I've been playing catch-up on my reading and I keep running into conflicting, confusing and what I believe is misleading information.
Exhibit #1 is this post by Winslow Wheeler from Huffinton Post back in 2009.
If the latest iteration of "beyond visual range" turns out to be yet another chimera, the F-35 will have to operate as a close-in dogfighter, but in that regime it is a disaster. If one accepts every aerodynamic promise Lockheed currently makes for it, the F-35 will be overweight and underpowered. At 49,500 pounds in air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight and acceleration for a new fighter. In fact, at that weight and with just 460 square feet of wing area for the Air Force and Marine Corps versions, the F-35's small wings will be loaded with 108 pounds for every square foot, one third worse than the F-16A. (Wings that are large relative to weight are crucial for maneuvering and surviving in combat.) The F-35 is, in fact, considerably less maneuverable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 "Lead Sled," a fighter that proved helpless in dogfights against MiGs over North Vietnam. (A chilling note: most of the Air Force's fleet of F-105s was lost in four years of bombing; one hundred pilots were lost in just six months.)The question I have is this...
Nor is the F-35 a first class bomber for all that cost: in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled."
If bigger wings confer greater agility then why isn't the F-35C more agile than the F-35A.Yes its a simple question.
But this type of thing has gained traction and is repeated by many...its even a pronouncement that I've seen on a site where the authors claim to be aviation experts and when challenged on any of the claims that they make "insist on comparing resumes"...the comparison to the F-105 is also a much repeated phrase that I see popping up all over the internet.
So I'm asking the guys that might fly by this blog to give me the real deal...is it that cut and dry or am I being deceived?
Wheeler is full of bull$hit to put it politely. Wheeler, Sprey,and Riccioni have pretty much lost all credibility over the last ten - fifteen years. Their articles are typically full of misinformation, exaggeration, and flat out errors. (I'll give them the benefit of a doubt and not call them lies.)
ReplyDeleteOne thing they really like to trot out is something along the lines of, "in its stealthy mode it carries only a 4,000 pound payload, one third the 12,000 pounds carried by the "Lead Sled." Really? Well how much can the F-105, F-teen, or Eurocanard carry in stealthy mode? That's right- ZERO!. And when stealth isn't required the F-35 can carry close to 20,000lbs of payload. It's got two hardpoints for pylons rated at 5000lbs each. No F-105, F-16, or Super Hornet has one of those and I'd be surprised if any Eurocanard does. In addition to the 2 5000lb hard points it's got 2 2500lbs hard points. That's 15,000lbs right there and that doesn't include the rest of the pylons OR the internal weapons load.
The F-105 had 24,500lbs of thrust to work with, while the F-35 has over DOUBLE that. P&W confirmed the F135 has run at over 50,000lbs thrust.
As for manueverability the F-105 wasn't a relaxed stability design so he's comparing apples and oranges. The specification for the F-35 requires at least F-16 level of manueverability and the test pilots are happy with it.
The real concern is that the no-nothing journalists, politicians, etc. latch onto the ravings of these madmen because *at one time* they were respected, and don't do any objective research of their own. Those three I mentioned in my last post lost their $hit (pardon my French) when the F-15 became a success and they've never recovered. In their eyes the F-16A (before it got BVR capability) or even the F-5E Tiger II is the ultimate fighter and anything, more powerful, faster, capable, heavier, is just a gold plated monstrosity.
ReplyDeleteOh, and this is coming from someone who's favorite aircraft growing up was the F-105 and owns many books on the thing. To me, nothing compared to the F-105, and I wish the twin engine, souped-up-F-105-looking design from Republic would have had a chance.
ReplyDeleteWheeler's arguments are crap. First of all, what is the point of measuring takeoff weight? Is that the weight the aircraft is going to be dogfighting at, or is the aircraft going to be lighter, because you know, climbing to altitude apparently burns fuel?
ReplyDeleteAlso, are we bothering to compare apples to apples here and measure the F-35 against other aircraft that carry 18480lbs of fuel from takeoff? No? Why not? Because all the aircraft Wheeler compares it to, if they can even carry that much at all, have to carry most of it externally. Checkout what external fuel and weapon does for "wing-loading"...
No. Wheeler wants a fully fueled and heavily loaded F-35 to be compared against an F-16A with nearly 2/3rds less fuel, 1/3rd the weapons load and none of the sensor capability that the F-35 has...
Yeah, that's a worthwhile comparison... Because USAF would actually be taking an F-16A in such configuration into combat...
