The Biggest Loser - Who Will It Be?

[Occum]

This appeared up on the Air Power Australia media page earlier today.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-160407-1.html

Have checked the figures and can't fault them. Can anyone else?

FYI, based on some of the configurations/weapons loads that are around in various briefings and papers, the F-22 would likely have a higher MIFW. Given the structural layout and extensive use of titanium this is highly probable.

Enjoy.



For rjmaz1: check out F-22 fuel load, empty weight and then you might want to learn a bit about SFC and how performance testing is really done. Hint - Certainly not on the basis of fuel fraction proportionality.

 

[alexsa]

Even at a MTOW of 60,000 lbs, none of the three JSF model designs present with an aircraft that is able to take off with full internal fuel and its full external payload, let alone internal and external payloads, together. The latter would not be possible even if the MTOW were 66,000 lbs. Similarly, all three variants have a negative weight growth factor, that is, there is no margin in the design for increases in weight over the aircraft's life, whereas aircraft like the F-22A, F-15C/E and F-111, as well as the Russian Su-27/30 family of aircraft, have significant margins for growth.

Why is the external payload rated before the internal in this article. The aircraft interdiction capability is based on and internal load with full fuel.

15C/E and F-111, as well as the Russian Su-27/30 family of aircraft, have significant margins for growth

Hung on the wings with the drag and fuel issues.

F-22A, have significant margins for growth.

A2A no argument BUT the F-22 does not have the strike capability intended for the JSF...... yet. If it is to get it who is going to pay for it... not the US they will rely on JSF.

But lets repeat the F-111 lesson .... condemn without hard evidence (the JSF that is). I wonder what the APA position will be in 15 years time.

I would love to see a F-22/JSF combination but the reality we cannot afford it nor is it available at this time.

 

[Magoo]

I would love to see a F-22/JSF combination but the reality we cannot afford it nor is it available at this time.

Don't be so sure.

If the USAF gets a few extra F-22s authorised, production may just run long enough for the Obey Amendment to be overcome and the aircraft made available for limited foreign sale.

If this occurs and production can be extended to 2013-14, then two or three dozen Block 30/40 F-22s might make a very attractive option to replace the first retirement lot of our F/A-18A/Bs.

The Super Hornets can then play out their "bridging" function and then make way for 'all up round' Block 5 F-35s around 2020 or thereabouts.

Interestng times...

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

Don't be so sure.

If the USAF gets a few extra F-22s authorised, production may just run long enough for the Obey Amendment to be overcome and the aircraft made available for limited foreign sale.

If this occurs and production can be extended to 2013-14, then two or three dozen Block 30/40 F-22s might make a very attractive option to replace the first retirement lot of our F/A-18A/Bs.

The Super Hornets can then play out their "bridging" function and then make way for 'all up round' Block 5 F-35s around 2020 or thereabouts.

Interestng times...

Cheers

Magoo

Interesting times indeed and IMO it is a ringing endorsement of the decision to buy FA-18Fs as a bridging solution. Taking pressure off the need to buy early production F-35s will enable the RAAF to keep all options under constant review and adapt to changing circumstances. A mix of 24-36 F-22s, rounded out by a force of late production F-35s is a pleasant thought.

This appeared up on the Air Power Australia media page earlier today.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-160407-1.html

Have checked the figures and can't fault them. Can anyone else?

FYI, based on some of the configurations/weapons loads that are around in various briefings and papers, the F-22 would likely have a higher MIFW. Given the structural layout and extensive use of titanium this is highly probable.

Enjoy.

I have no arguments re the figures for the F-22 and if it is ever available I would love to see it as part of the RAAF's force mix.

Re the F-35 I think it is too early to start condemning an aircraft that has just entered its test phase. The comment made by alexsa about ‘the F111 lesson’ is worth noting. I well remember the media and expert lampooning that this aircraft was given when it was first ordered for the RAAF in 1963 and IIRC, weight was one of the issues. Every opportunity was taken to criticise what turned out to be one of the all time great strike aircraft.

As much as I have been an admirer of the F111 I do find it hard to accept that an aircraft that is in its 4th decade of service could have more growth potential than a new design that is receiving such a heavy investment from both US and foreign air forces.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Don't be so sure.

If the USAF gets a few extra F-22s authorised, production may just run long enough for the Obey Amendment to be overcome and the aircraft made available for limited foreign sale.

If this occurs and production can be extended to 2013-14, then two or three dozen Block 30/40 F-22s might make a very attractive option to replace the first retirement lot of our F/A-18A/Bs.

The Super Hornets can then play out their "bridging" function and then make way for 'all up round' Block 5 F-35s around 2020 or thereabouts.

Interestng times...

Cheers

Magoo

I don't disagree. I have alway hoped that the F-18F/JSF combination may move to a JSF/F-22 down the line IF more F-22's are built. Currently that is not on the table.

