F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS A LEMON

[F16_Filur]

Den blir rätt mobbad faktiskt.

0.50
"You can guarantee that a 1950Ã,´s designed Mig-21 or french Mirage, would just hopelessly WHIP... the uhhh.... the F-35".

A Russian 1950s Mig-21 CAN KILL F-35 in a dog fight Top US Aircraft designer claims FUNNY STUFF

Annan länk.
http://youtu.be/ke94ss1uIuM

[Horizon]

Ja, har de inte något annat ess i rockärmen så räcker det inte med en stor och stark motor för att få F-35'an att prestera bra i kurvstrid. Man kan väl inte bara förlita sig på BVR-strid? De som vet säger ju att man förr eller senare alltid hamnar WVR.

[F16_Filur]

Har för mig jag läst att den skulle vara 9+ G-kapabel, men en sån siffra gäller ju bara i en viss envelop - en viss last, en viss höjd, en viss fart. Jag vet inte, den kanske har ett sådant smalt fönster där den klarar det med sin vector-thrust.  En annan invändning är att man också får räkna med kroppen som viss lyftyta på dessa moderna plan, men det här projektet verkar ändå styrt av andra faktorer än maximalt genial ingenjörskonst. Ska bli intressant att se vad historiens dom blir, om det blir ett av de fulaste och dyraste planen någonsin, eller något annat? 

Samt om F-22 får se strid någon gång. Det var ett tag sen sista exemplaret rullade ut, men de har väl lagrat specialverktygen etc. så de skulle kunna ta upp produktionen i teorin åtminstone. Det skulle nog innebära en fruktansvärd prestigeförlust för dem att förlora ett sådant plan i krig, efter den typen av euforiska superlativ som omgärdat det planet.

Hur mycket amerikansk stealth-tech som eventuellt läckt till öst är annan intressant fråga.

edit: stavfel

[Horizon]

"108 pounds of airplane per square foot of wing. In dogfighting it's hopeless."

108 lbs är 49 kg. Det låter inte så mycket för mig som lekman. Vad är belastningen på en Gripen?

[F16_Filur]

21,05 kg/ft för Gripen i tomvikt.
26,3 kg/ft tankad och "loaded", vad som nu menas med det, kanske laddad kanon, tankad och A-A konfigurering.
43,3 kg/ft med Max. takeoff weight.
Källa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Frågan är i vilken konfiguration F-35 har 49 kg?
Här står det 91,4 lb/ft istället för 108, http://www.flygboken.se/Sid%2052.pdf , F-35 vs Gripen NG, men den senare har sekretess på den uppgiften där.

Här däremot, http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/saab-gripen-analysis/ , du får själv räkna om till lbs/ft.

C-version.

Wing area: 25,54 m2; 30 m2 with canards
Wing loading:
326 or 383 kg/m2 with 100% fuel, 4 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinder
287 or 337 kg/m2 with 50% fuel, 4 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinder
266 or 313 kg/m2 with 50% fuel and 2 Sidewinder
(*depending on wether canards are counted)
Thrust-to-Weight ratio: (80,51 kN ââ,¬â€œ 18 100 lbf ââ,¬â€œ thrust)
0,95 with 50% fuel, 4 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinder

Another presentation also shows Gripen NGââ,¬â,,¢s empty weight as 7 120 kg, and wing loading as 317 kg/m2 in combat configuration with 50% fuel. http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/DutchAirForceAssociation_Gripen_2009.pdf

Nu gjorde jag lite sökningar och hittade detta intressanta bland kommenterarna till ââ,¬ÂFlyget saknar vapen och spaningââ,¬Â - NyTeknik:
http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3119901.ece#comments

Det här var vad signaturen Robban svarade på en mycket liknande slutsats, betänk sedan varför det i polen av politiska skäl är bra att presentera ett sådant resultat oavsett vilket handikapp f-16 planen hade.
"I guess nothing is impossible.
But, considering that the Gripen beats the F-16 in:
Maneuverability: Gripen better at all speeds, especially when supersonic.
ITR: F-16 26 deg/sec. Gripen >30 deg/sec.
STR: F-16(C) 18 deg/sec. Gripen 20 deg/sec.
Wing loading: Gripen has MUCH lower wingloading.
Drag: Gripen has much lower drag. Even though the Gripen has a lower TWR, it can still outclimb the F-16 at certain speeds. It is also faster, especially on dry thrust.
Radar range: F-16 90-105km. Gripen 120km.
RCS: F-16 1.2m2. Gripen <0.1m2.
Sensor fusion: The Gripen is a new generation and was designed from the start with sensor fusion in mind. The F-16 is not comparable here.
Fighter link: F-16, Link 16. No real time info. 12 sec delay on information. Amount of information that can be transfered -low/limited.
Gripen, TIDLS, real time information with extremely high information flow. In full fusion with the aircrafts radar and EWS systems.
MMI: There's really no comparison.
Turn around time, MTBF, etc, Gripen completely superior.
If we go by RCS and radar range then it should give us an idea which aircraft will be detected first. Although it's not so easy. But looking at all the info we have. The F-16 falls short on all the points that counts. If the "report" is true, than the ROE clearly favored the Polish F-16's in this particular case."
( http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1029-start-255.html )
Erik Svensson  9 mar 2011 23:52

Frågan är om det finns någon bästa gemensam konfiguration att utgå från när man ska jämföra plan vad gäller wing loading och avgöra vilket som är bäst för kurvstrid generellt? 50% bränsle, laddad kanon och 4xAA borde leda en ganska nära, men sen behöver man nog en lista på ett tiotal jämförande punkter för att kora en vinnare i absolut mening.

wingl
climb
drag
itr
str
sub-sonic
super-sonic
twr
alpha
acceleration

[Horizon]

Ja, det var ju en ganska stor skillnad mellan Gripen och F-35 vad gäller wing loading. Deltavingen breder ut sig...

