F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[Falstaff]

Lower TWR? With similar fuel weight load the F-35 has greater thrust to weight than Eurofighter.

Which is only true for "empty fuel" as you can see here: comparison stats

Note that this is not supercruise. An aircraft is not supersonic until all air is traveling faster than the speed of sound which is atleast Mach 1.3, by that definition only the F-22 can supercuirse. Alot of aircraft can reach Mach 1 however which would be classed as transonic.

Dear rimjaz, to settle this once and for all I looked it up (just to be sure, it's been two years since I wrote that exam) in the book "Fluid Mechanics" (and yes, gas is a fluid as well) by Wolfgang Schröder who is the aerodynamics professor at my university here:
incompressible: M<0.3
subsonic: 0.3<M<1
transsonic: 0.8<M<1.2
supersonic: 1<M<3
hypersonic: M>3
with M being speed divided by local speed of sound, commonly known as "Mach".
So an aircraft travels supersonic at a speed greater than Mach 1. The transsonic region is some kind of artificial (overlapping) division because it is home of interesting effects and maths. Sometimes airliners that travel at high subsonic speeds are referered to as travelling transsonic.
However, Supercruise means cruising without afterburner at speeds greater than M 1 and has nothing to do with your M 1.3 figure.

 

[swerve]

...The US already has AESA equipped fighters in service (F-15, F/A-18E/F SH) ...

F-18E with AESA is still not officially operational. But you missed out F-22. Japan also has an operational fighter with an indigenous AESA radar.

...
No Supercruise? Hmm. The F-22 is the only aircraft to my knowledge that truly supercruises...

Only according to the Lockheed Revised Definition© of supercruise, i.e. "Whatever F-22 can do that no other fighter can". It's been modified since Typhoon demonstrated the ability to do what Lockheed had previously called supercruise.

BTW, that's fighters only. Concorde, of course, supercruised at Mach 2, all the way across the Atlantic, a few times every day. The Tu-144 supercruised at M1.6.

So now the USA, UK, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Israel, Singapore and Japan have all decided that F-35 is in their best interests for a large if not dominant position within their future air combat capabilities? ...

Japan? Can you clarify, please? And some of the others are still keeping their options open, inviting offers & evaluating competitors, e.g. Denmark & Norway. So they haven't "all decided" yet.

 

[Aussie Digger]

F-18E with AESA is still not officially operational. But you missed out F-22. Japan also has an operational fighter with an indigenous AESA radar.

It hasn't achieved FOC I agree, but I said in-service, which is accurate.

Only according to the Lockheed Revised Definition© of supercruise, i.e. "Whatever F-22 can do that no other fighter can". It's been modified since Typhoon demonstrated the ability to do what Lockheed had previously called supercruise.

BTW, that's fighters only. Concorde, of course, supercruised at Mach 2, all the way across the Atlantic, a few times every day. The Tu-144 supercruised at M1.6.

True and many other fighters have shown an ability to supercruise in "clean configuration. I still have doubts about Typhoon's ability to do it with operationally significant warloads and to tactically significant ranges though.

Japan? Can you clarify, please? And some of the others are still keeping their options open, inviting offers & evaluating competitors, e.g. Denmark & Norway. So they haven't "all decided" yet.

I suppose you could argue along those lines that even the US is "keeping it's options" open, because even they haven't actually ordered full rate production aircraft yet...

All those Countries have signed up to the SDD phase however and with the exception of Japan have invested various amounts in the program. Whilst these Countries have yet to "decide" and could still take other options, I think it's increasingly unlikely this will happen...

As to Japan, I think it's pretty widely published that they intend to acquire the F-35...

 

[swerve]

I suppose you could argue along those lines that even the US is "keeping it's options" open, because even they haven't actually ordered full rate production aircraft yet...

All those Countries have signed up to the SDD phase however and with the exception of Japan have invested various amounts in the program. Whilst these Countries have yet to "decide" and could still take other options, I think it's increasingly unlikely this will happen...

As to Japan, I think it's pretty widely published that they intend to acquire the F-35...

Not quite. The USA isn't actively & publicly examining its options, investing in competing fighters, & inviting alternative offers, as some of the countries you listed are. I'd say Spain - which isn't involved in JSF at all, is a near certainty, while four of those you listed aren't - though I reckon F-35 is probably the most likely choice for three of them.

