Debate on F-35 JSF aerodynamics

[BKNO]

Grand Danois Absolutely nothing of substance or any conclusions can be made from what has come out from the exercise at Corse.

The only conclusion i made was that it compared favourably to Typhoon.

This means that in A2A a Rafale will have similar capabilties to that of a Typhoon which is said by RAF pilots to be close to F-22, (and superior to that of a F-35, simple logic).

As for the rest of the details i didn't elaborate but we know a little more than that from diverse official sources which being in French are obviously ingored in this board....

For a starter, all asset valid for F-22 in A2A are valid for F-35 opponents, this means:

Supercruise.

High supersonic speed.

High maneuvrability.

But i'm sure you'll find several ways to dismiss this as well.

As for comparing the way you conducts ACMs in the US and in Europe there is some funny issues here.

From what i can read in official papers they are not willing to spend much money on flight hours which aren't representative of real combat ops, the only differerence with real life engagement is that the aircraf EW are not used in offensive mode.

But i believe you already knew how MN/AdA are training their jockeys did you???

>>>>>As for WHY thjeDutch selected F-35.

On behalf of the Dutch government then State Secretary of defence has H.A.L. of Hoof on 5 June 2002 the memorandum or Understanding (MoU) concerning F-35 on the fly basis the Soesterberg signed. More earlier made agreements concerning the Dutch participation to the development of this new fighting plane have been confirmed. Of American side then American the documents in Washington DC.Met have signed State Secretary Aldridge on 10 June 2002 the exchange on 17 June 2002 on Pentagon of these declarations underlined both governments their reciprocal involvement in F-35 the project.
Take part in SDD-fase mean for the Netherlands that there a number of advantages of gaining be. In the field of defence is that:

-Defence can exert influence on the design.
-Defence has control concerning how the project in logistical area can be tackled favourably for the Netherlands.
-Defence keeps supervision of life span costs.
-Defence gets primacy at the supply of the plane.
-Defence can pay the development costs spread out, as a result of which not at a certain moment a large amount must be freed by the government. Beside the verwerving of fighters it concerns also verwerving of bijhorende simulators, reservedelen, infrastructure, special tools, measuring and test equipment, documentation, training and transport. To reach an efficient setting-up of the continuator of the F-16, it is also worked for the preparation plans for the transition of the F-16 to F-35. An example of it is the phasing of the replacement.

Q: How many lines are reserved to how superior F-35 is???

>>>>>
@Aussie Digger: Just in case you expected late miracles...

“The critical design reviews for the F-35 conventional takeoff and landing and short takeoff and vertical landing variants are complete,” noted Marc Skelley, Defense Department project manager at Arnold Engineering Development Center.

“The next step is the critical design reviews for the carrier variant, where the program office approves the final design and the airplane moves into production,” he said.

Philip Lorenz III / Arnold Engineering Development Center Public Affairs.

 

[Scorpion82]

The only conclusion i made was that it compared favourably to Typhoon.

This means that in A2A a Rafale will have similar capabilties to that of a Typhoon which is said by RAF pilots to be close to F-22, (and superior to that of a F-35, simple logic).

BKNO,
be careful, Grand Danois commented on my post which was a response to Aussie Digger to give him some information about that event not more. No need to feel offend!

that from diverse official sources which being in French are obviously ingored in this board....

I would say ignored is a wrong interpretion. If someone can't speak a language he won't be able to research articles, reports or what ever in that language. If someone who speaks the language is able to help out it's great and welcomed by everyone.

The main problem is that you come up with many things and can't back it up with more than "we (you mean french military people) say/believe". No one says it's automatically wrong and I know that very well, but it shouldn't form the base of a discussion. No one should accuse someone because he is sceptical if he get something told, but is left without any sources he can check for him self.

Just a friendly advice to keep a civilized discussionope

greets Scorp

 

[Aussie Digger]

The only conclusion i made was that it compared favourably to Typhoon.

This means that in A2A a Rafale will have similar capabilties to that of a Typhoon which is said by RAF pilots to be close to F-22, (and superior to that of a F-35, simple logic).

Yes, that's tremendous logic. My Mazda 3 has similar capabilities to a Ferrari F-50, (it can drive, stop turn and carry passengers), Ferrari race in Formula One and are superior to most other teams. Therefore my Mazda 3 should be competitve in the next Formula One Grand Prix, shouldn't it?

As for the rest of the details i didn't elaborate but we know a little more than that from diverse official sources which being in French are obviously ingored in this board....

Not ignored, just not understood. You benefit from being able to speak and read French and English. Most of us do not.

