F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[miketx]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’

Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?

Last time I flew one it seemed to me the stall speed had dropped from 110 mph to 95 mph.

 

[DrainBamage]

how does it feel to have been a useful idiot

Says the guy who claims there are published specs on F-35 RCS....

 

[Manonthestreet]

Cant do Air Supe...cant do Strike ….why did we buy it again....

 

[HenryBHough]

F35 was never meant to deal with any foreign force. Just for a Democrat regime to attack Americans in America when they don't grease up and bend over according to party diktats.

It's a bell that wants un-ringing but too far along, too many politicians enmeshed in the jobs that would be lost if that happened to tolerate.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Attack craft are never coming back.....Navy chose poorly. F14 Super could have been used as every bit as effective attack as F18....with much longer legs.....

Agreed. But they cut the procurement funds. You could buy 3 F-18s for what one F-14D cost. There just wansn't enough money to have both or enough F-14Ds to do the job. And the F-14 is a really big bird. Where you could park one F-14, you can park 2 F-18s. On a carrier, space is a premium. While I disagree with their decision, I can understand their logic at the time. Today, that logic is biting us in the ass. The A-12 was supposed to fill that role. But even the A-12 only had an 800 mile range which would not have been enough. Any fighter would have to have an excess of 1000 mile radius to counter the antiship weapons of the Russian and Chinese today. Pretty much, the Navy is going to have to be dependent on the Air Force in stopping these threats.

No you couldn't,,,,dont lie......Navy cant count on Airforce......even if they brought attack craft back they have to be escorted and again your range limitation ends your F35 mission short.......how does it feel to have been a useful idiot

I thought, for once, we were going to have a useful discussion. I guess I was wrong. When you get cornered, you resort to a base method of insulting when you have nothing else. How's it feel to be the lowest denominator.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does. It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius. If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons. Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.

Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s. Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s. I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own. The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles. But can I verify this? It's speculation since it's listed as classified.

Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does. It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius. If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons. Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.

Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s. Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s. I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own. The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles. But can I verify this? It's speculation since it's listed as classified.

Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.

More bs .....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does. It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius. If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons. Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.

Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s. Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s. I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own. The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles. But can I verify this? It's speculation since it's listed as classified.

Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.

More bs .....

Then counter it. It's already been reported that Israel is planning on adding both external hard mount tanks and conformal tanks that are both conforming to the stealth outlines of the F-35. The reason they are doing this so they can hit Iran directly without refueling. I don't see the US Navy and the USAF doing anything different. It's how the EF-18G can stay aloft so long. Now, counter it with your own research. Mine is pretty well bullet proof.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does. It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius. If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons. Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.

Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s. Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s. I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own. The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles. But can I verify this? It's speculation since it's listed as classified.

Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.

More bs .....

Then counter it. It's already been reported that Israel is planning on adding both external hard mount tanks and conformal tanks that are both conforming to the stealth outlines of the F-35. The reason they are doing this so they can hit Iran directly without refueling. I don't see the US Navy and the USAF doing anything different. It's how the EF-18G can stay aloft so long. Now, counter it with your own research. Mine is pretty well bullet proof.

Alrdy did///too short legged in Naval version to be of use...…..put your tanks on they'll see ya mile away......drumbeat continues...getting very apparent Navy really doesn't want a lot of these....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The F-35, all models, can use 2 external fuel tanks just like the F-22 does. It can extend the mission out to get them to the 1000 mile radius. If they are going after the bombers and ships they are less likely to be as concerned about the RCS when they launch their own air to ground or air to air weapons. Even with the higher RCS factor, they are still much better off than a F-18 by far.

Cyclone Aviation is already offering external fuel tanks to the US for the F-35s. Israel Aerospace Industries is offering Conformal Fuel Tanks to Israel for their F-35s. I imagine the US might stand in line for the Conformals or just make their own under license or roll their own. The Conformals would also give 4 more internal hardpoints for missiles. But can I verify this? It's speculation since it's listed as classified.

