"Opposition defends Joint Strike Fighter over simulated dogfights"

A compromise is a compromise. You can never talk that away. An engineer who has only to optimize for a conventional take off and landing aircraft just has many more options. OK, modern modular computer design certainly allows for more commonality - in the late sixties it was completely unthinkable to design an F-16/Harrier Hybrid, and the supersonic Harrier (P.1154) just failed by design.

But if you would design and build a pure F-35A without hindsight to a possible F-35B, you would save loads of money, loads of time, loads of weight, loads of fuel.

I think you picked the wrong argument to argue ... the only thing a VTOL limits you in is weight at takeoff (because the engine must produce more thrust than weight), your engine choice, engine arrangement, and how much fuel you're going to stuff into it and where. It has nothing to do with wing design, and a non-VTOL version of that aircraft has none of the compromises the VTOL makes for its ability.

You COULD design a VTOL version of an F-16 if you wanted. It just wouldn't get very far because of the extra equipment/weight and fuel consumption associated with the VTOL capability ... but you would NOT have to change the wing ;)

OK but let's not forget that F-35(A,B,C) is a Joint STRIKE Fighter not a Joint DOGFIGHTER.

We can also simulate dogfights of 3 Su-25 vs 15 Flankers in LOFC. Results would be similar!

There is nothing wrong with offering comparison of current capabilities. it was relevant, and that's that. Or should I add 'this thread isn't about Su-27, MIG-31, F-16' .... ;)

This thread started with future Sukhoi fighters and JFS. Why don't we just stop there.

REMINDER: SAM = Stealth stop.

Although Su-25 can easily out turn Flankers and other fast movers in LOFC because of the smaller turn radius! Probably true IRL too!

OK but let's not forget that F-35(A,B,C) is a Joint STRIKE Fighter not a Joint DOGFIGHTER.

 

We can also simulate dogfights of 3 Su-25 vs 15 Flankers in LOFC. Results would be similar!

trying to see where that logic came from came from :huh:

From the " name " of the F-35?

Logic enough?

But then all the flanker needs to took is speed around the Su-25's circle at a faster TURN RATE (which it can do) and kill it. :D

Or just use some vertical and speed things up.

Although Su-25 can easily out turn Flankers and other fast movers in LOFC because of the smaller turn radius! Probably true IRL too!

But if you would design and build a pure F-35A without hindsight to a possible F-35B, you would save loads of money, loads of time, loads of weight, loads of fuel.

The thing is, they needed (or wanted) all of those, and they saved loads of money by not having several separate projects.

Actualy the F-35 has been one of the most expensive project ever. Each plane is not exactly affordable either, even though half that of an F-22.

I didn't say it was cheap. I said that all things equal, separate projects would most probably cost more.

I wonder how a B1-R would change the outcome on something like that...

The lightweight fighter mafia has bashed everything from the F-15 to the F-22 (on in general, anything that isn't an F-16 or F-5). They've gotten a track record of being wrong. Their INFLUENCE isn't a bad thing, as it causes better design and considerations to happen; their propaganda on the other hand is another thing.

 

The F-35 isn't meant to enter prolonged fights - in fact, no one AFAIK likes drawing fights out unless they MUST. The F-35's sensor and weapon package is adapted for this purpose; full coverage in the IR/Visual spectrum by cameras, JHMCS, AIM-9X - improved off-bore AMRAAM capability.

 

Realize that the F-35 is NOT an F-16 ... it is actually in the same class of weight as an F-15C, and according to the USAF, it exceeds F-16 maneuverability. Further, the F-16 has grown about as much as it can, and its fuel fraction comes from cumbersome CFT's and externals. Don't kid yourself, the F-16 is a thing of the past and not a reasonable comparison against an F-35 in any way shape or form. They aren't even in the same class.

The thing about the LWF competition and the 2 planes that were the outcome (F-16 & F-18 ) is that it unintentionally set a very good precident: design a plane with air to air and manueverability FIRST and then hobble it into a multirole aircraft.

The F-35 may not be the F-16, but isn't is supposed to replace it? The whole thing just really smells like the fighter portion was hobbled before it was even designed in favor of air to ground and adding technology out the wazoo. I'm no engineer, physicist, or mathematics expert, but it literally looks too fat for its own wings.

However, take this with a grain of salt. I'm not a huge fan of multirole aircraft outside of flying them around in simulations. I say you should just design a master a/a fighter and the world's greatest bomb truck and just use them in concert. Multirole stuff has $$$ and politics written all over it. :puke:

I haven't read any of the articles yet, but if they are attempting to discredit the F-35 after putting through intentionally unrealistic or overwhelming scenarios (lets fly a 4 ship of them into a swarm of 24 Su-35s with no support!), who takes this stuff seriously? You cannot have anything that works flawlessly in all situations. This is like not buying a car and deeming it unsafe because it won't protect you from a head-on collision with a bus...

