F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 112

So...you can't answer a simple yes or no question?

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815

I'm probably wasting my time but will hopefully be understood.


2] you find no particular reason for F-35 to fly at any altitude other than 30k ft to and from target either i see,
neither did spudman, and neither does anyone else

A major reason is when the F-35 is part of a large air conflict. If we look at DS as a perfect example with so many aircraft in the air not everyone can cruise around at their optimal cruise altitudes, especially in the early days of a conflict where there are entry and exit lanes into the battlespace. Hence the profiles often shown for F-35 include cruising at non optimal altitudes.

De-confliction is a huge issue and why the CAOC spends so much time preparing an ATO, to ensure that aircraft are appropriately stacked and spaced.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

So...you can't answer a simple yes or no question?

i cant tell what you want me to answer,
i think you are butthurt because of either
1] F-22 operate with internal missile and external drop tanks,
or 2] that gripen E out-ranges F-35.
hope that helps
Attachments

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

I'm probably wasting my time but will hopefully be understood.

A major reason is when the F-35 is part of a large air conflict. If we look at DS as a perfect example with so many aircraft in the air not everyone can cruise around at their optimal cruise altitudes, especially in the early days of a conflict where there are entry and exit lanes into the battlespace. Hence the profiles often shown for F-35 include cruising at non optimal altitudes.

De-confliction is a huge issue and why the CAOC spends so much time preparing an ATO, to ensure that aircraft are appropriately stacked and spaced.

umm, so you intend to mix up F-35 with F-16 in the same strike package ?
ok, tell spudman that

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815

umm, so you intend to mix up F-35 with F-16 in the same strike package ?
ok, tell spudman that

The concept is easy to understand. That you chose not to demonstrates that, as I expected, I wasted my time responding.

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 112

The concept is easy to understand. That you chose not to demonstrates that, as I expected, I wasted my time responding.

Yup Obligatory isn't even willing to answer a simple "yes, I seriously believe that an A2A flight profile is the same as an A2G flight profile" whether for the F-35 or any other plane, or "no, I know they're different, I was just trolling SpudmanWP again by giving a false assumption to try to counter his facts". Either ignorant of different mission profiles, or just trolling and wanting someone to take the time to refute him again.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

I would imagine that A2G entails coming down low for the final leg due to the assumption that you will need to ID the target as opposed to dropping a JDAM on a pre-defined target. Cloud cover may also be an issue with a laser guided round also.

I do not know for sure why every service treats the profiles differently, just that they do.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

I would imagine that A2G entails coming down low for the final leg due to the assumption that you will need to ID the target as opposed to dropping a JDAM on a pre-defined target. Cloud cover may also be an issue with a laser guided round also.

I do not know for sure why every service treats the profiles differently, just that they do.

yes, what i've been saying all along, but it wont need to descend to sea level to use the camera,
so i think theres not much of range difference, and over 90% of targets are fixed coordinates in the first instance

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 5,197

yes, what i've been saying all along, but it wont need to descend to sea level to use the camera,
so i think theres not much of range difference, and over 90% of targets are fixed coordinates in the first instance

Depending on the size of the target you very well may need to come down.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

Depending on the size of the target you very well may need to come down.

Meeh. So very boring.
The point is, a Country like Canada, does not have to fly jets like Gripen or F-35 on deck altitude.
It will be used at 30000ft for patroling.

And Obligatory does have a point, even F-22 are using wetbags out from Alaska and even on US own southern borders. There are ample picture out there to support this.
So it means, the F-35 would also see the use of wetbags.
This is a FACT!

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 112

i cant tell what you want me to answer,
i think you are butthurt because of either
1] F-22 operate with internal missile and external drop tanks,
or 2] that gripen E out-ranges F-35.
hope that helps

So you're still butthurt that others called you out for claiming that "internal air-to-air" means "with external fuel tanks", huh. Tell me, when they say the F-22 has a maximum combat radius of 595 nm, does that include external drop tanks?

(Source of Raptor having 595 nm radius: https://web.archive.org/web/20070221130634/http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2005/0105raptor.pdf#page=4 )

P.S. The F-35 cruises higher than 30k ft, limiting it to 30k ft is decreasing its range.

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815


And Obligatory does have a point, even F-22 are using wetbags out from Alaska and even on US own southern borders. There are ample picture out there to support this.
So it means, the F-35 would also see the use of wetbags.
This is a FACT!

You need to understand how to differentiate between what is a fact and what is an assessment.

Does the F-22 use drop tanks? Yes it does on occasion depending upon the mission type and likely most often as a means of enhancing its RCS...

Will the F-35 use a drop tank? Perhaps...but it needs to be manufactured first. Until that time we can be certain, even factual, in stating that the F-35 does not use drop tanks...

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 112


And Obligatory does have a point, even F-22 are using wetbags out from Alaska and even on US own southern borders. There are ample picture out there to support this.
So it means, the F-35 would also see the use of wetbags.
This is a FACT!