It's speculated that Japan may, one day, buy the F-35. There have been no official statements suggesting that, AFAIK. The Ministry of Defence & the ASDF say they want the F-22, & if they're not allowed to buy it will buy more F-15, F-18E, or Typhoon. The F-35 is not available in the timescale for their currently planned purchase.

At some point, a new type will be needed, to replace the newer aircraft now in service. That is, at present, wide open. The timescale is such that there's time to develop something new, if they want to (I know, very unlikely). That may be the F-35. Or it may not. It's certainly not been decided, which is what you said.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Not quite. The USA isn't actively & publicly examining its options, investing in competing fighters, & inviting alternative offers, as some of the countries you listed are. I'd say Spain - which isn't involved in JSF at all, is a near certainty, while four of those you listed aren't - though I reckon F-35 is probably the most likely choice for three of them.

It's speculated that Japan may, one day, buy the F-35. There have been no official statements suggesting that, AFAIK. The Ministry of Defence & the ASDF say they want the F-22, & if they're not allowed to buy it will buy more F-15, F-18E, or Typhoon. The F-35 is not available in the timescale for their currently planned purchase.

At some point, a new type will be needed, to replace the newer aircraft now in service. That is, at present, wide open. The timescale is such that there's time to develop something new, if they want to (I know, very unlikely). That may be the F-35. Or it may not. It's certainly not been decided, which is what you said.

You are correct. I did say "decide" but I was referring to SDD rather than a purchase order for said aircraft.

As I was attempting to point out, NO Country has placed an order for full rate production F-35 as yet, to the best of my knowledge and even the USA has only ordered a small number of LRIP aircraft...

 

[rjmaz1]

Which is only true for "empty fuel" as you can see here: comparison stats

.

Incorrect you misread me..

"With similar fuel weight load"

The weights on that page are incorrect. The F-35 now has nearly identicle empty weight to the Eurofighter and also has very similar thrust levels. Put 10,000lb of fuel in each aircraft and the thrust to weight ratio is the same.

The F-35 is a very quick aircraft. Similar to the Russian aircraft that are meant to have superior "kinetic" performance.. Not so superior afterall.

Put 18,000lb of fuel into the F-35 and you have to carry 3 external fuel tanks on the Eurofighter to have the same fuel load. The external fuel tanks produce roughly 10 times as much drag compared to have those fuel tanks integrated into the body as internal fuel. The Eurofighter with the external tanks will now travel slower than the F-35 and probably have less agility to boot. Out ranged, out paced and out maneuvered.

As i said before the F-35 plans to be able to cruise at Mach 1 with fuel and weapons internally. If you want to call this supercruise because your text book says so then go send an email to Lockheed martin. You can also inform them of dozens of aircraft that could supercruise over the last few decades, we'll soon be able to add the F-35 to that list :

In a nut shell the SU-30 will NOT outrun the F-35. Dog fighting is not required as the SU-30 will be shot down before it even detects the F-35. If it does need to dog fighting its roll rate is exceptional and the only area where the SU-30 may has a slight advantage would be in sustained turns and verical climbing. If you put a good pilot in the seat the F-35 will most likely win the dog fight as well.

 

[BKNO]

About the stats used by some, please be SERIOUS and have a look at L-M own stats from their last PDFs, i can FIND some giving "ours" for M 2.1 and 9.100 kg with a 90 kN M88-3 on top...

According to LM Program Brief (PDF Program-Brief-20Sept-2006) the F-35 empty weights and TWR are (for a 28.000/43.000 lb F-135):

CTOL: 29.036 lb

STVOL: 32.161 lb

CV: 32.072 lb.

TWR would give us:

Non-AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 0.964.

AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 1.480.

Non-AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 0.870

AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 1.337.

Non-AB Thrust TWR CV: 0.873.

AB Thrust TWR CV: 1.340.

Compare to:
Rafale C 9.500 kg according to the official figures released by the ministere of defense.

This would give it the following TWR:

Non-AB Thrust TWR: 1.052.

AB Thrust TWR: 1.578.

I think that whoever compiled the datas as used in this forum was greatly misinformed or perhaps should we complain to L-M for editing these figures for the third year in a row???

>>>>>

Since i can't post an URL i'll quote the following article from Flight International.