And the USAF has already state that the F-35 exceeds the F-16's close combat parameters.

And the USAF has already state that the F-35 exceeds the F-16's close combat parameters.

Are they basing this on avionics and weapon targeting capability or on things like thrust to weight, turn rate, etc?

This was a direct question but the turn-and-burn capabilities of the F-35 :)

Edit: Let me be more precise ...

The F-16 can have a greater TWR than the F-35 based on some configuration, because the F-16 is lighter.

On the other hand, the F-35 is more likely to have superior high altitude handling if it uses non-moving airflow modification in the inlets (thus superior TWR at altitude) ... the F-35 will have an advantage in the fact that it fights clean, and the fact that it carries a large amount of fuel internally.

Going by wing areas and general design alone (which is really a way to stick my foot in my mouth here), it appears that turning performance should be equivalent (the USAF claims better) to the F-16's.

As you correctly surmised before, however, the F-35 was developed as a STRIKE fighter first, a, A2A fighter second, where the F-16 was the LWF competition winner. Even so, having a Strike fighter that can hold its own against an F-16 in a dogfight (despite the fact that it actually weighs as much as an F-15C!!!), pulverize an F-16 in BVR, AND stealthily deliver SEAD and high value precision attacks with a greater success than the F-16, already makes it a better aircraft than the F-16.

Add the total sensor fusion and you're flying a UFO. The only better UFO around is the F-22.

This was a direct question but the turn-and-burn capabilities of the F-35 :)

 

Edit: Let me be more precise ...

 

The F-16 can have a greater TWR than the F-35 based on some configuration, because the F-16 is lighter.

On the other hand, the F-35 is more likely to have superior high altitude handling if it uses non-moving airflow modification in the inlets (thus superior TWR at altitude) ... the F-35 will have an advantage in the fact that it fights clean, and the fact that it carries a large amount of fuel internally.

 

Going by wing areas and general design alone (which is really a way to stick my foot in my mouth here), it appears that turning performance should be equivalent (the USAF claims better) to the F-16's.

 

As you correctly surmised before, however, the F-35 was developed as a STRIKE fighter first, a, A2A fighter second, where the F-16 was the LWF competition winner. Even so, having a Strike fighter that can hold its own against an F-16 in a dogfight (despite the fact that it actually weighs as much as an F-15C!!!), pulverize an F-16 in BVR, AND stealthily deliver SEAD and high value precision attacks with a greater success than the F-16, already makes it a better aircraft than the F-16.

 

Add the total sensor fusion and you're flying a UFO. The only better UFO around is the F-22.

Interesting, thank you. :)

Here is a rebuttal:

Setting the Record Straight on F-35

 

 

(Source: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; issued September 19, 2008)

 

 

 

FORT WORTH, Texas --- U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.

 

The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

 

"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.

 

Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.

 

"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."

 

The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.

 

Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.

 

"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."

 

Here are the facts:

 

-- The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

 

-- The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.

 

-- The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.

 

-- When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations.

 

 

Other important facts:

 

-- External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.

 

-- The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5th generation stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to add this stealth to fourth-generation fighters.

 

-- The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117 stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important information is built into the F-35, along with stealth.

 

-- F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacy programs, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, already flying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantages of developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation.

 

-- Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development risk through the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integrated full-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program. Representing only 25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable in hours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it will replace.

 

-- The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraft around the world -- F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 and Tornado -- flown by 14 air forces.

 

-- In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.

 

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.

 

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history. Two F-35s have entered flight test, two are in ground test, and 17 are in various stages of assembly, including the first two production-model jets scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2010.

 

 

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion.

"pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios."

but not 4.5 gens hehe

That's just it - it isn't a dedicated air superiority fighter, wasn't designed as such. The F-22 was designed to fill this role; Australia has no real use for an air superiority aircraft right now, as fighters cannot easily reach australia and the F-35 is more than adequate to dealwith bombers.

With their recent purchases, they can now from Indonesia, which has always said that it considers Australia to be within its "sphere of influence". This is why various Australians (read F-35 "Bashers" if you like) want Australia to buy an actual air superiority fighter, not a multi-role aircraft.

F-35s serving in the Australian Airforce could conceivably find themselves facing numerically superior numbers of modern Su-27 derivatives in the future...

I don't think they would have an easy time doing anything useful in Australia. That's what that statement meant.

Here is a rebuttal:

Remainder: SAM = Stealth STOP.

You mean the Major General? Far more believable than Yefim any time of the day. ;)

Major General - salesman, nothing wrong with that.

Remainder: SAM = Stealth STOP ;)

Remainder...isnt that what you get when you try to complete division, but just cant do it?