Danged, another nail in Monoboys coffin.

More bs .....

Then counter it. It's already been reported that Israel is planning on adding both external hard mount tanks and conformal tanks that are both conforming to the stealth outlines of the F-35. The reason they are doing this so they can hit Iran directly without refueling. I don't see the US Navy and the USAF doing anything different. It's how the EF-18G can stay aloft so long. Now, counter it with your own research. Mine is pretty well bullet proof.

Alrdy did///too short legged in Naval version to be of use...…..put your tanks on they'll see ya mile away......drumbeat continues...getting very apparent Navy really doesn't want a lot of these....

You only read what you you want to read. The tanks are to be stealthy. The conformal Tanks will blend in with the fuselage and the externals will suck right up to the wings and blend in with them. The externals will hurt the RCS a bit but they will be dropped before encounter so no big deal. Now you see us, now you don't, just change direction after dropping them. The Conformals can stay on since they become part of the stealth package. If it becomes a problem, drop them. Now you see me, now you don't, just change direction. You still assume that the F-35 will be flying level, straight and at the same altitude once it's detected with it's tanks. Newsflash: with it's electronics package, it will know when it's detected and will take the appropriate action. If it means dropping the tanks, it drops the tanks. It doesn't have to get out past 1000 miles to attack. It can get within 250 miles of a ship or 120 miles of an aircraft and attack from there. Since he used the drop tanks to get there, he has plenty of internal fuel to get home. The F-35, with both external tanks and conformal tanks can get out to over 1200 miles without touching his internal tanks. And he then has enough fuel to make it home after his attacks. The C model has an over 700 mile radius which means that he has a 1400 mile distance. If the tanks can get him out to 1200 miles then he has some room for error. Remember, the F-35 isn't just guiding his own weapons in, he's also vectoring in the Ship Weapons in as well. He has extended the range of the Ships Missiles by a very large margin. The F-35 has already been used for that with him over 400 miles ahead of the Ship enabling the Ship to fire out past 1000 miles with missiles that usually can't fire past 450 due to the radar curvature of the earth problems. But a F-35B at 40,000 feet can see well past 1000 miles. Even without the drop tanks, the C model should be able to go out at least 600 miles and vector in the Ships weapons out past 1200 miles. Now, put on the stealth tanks and you can get much, much closer. You can get out to about 1000 miles well past where the F-35 can vector in the Ships weapons. But where it can use it's own after he cleans up. Now you see me, now you don't.

 

[DrainBamage]

Cant do Air Supe...cant do Strike ….why did we buy it again....

At this point you're just a mockery of yourself still chanting the same things years after being proven wrong.

Seriously, what kind of moron looks at a plane that went 20-1 in Red Flag and says it can't do Air Supe? Between you and BluePeter this forum attracts the most braindead posters on the entire internet.

 

[DrainBamage]

Alrdy did///too short legged in Naval version to be of use...…..

This is idiotic, the Navy set their specifications for range and the plane was developed that met those specs.

getting very apparent Navy really doesn't want a lot of these....

Yeah from the same guy who gleefully claimed the Navy F-35 program was in big trouble because of the catobar takeoff vibration issue. They changed the tension a bit, tested, and were all good. You've been babbling about people not wanting this place for years now, and have been proven wrong again and again.

 

[Bleipriester]

Does the F-35 have a S-200 protection now? I mean it had a bird strike protection already.

 

[DrainBamage]

You only read what you you want to read.

What's funny with ManOnTheStreet is he falls into the same logic failure trap on range and performance comparisons over and over:

1. Compares F-35 performance specs to a clean version of another fighter
2. Then proceeds to compare range of F-35 to another fighter in usual combat configuration which means drop tanks

It's incredibly stupid while at the same time he can't even recognize that he's doing it. He'll say the F-35 is slow because it can't fly as fast as an F-16, but every F-16 on every mission will have gas bags that make it slower than an F-35. He'll look at SU-30 and marvel at how fast it is, but the SU-30 would be carrying six big Russian AA missiles under the wings and a drop tank.