Eventually, sometime far off in the future when drop tanks are developed, tested, etc., sure.

However, Obligatory asserts without evidence that whenever the F-35's range is quoted, it assumes the use of external drop tanks -- even though they don't exist yet, despite the range for stealth aircraft typically given for clean configuration (i.e. no external payload) unless otherwise stated, and despite the description for those profiles saying something along the lines of "internal air-to-air" and the slide directly preceding specifically talking about internal fuel tanks. This even though last I checked the drop tanks are still on the drawing boards, it's still in the CFD and wind tunnel stages, etc., without an actual production or even prototype model built or final design specs/dimensions decided. On the other hand, Obligatory also says that we cannot assume that the F-35 will be able to carry 6 AMRAAM's in the future despite it being slated for Block 4, even though the drop tanks he always assumes, when last I checked, is under a future Block 6/7 (under "range improvements"). In other words, we can't assume F-35 will receive Block 4's 6 internal AMRAAM capability, but we can assume future Block 6/7 external drop tanks when discussing the F-35's current stated performance.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

So you're still butthurt that others called you out for claiming that "internal air-to-air" means "with external fuel tanks", huh. Tell me, when they say the F-22 has a maximum combat radius of 595 nm, does that include external drop tanks?

(Source of Raptor having 595 nm radius: https://web.archive.org/web/20070221130634/http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2005/0105raptor.pdf#page=4 )

P.S. The F-35 cruises higher than 30k ft, limiting it to 30k ft is decreasing its range.

you wish for F-35 to increase range from 600 nm to 760 nm radius, a 27% increase in range,
by reducing total weight 6%, as in swapping a couple of bombs for amraam.

i'm lost for words

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 112

you wish for F-35 to increase range from 600 nm to 760 nm radius, a 27% increase in range,
by reducing total weight 6%, as in swapping a couple of bombs for amraam.

i'm lost for words

That's because you're still refusing to answer whether or not you believe there's a difference between an air-to-ground mission profile and an air-to-air mission profile.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

You need to understand how to differentiate between what is a fact and what is an assessment.

Does the F-22 use drop tanks? Yes it does on occasion depending upon the mission type and likely most often as a means of enhancing its RCS...

Will the F-35 use a drop tank? Perhaps...but it needs to be manufactured first. Until that time we can be certain, even factual, in stating that the F-35 does not use drop tanks...

so now the most obvious reason for F-22 (and by extension F-35) to use drop tanks, is to increase rcs ?

fanboism is getting old, and so am i

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 815

so now the most obvious reason for F-22 (and by extension F-35) to use drop tanks, is to increase rcs ?

fanboism is getting old, and so am i


No extension to F-35, the drop tanks don't exist (just in case you were confused????)

As for the drop tanks, we know the range extension the F-22 gets by carrying them.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]250923[/ATTACH]

The graphic shows the F-22 gains 250nm range extension from using them but... it clearly states the tanks are dropped when empty. Given we see F-22 fly, and not drop the tanks, then the range advantage diminishes. Question is then, why do they carry them?

You could certainly postulate that it is solely to increase range but I believe it is the significant secondary effect of increasing F-22 RCS. When the F-22s are intercepting Bears in Alaska I doubt they do it 600nm away from the Alaskan coastline. It would likely be significantly closer, hence less of a need for a range increase but far more likely reason to increase RCS and prevent Russian aircraft from gaining intelligence on the F-22 (which is one of the key reasons for these patrols, identifying response time, transit speeds, visual changes, RCS when possible etc).

Attachments

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

No extension to F-35, the drop tanks don't exist (just in case you were confused????)

As for the drop tanks, we know the range extension the F-22 gets by carrying them.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]250923[/ATTACH]

The graphic shows the F-22 gains 250nm range extension from using them but... it clearly states the tanks are dropped when empty. Given we see F-22 fly, and not drop the tanks, then the range advantage diminishes. Question is then, why do they carry them?

You could certainly postulate that it is solely to increase range but I believe it is the significant secondary effect of increasing F-22 RCS. When the F-22s are intercepting Bears in Alaska I doubt they do it 600nm away from the Alaskan coastline. It would likely be significantly closer, hence less of a need for a range increase but far more likely reason to increase RCS and prevent Russian aircraft from gaining intelligence on the F-22 (which is one of the key reasons for these patrols, identifying response time, transit speeds, visual changes, RCS when possible etc).

You do know, that in real life, the F-22 do NOT drop it wetbags when it does patrol/Intercept mission in Alaska.
So what would the mission range look like with the F-22 with wetbags, but without jettison them? No doubt the F-22 get some RF when they do its mission in Alaska, don't see how it will change anything though. If it has wetbags attached, they will stay there.
And the same would be said about F-35.

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 91

Topic Closed.