User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:35:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just here to laugh at all the silly Airedales. Well, at least there aren't any egos involved.   
Sometimes I just crack me up! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 1:43:21 PM EDT
[#2]
My limited understanding is that 4th gen fighters spend precious little of their flight time at supersonic speeds. Can anyone confirm that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 2:37:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My limited understanding is that 4th gen fighters spend precious little of their flight time at supersonic speeds. Can anyone confirm that? Supersonic flight (in AB) uses a lot of fuel. Fuel costs money. It also causes more wear and tear on the aircraft. There's no reason to go supersonic for most training evolutions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 2:48:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Supersonic flight (in AB) uses a lot of fuel. Fuel costs money. It also causes more wear and tear on the aircraft. There's no reason to go supersonic for most training evolutions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My limited understanding is that 4th gen fighters spend precious little of their flight time at supersonic speeds. Can anyone confirm that? Supersonic flight (in AB) uses a lot of fuel. Fuel costs money. It also causes more wear and tear on the aircraft. There's no reason to go supersonic for most training evolutions. Not to mention that they'll play hell getting to a supersonic speed with weapons or gas tanks strung about the airframe. Drag and structural limits hate supersonic flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 4:04:59 PM EDT
[#5]
 My pants have created joinder... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 4:06:35 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg My pants have created joinder... Aero-E is going to reach through his ethernet and strangle you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 4:33:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aero-E is going to reach through his ethernet and strangle you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg My pants have created joinder... Aero-E is going to reach through his ethernet and strangle you. My firewall blocks that site. Even Ray Charles ain't seeing that pitcher right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 4:42:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aero-E is going to reach through his ethernet and strangle you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg My pants have created joinder... Aero-E is going to reach through his ethernet and strangle you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:49:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My firewall blocks that site. Even Ray Charles ain't seeing that pitcher right now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg My pants have created joinder... Aero-E is going to reach through his ethernet and strangle you. My firewall blocks that site. Even Ray Charles ain't seeing that pitcher right now. It's like having sex with a supermodel... Theoretical but fun to think about... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2014 11:52:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Hrrrrrng...
They need to give it VTOL so I can launch them from my Battleship...... . Then, you know, make it bigger and turn into a robot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 12:16:12 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOOK AT IT!!!! http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg It's like having sex with a supermodel... Theoretical but fun to think about... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg My pants have created joinder... Aero-E is going to reach through his ethernet and strangle you. My firewall blocks that site. Even Ray Charles ain't seeing that pitcher right now. http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg It's like having sex with a supermodel... Theoretical but fun to think about... That is the sexiest imagined machine ever put onto paper. Most beautiful people aren't even that titillating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 1:34:43 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We had Harriers and Cobra's landing at FARP's made on the highway from bulldozing over light poles... They would land, load up, take off kill shit, then land again... The FARP would break down, haul ass forward to pretty much outside of Arty range rinse wash repeat... Why should it be any different with Osprey's and -35's? In fact, I would imagine that the FARP would still be supported by -53's... since you know... heavy stuff, as well as what gets trucked in. ETA- Another fun pic from the net... Apparently this guy was running out of gas, so he just landed next to the FARP as it was heading north and was all "Fillerup" http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/AH-1W-Super-Cobra-helicopter-146.preview.jpg You're wasting your time Marine. You could draw that shit out in crayon, and it'd still be beyond the capacity of the usual suspects to comprehend |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 1:46:09 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're wasting your time Marine. You could draw that shit out in crayon, and it'd still be beyond the capacity of the usual suspects to comprehend Quote HistoryQuoted: snip You're wasting your time Marine. You could draw that shit out in crayon, and it'd still be beyond the capacity of the usual suspects to comprehend MAGTF! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:10:42 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hrrrrrng... They need to give it VTOL so I can launch them from my Battleship...... . Then, you know, make it bigger and turn into a robot. Why not just make your battleship VTOL? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 8:49:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOOK AT IT!!!! http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg It's like having sex with a supermodel... Theoretical but fun to think about... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg My pants have created joinder... Aero-E is going to reach through his ethernet and strangle you. My firewall blocks that site. Even Ray Charles ain't seeing that pitcher right now. http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/ea/b6/89eab674d0bbb7cef8c93e8c716dcfab.jpg It's like having sex with a supermodel... Theoretical but fun to think about... Even the X-32 PWSC looks good from that angle. 