DATE:13/11/96
SOURCE:Flight International
Terminal velocity

Quote 1: Some sources indicate that RAF simulations of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker and Flanker Plus derivatives and associated missiles versus the EF2000 with the AIM-120B revealed an unacceptably poor exchange ratio. The focus fell on providing the EF2000 with a missile, which has a far greater no-escape volume at BVR ranges.

Quote 2: As Smith points out, the BVR environment is also expanding, as heralded by the emergence of the Russian Vympel's long-burn R-27RE (AA-10 Alamo). Traditionally, the BVR engagement has gone out to around 40km (22nm). The next generation of BVRAAMs will push the engagement envelope to around 100km.

So we were not talking about the AIM-120 A but the B in RAF service up to today, MoD is now expecting AIM-120 C-5 to be integrated with Typhoons and enter RAF service shortly.

Note that the thumb rule i actually quoted (as 4 X manoeuvre energy of an AAM target) is down to three X but it doesn't change the fact that AMRAAM have little chances to get a kill in the last third sector of its flight envelop, particularly in the end game.

NO records exists today of a kill with an AIM-120 at a range beyhond 50 km for the simple reason that its motor being good with pick energy is a lot less effiscient when it comes to sustained energy, asfor its aerodynamics they are that of a design from the previous generation.

Dont expect miracles without the magic......

More quotes; Source: Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.

Although a few AIM-120As were deployed to the Gulf during Operation Desert Storm in early 1991, no AMRAAMs were fired in that conflict (officially, at least). The first combat use of an AIM-120A occurred in December 1992, when an F-16C shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 during Operation Southern Watch.

The AIM-120B, which was first delivered in late 1994, had a new WGU-41/B guidance section. It had software in reprogrammable EPROM modules, a new digital processor and other electronics updates. Non-tactical versions are the CATM-120B captive-carry and JAIM-120B test and evaluation missiles.

So de facto we're looking at a practical engagement range of no more than 60 km at best in the case of a C/D model and as a matter of fact no NATO pilot dares firing one SLAMER beyhond this range and expect to score a kill be it in real life or simulated combats for that matter.

Quote: "You can also inform them of dozens of aircraft that could supercruise over the last few decades, we'll soon be able to add the F-35 to that list "

Well i'm SURE L-M will be very please to know that because so far, they stated themself (in their FAQ on the aircraft) that it wasn't designed for supercruising which definition is: Above M 1.0 in DRY power.

BTW Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale all supercruise with up to 6 AAMs, Rafale M (Quote a 12F Rafale F-1 pilot) does it with a supersonic 1.250 L and 4 MICAs.

The difference is that they ALL are designed with LOW drag delta wings with a minimum of 48* sweep angle and a much smaller frontal area even with AAMs and pylons, they generate WAY less supersonic drag due mainly to the wing planform which have this particularity of low transonic and supersonic drag, even more so with highly developed wing/fuselage junctions (SAME effect of dragwave redution).

F-35 more conventional design and lower sweep angle wing is FAR less suited to supercruise than any delta winged aircraft or F-22 for that matter.

= Mirage 2000 M 1.1 with 6 MICAs.

= F-16C M 1.1 with 50% internal fuel and 2 X AIM-9 and a far higher TWR than the Mirage...

Looks like some of you guys like to rewrite manufacturer datas fior the love of the sport, this way we go nowhere because we can play the game as well. About WE stick to the official versions or sim[ply wait for the results of the test flights?????

 

[swerve]

...As I was attempting to point out, NO Country has placed an order for full rate production F-35 as yet, to the best of my knowledge and even the USA has only ordered a small number of LRIP aircraft...

I know that. I was trying to point out that there is a difference between buying into development, & deciding that it's the future of your air force - and one of the countries you listed hasn't done either. At least one other has also bought into the development of another type which it's considering as an an alternative for its air force, and two others are openly keeping tabs on technical developments in rival types, which they've publicly stated are under consideration as alternatives to F-35, & discussing terms for buying them.

You see the difference between that & what the USA & some others (e.g. Australia) have done? They've decided. Not placed orders (except, as you say, the small US LRIP order), but publicly stated it's what they'll get (subject to certain conditions, in some cases, e.g. the UK), & they're not looking at anything else, except perhaps as insurance (the UK again). I think it's fair to say they've decided, even if conditionally in some cases. But while that is true of the majority of countries on your list, it isn't true of all of them. Some are making a point of keeping their options open.