For a starter, all asset valid for F-22 in A2A are valid for F-35 opponents, this means:

Supercruise.

High supersonic speed.

High maneuvrability.

But i'm sure you'll find several ways to dismiss this as well.

What???

As for comparing the way you conducts ACMs in the US and in Europe there is some funny issues here.

From what i can read in official papers they are not willing to spend much money on flight hours which aren't representative of real combat ops, the only differerence with real life engagement is that the aircraf EW are not used in offensive mode.

But i believe you already knew how MN/AdA are training their jockeys did you???

What???

>>>>>As for WHY thjeDutch selected F-35.

On behalf of the Dutch government then State Secretary of defence has H.A.L. of Hoof on 5 June 2002 the memorandum or Understanding (MoU) concerning F-35 on the fly basis the Soesterberg signed. More earlier made agreements concerning the Dutch participation to the development of this new fighting plane have been confirmed. Of American side then American the documents in Washington DC.Met have signed State Secretary Aldridge on 10 June 2002 the exchange on 17 June 2002 on Pentagon of these declarations underlined both governments their reciprocal involvement in F-35 the project.
Take part in SDD-fase mean for the Netherlands that there a number of advantages of gaining be. In the field of defence is that:

-Defence can exert influence on the design.
-Defence has control concerning how the project in logistical area can be tackled favourably for the Netherlands.
-Defence keeps supervision of life span costs.
-Defence gets primacy at the supply of the plane.
-Defence can pay the development costs spread out, as a result of which not at a certain moment a large amount must be freed by the government. Beside the verwerving of fighters it concerns also verwerving of bijhorende simulators, reservedelen, infrastructure, special tools, measuring and test equipment, documentation, training and transport. To reach an efficient setting-up of the continuator of the F-16, it is also worked for the preparation plans for the transition of the F-16 to F-35. An example of it is the phasing of the replacement.

Q: How many lines are reserved to how superior F-35 is???

Wow. A politician fails to state the technical merits of a Defence Acquisition. Let's slander an entire capability.

>>>>>
@Aussie Digger: Just in case you expected late miracles...

“The critical design reviews for the F-35 conventional takeoff and landing and short takeoff and vertical landing variants are complete,” noted Marc Skelley, Defense Department project manager at Arnold Engineering Development Center.

“The next step is the critical design reviews for the carrier variant, where the program office approves the final design and the airplane moves into production,” he said.

Philip Lorenz III / Arnold Engineering Development Center Public Affairs.

Hmm, so L-M has established a baseline capability. Excellent I'm sure that's reassuring to their 11 established customers, 2x "observer countries" and 3x other "interested countries".

Where does this state that the F-35 is not capable of EXCEEDING it's base requirements?

The engine already has, (40,000lbs engine now puts out 43,000lbs). What possible reason can you provide to show NO possibility of any OTHER element of the jet exceeding it's baseline requirements?

 

[BKNO]

Aussie Digger Yes, that's tremendous logic.

You certainly know a LOT about cars, but certainly a LOT LESS about the RAF pilots or AdA Rafale jockeys buziness....

Aussie Digger Not ignored, just not understood. You benefit from being able to speak and read French and English. Most of us do not.

That's NO reason to dismiss everything non-US, like the comment of thos Typhoon pilots on how it compares to F-22.

What???

F-35 lack of speed and maneuvrability which are making the F-22 superiority in the A2A role.

Aussie Digger What???

This reply wasn't adressed to YOU. either

Aussie Digger Wow. A politician fails to state the technical merits of a Defence Acquisition. Let's slander an entire capability.

What it SHOWS for sure are the other aspects of the F-35 deal.

So 2 point in front with L.O, US weapons, and all this commercial package on top....

Where does this state that the F-35 is not capable of EXCEEDING it's base requirements?

Perhaps you REALLY should READ their programmes briefs after all...

Aussie Digger The engine already has, (40,000lbs engine now puts out 43,000lbs). What possible reason can you provide to show NO possibility of any OTHER element of the jet exceeding it's baseline requirements?

What possible reason is there for you to keep ignoring their own staments???

I we follow your logic, they not only can mess up the designs they aslo cant put a drag corf together.

So if i were YOU i'd trust them when they say NO supercruise (FAQs) and Mach LIMIT for all variants 1.6.

Which bring us back to the speed and G limits...

 

[alexsa]

You certainly know a LOT about cars, but certainly a LOT LESS about the RAF pilots or AdA Rafale jockeys buziness....



That's NO reason to dismiss everything non-US, like the comment of thos Typhoon pilots on how it compares to F-22.



F-35 lack of speed and maneuvrability which are making the F-22 superiority in the A2A role.