A swing wing long range strike bomber wouldn't surprise me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 12:09:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A swing wing long range strike bomber wouldn't surprise me. When I see that I imagine the plane saying something like "LOL, UR Dead" or "LOL, Check 6 Maverick" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 1:26:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Where you guys getting those pics? Me want.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 1:34:12 PM EDT
[#18]
I just got in from sitting on my porch and watching them. They used to just do touch and go's but these two are doing stuff I haven't seen them do before. They were kind of hot-dogging them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 2:03:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I see that I imagine the plane saying something like "LOL, UR Dead" or "LOL, Check 6 Maverick" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.desktopwallpaper2.com/desktop-wallpaper-home/Boeing-X-32-hd-picture-widescreen-wallpaper-1280x720-5-50b56dd558e3e-5939.jpg
A swing wing long range strike bomber wouldn't surprise me. When I see that I imagine the plane saying something like "LOL, UR Dead" or "LOL, Check 6 Maverick" This looks like something out of the sequel to the Pixar movie "Cars". What was it called? "Planes" or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 2:43:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 2:50:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. The Marine Corps was forced into the JSF program (and back into guarding strategic weapons) in 1997; prior to that it had its own AV-8 replacement program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 2:59:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. Dumb civvy here, but I heard it would have high-speed performance comparable to an F-16 and low-speed performance comparable to an F/A-18. Did some or all of that not happen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 3:08:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
one of the best parts of being a MEU FSO was I had my own strike and CAS assets, I did not have to put the JTARS in and hope the CAOC approved them. But mah ATO! WHAT HAPPENS TO MEH ATO!?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 3:11:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder what the flight hour program for a 35B unit is going to look like. Isnt TACAIR already hurting for hours? I can only imagine that a 35B will be TWICE as expensive as a Hornet or Harrier to run. So unless we increase the budget or have HALF of the aircraft, the flight hour minimums will be half. That sounds stupid and dangerous. But I am sure someone will say that simulators will make up the rest. Yea. Sure. Sims  The entire lifecycle cost of the -35 is mind boggling. Field mx for a stealth jet? Yeah, I'll believe when I see it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 3:13:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You'd think internal carriage of weapons would improve aerodynamics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. With the engine it has? That's incredible.  Area Ruling is a harsh mistress an unforgiving cunt. You'd think internal carriage of weapons would improve aerodynamics. At the cost of 50 year design limitation on new munitions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 3:14:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they made a bloated, draggy airframe to meet the lowest volume requirement? Genius. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Isn't it an acceptable compromise given the mission? Once off the boat they will utilize the FARP?
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. So they made a bloated, draggy airframe to meet the lowest volume requirement? Genius. Thank this guy... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 3:15:42 PM EDT
[#27]
You get an F35! You get an F35! EVERYBODY GETS AN F35!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 3:40:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Isn't it an acceptable compromise given the mission? Once off the boat they will utilize the FARP?
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. So they made a bloated, draggy airframe to meet the lowest volume requirement? Genius. Thank this guy... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Edward_C._Aldridge%2C_Jr..jpeg/220px-Edward_C._Aldridge%2C_Jr..jpeg Isn't he an astronaut? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 4:09:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't he an astronaut? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Isn't it an acceptable compromise given the mission? Once off the boat they will utilize the FARP?