This is what an F-16 has to look like, to match the fuel and internal weapons load of the F-35, yet still remains deficient sensor wise.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/07/f-16i.jpg
What was that about wing-loading and thrust to weight again, Mr Wheeler?
Another big difference between jets designed in the 1950s and jets today is a "live wing" concept. F-16s, F-18s, and now the F-35 have computerized flight control systems that move the leading edge and trailing edge flaps to change the camber of the wing. The flight control system takes into account airspeed, altitude, weight, and what the pilot is asking the jet to do, along with other inputs to move the flight controls to achieve the best turn rate and radius. It’s the computerized flight controls that give modern fighters extreme turn rates and small radiuses.
ReplyDeleteThe F-105 wing was a tapered chord, swept design, with low designed for low altitude and high speed designed in the early 1950s. Its flight controls were most probably a hydro-mechanical system with an artificial feel device system that was common with that era of aircraft. To compare the F-105 to the F-35 is ludicrous.
Mr. Wheeler, like many of the "experts" has no idea what he is talking about.
Guys put away YOUR bias and answer Soloman's question.
ReplyDeleteThe C should have slower transonic acceleration relative to the A due to the higher drag of the larger wings. However the C should have slightly better sustained G performancce due to better wing loading and a lower landing speed (which is why it has the larger wing). However, some of that gain is negated by the C's higher weight. The instantaneous G performance should be close but the A should be slightly better due to lighter weight and likely better roll rate.
Wheelers concern about the success of BVR missles is not without merit. Back when the F-4 was designed it was decided a gun was no longer necessary because this was the missile era. Well history tells us how bad missile performance (esp. longer range radar guided missiles) was. BVR against stealth is a similar situation. Everyone talks about BVR performance but 5th gen AC are designed to be invisible at BVR ranges, thus negating BVR missiles and drawing the fight closer and closer till you end up in WVR again. By the time the F-35 enters service it will likely have the J-20 and the T-50 facing it, so given stealth cancelling stealth, WVR the T-50 would eat it alive, but I'm not sold on the J-20.
ReplyDeleteLouG-
ReplyDeleteYes, comparing it to the F-105 may be ludicris, but it makes a point concerning the $hitty wing loading of the F-35. So since every modern AC has relaxed stability and FBW, you cannot use it as an advantage for the F-35. Compared to it contemporaries, (F-22, T-50) and even older 4th+ AC (eurocanards) the F-35 is going to fly like a garbage truck WVR.
i've been sitting on the sidelines agreeing with most of the comments here...but i have to ask privateer454...when the fight gets to WVR isn't that mutual destruction...PYTHON 5, ASRAAM, AIM-9X and the Russian missiles are suppose to be darn near unstoppable and with helmet mounted sights etc, even extreme agility might not be enough.
ReplyDeleteadditionally is the definition of the close in fight changing? unless a pilots been run out of missiles then will he ever get within gun range of an adversary? i mean, heck, even short range missiles (so called short range missiles) are pushing 20 miles out...
so color me still confused...oh and how can you say that the airplane will fly like garbage unless every test pilot thats part of the program---Military and Lockheed Martin---are all lying.
LM pilots might have a loyalty to company to think about but an Officer in the military could be up on charges (and yes i've seen it happen)
Soloman-
ReplyDeleteIf you are WVR or within advanced heat seeking missle range, then the AC with the best agility is the one who will get into position to launch the highest probability of kill shot first and have the best chance of escaping - even if remote. Given AC of equal heat signatures, and sensors (IRST), then I would prefer the aircraft with better agility.
If the F-35 flies like the F-16, then it does not mean that it flies like garbage. However, that does mean it flies like a 4th generation (not 4+) fighter. If that is good enough to accomplish the strike mission it was originally intended for, so be it - but that is what it is a VLO light striker with self defense capability. It cannot replace an sir superiority fighter anymore than an A-7 or A-6 could 35 years ago.
"However, that does mean it flies like a 4th generation (not 4+) fighter. If that is good enough to accomplish the strike mission it was originally intended for, so be it - but that is what it is a VLO light striker with self defense capability. It cannot replace an sir superiority fighter anymore than an A-7 or A-6 could 35 years ago. "
ReplyDeleteIf it flies like an F-16 then it flies like an F-16. Not an A-7 or A-6. And the difference in flight characteristics between say a Rafale and an F-16 aren't going to make a meaningful difference to an AIM-9X or any other HOBS missile. The greatly reduced RCS of the F-35 in comparison to the rest will drastically decrease the LIKELIHOOD of it getting to a WVR fight. End result is the F-35 is going to be MUCH more survivable than any F-teen or Eurocanard. As for the T-50 I think we're going to find it's much less stealthy than some like to think.
