Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

Bash the F-35 thred.

Recommended Posts

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737

 

What does the board think of the document above?  It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility.  It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16.  TLDR:  Not cost effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737

 

What does the board think of the document above?  It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility.  It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16.  TLDR:  Not cost effective.

 

SMSgt Mac had a writeup on a similar study.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737

 

What does the board think of the document above?  It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility.  It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16.  TLDR:  Not cost effective.

Excellent first post. Welcome to SH.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737

 

What does the board think of the document above?  It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility.  It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16.  TLDR:  Not cost effective.

 

Welcome to SH!  I dig the username.

 

The F-35 is more agile than the F-16, at least in some respects.  We know, for instance, that the F-35 has at least double the AOA limit of the F-16, and airshow footage suggests that its roll rate is a little better as well.  On the other hand, the F-16 probably beats the F-35 in sustained turn rate and transonic acceleration.

 

Bottom line is that fighter agility has a lot of different parameters, and design choices that favor certain parameters of agility harm other parameters.  A tailless delta will favor instantaneous turn rate and roll rate at the expense of sustained turn rate and cruise efficiency, for instance.  Getting the best possible agility isn't just an issue of cost, it's a trade off with other performance parameters.

 

We have a thread about these tradeoffs, at least in the context of WWII fighter design.

 

My take on the F-35A's performance is:

+Very good high AOA performance and AOA limit; comparable, possibly better than the super hornet based on leaked reports and soforth.

+Very good instantaneous turn rate as a result of the excellent high AOA performance.

+Very good roll rate as a result of wing planform and good software harmonization of the control surfaces.

+Absolutely bonkers fuel capacity.  The F-35A carries more fuel than a Tomcat.  That's not relatively more fuel than a Tomcat, that's more gallons of fuel.

+The advanced flight control software and good airflow at high AOA allow the F-35A to perform screwy new maneuvers like the J-hook.  How useful this will be in actual combat is debatable.

-Transonic acceleration doesn't sound so hot, although a fourth generation fighter would have to be carrying a very modest air to air load to actually best the F-35, since the F-35 is always clean.

-Sustained turn performance doesn't sound so hot, but again, a fourth generation fighter would need a fairly modest load to actually exploit this.

-Top speed is rather low, but top speed with heavy air to surface loads is probably unmatched (except maybe by the SU-57 or J-20).  External stores are very draggy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 8:05 PM, Collimatrix said:

The most interesting thing I've learned about the F-35 lately is that the nose radome is apparently sealed.  To service the radar... you don't.  The active emitter portions of the radar are so reliable that they are expected to out-last the airframe.

 

It looks like the USMC agrees that AESA radar is much easier to maintain than mechanical

http://www.janes.com/article/78735/usmc-to-upgrade-hornets-with-new-aesa-radar

Quote

USMC to upgrade Hornets with new AESA radar

he US Marine Corps (USMC) is to replace the radars of its Boeing F/A-18 legacy Hornets with a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) system.

A request for information (RFI) issued by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on 20 March calls for a new AESA system to replace the incumbent Raytheon AN/APG-73 radar on the USMC’s fleet of F/A-18C/D aircraft.

“The AN/APG-73 has been subject to ongoing maintainability, supportability, and readiness issues,” the RFI noted, adding, “AESA solutions are required due to the increased reliability and sustainability requirements, as well as the associated capability improvements.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Lockheed supposedly wants to sell Japan some sort of F-35/F-22 hybrid.

 

Probably an F-35 tweaked to focus on air combat.

I think this is bigger news than it seems to be. A hybrid of F-35 and F-22? They're almost definitely talking about a twin engine derivative. If that's true, there's no way it's just for Japan. It could mean a lot for the USAF, as they need more F-22 than they have right now, but the production is closed. This could be a way to get more F-22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I think this is bigger news than it seems to be. A hybrid of F-35 and F-22? They're almost definitely talking about a twin engine derivative. If that's true, there's no way it's just for Japan. It could mean a lot for the USAF, as they need more F-22 than they have right now, but the production is closed. This could be a way to get more F-22.

 

I also think there are bigger implications here. However, what the USAF really needs is not more F-22s, but an F-22 replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you took an F-22, beefed it up a bit so you could fit a pair of the F-35's engines and give it the F-35's other toys, you might get the 'Penetrating Counter Air' fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PCA is a concept for a 6th gen fighter. It's not even really defined yet so I think just an upgraded Gen 5 warplane won't get us there. Or is it not really a 6th gen but closer to the YF-23?

 

Either way, I think these news penetrated a lot of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dubious.

 

BmdKTRr.png

When stealth aircraft are flown around casually, they wear devices that increase their RCS dramatically.  These are corner reflectors or Luneburg lenses.

W2luBdQ.jpg

 

Not only do these devices obfuscate the RCS of the stealth aircraft when it is clean, they also allow it to show up on civilian air traffic control radar, which is a useful safety consideration.

Even assuming that passive radar would be a helpful guide to the RCS of the aircraft, why wouldn't it be thrown off by these measures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any radar can detect stealth aircraft, it's a fallacy to treats it as a Romulan cloaking device. The question is how far and what level of detail your frequency range will produce.

 

The actual concept behind their passive radar seems reasonable, but the HF and below frequency range is probably useless.

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Belesarius
      Possible image of the H-20 bomber. Screengrab.  This will be the thread for the H-20 as more information becomes available.
       
      Anyone want to take a shot at translating what's on screen for us?
       
      Edit: This is a photoshop, as confirmed later in the thread where it was posted.
      But I'll keep the thread going for later stuff, and H-20 discussion.
       
       
       
    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Collimatrix
      I found this interesting picture of the Yakovlev MFI design:
       

       
      Obviously, it was never built.  The MiG submission was the 1.44 and the Sukhoi submission was the SU-47.
×