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. So they made a bloated, draggy airframe to meet the lowest volume requirement? Genius. Thank this guy... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Edward_C._Aldridge%2C_Jr..jpeg/220px-Edward_C._Aldridge%2C_Jr..jpeg Isn't he an astronaut? Everyone wants to be an astronaut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 4:14:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone wants to be an astronaut. yeah, but he made the cut. you jelly, bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 4:34:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah, but he made the cut. you jelly, bro? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Everyone wants to be an astronaut. yeah, but he made the cut. you jelly, bro? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 4:54:34 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the cost of 50 year design limitation on new munitions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-35C is only nominally supersonic and it takes forever to get there. With the engine it has? That's incredible. Area Ruling is a harsh mistress an unforgiving cunt. You'd think internal carriage of weapons would improve aerodynamics. At the cost of 50 year design limitation on new munitions. You'd think they would have learned from the F106/AIM4 experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 4:57:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You'd think they would have learned from the F106/AIM4 experience. 
ETA: I doubt in a room of 50 USAF and USN aviator officers, you could find 7 that could point a F-106 out of a line up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:05:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dumb civvy here, but I heard it would have high-speed performance comparable to an F-16 and low-speed performance comparable to an F/A-18. Did some or all of that not happen? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. Dumb civvy here, but I heard it would have high-speed performance comparable to an F-16 and low-speed performance comparable to an F/A-18. Did some or all of that not happen? Depends on whose numbers you look at. Lockmart will tell you it is better performing than an F-16C, but the devil is in the details. The bottom line is the empty weight of an F-16C is about 18,000 pounds. The empty weight of the F-35A is about 29,000 pounds. It is over 50% heavier than an F-16C. The F-16C has about 29,000 pounds of thrust in afterburner, versus about 40,000 pounds for the F-35A. That is about 25% more thrust, but remember, it is pushing a 50% heavier airframe. Combine that with a wider fuselage cross section (higher drag) and you get a maximum speed of about mach 1.6 in clean configuration at altitude. The F-16C has a top speed of mach 2 in clean configuration at altitude. Now, the F-35 fanboys will say "But the F-35 carries it's weapons internally. etc." And that is true. But when you are talking raw engine/airframe performance, the F-35A is definitely a step backwards from the 40 year old F-16 technology. Not a good thing when you look at the performance figures for other 5th gen fighters being developed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:18:35 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on whose numbers you look at. Lockmart will tell you it is better performing than an F-16C, but the devil is in the details. The bottom line is the empty weight of an F-16C is about 18,000 pounds. The empty weight of the F-35A is about 29,000 pounds. It is over 50% heavier than an F-16C. The F-16C has about 29,000 pounds of thrust in afterburner, versus about 40,000 pounds for the F-35A. That is about 25% more thrust, but remember, it is pushing a 50% heavier airframe. Combine that with a wider fuselage cross section (higher drag) and you get a maximum speed of about mach 1.6 in clean configuration at altitude. The F-16C has a top speed of mach 2 in clean configuration at altitude. Now, the F-35 fanboys will say "But the F-35 carries it's weapons internally. etc." And that is true. But when you are talking raw engine/airframe performance, the F-35A is definitely a step backwards from the 40 year old F-16 technology. Not a good thing when you look at the performance figures for other 5th gen fighters being developed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. Dumb civvy here, but I heard it would have high-speed performance comparable to an F-16 and low-speed performance comparable to an F/A-18. Did some or all of that not happen? Depends on whose numbers you look at. Lockmart will tell you it is better performing than an F-16C, but the devil is in the details. The bottom line is the empty weight of an F-16C is about 18,000 pounds. The empty weight of the F-35A is about 29,000 pounds. It is over 50% heavier than an F-16C. The F-16C has about 29,000 pounds of thrust in afterburner, versus about 40,000 pounds for the F-35A. That is about 25% more thrust, but remember, it is pushing a 50% heavier airframe. Combine that with a wider fuselage cross section (higher drag) and you get a maximum speed of about mach 1.6 in clean configuration at altitude. The F-16C has a top speed of mach 2 in clean configuration at altitude. Now, the F-35 fanboys will say "But the F-35 carries it's weapons internally. etc." And that is true. But when you are talking raw engine/airframe performance, the F-35A is definitely a step backwards from the 40 year old F-16 technology. Not a good thing when you look at the performance figures for other 5th gen fighters being developed. Mach 2 in what configuration? 