 

[Grand Danois]

NO records exists today of a kill with an AIM-120 at a range beyhond 50 km for the simple reason that its motor being good with pick energy is a lot less effiscient when it comes to sustained energy, asfor its aerodynamics they are that of a design from the previous generation.

What do you mean when you say "sustained energy?" Curious.

So de facto we're looking at a practical engagement range of no more than 60 km at best in the case of a C/D model and as a matter of fact no NATO pilot dares firing one SLAMER beyhond this range and expect to score a kill be it in real life or simulated combats for that matter.

And how far does a Mica fired on a IRST heading go?

Quote: "You can also inform them of dozens of aircraft that could supercruise over the last few decades, we'll soon be able to add the F-35 to that list "

Well i'm SURE L-M will be very please to know that because so far, they stated themself (in their FAQ on the aircraft) that it wasn't designed for supercruising which definition is: Above M 1.0 in DRY power.

AFAIK the F-35 won't supercruise. Why? Because supercruise means that you get past the inefficient transonic flow regime at M1.2-1.3, in order to get past the CD bump. M1.0 is arbitrary and holds no meaning if used for, say, transit. The M1.0 definition has no application but to itself.

You did read my post about the GaN, Oui?

Btw, how did a discussion on fighters turn into one of missiles? If the missiles being equal, the EF will slap the Rafale around. Why do you focus on missiles?

 

[rjmaz1]

BKNO its very hard to understand what you are saying but its good to see you back peddle after you posted the incorrect facts the first time :

It proves that the thrust to weight ratio of the F-35 is quite high. Remember that you cannot base your calculations on empty weight as they need fuel to take off nfloorl:

Use the full 18,000lb of fuel of the F-35 into your calculations while also putting 18,000lbs of fuel into the similar weight Eurofighter or Rafale. When comparing 10,000lb of fuel the comparison shows a slight edge to the Europeans. When the extra 8,000lb of fuel has to be carried externally it produces 10 times as the same amount of fuel added to the F-35. All of a sudden the slight edge in thrust to weight disappears. We are now moving to the "thrust to drag ratio" this is much more important than thrust to weight ratio in terms of horizontal speed.

Everyone was saying the same thing when the F-16 came out. We will see in 10 years time when everyone will be thinking the F-35 is the best thing since sliced bread.

Well i'm SURE L-M will be very please to know that because so far, they stated themself (in their FAQ on the aircraft) that it wasn't designed for supercruising which definition is: Above M 1.0 in DRY power.

No you are wrong again. Their definition of supercruising is the speed once the aircraft has past the transonic regime. By their own definition the F-35 cannot do this as it cannot travel at Mach 1.3. However if they used your definition of Mach 1 being supercruise then they would list on their FAQ that the F-35 will be able to 'supercruise'.

Again cruising at Mach 1 isn't that quick but you cannot call the F-35 slow!!!! When everything other than the F-22 will be travelling at a similar speed to the F-35. This is replying to your original post saying that the F-35 underperforms when it matchs the main enemy being the SU-30 and exceeds it in avionics and stealth.

You should stop trying to nitpick peoples arguments to cover up the fact that what they say disproves your original argument.

 

[BKNO]

Grand Danois

Quote: "What do you mean when you say "sustained energy?" Curious."

As opposed to PICK energy. When the motor is capable of providing the same output throughout the whole of the flight envelop.

Quote: "And how far does a Mica fired on a IRST heading go?"

From what we know, official (ixarm/Ministere de la Defense) MICA range is superior to 80 km and its G-load superior to 50, its range doesnt depends on the version or how it have been qued as for the OSF it declassified ranges are 130/60 km for the IRST and Camera respectively.

Squadron noise are that a MICA IR can detect and obtain a lock in optimal conditions at up to 70 km which wouldn't be a surprise....

Quote: "AFAIK the F-35 won't supercruise. Why? Because supercruise means that you get past the inefficient transonic flow regime at M1.2-1.3, in order to get past the CD bump. M1.0 is arbitrary and holds no meaning if used for, say, transit. The definition has no application but to itself."

