Read the forum code of contact
By: 3rd July 2010 at 03:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Well, they all have a similar T/W & Wing Loading, so should be fairly similar,
except for Rafale that has a wing loading of 326 kg/m^2, as opposed to
446 kg/m^2.
EF 311 kg/m^2
Rafale 326 kg/m^2
Gripen 336 kg/m^2
F-15 358 kg/m^2
Su-27 371 kg/m^2
F-22 375 kg/m^2
F-4 phantom 383 kg/m^2
F-16C Block30 430 kg/m^2
F-35 446 kg/m^2
Boeing 747 727 kg/m^2
(Lower=better)
Newton's laws of motion
F = m x a
Momentum
p = mv
Circular motion
a = v2 / r
F = ma = mv2/r
Btw i read a pilot claiming block 30 to be No 1 of the F-16's fight wise, after that it was more and more diverted towards A2G.
By: 3rd July 2010 at 03:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-When comparing dirty v dirty in a permissive threat environment...
F-35 retains an advantage over UAE's Block 60s in:
radar modes
radar and EOTS sensor range
ESM pointing accuracy and number of library entries
automated sensor cuing
automated target recognition
day/night situational awareness via EODASS
intraflight datalinking
SATCOM
By: 3rd July 2010 at 04:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think I get the basic theme of what you're asking/suggesting OP.
I'm inclined to think that high survivability technology aside (stealth is a somewhat fictionalising term), the F-35 has taken some compromises in terms of pure single minded engineering like bomb trucking and air-air. In this sense equalling the capabilities of the F-16 in these areas is a big win, I don't think it's designed to supersede them.
By that I mean of course the whole purpose to the F-35 is to bring high survivability technologies to the roles of the Viper/Hornet (even to an extent attack helicopters), whilst achieving as close to their capabilities in these roles as design constraints for the use of high survivability technologies allow. Then there is the further compromise of combining the mission requirements of at least three warplane types in service onto a common airframe production line.
Most of the time it's going to perform as well as alternatives, it's going to be better in any penetration of enemy defences, including SEAD (word is no truly satisfactory replacement has been in service since the F-4G), but in outright fighter performance air-air you might find times you'd rather be in a Viper. In controlled airspace you might find times you'd rather be on a strike mission in a Hornet.
But ultimately these speculations are superfluous because the F-35 isn't in service yet, who knows? Give it about five years of active service in the field and I think we'll have a much better picture of comparative mission performance and combat capabilities (or shortcomings) of the F-35.
By: 3rd July 2010 at 04:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-
I'm NOT saying I want both aircraft in a simulated dogfight.
I am wondering how the F-35 compares to other aircraft without the stealth features?
*People claim the F-35 is a dog, but does it compare to a blk 60 in the bomb truck role?
*what can a dirty F-35 do that a f-16 or for that matter a Rafale cannot?
* if the F-35 with no stealth is a dog then wouldn't that make F-18,f-16 and Rafale dogs also.
Even 'dirty' the F-35A is MUCH stealthier than any 4th/4.5 generation fighter with a comparable payload.
ALL 'comparable' light/medium weight 4th/4.5 generation fighters require 2-3 external tanks to achieve the combat radius/range of the F-35A with internal fuel.
The F-35 is NOT a dog. A COMBAT CONFIGURATION F-35A has similar accelleration & turning abilities as a CLEAN F-16C Block 50. Load up a Typhoon/Rafale/Fulcrum (whatever) with a comparable load as the F-35A carries internally & they are not as fast/quick/agile as they are clean...
Even without stealth the F-35A has superior avionics, situational awareness, et cetera...
***
Well, they all have a similar T/W & Wing Loading, so should be fairly similar,
except for Rafale that has a wing loading of 326 kg/m^2, as opposed to
446 kg/m^2.EF 311 kg/m^2
Rafale 326 kg/m^2
Gripen 336 kg/m^2
F-15 358 kg/m^2
Su-27 371 kg/m^2
F-22 375 kg/m^2
F-4 phantom 383 kg/m^2
F-16C Block30 430 kg/m^2
F-35 446 kg/m^2Boeing 747 727 kg/m^2
(Lower=better)
Not that nonsense again...
This is 2010, not 1910.
Btw i read a pilot claiming block 30 to be No 1 of the F-16's fight wise, after that it was more and more diverted towards A2G.
Yes, most F-16 pilots which have had the opportunity to fly multiple Blocks are most likely to indicate that the pure flight performance of the Block 30 is the best. Block 50/42 & 50/52 do not offer much additional thust, 'only' additional weight & the Block 60 additional thrust basically just compensates for its additional weight with none offering greater lift or control authority.