6/0/2/G? I don't think so. As if anyone cares about top speed in clean configurations except at airshows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:37:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mach 2 in what configuration? 6/0/2/G? I don't think so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. Dumb civvy here, but I heard it would have high-speed performance comparable to an F-16 and low-speed performance comparable to an F/A-18. Did some or all of that not happen? Depends on whose numbers you look at. Lockmart will tell you it is better performing than an F-16C, but the devil is in the details. The bottom line is the empty weight of an F-16C is about 18,000 pounds. The empty weight of the F-35A is about 29,000 pounds. It is over 50% heavier than an F-16C. The F-16C has about 29,000 pounds of thrust in afterburner, versus about 40,000 pounds for the F-35A. That is about 25% more thrust, but remember, it is pushing a 50% heavier airframe. Combine that with a wider fuselage cross section (higher drag) and you get a maximum speed of about mach 1.6 in clean configuration at altitude. The F-16C has a top speed of mach 2 in clean configuration at altitude. Now, the F-35 fanboys will say "But the F-35 carries it's weapons internally. etc." And that is true. But when you are talking raw engine/airframe performance, the F-35A is definitely a step backwards from the 40 year old F-16 technology. Not a good thing when you look at the performance figures for other 5th gen fighters being developed. Mach 2 in what configuration? 6/0/2/G? I don't think so. I specified clean airframe, meaning internal fuel and gun only. (You state 6 missiles, however the F-35A is only capable of carrying 4 internally. The extra 2 internal missiles are only a proposal at present.) In any event, I am comparing CLEAN airframe performance, which is something F-35 proponents do not like to talk about. Not only is the F-35A slower, it has much poorer transonic acceleration. I like how Lockmart calls the F-35A performance "comparable" to an F-16C. Nobody (not even Lockmart) claims it is superior in performance to a 40 year old design.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:38:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I specified clean airframe, meaning internal fuel and gun only. (You state 6 missiles, however the F-35A is only capable of carrying 4 internally. The extra 2 internal missiles are only a proposal at present.) In any event, I am comparing CLEAN airframe performance, which is something F-35 proponents do not like to talk about. Not only is the F-35A slower, it has much poorer transonic acceleration. I like how Lockmart calls the F-35A performance "comparable" to an F-16C. Nobody (not even Lockmart) claims it is superior in performance to a 40 year old design.. When does anyone go into combat clean? How do F-35 electronics and detectability compare to the F-16? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:46:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Combine that with a wider fuselage cross section (higher drag) and you get a maximum speed of about mach 1.6 in clean configuration at altitude. The F-16C has a top speed of mach 2 in clean configuration at altitude. i understand most of the arguments against the f-35, but this one makes no sense to me. what you just amounts to "a fighter that is configured for combat is slower than a different fighter that is not configured for combat". to my mind, this proves nothing. in essence, the f-35 seems to accept a penalty in clean (that is, non-combat) drag in order to gain improved drag (and LO) in combat configuration. since you're holding up the f-16 as an example, it's worth noting that when the f-16 first came out, everyone but the AF was saying that it wouldn't be fast enough to compete in the air combat arena due to the fixed intake geometry and so forth. the AF said it would work, and they were right. later, when the AF started adding improved radar and avionics, there was quite an outcry that the weight penalty ran completely counter to the original LWF design philosophy. the AF's view was that the technological improvements would more than offset any kinematic disadvantages. the AF said it would work, and they were right. that last argument sounds a lot like what we're hearing about the f-35. i don't know whether it is true in this case, but past performance is prima facie evidence in favor of its credibility. edit: understand your clean specification. given that criterion, what is the drag penalty for the addition of ordnance on an f-35, vice that of an f-16c? i suspect it'll be a rather large variance, since the f-35's penalty will be 0. do you have the curves for a loaded f-16c? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:50:18 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i understand most of the arguments against the f-35, but this one makes no sense to me. what you just amounts to "a fighter that is configured for combat is slower than a different fighter that is not configured for combat". to my mind, this proves nothing. in essence, the f-35 seems to accept a penalty in clean (that is, non-combat) drag in order to gain improved drag (and LO) in combat configuration. since you're holding up the f-16 as an example, it's worth noting that when the f-16 first came out, everyone but the AF was saying that it wouldn't be fast enough to compete in the air combat arena due to the fixed intake geometry and so forth. the AF said it would work, and they were right. later, when the AF started adding improved radar and avionics, there was quite an outcry that the weight penalty ran completely counter to the original LWF design philosophy. the AF's view was that the technological improvements would more than offset any kinematic disadvantages. the AF said it would work, and they were right. that last argument sounds a lot like what we're hearing about the f-35. i don't know whether it is true in this case, but past performance is prima facie evidence in favor of its credibility. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Combine that with a wider fuselage cross section (higher drag) and you get a maximum speed of about mach 1.6 in clean configuration at altitude. The F-16C has a top speed of mach 2 in clean configuration at altitude.
i understand most of the arguments against the f-35, but this one makes no sense to me. what you just amounts to "a fighter that is configured for combat is slower than a different fighter that is not configured for combat". to my mind, this proves nothing. in essence, the f-35 seems to accept a penalty in clean (that is, non-combat) drag in order to gain improved drag (and LO) in combat configuration. since you're holding up the f-16 as an example, it's worth noting that when the f-16 first came out, everyone but the AF was saying that it wouldn't be fast enough to compete in the air combat arena due to the fixed intake geometry and so forth. the AF said it would work, and they were right. later, when the AF started adding improved radar and avionics, there was quite an outcry that the weight penalty ran completely counter to the original LWF design philosophy. the AF's view was that the technological improvements would more than offset any kinematic disadvantages. the AF said it would work, and they were right. that last argument sounds a lot like what we're hearing about the f-35. i don't know whether it is true in this case, but past performance is prima facie evidence in favor of its credibility. Lethality doesn't win internet arguments, wikipedia aircraft specs do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:54:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When does anyone go into combat clean? How do F-35 electronics and detectability compare to the F-16? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I specified clean airframe, meaning internal fuel and gun only. (You state 6 missiles, however the F-35A is only capable of carrying 4 internally. The extra 2 internal missiles are only a proposal at present.) In any event, I am comparing CLEAN airframe performance, which is something F-35 proponents do not like to talk about. Not only is the F-35A slower, it has much poorer transonic acceleration. I like how Lockmart calls the F-35A performance "comparable" to an F-16C. Nobody (not even Lockmart) claims it is superior in performance to a 40 year old design.. When does anyone go into combat clean? How do F-35 electronics and detectability compare to the F-16? I hope they are world class! They better be for our pilot's sake. They sure will not be outrunning anybody. Sure, real world you are going to be lugging all kinds of crap around. But there is value in making equal baseline comparisons. My point is the F-35 is fundamentally compromised. Helmet sights and internal carriage are great things. How much GREATER would they be without a compromised airframe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 6:59:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope they are world class! They better be for our pilot's sake. They sure will not be outrunning anybody. Sure, real world you are going to be lugging all kinds of crap around. But there is value in making equal baseline comparisons. My point is the F-35 is fundamentally compromised. Helmet sights and internal carriage are great things. How much GREATER would they be without a compromised airframe? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I specified clean airframe, meaning internal fuel and gun only. (You state 6 missiles, however the F-35A is only capable of carrying 4 internally. The extra 2 internal missiles are only a proposal at present.) In any event, I am comparing CLEAN airframe performance, which is something F-35 proponents do not like to talk about. Not only is the F-35A slower, it has much poorer transonic acceleration. I like how Lockmart calls the F-35A performance "comparable" to an F-16C. Nobody (not even Lockmart) claims it is superior in performance to a 40 year old design.. When does anyone go into combat clean? How do F-35 electronics and detectability compare to the F-16? I hope they are world class! They better be for our pilot's sake. They sure will not be outrunning anybody. Sure, real world you are going to be lugging all kinds of crap around. But there is value in making equal baseline comparisons. My point is the F-35 is fundamentally compromised. Helmet sights and internal carriage are great things. How much GREATER would they be without a compromised airframe? Baseline comparison = combat loadout. They're for fighting wars, not airshows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 7:03:23 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