This reply wasn't adressed to YOU. either




What it SHOWS for sure are the other aspects of the F-35 deal.

So 2 point in front with L.O, US weapons, and all this commercial package on top....



Perhaps you REALLY should READ their programmes briefs after all...



What possible reason is there for you to keep ignoring their own staments???

I we follow your logic, they not only can mess up the designs they aslo cant put a drag corf together.

So if i were YOU i'd trust them when they say NO supercruise (FAQs) and Mach LIMIT for all variants 1.6.

Which bring us back to the speed and G limits...

In summary you are claiming that Rafale is the best strike/fighter air craft out there bar the F-22 (for A2A) and perhaps, in some aspects, EF.

Further the F-35 has very limited LO in frontal aspect only (noting the disparraging manner in which you refer to it it would suggest bugger all), is slow, limited to 5.5g, cannot carry much and is out ranged by Rafale when the latter carries external fuel.

You also seems to suggests it sensour suite is not musch to write home about and appear to be suggesting that Rafale will make mince meat out of it.

Finally the while thing is a massive marking ploy and missinformation plan by LM and the US. The only reason airforces are buying this aircraft is because of the manufacturing offsets.

Of course to make such claims you wouel be privy to interanl LM test and design information..... well you have to otherwise .... you are just guessing like the rest of us. While I have no doubt about your knowledge in respect of Rafale and aircraft design in general I don't think you have the necesary information on JSF to condemn it in this manner.

The fact that the Isreali air force have already indiated they are looking at 100 JSF suggests that the military thing this ground hog has something going for it. Our airforce seem similarly disposed. HOpefully it will live up to expectations, if it does it will be a critical part of our airforce.

 

[BKNO]

@alexsa I strongly suggest you keep it accurate, do not distort my comments and try to mke yours as informative as possible.

alexsa I don't think you have the necesary information on JSF to condemn it in this manner.

You're MORE than welcome to prove me wrong, starting by telling L-M their own datas are WRONG and their Programme Briefs totally outdated and innacurate.

I dont base my comments on ANYTHING elese than manufacturer datas and staments = so far:

Mach LIMIT for all variants: 1.6.

NO supercruise.

G limits: 7.0, 7.5, 9.0 STRUCTURAL.

Ranges, 550, 600 650 nm.

SOURCES: L-M themself.

 

[alexsa]

@alexsa I strongly suggest you keep it accurate, do not distort my comments and try to mke yours as informative as possible.

When you're finished with this list, then dig the proper informations and try to correct me if you can.

Having gone back over your posts I admit you seem to fouces on 7.5G but have used lower figures when carrying 2000 pounders....

Otherwise slower, shorter legged, limited LO and poorer sensors (particualry optical) all seems to be shorcomings of the JSF compared to Rafale.

In regards to why it is being chosesn you have suggested it is marketing and offsets.

Sorry I will stick my those comment even if ther are a bit off the cuff. So do you ahve access to design and test data for JSF or are guessing based on open source documents?

 

[Dave H]

Interesting stuff BKNO,

I have no reason to doubt that a rafaele can take off from a carrier 1000 miles from its target with a good weapon load and the big fuel tanks. But say that target is an enemy radar base or airfield or comms hub. If Rafaele gets bounced 300 miles out doesnt it ditch fuel and go air to air? Can it still then make the target, hit it and fly back to a tanker or the carrier?

Or is the range thing just worked out for brochures in ideal situations? I expect the Rafaele will chew up many enemy aircraft enroute but it will get seen enroute to the target if the enemy still posseses radar.

That I think is the bonus of the F35 and why many coutries want that first strike option with a LO aircraft, hence the scramble to get on board the F35 bus. It only needs to carry one or two weapons if its LO is as good as hoped. No one knows what the finished RCS of the F35 will be but if it takes out the radars, comms, runways in the first night of action it doesnt really matter if a few other types might edge it in air to air.

A 600 mile range is good enough if it can sneak in close, hit the target and evade. Tankers will almost always be used in any case.

The F35 may turn out to be a let down, who knows but it may also be the perfect stop gap until UCAVS take over a few decades down the line.

I wish the UK carriers (when they finally build them) was going to fly F35 and Typhoon N but the F35 is still a massive leap over what has gone before in terms of surviving enemy defences.

I dont think F35 will ever get tested against Rafaele so the one is best argument will never get played out because I cant see anyone buying Rafaele either now or the future which is a shame in many ways because it is good. France isnt likely to fight any F35 users.

 

[Dave H]

BKNO,

How is the range thing worked out. On reading the brochures for Rafaele, F35 and Typhoon are they all just playing with figures.