Good point but i dont think L-M cares too much about such a precision when answering FAQs so the way to take their comments is looking like a simplification for the purpose of the FAQ...

Looking at the features of F-35 i'd say it is optimised for high-subsonic flight at lower altitudes than the LWF were designed to be most effiscient. = Max turn rates at M 0.9 <> 40.000.

Quote: "You did read my post about the GaN, Oui? "

Please elaborate. I'm sort of desapointed about the latest Thales news and am also interested in what you're writing...

PS: READ the Flight International article it's very interesting...

Quote: "Btw, how did a discussion on fighters turn into one of missiles? If the missiles being equal, the EF will slap the Rafale around. Why do you focus on missiles?"

"slap the Rafale around" is perhaps more of a X-Mass wish than reality, if it had been so simple Eurofighter would have made such a noise of it, even ET would be aware, but no comments were made since the encounter between the Spanish (or Italians) Typhoons and Rafale Ms which i remind you are the heaviest and least developed of all versions with old avionics and low computing power units.......

As for the topic going into weaponry i just responded to some comments here and i dont see what is wrong discussing the weapons equiping the aircrafts as it will be/is part of their capabilities.

>>>>>

@rjmaz1
Quote: "posted the incorrect facts the first time"

Well at least i correct myself. You could try to post some accurate figures on F-35 based on that given by L-M no?

Quote : "It proves that the thrust to weight ratio of the F-35 is quite high. Remember that you cannot base your calculations on empty weight as they need fuel to take off "

LOWER than that of Typhoon or Rafale, as for the question of FUEL:

F-35 can't DUMP or jettison it, Typhoon or Rafale are designed for combat weight with 50% internal fuel, this increases the difference in their favour. I suppose you will kepp hutring yourself laughing.

Quotye: "Everyone was saying the same thing when the F-16 came out."

ABSOLUTLY WRONG.

I was among the numerous spectators at le Bourget Airshow who can say that you are saying absolutly W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R.

WE ALL reconised the F-16 qualities and comparing the two just shows one thing; you dont know F-16 or F-35 or both.

One was the winner of the LWF competition, a strike of design genius, the second a STRIKE fighter with little to make my day designwise.
Where is the comparison???

Mod edit: BKNO, if you wish to keep posting these long posts of yours and include the quotes of other persons, learn to use a TINY bit of HTML. Please.

The first word you need here is "quote" but I've written it as qte to show you what you need to do.

[qte]section you wish to quote[/quote]

 

[Grand Danois]

Please use the quote button.

Grand Danois

Quote: "What do you mean when you say "sustained energy?" Curious."

As opposed to PICK energy. When the motor is capable of providing the same output throughout the whole of the flight envelop.

I thought as much. Both have a propellant burn, then coasts towards the target.

Quote: "And how far does a Mica fired on a IRST heading go?"
From what we know, official (ixarm/Ministere de la Defense) MICA range is superior to 80 km and its G-load superior to 50, its range doesnt depends on the version or how it have been qued as for the OSF it declassified ranges are 130/60 km for the IRST and Camera respectively.

BVR range is depending on ballistic trajectory, which is hard to do on OSF tracking only. Effective range of missile is probably more than halved (back of an envelope calc).

Squadron noise are that a MICA IR can detect and obtain a lock in optimal conditions at up to 70 km which wouldn't be a surprise....

Yes it would be a surprise.

Quote: "AFAIK the F-35 won't supercruise. Why? Because supercruise means that you get past the inefficient transonic flow regime at M1.2-1.3, in order to get past the CD bump. M1.0 is arbitrary and holds no meaning if used for, say, transit. The definition has no application but to itself."

Good point but i dont think L-M cares too much about such a precision when answering FAQs so the way to take their comments is looking like a simplification for the purpose of the FAQ...

Looking at the features of F-35 i'd say it is optimised for high-subsonic flight at lower altitudes than the LWF were designed to be most effiscient. = Max turn rates at M 0.9 <> 40.000.

It was you who brought up the M1.0 definition.

Quote: "You did read my post about the GaN, Oui? "

Please elaborate. I'm sort of desapointed about the latest Thales news and am also interested in what you're writing...

PS: READ the Flight International article it's very interesting...

I can understand that, as you were all over the boards earlier today on the subject.