The problem I have is the slagging off of all other aricraft (particularly the JSF) in the desprate attempt to get the F-22 as a pure A2A platform now.

 

[knightrider4]

Air 6000

I for one being of all things a health professional merely pop in from time to time to follow what is an interesting if not slightly tedious thread. But I must say the industrious critique of the JSF is amusing. Australia is under no obligation to purchase it and the consortium which builds it probably doesnt care all that much one way or the other. The aircraft will be produced in numbers if Australia doesnt want it then fine buy something else. Will the US sell the Raptor in the future who knows, somehow I think its optimistic to expect so and why indeed should they. So by all means look at alternatives there are many fine combat aircraft around, but it appears to me as simply an interested individual that some here act like petulant children because their 'toy' is unavailable for sale. Grab a box of tissues and get over it and start looking at Sukhois.

 

[alexsa]

I for one being of all things a health professional merely pop in from time to time to follow what is an interesting if not slightly tedious thread. But I must say the industrious critique of the JSF is amusing. Australia is under no obligation to purchase it and the consortium which builds it probably doesnt care all that much one way or the other. The aircraft will be produced in numbers if Australia doesnt want it then fine buy something else. Will the US sell the Raptor in the future who knows, somehow I think its optimistic to expect so and why indeed should they. So by all means look at alternatives there are many fine combat aircraft around, but it appears to me as simply an interested individual that some here act like petulant children because their 'toy' is unavailable for sale. Grab a box of tissues and get over it and start looking at Sukhois.

Don't mind the sentiment but the SU series is not a JSF or F-18F (block II) in terms of systems and, despite its fantastice performance figures, appears to be a bit of a dog on maintenance.

I am quite happy with the F-18F option to give us time to look at later blocks of JSF.

 

[rjmaz1]

For rjmaz1: check out F-22 fuel load, empty weight and then you might want to learn a bit about SFC and how performance testing is really done. Hint - Certainly not on the basis of fuel fraction proportionality.

You have got to be kidding me....

The quoted F-22 empty weight isn't even in the same ball park as its real weight. Where did APA pull that figure from, wikipedia based on the YF-22? nfloorl:

Considering we're using incorrect facts lets use the empty weight of the X-35 in place of the F-35.. hmmm a much lighter 12,000kg.. Sounds good to me, plenty of growth now

Everything i've seen shows the F-22 weighs ATLEAST 16,000kg with some even using the massive 18,000kg mark. Even the airforce fact sheet lists aprox 18,000kg as its empty weight.

18,000kg is very realistic considering the latest Su-30 weighs nearly 18,000kg and it doesn't have an internal weapons bay.

Of course the empty weight of the F-22 has never been made public, you could pull a number out of thin air, put it up on wikipedia and before you know it you have dozens of people using your figures thinking they are fact.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I for one being of all things a health professional merely pop in from time to time to follow what is an interesting if not slightly tedious thread. But I must say the industrious critique of the JSF is amusing. Australia is under no obligation to purchase it and the consortium which builds it probably doesnt care all that much one way or the other. The aircraft will be produced in numbers if Australia doesnt want it then fine buy something else. Will the US sell the Raptor in the future who knows, somehow I think its optimistic to expect so and why indeed should they. So by all means look at alternatives there are many fine combat aircraft around, but it appears to me as simply an interested individual that some here act like petulant children because their 'toy' is unavailable for sale. Grab a box of tissues and get over it and start looking at Sukhois.

You don't understand. They only have Australia's best interest at heart. There is NO ulterior motive in the enormous amount of work they put into denigrating Defence's future air combat plans, OR it's Caribou replacement plans.

Honestly... nfloorl:

 

[Aussie Digger]

Here's an opposing view to that espoused by the APA crowd. It's probably going to upset some, but don't they want "debate" on the matter?

http://geocities.com/element1loop/index.html

 

[Tasman]

Here's an opposing view to that espoused by the APA crowd. It's probably going to upset some, but don't they want "debate" on the matter?

http://geocities.com/element1loop/index.html

That makes a very interesting and comprehensive read, even from someone describing himself as "a private citizen and a civilian with time on my hands". The response should be equally interesting. The comments about the final decision re the NACC being complicated by the upcoming election campaign is a worry that I have had for some time. I don't want to see Australia's future air combat force being compromised by political point scoring.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Here's an opposing view to that espoused by the APA crowd. It's probably going to upset some, but don't they want "debate" on the matter?

http://geocities.com/element1loop/index.html

I found it very refreashing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You have got to be kidding me....

The quoted F-22 empty weight isn't even in the same ball park as its real weight. Where did APA pull that figure from, wikipedia based on the YF-22? nfloorl:

Of course the empty weight of the F-22 has never been made public, you could pull a number out of thin air, put it up on wikipedia and before you know it you have dozens of people using your figures thinking they are fact.

