Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How will F-35 perform in air-to-air vs. Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon?
ugadawg5    7/10/2006 8:32:37 PM
Obviously the air-to-ground will be a tremendous advantage for the F-35, but how about the air-to-air capabilities? I would think even against the Gripen, a bit behind the Rafale and Typhoon. I'd like BVR and WVR opinions please. Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DarthAmerica    RE:WVR Combat - The F-35. - Skrip   8/1/2006 4:02:37 PM
If the F-35 turns out to be all it can be. It will be second only to the F-22 in air to air combat. Its nearest competitor will be the F/A-18E BlkII and AESA equipped F-15C. After that though, no fighter is going to have the prayer against a properly fought force of F-22/F-35, F/A-18E/F35 or Typhoon/F-35. The F-35 is going to send the threat airforces back to the Vietnam or in some cases Korean War era in terms of sensor capabilities effectively making them WVR only airforces while the F-35 brings 21st century warfare to bare.
 
Quote    Reply

AntiSatPower       9/19/2006 10:32:54 PM



This notion of modern fighters pullin high G's tryin to get on the six of an opponent is totally false.

very true !
 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       8/9/2007 8:16:31 PM

This whole argument about the F-35 having a hugely inferior T/W ratio compared to an SU-30 holds no water whatsoever. In fact, the F-35 has a marginal superiority in T/W ratio compared to an SU.

The F-35A before the incorporation of the weight attack re-design (2003~2004) and to the spec which the AA-1 prototype is built is 13.1 tons. 2004 specs from L-M states 12 tons. Let’s just say that it comes in at 12.7 tons empty. The F-135 engine is officially given as 43,000 lbs thrust with 28,000 lbs available dry. The F-35A carries 8.4 tons of fuel. At 50% fuel, the F-35 has a thrust to weight ratio of (43x.454)/(12.7+4.2) ~ 1.155:1.

The SU-30MK is a 17.5 ton aircraft with a maximum of 9.4 tons of fuel and a pair of AL-31FM engines with 27,560 lbs a piece. It’s thrust to weight ratio at 50% fuel is (27.56x2x.454)/(17.5+4.7) ~ 1.127:1.

You can say that these numbers are not extremely accurate given the potential differences in the specific weights of the aircrafts in various service configurations and that engine thrust of uprated AL-31 engines have reported been increased to ~29,000 lbs. But it doesn’t change the fact that, NO, the F-35A does not have hugely inferior T/W ratios compared to an SU-30. If anything it is slightly better.

 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       8/9/2007 8:25:36 PM
In terms of A2A ordnance in the internal bay, the JSF program office has confirmed that:-

(1) The AIM-9X as it is configured today cannot be ejector launched and hence cannot be fired from the internal bay regardless of position. The door position is also a vertical ejector, not a rail.

(2) The F-35 -- all variants -- will be able to carry 4 AMRAAMs internally prior to IOC. It will also be able to carry the same number of ASRAAMs or Meteors or a combination thereof.

(3) Studies have been done to investigate the use of advances in launcher technology to accommodate two AMRAAMs in station #4 and #8 (aka ATG positions) instead of just one as the bay has room for more AAMs. However, mission analysis indicate that this capability is not necessary and such a launch is not currently pursued for integrate prior to IOC.


 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       8/9/2007 10:37:58 PM
I think this article really changes many assumptions about the F-35.
 
And Im starting to believe The tiffy or the rafael will have trouble even keeping up with the F-35.
 
What if the F-35 wants to just avoid the Fight al together?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary

* The F-35 can perform post stall manuvers Like the F-18 SH.
* The F-35 will sometimes force F-16 chase planes into AB on military power
* The aircraft wants to go fast
* Even shorting themselsve on fuel the F-35 was able to fly for a 1.5 hours on internal fuel, without hitting a tanker.
* The aircraft has more fuel and payload than any F-16.
* The aircraft can reach very High subsonic speeds without much effort.

discuss and enjoy

The F-35 Lightning II took to the air for the first time on 15 December 2006 with chief test pilot Jon Beesley at the controls. During this maiden flight, Beesley performed a military power takeoff and executed a series of maneuvers to evaluate the handling qualities of the aircraft. The airplane flew to 15,000 feet and a maximum speed of 225 knots. The F-35 test program has since expanded the flight envelope of this first Lightning II and will continue to expand the envelope in the coming months. More importantly, this first aircraft is being used to evaluate the performance of highly sophisticated subsystems that form a baseline for subsequent F-35s.

Beesley has an extensive flight test résumé that begins with graduation from the US Air Force Test Pilot School in 1979. After working on several classified programs, he became one of the first USAF pilots to fly the F-117. When he left the Air Force in 1986 to join General Dynamics in Fort Worth, Texas, he initially flew developmental flight tests for an innovative night attack system for the F-16 called Falcon Eye. This program was one of the first to use helmet-mounted displays, or HMDs, and head-steered infrared devices on a tactical aircraft.

In 1990, Beesley became a project test pilot on the YF-22 during the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition. He was principally involved with evaluating and demonstrating the flying qualities of the YF-22. Many of these flights demonstrated the tremendous high angle of attack capabilities of the aircraft. Longtime Code One readers may recall his article on flight testing the YF-22, "Report From the Future," in 1991.