later, when the AF started adding improved radar and avionics, there was quite an outcry that the weight penalty ran completely counter to the original LWF design philosophy. the AF's view was that the technological improvements would more than offset any kinematic disadvantages. the AF said it would work, and they were right. Hmmm. You might want to talk to USAF pilots that flew block 30 or earlier F-16C's, to ask their opinions on the later blocks that started packing on the weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 7:09:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmmm. You might want to talk to USAF pilots that flew block 30 or earlier F-16C's, to ask their opinions on the later blocks that started packing on the weight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
later, when the AF started adding improved radar and avionics, there was quite an outcry that the weight penalty ran completely counter to the original LWF design philosophy. the AF's view was that the technological improvements would more than offset any kinematic disadvantages. the AF said it would work, and they were right. Hmmm. You might want to talk to USAF pilots that flew block 30 or earlier F-16C's, to ask their opinions on the later blocks that started packing on the weight. God forbid you have things like upgraded radar, RWR, ECM, expendables, etc, to help keep you alive. It wasn't bags of sand they were throwing on the jet to add weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 7:09:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Weight creep happens in every combat aircraft.......on earth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 7:12:00 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hmmm. You might want to talk to USAF pilots that flew block 30 or earlier F-16C's, to ask their opinions on the later blocks that started packing on the weight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: later, when the AF started adding improved radar and avionics, there was quite an outcry that the weight penalty ran completely counter to the original LWF design philosophy. the AF's view was that the technological improvements would more than offset any kinematic disadvantages. the AF said it would work, and they were right. Hmmm. You might want to talk to USAF pilots that flew block 30 or earlier F-16C's, to ask their opinions on the later blocks that started packing on the weight. have done, back when the ANG flew f-16s out of great falls MT. they all said the same thing--the early models handled like a dream, but the late (heavier) models are far more lethal and survivable in contested airspace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 7:33:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread makes me want to watch "Stealth" again... jessica biel has nice fairings, but her area ruling is a bit suspect in that movie. also, her rear aspect observables are not as low as other contemporary birds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 7:36:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
also, her rear aspect observables are not as low as other contemporary birds. And that is a very good thing |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 10:26:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marine Corps was forced into the JSF program (and back into guarding strategic weapons) in 1997; prior to that it had its own AV-8 replacement program. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. The Marine Corps was forced into the JSF program (and back into guarding strategic weapons) in 1997; prior to that it had its own AV-8 replacement program. Crickets..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2014 11:13:04 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crickets..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The C? All the F35s were compromised by the B's design demands. Once again, something else I can agree with you 100% on Sylvan! This fundamental flaw is why I have never gotten on the F-35 bandwagon. If the F-35A and C never existed, I would probably look at the F-35B and say yeah, that is a good upgrade from the Harriers. Good job USMC. But now the USAF and the USN are getting stuck with this over weight, oversized airframe, that no freaking "majic helmet" will ever make turn tighter or fly faster than the Porky Pig fuselage cross section allows. I am from now on calling the F-35 the F-35 Porky, in honor of its porcine proportions. The Marine Corps was forced into the JSF program (and back into guarding strategic weapons) in 1997; prior to that it had its own AV-8 replacement program. Crickets..... It's the passive voice. Makes responding less interesting. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
