Why is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter important and why do we need it?
The only thing really impressive is the time it takes to pass from Mach 0.80 to Mach 1.2 43 SECONDS!www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/
You're back?Let me spell it out for you. When transonic acceleration times are calculated for legacy fighters (i.e. F-15s, F-16s, and yes, your beloved F/A-18E/Fs), the time it takes for the aircraft to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 (cross the transonic region) is measured when the aircraft is in a CLEAN configuration.What does that mean? It means that the aircraft's acceleration is measured when it has absolutely no missiles, bombs, jamming equipment, targeting pods, or any other mission hardware hanging off of its wings. In other words, the publicly released acceleration figures are for an aircraft in an airshow configuration. To put it in simpler terms, those figures represent the kind of acceleration a legacy aircraft will achieve if it is has absolutely no combat equipment whatsoever mounted on it.So, what difference does that make? It makes a *huge* difference. Even relatively streamlined missiles, such as AMRAAMs or Sidewinders, have a massive impact on aircraft maneuverability, due to both the extra weight of those systems and, most importantly, the drag they produce. If you want to look at a Super Hornet that is actually equipped for a combat situation (i.e. has air-air missiles, targeting pods, bombs, etc on it), the acceleration figures you would get from that aircraft would look nothing like the publicly released figures that are often parroted by journalists who have no clue what they're talking about. It would be like looking at an entirely different aircraft -- if you compared the acceleration figures side-by-side, you wouldn't be able to tell that both aircraft were F/A-18E/Fs.So, how does this apply to the F-35? Unlike the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Su-27, and indeed every other legacy aircraft, the F-35 carries its equipment internally. That means that an F-35 in an airshow configuration and an F-35 in combat configuration will have virtually identical aerodynamic performance -- because you don't have all that equipment on pylons, you also don't have all the drag the equipment produces.Because the F-35 carries its equipment internally, if you were to compare its acceleration to that of a legacy fighter in a combat configuration, you'd get results that were generally favorable in respect to the F-35. Whenever someone says "the F-35 has slow acceleration", it's because they're comparing legacy aircraft with no weapons fitted to them to an F-35 that has the same aerodynamic features as it would have going into combat. Furthermore, because the F-35 carries its weapons internally, it actually has reduced drag compared to an F-15 or F/A-18, giving it improved aerodynamics in a combat situation.Would you like me to shoot down any other disinformation you have acquired?
Just visiting your solitary blog...If this is what it can do with 10 missiles or bombs...just imagine with the stealth weapon bay. They say is like to perform with just 4 amraams, much better performance than your degraded F-35 performance.www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t_uw1mGohwwww.youtube.com/watch?v=75PfbbzecOcwww.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/9474925200/
You don't appear to be understanding what I'm saying. I'll make it a bit more clear.The F-35 is by no means "degraded." The entire reason it appears to accelerate slowly is because it carries its weapons internally, so its performance "on paper" (i.e. in an airshow configuration, with no weapons) is virtually the same as its performance in a combat configuration. Because publicly released acceleration figures are created using aircraft in a clean configuration, this creates the illusion that the F-35 accelerates more slowly than an F-15, F-16, or F/A-18, because it is an apples to oranges comparison.You are comparing an F-35 in what is essentially combat configuration to a Super Hornet with absolutely no weapons or equipment.You appear to have the comprehension skills of a mentally disabled toddler, so I'll put it in simpler terms:If a Super Hornet is flown into combat, it will be carrying missiles, bombs, targeting pods, etc. All those pods will generate a huge amount of drag. Because of this drag, the F/A-18E/F will perform nowhere near as well in this combat situation as it does in a paper study where it is in a clean configuration.Now take the F-35. When it flies into combat, it will carry its weapons internally. Because of this, its combat performance will mirror its "on paper" performance very closely.Because the Super Hornet is experiencing so much drag, it will perform quite poorly in comparison to the F-35. If you knew anything whatsoever about aircraft design (you don't), you'd realize that carrying weapons internally creates a lot less drag than carrying them externally.In conclusion, those "slow acceleration" figures you mention are skewed, because you're comparing actual combat performance with airshow performance. The F/A-18E/F may be able to out-accelerate the F-35 in an airshow, but in any combat situation whatsoever, the F-35 will accelerate as quickly or more quickly than the Super Hornet, because it carries its weapons internally, and thus produces much less drag.When Lockheed Martin was chosen to produce the F-35, they were chosen to produce a COMBAT aircraft. They were not chosen to produce an AIRSHOW aircraft. The fact of the matter is that the F-35 has the ability to provide top of the line combat acceleration, and your amazing ability to make completely unsubstantiated claims (backed by nothing other than your own stupidity and moronic convictions) and spam me with You Tube links (honestly, you think that you tube videos are valid sources of weapons system analysis?) does nothing to change that fact.
Are you blind??The F-35 with or with out 4 amraams will accellerate slower and will be less maneuverable than a Super Hornet with 2 Amraams under the engines and two under the wins, becouse the frontal section of the Hippo is HUGE compared with the Rhino. BTW your video of the F-35 doesn't show the 48 seconds that take to get that speed.Here is a video of a real fighter in service today.www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfyKmtlSqwk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Like I said, you just don't have good comprehension skills. I'll say it again:Yes, the F-35 has a large frontal area. A large frontal area produces more drag than a small frontal area. So how does the F/A-18E/F produce more drag than an F-35 with a larger frontal area?Because the F/A-18E/F carries EQUIPMENT! It carries missiles! It carries targeting pods! It carries a variety of equipment, and every single piece of equipment it carries produces drag! In fact, all taken together, they produce a LOT of drag. When you take it all together, an aircraft that carries its weapons internally produces less overall drag than one that carries them externally. Yes, the aircraft that carries weapons internally will have a larger frontal area, and yes, that will produce greater drag, but the increase in drag created by carrying weapons externally is greater than the increase in drag created by the slightly larger frontal area!This is a simple fact. It has been demonstrated, and it is pretty well established that the internal carriage of weaponry produces less drag than an aircraft with external carriage. If you understood anything about combat aircraft, you would understand this. However, your only knowledge of combat comes from You Tube videos (which you *still* seem to believe represent a valid source of information), so you spew completely incorrect bullshit in the hope that you will appear intelligent.
If so, the Super hornet with the enclosure weapons bay will still have better acceleration, maneuverability and performance than the big face F-35. If you saw the last video you would notice that the Rhino takes half of the time than the Hippo to reach a high speed with just 4 missiles. No matters if your favorite airplane is empty or full of weapons it will be less maneuver able and slower to get max speed.
1) You're assuming the Super Hornet has an internal weapons bay. Whether or not it ever will is questionable.2) Your statement about the Super Hornet's performance with internal weapons bays is false. If the Super Hornet is given internal weapons bays, it will have the same limitation the F-35 has: its frontal area will be larger. It will have reduced drag, but the reduction will not take it below that of other aircraft with internal weapons carriage.In short, the Super Hornet has two options: keep the external weapons and produce more drag than the F-35, or use internal carriage (a la F-15SE and others), and produce a similar amount of drag. The Super Hornet doesn't have any kind of magical property that gives it less drag than another aircraft with the same weapons carriage. If it uses internal carriage, it will have less drag, just like the F-35, but that lower amount of drag won't be "free" -- it will have a "huge" body, which will itself produce some drag -- just like the F-35.You seem to enjoy using snide nicknames for aircraft you don't like, in order to differentiate them from aircraft you are afflicted with a fanboy love of. I'm guessing you've spent time with the morons at AirPowerAustralia?