By: 3rd July 2010 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Truly, with all respect, comparing a speculative block5 F-35A (maybe 2020 IOC at best?), vs an already operational block 60 is not the most rational of X vs Y comparisons. imho.
Why not compare a blk2 F-35A (which is what you'd buy today) with the blk60?
But if one insists on speculating on the blk5 F-35 system, then perhaps it's more worthy conjecturing on a block 75+ F-16, which could be operational by 2020?
Yet price wise, you might have to contemplate a 2v1 scenario in all fairness, due to probably affording 2x F-16s vs 1x LRIP block2 unit.
So when comparing today's available apples vs apples blocks, one would obviously have to go with a block 60 by mere fact that it is cleared for various weapons, pods and ext tanks which the block 2 is not yet cleared for.
In comparing a 2020'ish speculative blk5 vs speculative block 75+ F-16 though... before making any rational assessments one would of course have to first outline the design specs of your block 75+! (something LMT could probably brief you on as a hypothetical concept only, but then kill you)
Cheers-
By: 3rd July 2010 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I doubt there will ever be a Block 70+ F 16. The F 16 IN offered to the IAF for MRCA is basically a Block 60 with a different EW suite. UAE is more likely to go for F 35 than upgrading their 60s to 70+ standards.
The only scenario in which there will be an advanced F 16 ie better than Block 60 is it winning the MRCA and then having an MLU down the line for the IAF. May be India will have a lot more money by then and replace them with F 35s as well !
By: 3rd July 2010 at 12:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not that nonsense again...Lol, so every fighter manufacturer world wide, including your LM & F-35, are just dumb to struggle with weight concern, or just don't get it that it's 2010 now ?This is 2010, not 1910.
Klingon tech hasn't made Newton, gravity or momentum obsolete just yet. And yes, that include JSF.
By: 3rd July 2010 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Truly, with all respect, comparing a speculative block5 F-35A (maybe 2020 IOC at best?), vs an already operational block 60 is not the most rational of X vs Y comparisons. imho.Why not compare a blk2 F-35A (which is what you'd buy today) with the blk60?
But if one insists on speculating on the blk5 F-35 system, then perhaps it's more worthy conjecturing on a block 75+ F-16, which could be operational by 2020?
Yet price wise, you might have to contemplate a 2v1 scenario in all fairness, due to probably affording 2x F-16s vs 1x LRIP block2 unit.
So when comparing today's available apples vs apples blocks, one would obviously have to go with a block 60 by mere fact that it is cleared for various weapons, pods and ext tanks which the block 2 is not yet cleared for.
In comparing a 2020'ish speculative blk5 vs speculative block 75+ F-16 though... before making any rational assessments one would of course have to first outline the design specs of your block 75+! (something LMT could probably brief you on as a hypothetical concept only, but then kill you)
Cheers-
You couldn't get 2 Block 60(or 75) F-16s for the price of an F-35A though, and the F-16 will always be at a disadvantage RCS wise.
By: 3rd July 2010 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-[QUOTE=pfcem;1603768]
Even without stealth the F-35A has superior avionics, situational awareness, et cetera...
***
Not that nonsense again...
This is 2010, not 1910.
[QUOTE]
this is 2010 and there are still weight and wingarea physics that makes a plane agile..
I still thinks that 4 gen fighters will be much better in this area due to its designgoals.
To have a clean but big belly is not better aerodynamics, otherwise this would have been done in the past.
The requirement is still stealth, and it is a aerodynamics killer.
hopefully we see it in future dogfights....
Superior avionics is one thing, but it can be integrated to any frame.
IR and RCS signatures are things that can not be migrated and so that is the strongpoints of F-35(as we all know).
What it comes down to is exploiting the enemies weaknesses, and use as much as possible its own strongpoints.
the dominant player is the one best of playing this game.
By: 4th July 2010 at 06:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-
Lol, so every fighter manufacturer world wide, including your LM & F-35, are just dumb to struggle with weight concern, or just don't get it that it's 2010 now ?
You should try reading what I was responding to instead of your usual makeing up BS arguments nobody has made.
***
this is 2010 and there are still weight and wingarea physics that makes a plane agile..
This is 2010 where for 4 decades wingloading is only really usefull in scaling identical/near idetical designs. Since the 1970's, wing area (from which wing loading is derived) no longer accurately respesents the actual lift of most combat aircraft.
Just as an example...compare the wing loading of the F-16A & the Mirage 2000 vs their respective agility.