 

[Grand Danois]

"slap the Rafale around" is perhaps more of a X-Mass wish than reality,...

It's me using colourful language for an air superiority fighter vs a multirole striker.

...if it had been so simple Eurofighter would have made such a noise of it, even ET would be aware, but no comments were made since the encounter between the Spanish (or Italians) Typhoons and Rafale Ms which i remind you are the heaviest and least developed of all versions with old avionics and low computing power units.......

That's your wishful thinking. You can be assured that whatever the "results" were, they are not going to be published or leaked. See, you hope for the best with no substance and speculation only.

As for the topic going into weaponry i just responded to some comments here and i dont see what is wrong discussing the weapons equiping the aircrafts as it will be/is part of their capabilities.

Sure, but your argument was based on the better missile, not the better fighter.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Quote: "And how far does a Mica fired on a IRST heading go?"

From what we know, official (ixarm/Ministere de la Defense) MICA range is superior to 80 km and its G-load superior to 50, its range doesnt depends on the version or how it have been qued as for the OSF it declassified ranges are 130/60 km for the IRST and Camera respectively.

Squadron noise are that a MICA IR can detect and obtain a lock in optimal conditions at up to 70 km which wouldn't be a surprise....

Provided there's no cloud I suspect you mean? What's good for the goose afterall...

FYI, AIM-120D is a 100K plus rated missile.

"slap the Rafale around" is perhaps more of a X-Mass wish than reality, if it had been so simple Eurofighter would have made such a noise of it, even ET would be aware, but no comments were made since the encounter between the Spanish (or Italians) Typhoons and Rafale Ms which i remind you are the heaviest and least developed of all versions with old avionics and low computing power units.......

As for the topic going into weaponry i just responded to some comments here and i dont see what is wrong discussing the weapons equiping the aircrafts as it will be/is part of their capabilities.

So why has Rafale consistently loss out in international competition? If it's capabilities are as overwhelming as you suggest and the industrial benefits that I'm POSITIVE France would be offering simply to get an international sale, then I fail to see why they can't sell it...

LOWER than that of Typhoon or Rafale, as for the question of FUEL:

F-35 can't DUMP or jettison it, Typhoon or Rafale are designed for combat weight with 50% internal fuel, this increases the difference in their favour. I suppose you will kepp hutring yourself laughing.

Given range is not their strong points anyway, this seems to be a curious statement to me. Do France and England have the tanking resources to support such a situation?

Perhaps that's why they are uncompetitive in the international market. Everyone else needs to fill them up on the ground...

: "Everyone was saying the same thing when the F-16 came out."

ABSOLUTLY WRONG.

I was among the numerous spectators at le Bourget Airshow who can say that you are saying absolutly W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R.

WE ALL reconised the F-16 qualities and comparing the two just shows one thing; you dont know F-16 or F-35 or both.


One was the winner of the LWF competition, a strike of design genius, the second a STRIKE fighter with little to make my day designwise.
Where is the comparison???

Was the F-35 there and flying?

Does an airshow routine PROVE the capabilities of an aircraft?

 

[Todjaeger]

>>>>>

Since i can't post an URL i'll quote the following article from Flight International.

DATE:13/11/96
SOURCE:Flight International
Terminal velocity

Quote 1: Some sources indicate that RAF simulations of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker and Flanker Plus derivatives and associated missiles versus the EF2000 with the AIM-120B revealed an unacceptably poor exchange ratio. The focus fell on providing the EF2000 with a missile, which has a far greater no-escape volume at BVR ranges.

Quote 2: As Smith points out, the BVR environment is also expanding, as heralded by the emergence of the Russian Vympel's long-burn R-27RE (AA-10 Alamo). Traditionally, the BVR engagement has gone out to around 40km (22nm). The next generation of BVRAAMs will push the engagement envelope to around 100km.

So we were not talking about the AIM-120 A but the B in RAF service up to today, MoD is now expecting AIM-120 C-5 to be integrated with Typhoons and enter RAF service shortly.

Note that the thumb rule i actually quoted (as 4 X manoeuvre energy of an AAM target) is down to three X but it doesn't change the fact that AMRAAM have little chances to get a kill in the last third sector of its flight envelop, particularly in the end game.

