WT Forums

I know it is very early and the F-35 is far from being firmed up as a design but lets speculate :-. I'm new to all this so if I just screwed up in my entire summary don't bite my head off!

Both have all-aspect stealth. The F-35 will have a thrust-to-weight ratio that is only slightly better than the F-15/F-16/F-18 series of planes, unlike the F/A-22 which is substantially better in that area. The F-35 will also lack the F/A-22's Super Cruise ability and its radar won't be quite as powerful. Its range will also be less. I never heard a figure concerning how many AIM missiles the F-35 will be able to carry in totality but I'll assume it will be able to carry (4) AIM missiles internally at most based on its four hardpoints and ability to carry two JDAM's and two AIM's in its attack mode. If so, it's AIM payload would be less and it can't carry the new Aim-9X or Air-to-ground missiles inside. It also lacks lack air-to-air combat aerodynamic optimization and the F/A-22's dual engines. It is not the air-to-air fighter the F/A-22 is, at all.

On the otherhand, the F-35 will have air-to-ground aerodynamoc optimization, and it will probably have better connectivity avionics (information sharing; two-way SATCOM; new Joint Tactical Radio/Message Format system) than the F/A-22.

Further, the F-35 will be able to carry higher capacity JDAM's than the F/A-22 and even though it lacks the F/A-22's radius, at 600 n. miles the F-35 is very competant and better than the F-16 and F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F. With thrust vectoring it'll have better agility than the F-16. However, its thrust-to-weight ratio will only be an incremental improvement over the F-15/16/18.

It should have a better ECM package to deal with SAM's and its ground attack range and resolution capability should be better than the F/A-22. The cockpit is designed to enable a single crewmen to do everything, including night attacks against mobile targets, something that in the past required a dual-seater and barred the F-16 from missions.

The air to air radar won't be as good as the F/A-22 but it will be able to lock onto targets about when they enter missile range. Still, it won't be able to detect targets nearly as far out as the Raptor if I understand correctly.


*

What does the F-35 bring to the Navy? The fighter can take up the deep strike penetration mission, using its stealth and superior radius (compared to the Super Hornet), to deliver PGM's deep inside denied air space. In that role its aerodynamic optimization, and ground attack range and resolution help. On the downside, it lacks the F/A-22's Super Cruise to get in and out of the danger zone very quickly, and the Raptor's range to penetrate deeper or from further away.

The F-35 can also assist the Super Hornet in the normal attack mission or handle it exclusively on the 'first day'. The advanced connectivity should be very helpful during large-scale operations and again its stealth and ground attack avionics help. On the downside to maintain stealth, less payload can be carried, including no AGM's. If stealth is sacrificed it has external hardpoints (to carry fuel, missiles, bombs).

In the air-to-air role the F-35 has better endurance, aerodynamics, agility, ECM, and avionics than the Super Hornet. On the downside, the F-35 won't provide any more power than the Super Hornet, and thrust power is always helpful in air combat. It also won't be able to use the Aim-9X like the Super Hornet can and it lacks the Raptor's air-to-air prowess and aerodynamic optimization, range and certainly radar power.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 24 2003 06:50 AM

In regards to the "super cruise" capability.....I found myself to be in a position to be in contact with Lockheed. I specifically asked about the super cruise subject. With a sly grin the individual responded, and I quote "Its not a requirement that it should super-cruise, but....." I'll leave it to that but my read is that it will do it but their not specifically saying it. At least not now.
The aircraft is still in its infancy, by no means should you put limitations on its systems at this time.

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

Question.... Seeing as my Job and 10 to 12 hour days keep me from delving to deep into new developements in aircraft (most of my info comes from here in fact) When did the F-22 designator change to F/A?

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

M&M:

Interesting stuff about Super Cruise. I realize I'm just speculating on a lot of this stuff.


BTW, I don't really understand what makes Super Cruise work? Is it a function of thrust or what?





Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 23 2003 2:02 PM

Stinger:

It changed to F/A-22 this past September. My guess is they want to emphasize to the politicians that this is more than a air dominance fighter, even though that is its primary mission obviously. It seems political more than anything.



Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 23 2003 2:01 PM

Stinger was the one asking about the designation. I heard about it when it first happened.

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

My friend's dad is a chief engineer at LockMart in Moorestown, NJ. He also stated that the F-35 will also have super-cruise.

That's good to hear.

Is the thrust class of the engine still going to be 40,000 or will it be higher (Rolls-Royce says their F120 produces 56,000 http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... 43,00.html) ?