Logic failure.

 

[Taz]

it's still superior to anything the Brits can make.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You only read what you you want to read.

What's funny with ManOnTheStreet is he falls into the same logic failure trap on range and performance comparisons over and over:

1. Compares F-35 performance specs to a clean version of another fighter
2. Then proceeds to compare range of F-35 to another fighter in usual combat configuration which means drop tanks

It's incredibly stupid while at the same time he can't even recognize that he's doing it. He'll say the F-35 is slow because it can't fly as fast as an F-16, but every F-16 on every mission will have gas bags that make it slower than an F-35. He'll look at SU-30 and marvel at how fast it is, but the SU-30 would be carrying six big Russian AA missiles under the wings and a drop tank.

Logic failure.

Agreed. If you load out a F-16 with it's full compliment of missiles and two drop tanks, it's barely a supersonic jet. In fact, it's going to not be able to maintain much past .75 mach cruise with only a short burst to Mach 1.3. And the F-18 is even worse. The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down. Then again, the F-15 could probably run the F-22 down in a foot race as well if both were loaded out with externals. I really want to see the F-15 upgraded to the new 31K engines that are available over the 29K engines that they currently use. Can you imagine the F-15 with supercruise? The F-15 can already cruise at Mach .95 now.

 

[DrainBamage]

The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.

You got it, I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:

Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all

“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”

So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.

To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the minimum program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?

 

[miketx]

The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.

You got it, I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:

Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all

“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”

So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.

To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the minimum program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?

It's troubling how we all use "mach" as a measure of speed, even though it is, it is every misleading. At sea level Mach 1.8 is 1360 mph, at 30,000 feet is only 1220. A big difference. Of course all speeds I used are approximate.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.

You got it, I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:

Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all

“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”

So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.

To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the minimum program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?

We all talk about top speed of Mil Power like that is the only top speed. But the F-15 has a speed higher than that. It's V-Max. Mil Power is where you can run for a few minutes (maybe 15 max) and still have a engine at full AB and full engine power and still have enough fuel left to get from point a to b. A fully loaded F-15 will do about Mach 1.8. But it can go higher than that. V-max is used to get it out of trouble. It's where you don't really care if you have any fuel left or if you are spitting engine parts out the back end or melting your leading edges off, you just want out of dodge real fast. This speed has never been published. It has been published for the Mig-25B at Mach 3.2 which will land on one engine with one engine smoked (the clean Recon version). Or Mach 2.8 for the other Mig-25s with smoked engines. So I doubt if even the normal Mig-25 with a combat load can do more than Mach 1.8 either. So Mach 1.6 for a combat loaded F-35A is actually quite respectable compared to other fighters.

But if you clean the other fighters, the F-15 can hit Mach 2.5 in short bursts and the SU-30 can hit Mach 2.25 in short burst. Just remember, the F-35 hitting Mach 1.6 is a short burst, not continuous flight. The only bird that can do anything like that would be the F-22 and even it can't really sustain it's mach 1.8 supercruise for very long either. In reality, the F-15 gets there just as quick.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The only bird that is in the US Inventory that can run with the F-35 with two drop tanks and a full missile loadout (not counting the F-22) is the F-15 which could probably run the F-35 down.

You got it, I just saw an article where an F-15 pilot was discussing the top speeds:

Cold War Eagle Driver: F-15 pilot reveals all

“Dirty, which is to say in normal training or combat configuration, I doubt anyone has gotten an Eagle much over Mach 1.8 in level flight.”

So all these posts MoronOnTheStreet has made lamenting the F-35 as being too slow to be effective, but it's top speed in a combat configuration of mach 1.6 is only barely slower than a combat configured F-15, and surely faster than combat loaded F-16 or F-18. MoronOnTheStreet thinks puddle deep about things, he sees the top speed of a stripped down air show fighter and figures that is a useful practical barometer.