I still thinks that 4 gen fighters will be much better in this area due to its designgoals.
The design goals of the F-35 INCLUDE F-16 & F/A-18 like flight performance.
To have a clean but big belly is not better aerodynamics, otherwise this would have been done in the past.
Its called a lifting body...
The requirement is still stealth, and it is a aerodynamics killer.
Dream on. Just look at the F-22 - or are one of the ignoranuses who insist it is a dog too...
Superior avionics is one thing, but it can be integrated to any frame.
No they can not - there is only so much space available.
By: 4th July 2010 at 07:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Just as an example...compare the wing loading of the F-16A & the Mirage 2000 vs their respective agility.
A better example is when you compare both with somewhat equal negative stability, or positive for that matter, for apples comparison.
Only that canard-deltas has best aerodynamics at ~10% negative stability, where tail layout is best at ~neutral.
By: 4th July 2010 at 08:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The requirement is still stealth, and it is a aerodynamics killer.
This is patently false.
By: 4th July 2010 at 08:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-obligatory, dam that wing loading and body lift
f-35 promise 200 dps roll and 55 deg aoa
rafale 190 dps roll and 30 deg aoa
By: 4th July 2010 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-obligatory, dam that wing loading and body lift
f-35 promise 200 dps roll and 55 deg aoa
rafale 190 dps roll and 30 deg aoa
Insert a 2 instead of that 1.
And wow flying straight ahead nose up by 55° is helping you in which way? Does it mean the F-35 will be able to turn tighter and faster? Certainly not.
By: 4th July 2010 at 08:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-no, i was being kind on the rafale for 190, its 150-225 max and 15-30 aoa depending on load
f-35 200 and 55 was loaded, havent seen unloaded stats or max are
the f-35a is going to out turn and out accelerate a f-16 by a wide margin
pulls more g and takes less time in acceleration
By: 4th July 2010 at 08:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-no, i was being kind on the rafale for 190, its 150-225 max and 15-30 aoa depending on load
f-35 200 and 55 was loaded, havent seen unloaded stats or max are
the f-35a is going to out turn and out accelerate a f-16 by a wide margin
pulls more g and takes less time in acceleration
Maximum roll rate of the Rafale is 290°/sec, though this is usually restricted to 270°/sec in the AA FCS mode and limited to 190°/sec in the AG FCS mode. This is in 1 g condition, with heavier loads/higher AoA the roll rate decreases.
And for the chart, fine LM marketing. Would have been nice to come up with some more details and data to verify the charts.
By: 4th July 2010 at 09:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-no its FCS restricted to 225 a2a
its load restricted to 150 a2g
heavier loads would be less
http://rafale.freeforums.org/airframe-strengh-and-aerodynamics-t55.html
it is a shame, if either of us are invited to a f-35 power point, we would get the detail
By: 4th July 2010 at 09:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-no its FCS restricted to 225 a2a
its load restricted to 150
http://rafale.freeforums.org/airframe-strengh-and-aerodynamics-t55.htmlit is a shame, if either of us are invited to a f-35 power point, we would get the detail
ROFL the article you get your data from is about the F/A-18 Super Hornet, not the Rafale!
By: 4th July 2010 at 09:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-LOL, you're right, oh well back to google, BBS
rafale
270 a2a
190 a2g
looks like we will have to wait for the f-35 a & c
f-35b
~300
So it rolls at the F-35's promised roll-rate at 300 degrees per second. It apparently tops out at Mach 1.6,
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/i-flew-supersonic-barely-at-th.html
By: 4th July 2010 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I wonder why those charts show the F-16C when the F-15E is the premier USAF jet the F-35 will replace. The F-35 will have about the same thrust as the original F-15, too, so it should whip the doo out of the F-16. And why the F-16C and F-18C in the first place? Wouldn't it make more sense to show the F-16 Blk50/52 and F/A-18E if they are going to pick on those two families of aircraft?
btw - these charts are absolutely worthless for comparison sake. How do you know the variance in the bars has any relationship to the magnitude of the actual performance? I could make a .1% difference look like a 50% difference with the right graph.
Posts: 643
By: jessmo24 - 3rd July 2010 at 02:29
I'm NOT saying I want both aircraft in a simulated dogfight.
I am wondering how the F-35 compares to other aircraft without the stealth features?
*People claim the F-35 is a dog, but does it compare to a blk 60 in the bomb truck role?
*what can a dirty F-35 do that a f-16 or for that matter a Rafale cannot?
* if the F-35 with no stealth is a dog then wouldn't that make F-18,f-16 and Rafale dogs also.