Ok, I just started really noticing it being used by multiple people... another question then... Why is the JSF(ie the damn attack plane) only designated with a F?

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

Edited by - Stinger on Jul 23 2003 2:50 PM

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

Paste it and it'll get more people's attention.


<i>FARNBOROUGH, England -- A vast amount of thrust will be available to the Pentagon's new Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, according to Rolls-Royce data that could upset the competition to build engines for the plane.

The engine being developed by Rolls-Royce, in cooperation with General Electric, is 40 percent more powerful than expected, according to figures provided by the British company.






"Here is the F136 engine, which pumps out a whopping 56,000 pounds of thrust," said Colin Green, the head of Rolls-Royce's defense aerospace business. If the Rolls-Royce figure is accurate, it well exceeds the 40,000 pounds claimed earlier by GE and its military customers.

It would also have ramifications for the impending competition to build power plants for the F-35, since customers prefer a more powerful engine.

The GE-Rolls team and the Pratt & Whitney unit of United Technologies will build competing engines for the F-35, which is expected to become the largest combat-aircraft program in history when it enters production in a few years.

Industry executives expect the contract to be worth $30 billion, plus much more in supporting the engines through decades of service life.

Green, attending the Farnborough air show in Britain, said the F136 would have the advantage of lower running costs because, being so powerful, it could deliver adequate thrust without being pushed to its limits.

A spokesman for GE, which is responsible for about 60 percent of the project, said only that the engine would deliver about 40,000 pounds of thrust.

Ed O'Donnell, project manager for Pratt & Whitney's rival engine, said their version would deliver a similar amount of thrust.

Regardless of who wins the engine contract, the plane has its detractors. Competitors point out that the F-35's large size make it best suited to ground-attack missions, arguing that it will lack the maneuverability to be a superior dogfighter.

Engineers who doubted the Rolls figures pointed out that the engine had to fit into the same space in the F-35 as Pratt's F135 engine, which would be difficult for a much more powerful engine to do. As one put it: "Physics is physics."

</i>

[url="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54143,00.html"]Viper's Link[/url]

If Rolls missed the estimate of the thrust from thier OWN engine by 40% maybee someone at Rolls should take a second look at thier enginnering division.

What the F-35 brings to the Navy is first day stike capability in a hostile environment. It will also bring to the table a plane that will actually make it into serial production(they're are expecting as much as 40% profit in this program, it WILL be produced, weather it's anygood or not is another question) there is NO such guarantee for Raptor. With the F-35s ability to defeat virtually every know or anticipated aircraft, the Raptor may only see enough developement to certify the technology, much of which will go into the F-35.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Love to see the 35C get a second engine. So far I consider it <i>Raptor Lite</i>.

trit:

I doubt it gets a 2nd engine but it sure would ease the mind of a lot of aviators if it did; they are so used to dual engines and all.

boomer:

In terms of total PMI F/A-22 I think 132 is good; 66 in a US-based expeditionary group; 22 in Europe; 44 in Japan

I have no idea how many actually will be made. The Air Force now says around 200 to 300 but Congressman have publicly said they'll be lucky to get 150.

How many do you think should be stood up? How many do you think will be stood up?



Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 23 2003 7:52 PM

50,000lbs???

My god, rhat would require all kinds of new bulkheads and structural changes, but WOW, what an absolote ANIMAL an aircraft the JSF's size would be with that kind of power.

What is the projected empty wieght of JSF?

I keep hearing it's 20% overweight, but it's not concrete info. Just rumors.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

M21

They want it to be around 24,000 lbs empty but you're right, they've had weight problems especially with the (B) Marine version.



Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 23 2003 7:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> How many do you think should be stood up? How many do you think will be stood up?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I WANT 1,000 but we'll be lucky to get 100, more like 25 as tech dems. The arguement WILL be made that the F-35 can do 80% of F-22 so why spend to buy both when the F-35 will be dominant by itself. I cant REALLY argue against that statement, what would challenge F-35? Eurofighter?, this weeks variant of the mighty Flanker series? not likely except in viz dogfight, and helmet mounted sights are going to change dogfighting tactics I'm sure. The age old mantra of "first look first kill" will be even more important with HMS because even good tactics wont save you once your seen. Once your in a dogfight some sort of instantaneous dogfight missle defence (yes a LASER) will be MASSIVLY important to defeat the advantage of helmet mounted sights as improved countermeasures may lead to a contradictory tactic of LAST shot best kill, hoping to score a kill before C/Ms can defeat the lock.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

btw , how important IS supercruise? I was just reading that AMRAAMs range is effectively DOUBLED if it is fired above Mach 1, as opposed to around M 0.8 assuming a launch position higher than the target.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

boom:


I agree with you about the F-35. It's optimized for air-to-ground but its air-to-air will be very capable, and in my view it should replace most of the F-15's, all the F-16's, and all the A-10's. I think only around 150 of the PMAI F-15's should be replaced by the F/A-22. (The last I heard, the buy was 224 F/A-22. Based on an average PMAI percent of 64% that amounts to about 143 PMAI F/A-22.)