To take that farther, mach 1.6 is the minimum program requirement for F-35 speed, which means an F-35C can fly at mach 1.6. Given that a F-35A is more aerodynamically efficient and weights 5,500 pounds less than an F-35C who really thinks an F-35A can only fly mach 1.6?

It's troubling how we all use "mach" as a measure of speed, even though it is, it is every misleading. At sea level Mach 1.8 is 1360 mph, at 30,000 feet is only 1220. A big difference. Of course all speeds I used are approximate.

To add, it's a real bear to even run Mach at near sea level. The air is thick, the drag is high and the leading edges heat up quick. Let me paint a Fictitious Scenario that never happened (wink, wink)

You need to get close up pictures of a military installation on the Kamchatka Peninsula but your sat is out of place. The SR-71 is not available. What do you do. You fly in a RC-135 Camera version with the new engines TDY into Elmendorf with replacement engines. You speed is slightly less than 600 mph advertised. But it can be done as sealevel. But that's the advertised top speed. So you come in low and fast. You start out low and slow, conserving fuel. You are trying to be as quiet as possible at this point.

Meanwhile, you have already launched an EC-130 that is on station just outside of international waters. They are tracking it. It appears to be flying from Fairbanks to Japan much like a Cargo Plane. No real threat.

As you approach with your RC, you turn on the speed. you hit it up to right around 500 mph and will be over your target in a matter of minutes, you slow down, hit the cameras, turn the bird back over the water and hit the water injection. For the next 15 minutes, you blow black smoke out your tail pipes and keep it below 200 feet off the caps.

The enemy picked you up right after you crossed the 12 mile line coming in. They launched their alert birds. Mig-31s. These things are going to be hitting Mach 2 in a matter of a few minutes. They are going to be passing 20K feet about the time you are making your turn back back towards the water after bagging the pics. The EC-130 goes to work. The enemy now has trouble with communications and radar. So do you but who really cares at this point. The EC can't stay on station but only a couple of minutes. Your RC is now hitting his top speed of 580 mph. The Mig can't really use his radar missiles. You drop your RC down to 50 feet above the caps which disables any long ranged heat seekers. Now, the Mig has to get up close, low and personal. The RC is burning gas fast but he is loaded with it so it's not a concern since he's also a full blown tanker. The Mig now has drop down low and he runs into a real problem. He has to slow down considerably. He is running into a heat problem and he is cobbling fuel like a bandit. The Tanker goes well past his 580mph top speed and enters into transonic at Mach .95. He is buffeting and shaking all over the place. This is an area he was never designed to fly at. In fact, it's not an area ANY aircraft is designed to fly at. The Mig has to overtake him and has to expend a lot of gas and keep at full AB to do it at sea level. He has about 15 minutes of total flight time to do it from the time he launched. That means he has only about 2 minutes of real pursuit time. He is pursuing at Mach 1.2. He fires his heat seakers but they can't lock on. He gets one short burst from his guns but he can't do enough damage to bring the tanker down. The Mig's hail mary fails. The RC makes it out barely. The EC has already left. And the Growlers are waiting to make sure nothing else can get close to the RC later on.

The RC slows down. He's now down to 3 engines and only able to make about 350 mph. He lands back at Elmendorf. All 4 engines are smoked, the entire airframe has been shaken to pieces. There are bits and pieces that are just plain missing. After a full engine swap, the bird is scheduled for a full Depot overhaul. But the pictures are good. Mission accomplished.

Just remember, this never happened. The names of the Aircraft have been changed to protect the Guilty. But at sea level, even a Cargo Plane has a chance of outrunning a fighter. It just might get down to who has the most gas. And if you fighter is loaded to the gills and has trouble maintaining over Mach 1, he can't really fly at subsonic. He will have to go below it and the Tanker type will be on equal footing if he is willing to sacrifice and engine. But he has 4 and can afford it. Your fighter has 2 and can't afford it. Sea Level makes everything pretty much equal at this point.