"If it flies like an F-16 then it flies like an F-16. Not an A-7 or A-6."
ReplyDeleteBut an A-6 or A-7 did not fly like an F-4 - just like an F-35 (or F-16) does not fly like a F-22. Different planes, different performance, different missions.
"The greatly reduced RCS of the F-35 in comparison to the rest will drastically decrease the LIKELIHOOD of it getting to a WVR fight."
Again, say it's LO is comparable to the other 5th gen fighters - then no one "sees" anyone until IRST or Mark-1 mod zero eyeballs come into play and then it is lights out (even with HOBS as any performance advantage is still an advantage).
"As for the T-50 I think we're going to find it's much less stealthy than some like to think."
Based upon what? All of the LO checklist items are there in the design. Ss unless you are going to claim it is all in the coatings (which is an unknown, but likely to be comparable), what in the design do you think you see that will make it less LO than the F-35? I'm seriously asking this and am truly curious what you see.
"what in the design do you think you see that will make it less LO than the F-35? I'm seriously asking this and am truly curious what you see. "
ReplyDeleteLook at the back half of the fuselage from the rear and side. Look at not only the shape but all that bare metal.
When the TVC engines are installed, it is generally accepted that the nozzles will have signature and IR reduction in the design. How much less stealthy the T-50 will be in relation to the F-22 (traded for menuverability, i.e. LEVCONs) will be an internet debate for some time to come.
ReplyDeleteWing loading primarily effects turning, i.e. a horizontal move, whereas thrust to weight effects almost all aspects of agility. A great deal of fighter maneuvering is in the vertical plane and has little to do with turn performance (e.g. Corsairs and Hellcats had much higher wing loadings than Zeros).
ReplyDeleteThus lower thrust to weight is more troubling than higher wing loading but how important any of this is in the AA-11 / AIM-9X era is a good question.
The idea that an F35 is less maneuverable than an F105, which was not even maneuverable for its time, is laughable. The points that the F35 may not be more maneuverable than an F16 and that it only carries 4000lbs of bombs in stealth mode are more pertinent.
If you don't need stealth the F35 is massively over engineered and costly for bomb delivery, even if it can carry 20,000 pounds so 4000 pounds of bombs is the relevant figure and this is, IIRC, less than an F117.
@Privateer: I think it will be debated until they finally meet (if ever). :-)
ReplyDelete"If you don't need stealth the F35 is massively over engineered and costly for bomb delivery,"
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point. Would you rather have the option of stealth if you need it and be "overengineered" for when you don't need it, or not have the option of stealth and be, well, dead when you do need it?
"even if it can carry 20,000 pounds so 4000 pounds of bombs is the relevant figure and this is, IIRC, less than an F117."
Incorrect. The F-117 could carry 2 2000lb bombs internally. That's it. And nothing externally when stealth wasn't needed. Nor did it have an LPI AESA or a plethora of other items the F-35 has. The F-35 can carry AAMs internally in addition to 2 2000lb bombs.
Where the F-35 is over engineered, is in the quest to incorporate three very different aircraft into a single airframe. This decision which is obviously way past the point of no return IMO, has compromised the performance of the A & C and has led to many of the complaints about the program, the timing, the price, and goals/performance of the AC. Would the B have been so criticized if it were a smaller stand alone program that was developing just the second ever western combat (and first supersonic) V/STOL aircraft ever (Mirage IIIV was not built in numbers)? Would the A or C be so far behind and "lacking" in performance if they were not carrying the design baggage of the B? The sensors, HMD, coatings, etc. could have been spread across both programs, but hopefully this will serve as a lesson reinforcing the “jack of all trades, master of none” axiom.
ReplyDeleteSeperate programs would have been even more expensive than what we have now. Can you imagine how high the unit cost of a hypothetical USMC STOVL aircraft would be? Imagine you were only buying 300 F-35s. There ya go. Also, it would have made the As and Cs more expensive per unit. How did you think we got here in the first place? They ran those numbers before they even started.
ReplyDeleteRef the F35 vs. F117 comparison, that a plane designed years later and which is greatly more expensive has better avionics and air to air than a much cheaper plane designed years earlier for strike purposes only seems like it should be a given.
ReplyDeleteThe point of these comparisons is that after decades of technological advancement, huge development costs and huge unit costs it can seem strange that we aren't seeing more maneuverability and a greater stealth bomb load than we had in previous generations of planes, not that F16s and F117s are somehow the equal of the F35.