NO records exists today of a kill with an AIM-120 at a range beyhond 50 km for the simple reason that its motor being good with pick energy is a lot less effiscient when it comes to sustained energy, asfor its aerodynamics they are that of a design from the previous generation.

Dont expect miracles without the magic......

More quotes; Source: Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles.

Although a few AIM-120As were deployed to the Gulf during Operation Desert Storm in early 1991, no AMRAAMs were fired in that conflict (officially, at least). The first combat use of an AIM-120A occurred in December 1992, when an F-16C shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 during Operation Southern Watch.

The AIM-120B, which was first delivered in late 1994, had a new WGU-41/B guidance section. It had software in reprogrammable EPROM modules, a new digital processor and other electronics updates. Non-tactical versions are the CATM-120B captive-carry and JAIM-120B test and evaluation missiles.

So de facto we're looking at a practical engagement range of no more than 60 km at best in the case of a C/D model and as a matter of fact no NATO pilot dares firing one SLAMER beyhond this range and expect to score a kill be it in real life or simulated combats for that matter.

A few points to consider, even though this is starting to stray slightly OT. The article listed is from November 13th, 1996 and is a bit out of date... The AMRAAM AIM-120C is in service now, with the AIM-120D expected to enter service this year IIRC, with a range somewhere around 120km+.

Also, the SLAM-ER is NOT a missle used in A-to-A engagement, the acronym AFAIK stands for Standoff Land Attack Missle -Extended Response. Incidentally the missle has a published range of 170 n miles when fired at 40k ft from an F-18 (don't remember whether it was a C/D or E/F model).

Lastly, the F-35 doesn't have the exact same design objectives the LWF project that selected the YF-16 did. By comparing the current program to the early part of the F-16 program it's like comparing apples and oranges. Instead, try comparing the expected performance of the F-35 JSF to late block F-16s (Block 50 and later) and/or late block F/A-18 E/Fs. Compare the kinematic performances, as well as the situational awareness and LO features.


-Cheers

 

[hybrid]

A few points to consider, even though this is starting to stray slightly OT. The article listed is from November 13th, 1996 and is a bit out of date... The AMRAAM AIM-120C is in service now, with the AIM-120D expected to enter service this year IIRC, with a range somewhere around 120km+.

Also, the SLAM-ER is NOT a missle used in A-to-A engagement, the acronym AFAIK stands for Standoff Land Attack Missle -Extended Response. Incidentally the missle has a published range of 170 n miles when fired at 40k ft from an F-18 (don't remember whether it was a C/D or E/F model).

Lastly, the F-35 doesn't have the exact same design objectives the LWF project that selected the YF-16 did. By comparing the current program to the early part of the F-16 program it's like comparing apples and oranges. Instead, try comparing the expected performance of the F-35 JSF to late block F-16s (Block 50 and later) and/or late block F/A-18 E/Fs. Compare the kinematic performances, as well as the situational awareness and LO features.


-Cheers

I think he meant Slammer which would have referred to the AMRAAM.

 

[harryriedl]

i was wondering that as the F35 was going to armed with the meteor missile in European service. would that give it a comparable or better fleet defense [ i know that thats a dieing breed of air combat but i concidor it a very important ] to an F14.
as it will be a LO or very LO design the internal missiles will allow it to loiter without radar and the AESA and the sensors which have been go over. i feel that a meteor armed F35 would be a very impressive fleet defense

 

[Aussie Digger]

i was wondering that as the F35 was going to armed with the meteor missile in European service. would that give it a comparable or better fleet defense [ i know that thats a dieing breed of air combat but i concidor it a very important ] to an F14.
as it will be a LO or very LO design the internal missiles will allow it to loiter without radar and the AESA and the sensors which have been go over. i feel that a meteor armed F35 would be a very impressive fleet defense

Yes, it is very likely the F-35 will have the Meteor AAM integrated on to it, as well as other European weapons including the ASRAAM missile and Scalp/Storm Shadow standoff missiles, Brimstone A2G missiles and the Norwegian NSM/JSM missile.

I guess it'll mostly be decided by the operators themselves, what they are prepared to pay for in terms of weapons integration costs and what capability and "other" benefits there are in the idea (ie: industrial etc).

 

[gf0012-aust]

BKNO, you've had 2 other Mods make the same request that you use the proper HTML quoting system when responding.

This is your second warning. A 3rd warning will result in temp suspension of your posting privileges.