The Raptor should be modeled after the F-15E in terms of quantity. The F-15E (132 PMAI) is available in sufficient numbers to actually be significantly used by commanders in conflicts. It is not in such small numbers like the F-117 that it can't be deployed in a substantial way. Yet the number of F-15E's also doesn't allow for it to be used for low priority missions where it's power isn't really needed. Obviously the F-15E is a different fighter in terms of its mission and capabilities. The comparison I'm making is only regarding its quantitiy, which lends the F-15E and the other fighters to being used properly in my opinion.

Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 23 2003 9:28 PM

Such small numbers worries me, you just can't recover when your ONE airbase takes a missile strike and ALL of your expensive fighters are now debris across an airfield. Eventually, someone WILL get smart and hit us, first.

Oh, and supercruise is pretty simple, actually. It's just having enough thrust in military power (non-afterburning, and much more fuel efficient) to push you through mach 1. Once you're past mach, you are travelling very fast relatively smoothly and efficiently, having left most of all of the drag from shockwave compression behind!

Oh, and if those 65,000 pound-class engines do become a reality, could the tech be used to make the Super Hornet into something inspiring confidence? I've always wondered, with the SH's size, whether or not it could possibly carry four Phoenix under its wings?

A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down...

Edited by - Horrido on Jul 24 2003 01:20 AM

Edited by - Horrido on Jul 24 2003 01:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Oh, and if those 65,000 pound-class engines do become a reality, could the tech be used to make the Super Hornet into something inspiring confidence? I've always wondered, with the SH's size, whether or not it could possibly carry four Phoenix under its wings? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

With 65,000 I'd let it carry a Minuteman.
<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>



Edited by - Tritonal on Jul 24 2003 06:16 AM

Horrido:

Last I heard production is capped at around $38 billion. Each of those Raptors is $120-$200 million so they only can procure 224 total (143 PMAI), at least that's the latest I heard a few months ago.

If history is a judge they won't all be based at the same air base. About half will be deployed overseas. And maybe air bases have aircraft shelters, although I really don't know.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 24 2003 06:43 AM

a-10:

Question about the F-35. Are you saying it can only carry (2) Aim's inside maximum? That is pretty weak.

On the other subject, I agree the F/A-22 is another league than the F-35 in air-to-air combat and the F-35 has a lot of air-to-ground capabilities that the F/A-22 doesn't. The question is, is the F-35 good enough in the air-to-air aspect that from a costs-rewards point of view it will suffice if just a small -- around 150 PMAI -- number of F/A-22's are procured, OR do 500 Raptors have to be producred at insanely high prices?

There's a saying: perfect is the enemy of good enough





Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 24 2003 06:53 AM

A-10:

Two things. First, there is no choice when it comes to the Navy. They'll only have the F-35 and if ground basing isn't available close enough to targets or if there isn't enough time to move Air Force squadrons in place, the carrier with the F-35 will have to handle the job, not the F/A-22.

If the Air Force "must" have the Raptor then doesn't logic suggest the Navy "must" have a Raptor carrier-variant for the same reasons? Yet, there are no plans for that Raptor carrier-variant to my knowledge.

Second, I agree that the capability gap between the F-35 and F/A-22 is greater than the F-16 and F-15. You say that the F/A-22 is comparable to the F-15 while the F-35 is lacking. I say that the F/A-22 exceeds what the F-15 was; the gap speaks more to the prowess of the F/A-22 than any weakness of the F-35.

The U.S. should always try to develop the best, and they have made the best, and they will receive the best. The question is how many. The Air Force will probably get around 150 PMAI F/A-22 with the price cap, about a hundred less than they say they need. That should be enough for "first day of war" and high priority usage when basing is available, although it is obviously a shortfall compared to what they want.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 24 2003 11:13 AM

Viper going along your lines of logic, should the Air Force not be allowed to have the most capable fighter available just because a version of it can't be punched of a ship?

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

Thanx for the JSF illustration and the info Stress.

I was wondering what variables constitute a threshhold for how much thrust and aircraft can have - Can the SH achieve 35,000lbs of thrust if it was a very efficient engine?