-16 and a clean F-35 might have the same performance, the clean F-35 is two bombs or six AAMs away from flying a combat mission, while the F-16 needs to have all the crap in the pic above strapped to it to do the same thing. So yeah an F-16 is a great performer when it's not carrying anything, but strap enough ordinance to it to do something useful and give it enough fuel to carry it further than five feet, and it turns into a dog. The F-35 will be able to perform the clean F-16's airshow routine carrying all the extra weight of the dirty one. Also you forgot Poland! Edited February 5, 2010 by Nied
knoted Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Looks are everything when it comes to public perception of how bad-ass a plane is. F-16 wins there. Huh ? F16 is one of the fugliest planes in history ... imo...
505thAirborne Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Huh ? F16 is one of the fugliest planes in history ... imo... Really??
David Hingtgen Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Now THAT's interesting. I don't think I've ever seen an asymmetrical SEAD load for an F-16.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 This is what a F-35 will look like going to war, and here's an F-16 with the same warload. You tell me which looks sexier. He said bad ass not ugly. Jokes aside, I think the avionics suite on the JSF is very impressive, in fact, that's what impresses me most about it.
knoted Posted February 6, 2010 Posted February 6, 2010 Really?? Yes, really. I never liked the bulging airintake, basically under the fuselage. And I dislike the straight wingline. Those F35 pics do look good though.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 7, 2010 Posted February 7, 2010 (edited) I'm with Nied on the F-35 argument. But yes its not a beautiful plane. I especially hate the shape of the V-stabs. I hated the YF-22 when I first saw it too (esp since the YF-23 was revealed first). In F-22 form it looks a little better now. Edited February 8, 2010 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 I was at Boeing's site watching it live.
Graham Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 747-8F had it's first flight today. Pardon my ignorance, but what's different/special about it? Looks just like any other 747, except no passenger windows. A cargo version?, but I thought they had those for decades already? Graham
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Longer, with heavily redesigned wings. Plus what is basically the 787's engines, which makes them newer/better than even the A380 engine.
Graham Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 A couple of interesting Australian articles on the Russian T-50. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/20...f-wake-up-call/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/20...50-been-flying/ Graham
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Mach 2.5, with 1.9 at cruise? I'll believe that when it flies over my house that fast. Yeesh, I'd have trouble accepting that supercruise level from a YF-23. Also---every comment from "people whose opinion I give weight" put all the "little non-stealthy aspects" as more than countering the big, obvious stealth aspects. Thus, it's probably only a bit better than a EF-2000, stealth-wise.
the white drew carey Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Remember the days when it only took a year or two (sometimes less) to go from the drawing board to operational status. Man, those were the days.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Mach 2.5, with 1.9 at cruise? I'll believe that when it flies over my house that fast. Yeesh, I'd have trouble accepting that supercruise level from a YF-23. Also---every comment from "people whose opinion I give weight" put all the "little non-stealthy aspects" as more than countering the big, obvious stealth aspects. Thus, it's probably only a bit better than a EF-2000, stealth-wise. Which are the 'little-non stealthy aspects'? Besides the straight intakes (can be mitigated by shape of ramps inside?), the IRST ball, those funny cylinders at wing trailing edge and the tubes and antennaes (on prototype only?).
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Longer, with heavily redesigned wings. Plus what is basically the 787's engines, which makes them newer/better than even the A380 engine. I was on an A380 recently. Was VERY surprised at how quiet it was inside the cabin. Could hardly hear the engines. Is it just as quiet _outside_ the plane?
F-ZeroOne Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Remember the days when it only took a year or two (sometimes less) to go from the drawing board to operational status. Man, those were the days. Depends how you look at it. Yes, some WWII aircraft were developed and flying within a very short time span by modern standards. Or, the early versions were. It often took quite a few further developments to get to the point where the aircraft lived up to what it was promised to do. The Mustang is probably the classic example; the models that won the air war over Germany were the later B, C and D models with the Merlin engine, for example. There was also, obviously, a lot of innovation that often took years to develop to get to that point, such as all the experience with high performance racers and engines [1] that eventually led to the Spitfire. Even Reginald J. Mitchell had to give that one a couple of tries before he got it right... [1] As has sometimes been said of the atomic bomb, the challenge wasn't so much building them; it was getting things to the point where the average weapons handler wouldn't irradiate the base accidentally...! Edited February 9, 2010 by F-ZeroOne
Nied Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Which are the 'little-non stealthy aspects'? Besides the straight intakes (can be mitigated by shape of ramps inside?), the IRST ball, those funny cylinders at wing trailing edge and the tubes and antennaes (on prototype only?). How about the big round engine nacelles? Or all the exposed pop-rivets (notice that those are always covered over with filler on American VLO aircraft and are invisible once painted), or the moving LERXs (innovative though they are the, they wreak merry hell on any attempt at edge alignment)? The PAK-FA is a great aircraft but to pretend it's somehow going to be some nigh invisible uber-weapon is to engage the same kind of fact-free wanking people were doing over the Su-27 ten years ago. Also how awesome is it that that guy falls for APA's ridiculous India fear mongering? Christ the IAF just finished participated in Red Flag right along side Australia and there's a very good chance they're going to buy the exact same airplanes as the RAAF, but they're going to turn around and attack a mutual friend and trading partner? Give me a break. Edited February 9, 2010 by Nied
David Hingtgen Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Nied already covered the PAK-FA, (don't forget that while it has aligned edges, they seem to have chosen about a dozen different edges to align to when viewed from above as opposed to the YF-23's 4 or so) but as for 747-800 engines: (I call it the -800, even if no one else does) "Noise" isn't much of a concern to the airlines when they're paying double what they used to for fuel. So long as it's quiet enough to meet the next legal limit, they're happy. The 787 engine is basically a generation newer than the A380 engine. The A380 engine is the last of the previous gen, the 787 engine is the first of the new. Here's a pic showing the new wing and engines decently:
electric indigo Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 How about the big round engine nacelles? Or all the exposed pop-rivets (notice that those are always covered over with filler on American VLO aircraft and are invisible once painted), or the moving LERXs (innovative though they are the, they wreak merry hell on any attempt at edge alignment)? The PAK-FA is a great aircraft but to pretend it's somehow going to be some nigh invisible uber-weapon is to engage the same kind of fact-free wanking people were doing over the Su-27 ten years ago. The rivets are easy to deal with, and the engines will be upgraded later in the development. But I agree that total stealthyness wasn't top priority in the design. Don't know if active stealth is still all the rage, though.
Nied Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 The rivets are easy to deal with, and the engines will be upgraded later in the development. But I agree that total stealthyness wasn't top priority in the design. Don't know if active stealth is still all the rage, though. LOL active stealth! Haven't heard that one in a while. And the engines can be changed, but changing the nacelles they fit in is re-designing the fuselage.
Recommended Posts