After the US Air Force selected the F-22 as the winner of the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition, Beesley became the Fort Worth project pilot for the F-22 program. He was the second pilot to fly the Raptor and one of the lead pilots in envelope expansion flights. Over his career, he has accumulated more than 5,000 hours of flight time in more than forty-five different types of aircraft.

Beesley became chief test pilot for the F-35 program in 2002. He will be in charge of flight testing all three variants to be produced: the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing, or CTOL, variant; the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing, or STOVL, variant; and the F-35C carrier variant, or CV. Code One editor Eric Hehs interviewed him for his impressions of flying the first F-35 and for his perspective on flight testing this and subsequent Lightning II fighters.

What is your strongest memory from the first flight of the F-35?

The thrust impressed me most. The first flight profile called for the F-35 to immediately go to 15,000 feet. I had to keep the speed at 225 knots during the climb since I had to keep the gear down, which limited the maximum speed.

I used nose attitude instead of modulating engine thrust to control airspeed during the climb to 15,000 feet. In other words, I had to raise the nose to slow down the airplane. I took off and started pulling back on the stick. I had to keep pulling back to stop from accelerating over the 225-knot limit. So I reached a rather steep angle, about twenty-five degrees of pitch. The steep angle, witnessed by the crowds on the ground, highlighted the raw power I was experiencing in the pit. The thrust surprised me. Not in the sense of "Gee, how am I going to handle all of this power?" But more like, "Wow, this is more than I expected."

What was your overall impression of the airplane after that flight?

Overall, I was impressed by how well the entire first flight came together. I started the airplane, ran through all of our ground checks, taxied out to the end of the runway, and took off. The test team told me I taxied out to the end of the runway much faster than I did for any of the taxi tests. But I was ready to go and so was the airplane.

I w
 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       8/10/2007 7:28:34 PM
  • Even shorting themselsve on fuel the F-35 was able to fly for a 1.5 hours on internal fuel, without hitting a tanker.


 

Nope, on mission #9 the F-35-AA-1 flew for 1.5 hours on ~5 tons of fuel – it took off 3,500 lbs short of a full tank and it landed with 4000 lbs remaining. It is capable of carrying 8.4 tons of fuel, so that works out to ~5 tons used during the mission. This includes a full afterburner take off and a 50~60 degree climb out so it wasn’t exactly a fuel sipping routine.

 

Just as a rough estimate, the F-35A should be able to fly ~3 hours with 8.4 tons of fuel in a fuel conscious manner. That equates to a range a little under 3000 km on internal fuel. That is extremely good compared to any fighter in existence.

 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       8/10/2007 7:36:39 PM


  • Even
    shorting themselsve on fuel the F-35 was able to fly for a 1.5 hours on
    internal fuel, without hitting a tanker.




 


Nope, on mission #9 the F-35-AA-1 flew for 1.5 hours on ~5
tons of fuel – it took off 3,500 lbs short of a full tank and it landed with
4000 lbs remaining. It is capable of carrying 8.4 tons of fuel, so that works
out to ~5 tons used during the mission. This includes a full afterburner take
off and a 50~60 degree climb out so it wasn’t exactly a fuel sipping routine.


 


Just as a rough estimate, the F-35A should be able to fly ~3
hours with 8.4 tons of fuel in a fuel conscious manner. That equates to a range
a little under 3000 km on internal fuel. That is extremely good compared to any
fighter in existence.

Im directly quoteing the piolet

 
Quote    Reply

Claymore       8/10/2007 9:15:25 PM
You should update the wiki entry on it, it only says 2,200 km range

  • Even
    shorting themselsve on fuel the F-35 was able to fly for a 1.5 hours on
    internal fuel, without hitting a tanker.





 


Nope, on mission #9 the F-35-AA-1 flew for 1.5 hours on ~5
tons of fuel – it took off 3,500 lbs short of a full tank and it landed with
4000 lbs remaining. It is capable of carrying 8.4 tons of fuel, so that works
out to ~5 tons used during the mission. This includes a full afterburner take
off and a 50~60 degree climb out so it wasn’t exactly a fuel sipping routine.


 


Just as a rough estimate, the F-35A should be able to fly ~3
hours with 8.4 tons of fuel in a fuel conscious manner. That equates to a range
a little under 3000 km on internal fuel. That is extremely good compared to any
fighter in existence.



 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       8/11/2007 11:33:29 AM
Navy League Briefing (Apr 2007)

This is the April Navy League Briefing on the F-35. It is a hidden link on the official JSF program website. They had it up on the program documents page at one point but removed the reference to it from the public page. The file is still there nonetheless...

On page 4, is the latest Key Performance Parameter progress report. The "Combat Radius" is given as 625 nm for the F-35A amd 642 nm for the F-35C. This is the current official claim. That is 625 x 1.85 = 1,156 km. Given the conservative nature of official statistics given by program offices we have to assume that this "Combat Radius" includes significant reserves for combat maneuvering and allowances for afterburner use during take off or other parts of mission. If we assume that these reserves are roughly 20% of the total fuel load, the maximum economic range works out to ~2,900km which collates well the assessment that the F-35 flies a little under 3,000 km or ~3 hours on a full tank of gas on the most economic flight profile (based on the fuel use and air time on flight #9).



 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics