Read the forum code of contact
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No need for the extra maneuverability on JSF an air dominance platform like the F/A-22 would want. And the TVC nozzles on the F/A-22 weren't even necessary, the requirement for TVC was part of the STOL requirement which was deleted in the '80s. Lockheed had already incorporated TVC into their design and stuck with it.
I wonder if the F-35B can VIFF like the Harrier?
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I doubt the F35 would be able to demonstrate "viffing" as shown the harrier. After all that sort of manouvrebility is probably a function of the harriers side exhaust nozzles. However vectored thrust will definitely make the plane a member of the super-manouvrebility club.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You got it backwards I think...the F-35 doesn't have vectored thrust because, as a strike fighter, it has no need for the extra agility that TVC would give it in air-to-air combat. It's primary AA weapon is the AIM-120, not the AIM-9X...it is certainly not intended to be hunting down other fighters. Self defense is one thing, actively looking for a fight is another entirely! Not that it lacks the capability, and it will be a maneuverable platform no doubt, but the F/A-22 with TVC should fly rings around it. The Su-30MKI might as well, I suppose, but the real threat would come from the escorting F/A-22...
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no i'm saying that the harrier could show more "viffing" because of the side placed nozzles. clearly an F35 or a MKI would not be able to show the same degree of manouvrebility as the harrier as their exausts cannot point 'forward' as the harriers can.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, the Harrier can't perform the infamous 360-degree backflip the Su-30MKI can. Comparing their maneuverability is really moot as a Harrier would eat a BVR AAM before it got into a dogfight and had a chance to try a VIFF maneuver on the offending AAM launcher.
As for the F-35B/VIFF concept, it would probably be dependent on the reaction time of the nozzle. From watching some of the test video it appears that it takes a second or two to get the nozzle in position for a vertical landing, so I doubt it has the reaction time necessary for quick TVC maneuvering. The Su-30MKI and F/A-22 are another story altogether as their TVC engines are integrated into the FCS specifically to provide more agility, and have rather quick response time by necessity.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scooter, the F-35 will be a capable air to air platform, don't get me wrong. It will serve the RN and other export customers rather well in that regard as it will have first-look first-shot capability due to its stealth design and the AIM-120C. Maneuverability should be comparable to a late model F-16, and it definitely has the power coming out of the rear to get moving.
As for the USN, their F-35Cs will primarily be strike assets. The Super Mistake will take the air defense role from the F-14, as they are starting to now. In certain situations the F-35C will of course be able to provide a perfectly effective air defense platform if needbe.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
even the plain vanilla Su27 or even the MiG 29 can do the COBRA AFAIK. Thats a function of its aerodynamics rather than TV. in WVR I would take the harrier over the MKI or the F35 as (only) far as viffing manouvrebility is concerned.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Cobra only involves an AoA of 100 degrees or so. The Su-30MKI can do a complete 360-degree flip while moving forward at the same time.
There's an amusing thought...an errant Harrier finds an Su-30MKI on his tail, executes his VIFF to get behind the FLANKER, only to watch as it enters the 360-degree backflip and throws an R-73 at the irritating target :D
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Like a plain Su 27! no big deal - TV helps but can also be done without TV.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 03:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only the Su-35 #711 (the ex-Su-37) could manage the backflip without TVC. It had a modified FCS which enabled it to replicate the agility it had when it used the thrust vectoring AL-31s. A baseline Su-27 or Su-27SK is not going to pull this off: the FCS doesn't support such a maneuvering capability.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 04:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think many people underestimate how capable the F-35 will be in the air-to-air arena.
That thing has a huge enigne in the rear, and I'd be willing to be that it will eventually get an even more powerful engine (though more than 40,000 pounds of thrust in a fighter-sized engine will be quite a feat!)
Combine that with stealth characteristics, great visibility for the pilot, helmet-mounted sight and AIM-9X if necessary, plus AIM-120C, and a great radar and you have a truly great F-16 successor.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 04:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's the reason the F-136 is being investigated as an alternate powerplant for the F/A-22, and the engine for the proposed FB-22. Lots of power there.
By: - 21st September 2003 at 05:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually the F-35 doesnt have as good thrust to weight as the Typhoon or the Eagle.
The F-35's weight is still a bone of contention and the exact figure has not been released, some say because it is oveweight. The original F-35 was not supposed to have 9g manoevure. But it has now at the expense of extra weight from strengthening the frame.
Anyway the clean weight is supposed to be around 27 000 lbs. With a full load of fuel, ie 15-17 000, it's going to have a 1-1 ratio, assuming the engine is giving a max of 45 000. Add some weapons and that ratio goes down even more.
Does anyone here know what the F-35's radius is supposed to be, with weapons in the bays only...I hear it is better than the F-22??Which has caused embarressment...
By: Anonymous (not verified) - 21st September 2003 at 03:04
Why does the F-35A & F-35C not have vectored thrust as on the F/A-22?