Comments on: F-35 Comparisons

By: ELP

ELP — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:05:31 +0000

Spin and sophistry. With only 2 percent of flight testing complete and a situation where no one knows what it costs, over-hype is not enough to base a sales decision on for a gold-plated wonder. Especially in the new post-economic meltdown.

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:09:44 +0000

At one time, the F-X program spec that led to the F-15 called for a swing-wing Mach 3+ aircraft. Those things have a tendency to change.

By: XBradTC

XBradTC — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:22:31 +0000

Wonder what the wing loading would be on the F-35C with the larger wing, and what effect that would have on WVR fight.

By: Chris Taylor

Chris Taylor — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:10:18 +0000

Well the program spec was that the F-35 had to meet or beat F-16 capabilities in A/A and A/G… but will that be sufficient to tackle most of the threat spectrum for the next 30 years?

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:24:15 +0000

Right, if BVR kills are less likely, for whatever reason (missile performance, countermeasures, ROE, target ID, etc), that makes WVR combat more important. The numbers on the F-35 for ACM don’t look so good. There were two sets of numbers presented, providing some very rough idea as to how the aircraft would perform in WVR air combat. The first set, indicated the F-35 ain’t gonna be so good. The second set looked better, but were calculated at 40% internal fuel with no external load! So, combat is always going to take place with the F-35 on it’s return leg, heading home?
The 40% internal fuel performance figures are about the best the aircraft can reasonably be expected to perform in an operational environment, and the T-W ratio quoted there (1.09) is good, but the wing loading is still high. In anything like a more realistic scenario, where the aircraft will weigh more, the wing loading is going to be heading to territory that ain’t real good, from a maneuverability perspective.

The only positive thing I see is the high-alpha. Beyond that, I’m skeptical of the F-35s dogfighting capabilities.

By: saffer

saffer — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:54:39 +0000

b2 says:

re The impact statement: “the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat.”

The qualifier?:

“particularly if German and U.K. air-to-air simulations on the kill probability of modern medium-range air-to-air missiles are accurate.”

Key word IMO- accurate. Always a caveat, eh? LOL.

It is what it is.

What the article in question actually says:

Nevertheless, the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat. For one, it is not designed to conduct engagements in a high-speed, high-altitude, sustained turning environment. Its high-speed cornering capability should help it to dodge an adversary’s beyond-visual-range missiles, though, particularly if German and U.K. air-to-air simulations on the kill probability of modern medium-range air-to-air missiles are accurate.

The MRAAMs in question being the AIM-120, the R-77, and their ilk. The Euro sims point to a modern MRAAM’s kill probability being less, not greater, than assumed. That fact increases the F-35′s odds of surviving an air-air engagement, at least until ramjet MRAAMs like the Meteor start being thrown about.