"Seperate programs would have been even more expensive than what we have now."
ReplyDeleteThat's just it, when this is all said and done and all the costs added in to the original numbers, it probably isn't going to be all that much cheaper and you would have better AC for your time & money.
How do you figure? Two completely seperate designs, teams, assembly lines, etc. No commonality. No shared R&D, tooling, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe old F-105 was decidedly not a bank and yank dogfighter, but the majority of the losses were to ground based air defenses. 22 F-105s were said to be lost to Migs, with 27.5 Migs lost to F-105s.
ReplyDeleteMost losses occured in surprise attacks with Migs having the advantage against bomb-laden F-105s. Quick dashing passes by Mig-21s making AA-2 shots was the most effective.
When the 105 was cleaned up and built up a head of steam, nothing could catch it at low level, doubtless high level, and it enjoyed something of an energy surplus over any threat. If understandably a poor turning radius. Coupled with the possession of the M-61 gun, and occasionally sidewinders it bagged its share of Migs in close quarters.
I guess I'd view F-35 advantages in (hopefully) numerical superiority and situational awareness to provide for reasonable surviveability starting at the point between BVR and WVR everyone dies territory.
I'll have to disagree with Privateers T-50 prediction and make a prediction of my own about the J20.
ReplyDeleteT-50 will be like any other Russian aircraft. Excellent, but short lived engines and awesome missiles. Everything else will be a generation (at least) behind or rather crude in its implementation. Anything truly high tech will be in short supply because manufacturing techniques for those items will be art and not science.
J20 will be like anything else the Chinese make that others haven't done all the R&D for (think iThings) - cheap knock off's of no real quality or value. Why do you think they are so hard over on tech transfer from the airline manufacturers who want to do business in China? Anything learned will be applied directly to making their combat aircraft.
Any T50's or J20's extant are artisan created one-off's, while F-35 already has a sophisticated assembly line process in place.
I will have to agree with Privateer that the B caused the A and C to be more compromised than they other wise would have been. The B should have been a parallel track that tried to maintain commmonality without compromising A or C. I just think they would have been much better planes that way.
Just like all other aircraft, most Thud losses were to groundfire. The target is where it is, and I've got to come to it. The other guy can just pile on defences. AAA is pretty cheap. Hence our obsession with stand-off weapons (and stealth).
A couple of reminders. F-35A is a 9G aircraft, F-35C is 7.5G and the B is a 7.0 G aircraft. Hence the better sustained turn performance of the A. With lethality of modern WVR missiles, the pilot with the greater SA coming to the merge is going to be the victor.
ReplyDeleteAs far as calling the F-35 a garbage truck, my friends tell me the plane accelerates like a slick Viper and has turn performance like a slick single seat Hornet. Not an F-22, but pretty damn good.
Precisely LouG, our friend the privateer is also forgetting the performance of modern WVR weapons. Yes both sides have them, but they DO negate the need to turn significantly, not of course that the F-35 is going to be a "garbage truck"...
ReplyDeleteRAAF Hornets have demonstrated an ability with ASRAAM to hit an aircraft over 5k's BEHIND them whilst in level flight without maneuvering at ALL for a shot. Plenty of AIM-9X Sidewinder videos around show a similar thing like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA
Fact is, the ability of a launch platform to maneuver is becoming irrelevant. If the USA is happy with the F-35's turn performance given it has a demonstrable capability to build a more agile fighter, then I think that says all that need be said about the subject...
Thinking that gun kills are the way of the future is prehistoric thinking at best...
On Solomon's question. The term "agility" needs some clearification. Are we talking a classic gun fight? What kind of mission and set up? There is a range of dynamic factors that influence agility metrics.
ReplyDeleteFor the same engine output the C model is heavier and has more wetted area which creates drag, and is more G-limited. I'm guessing it will have a tighter turn radius due to a lower corner speed.
Wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratios do not tell the whole story. The F-15, while having a much better score on these two metrics, is comfortably outmaneuverd by the F-16 in the classic dogfight. It has fast transients, a 9g envelope and carefree handling due to the FCS.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
The F-35 is one of the few fast jets to be equipped with DIRCM. Coupled with the built in IR signature reductions, this gives the F-35 the advantage even in a WVR HOBS IR AAM knife fight. I also suspect but can't prove that DIRCM can be used to blind IRST sensors.
ReplyDeleteOne small correction:
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 is the ONLY fighter that has a planned DIRCM in it's future. While there will likely be other that eventually get it, only the F-35 has it in it's notional upgrade path (with actual hardware flying already).