Please make the effort.

as Aussie Digger has shown, it's a matter of using (and insert the letter O rather than the Zero substituted here:

[qu0te] Do this now [/quote] will translate to:

Do this now

Everyone is expected to abide by these requests - everyone has to learn how to do it, esp as its not difficult to do.


Also, Please attend to the earlier request before responding to any more posts as per.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5982

 

[rjmaz1]

Looking at the features of F-35 i'd say it is optimised for high-subsonic flight at lower altitudes than the LWF were designed to be most effiscient. = Max turn rates at M 0.9 <> 40.000.

With the LWF being the F-16, yes it is indeed optimised for max turn rates at Mach 0.9 with NO external stores. An F-16 without weapons is not worth much, as soon as you put weapons on the wings the drag increases and the speed decreases. The F-16 will no longer be doing fast, sharp turns as it does not have the energy to overcome the extra drag. An F-16 with two bombs, two tanks and two missiles cant even reach Mach 0.9 without afterburners at any altitude. The F-16 may very well be optimised to perform turns at Mach 0.9 but it cant even reach that speed without afterburners in combat config.

The F-35 has already proven that it can cruise at Mach 0.8 at only 30,000 feet. This is the speed it will be traveling at with two bombs, two missiles. If you have a look at the cruising speed of the F-16 and F-15, its only mach 0.8, not even 500 knots... The F-35 has already acheived this speed at only 30,000feet. I have heard from a reliable source that Mach 1 is the goal at a higher altitude without using afterburners.

As i said before If you compare all aircraft with a pair of bombs and missiles the only aircraft faster than the F-35 will be the F-22 and probably the Eurofighter. The Rafale, Gripen and Suhkoi's will travel at a similar speed and will not be any faster in combat config.

The concorde has a thrust to weight ratio of less than half of the F-35 yet it can cruise at nearly twice the speed. What does that say about your thrust to weight calculations?

LOWER than that of Typhoon or Rafale, as for the question of FUEL:

F-35 can't DUMP or jettison it, Typhoon or Rafale are designed for combat weight with 50% internal fuel, this increases the difference in their favour.

It has been proven over the last 50 years that external fuel tanks are nearly always used. It is so hard to find pictures of combat aircraft without a pair of fuel tanks such as F-16's, F-15's, F/A-18's, Tornado's unless its an air show or for a magazine.

When you add two external fuel tanks all of the fuel in one of the fuel tanks is required just to overcome the drag added by both tanks. So adding two tanks only gives you a range increase on paper of a single tank. If you know that external tanks will always be carried then it is smart to make the internal fuel volume bigger as the drag is only 10% of that compared to carrying it externally. They jetison the external tanks because they provide so much drag, if external tanks magically only had 10% of the drag then they would probably keep them on the wings.

If you compare the Eurofighter with the F-35 both with 10,000lb of fuel, If you add roughly 5,000lb of fuel externally to the Eurofighter the F-35 would only require an additional 2,500lb of internal fuel to travel the same distance as this fuel produces no extra drag in the F-35 design. As i said before half of the external fuel is required just to overcome the extra drag. Add the full 18,000lb of fuel into the F-35 and the Eurofighter would have to carry a massive 16,000lb of fuel externally by comparison. Bringing its total to fuel load to 26,000lb... Hold on the Eurofighter cant carry that much so that means the F-35 on internal fuel will most likely travel further than the Eurofighter with max internal AND external fuel.

This is why the 4th generation aircraft will not be able to compete with the F-35.

The same thing applies with external weapons. Add two 2,000lb bombs onto the wings of a 4th generation aircraft and the aircraft will slow down. The extra drag will reduce range dramatically. With the F-35 the weapons being internal only produce a fraction of the drag allowing it to travel faster. The empty weight has to be heavier due to all the massive internal space required for fuel and weapons. This extra mass of course will look bad if you try to work out the thrust to weight ratio using its empty weight.

In airshow config all that space is wasted as it takes up so much weight when it will only perform with 25% fuel and no weapons. If they were to make the F-35 an airshow performer they would have removed the weapons bay and halved the internal fuel as they are not needed. The F-35 would be much lighter and possibly weigh a similar amount to the F-16, but with a huge thrust increase. Now that would be an impressive air show performance :lol2