If the Dassault page gives radius of action as 1000 miles does that mean it can lift load "x" fly 1000 miles, bomb, turn around and reach an airbase 1000 miles back, hence it can fly 2000 miles without needing a tanker top up? What contingency does that include? a 10 minute dogfight, a 20 minute loiter whilst some SAM sites are attacked?

The F35 gives radius as 600 Miles, again the same questions could be asked, supposedly it can fly 1200 miles without a top up and the Typhoon on Hi Lo Ho can supposedly do 750 miles radius.

The Rafaele can do a 3 hour CAP, but the Dassault site doesnt say how far from base, the Typhoon site also claims a 3 hour CAP at 100 miles, but what use is 100 miles when cruise missiles fly much further. Tankers make these figures irrelevant. I suppose the distances involved in Afghanistan make straight frward range important but then the Taleban never had an airforce to defend itself with.

Arent all these figures just spin??

 

[Aussie Digger]

@alexsa I strongly suggest you keep it accurate, do not distort my comments and try to mke yours as informative as possible.



You're MORE than welcome to prove me wrong, starting by telling L-M their own datas are WRONG and their Programme Briefs totally outdated and innacurate.

I dont base my comments on ANYTHING elese than manufacturer datas and staments = so far:

Mach LIMIT for all variants: 1.6.

NO supercruise.

G limits: 7.0, 7.5, 9.0 STRUCTURAL.

Ranges, 550, 600 650 nm.

SOURCES: L-M themself.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you want to quote a manufacturer and believe it as gospel, at least do so accurately.

Here are the manufacturer's F-35 statistics:

Top speed: Mach 1.6+

Ranges on INTERNAL fuel:

1200nm, 900nm, 1400nm.

Info available here:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12792.zip

Now we KNOW some of the statistics on this page are on the "low side" of the equation, with information released by Pratt and Whitney in September 2006 that the F-135 engine is in fact producing 43,000lbs pounds of thrust in full afterburner and 28,000lbs in dry thrust.

Make of these statistics what you will. Personally I think they are the standard "baselines" for the aircraft.

The reality is rather more than you see, just like the engine...

 

[BKNO]

Dave H On reading the brochures for Rafaele, F35 and Typhoon are they all just playing with figures.

From what i remember from my time there are standards like mission profiles.

Combat radius is generally determined by the ability of an aircraft to cruise Hi then penetrate Low then egress Hi.

Profile for a NATO standard strike is thus Hi-Lo-Hi with reserve fuel.

Dassault page gives the combat radius for a standard strike mission and configuration. We KNOW what they are:

2 X SCALP/Apache 3 X 2.000 l 4 X AAM

Dave H The F35 gives radius as 600 Miles, again the same questions could be asked,

F-35 mission performance or strike mission profile in with internal load only, for which it was conceived in the first place, external tanks are still not tested nor the range they provide with documented.

Dave H The Rafaele can do a 3 hour CAP, but the Dassault site doesnt say how far from base,

Dassault doesnt disclose much in their datas, much of it is approximates (note the PLUS DE = More than) and same for the Max Mach.

More than 3 hours is the patrol time requierement the position from base depends on the mission configuration (how many/which external tanks).

Dave H Arent all these figures just spin??

If they were our AdA/MN topgunners wouldnt be happy.

Having gone back over your posts I admit you seem to fouces on 7.5G but have used lower figures when carrying 2000 pounders....

7.0, 7,5, 9,0 G = structural limitations.

When it comes to wapon load it is another story.

alexsa Otherwise slower, shorter legged, limited LO and poorer sensors (particualry optical) all seems to be shorcomings of the JSF compared to Rafale.

I wouldn't say SO when it comes to the ANP/81 though, which is the best there is today but one thing for sure the US laggs behind when it comes to the optronic technologies and EOTS is NOT a dedicated A2A system, more to the point, compared to SNIPER it loosed ONE aperture and therefore canot be used simultaneously (if ever) in A2A and A2G.

More to it, it is positioned under the nose of the aircraft and have a very limited upward view where the threat is the most likely to come.

alexsa In regards to why it is being chosesn you have suggested it is marketing and offsets.

There is a lot of marketing there yes, but i never forget what F-35 is all about: First day strike, and in this sector is is the best there is.

The marketing issue if more for the A2A role where the customers doesn't enjoy the luxury of the F-22 as a "high" asset....

alexsa Sorry I will stick my those comment even if ther are a bit off the cuff. So do you ahve access to design and test data for JSF or are guessing based on open source documents?

If you look you'll find enough datas to make a proper analysis, starting by L-M owns.