Actually, Occum, Magoo and myself have copies of the official Tech Order (eg) "nn"-E9 for the F-22 (and including the F-117) as used by USAF.

The figures he quotes are official data. ie Tech Orders - not Wiki data at all. Thats why we know you're speaking rubbish on some of your claims.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Here's an opposing view to that espoused by the APA crowd. It's probably going to upset some, but don't they want "debate" on the matter?

http://geocities.com/element1loop/index.html

I haven't read the whole blog, but the intro is interesting

"...However, this very choice was examined and the appropriate decisions taken several years ago, by RAAF, and the government firmly supports the logic and validity of the RAAF’s decision,..."



now hang on, the RAAF selected the JSF???
I knew I had a crook memory, but that's not quite how I remember the way it went.

Then a little lower re Air 6000
"..Background: The Government has identified that this capability could be provided by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and has as a result joined with other partner nations in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase..."
(also to be found at http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/AIR6000/)

hmmm, 'the government has identified' - so was it the RAAF or the government? How was this identification process done?
And was it done before or after the JSF was selected for AIR 6000?


rb

 

[Aussie Digger]

I haven't read the whole blog, but the intro is interesting

"...However, this very choice was examined and the appropriate decisions taken several years ago, by RAAF, and the government firmly supports the logic and validity of the RAAF’s decision,..."



now hang on, the RAAF selected the JSF???
I knew I had a crook memory, but that's not quite how I remember the way it went.

Then a little lower re Air 6000
"..Background: The Government has identified that this capability could be provided by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and has as a result joined with other partner nations in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase..."
(also to be found at http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/AIR6000/)

hmmm, 'the government has identified' - so was it the RAAF or the government? How was this identification process done?
And was it done before or after the JSF was selected for AIR 6000?


rb

I guess you'd need to ask Defmin Nelson about that, but it seems to me, that ANY Australian Government would be most unlikely to make a Defence Capability Decision WITHOUT receiving advice from Defence about the capability very least.

ALL Defence acquisitions are ultimately a Government based decision, so I don't see what's wrong with that statement...

 

[Falstaff]

I'm not a JSF-fan, but in this case I think APA's reasoning is flawed somehow. My understanding was that the F-35 was designed with a massive internal fuel capacity so it wouldn't have to rely on external fuel hung under its wings at all. So to my understanding the internal fuel capacity represents more of an option for long range missions with aerial refuelling. I don't think it was ever meant to take off with that amount of fuel.
E.g. our Tornados never fly without their external tanks, no matter if they're full or not (one time they were used to smuggle salmon from norway- no joke!). It would be logic step to design a successor with a fuel capacity that incorporates the external tanks' capacity (which are carried anyway), wouldn't it?
In addition I think the internal fuel capacity will help save costs during peacetime operation (which will make most if not all (hopefully) of the flying hours) as it spares the RAAF's tanker fleet when no or few wepons are carried anyway.

 

[Occum]

Marketing and Relative Merit

'massive' sounds like a marketing term and, afterall, is a somewhat relative measure. What is this compared with -
conformal tank F-15E with some 23 Klbs or F-111 with over 30 Klbs of fuel.

Check out the volume fractions and weight fractions for fuel (careful not to fall into the old trap of using MTOW instead of the Empty Weight - designing aircraft is all about structural efficiency and aerodynamics, don't you know!). As an aside, which air combat aircraft operating or to be operated in, say, the next ten years has the highest fuel weight fraction?

After looking at these fractions, then take a look at the desired outcomes eg. range and endurance, etc.

The modelled/simulated figures are certainly not what one could call 'massive'.

As for taking off with partial fuel loads, that's for armchair wannabe's (oh yeh, and thems who can't). If I had a Nav who suggested such a thing, he wouldn't be - a Nav or WSO or NFO or ACO or whatever they call 'em selves now days, that is.

I suppose comparing with the aircraft that the little beastie is supposed to replace (F-16, F-18, A-10 though the jury appears to still be out on this one), the increase in fuel load is significant in basic poundage but suggest you need to see through demonstrated, hard data what this translates into before giving it anything like a 'massive' label.

 

[ELP]

Kind of like an Admiral reporting to congress on Super Hornet progress and saying the Super Hornet has 40% more range when in fact it only has about 40% more fuel. :

 

[ELP]

I found it very refreashing.

I found it amusing.

 

[Occum]

The Physics Student and the Shutterbug

Kind of like an Admiral reporting to congress on Super Hornet progress and saying the Super Hornet has 40% more range when in fact it only has about 40% more fuel. :

Ah, yes, but some on this forum, like the good Admiral, would claim these to be one and the same.

They would also believe the marketing hype that the super bug is "very, very stealthy!"