[Horizon]

Jag tycker att vi fortsätter att gratulera Norge för deras val av F-35 framför Gripen. Heja Norge! *fnissar och pekar finger*

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-fire-its-gun-until-2019.html

[F16_Filur]

Hittade lite kul kommentarer från en norrman verkar det som.

Spånar bara, men de "kronjuveler" som antytts tidigare måste handla om något avancerat missilförsvarssystem (som kanske ligger på framkant även jämfört med nuvarande F-22) och en mer utvecklad datalänk av den typen Sverige haft sedan 80-talet. För mig vajar bullshitflaggan högt, precis som för andra ambitösa idéer som Den nya ekonomin, Globaliseringen/Mångkultur, Nätverksbaserat Försvar och andra typiska bubblor som alla låter bra på pappret. Kom ihåg att ingen plan överlever första kontakten med fienden. Om någonting KAN gå fel, KOMMER det att gå fel.
F-35 kanske fungerar om man får spela ut scenarios som "Desert Storm" med ett överväldigande övertag, men i framtida krig torde det vara garanterat att mer kapabla motståndare kommer att bryta genom till WVR. Även om man kan skjuta tidigare kanske man inte får pga ej bekräftad fiende, det är så mycket som kan hända. Glappet mellan vad krigarna vill ha för plattform jämfört med vad teoretikerna och de korrumperade vill ha, verkar aldrig ha varit större. Samtidigt kommer förstås krigarna att anpassa sig och göra det bästa av situationen. Hade enda problemet varit hur de skulle bete sig i luften vore det rätt hanterbart, men när det kommer till alla de andra aspekterna med kostnader, underhåll, känslighet - ser det ut att placera sig på jumboplats. Blir intressant att följa.

F-35 glass cockpit - How to fly and drop bombs (Real Sim)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnWg4v6iHk

jullienflight 1 year ago
How can a smaller aircraft with smaller wings carry the same fuel load as a much bigger one still be able to out perform it or anything for that matter?
The F-35 only carries 6x AMRAAM Missiles internally or 2x AMRAAM and 2x JADAM Bombs how is that more than the F-111?

Isaac Newton is raising his BS flag.

Strange Faction 1 month ago
Why STOL / hover? It seems so useless and unnecessarily making the fuselage bulky increasing drag.

georgebaggy 3 weeks ago
+Strange Faction Only the F-35B has STOL. It will be used on carriers without catapults I guess.

Strange Faction 2 weeks ago
+georgebaggy I know.. But all the F-35 fuselages are wider causing drag because of this, if only it affected the width of the F-35B fuselage. Is STOL really this important? Isn't a sleeker fuselages thus catapults aerodynamically preferred?

Strange Faction 2 weeks ago
+georgebaggy I just prefer engine independent STOL. Like the Gripen.

Strange Faction 1 week ago
+Charles Hixon So bulkier bodies, downward thrust and smaller wings now allow bricks not only to fly, but be launched from smaller platforms too.. Strange world indeed..

"if you put enough engine on something . . . even a brick could fly"

Strange Faction 1 week ago
+georgebaggy Then what is the F-35 good at? Please.. What does the F-35 excel in?

Charles Hixon 1 week ago
+Strange Faction It's the supreme SAM killer. You should check out its DAS test where it picks up missile launches tracks them with IR, then automatically cues its radar to track it. It can also use its radar to create pictures of the ground uncluttered by foliage and camo nets, send those SAR images towards a destroyer that plugs them into Tomahawks. It's also stealthy, and can use LPI radar to track others without being noticed, oh and it can use that data to launch another platforms weapons, whether it be an F-15 traveling at Mach 2 or a destroyer with long range SAM's. The data networks available to the military have changed the game. They far outweigh whatever any single platform can bring.

Strange Faction 1 week ago
IMO; it's everything other than aerodynamic.. It's a brick flown by fly-by-wire.. My country have invested huge sums in this disaster, to put it mild, I'm very disappointed.

Officially its multi role; dog fight, ground support, bomber.

In dogfight it lacks both aerodynamic lift and speed/power.. Under equal conditions, it will crash and burn compared to competitors. A good dogfighter is a glider when unpowered.

In ground support it has to fly low and slow, the F-35 has a high stall speed when not using downward thrust, because of drag. So the F-35B might have a slight chance in ground support if it don't get hit.

If you build aircraft primarily relying on lift you'll have a good glider when power is out. Lift provides agility and climb rate. Lift is essential to all aeronautical roles (duh?). And drag is always a bitch in aeronautical applications (duh?)

interceptor = good power/weight + lift

dogfighter = lift + good power/ weight

ground supporter = toughness + lift

bomber = your lucky charm

All you need is a good dog fighter. Dogfighting pushes / relies on all the important aerodynamic aspects of aeronautics. When you build a good dogfighter, you'll eventually end up with a good interceptor, bomber and ground supporter.

Dogfighting is the 'pinnacle' of flying.
Dogfighting is the ultimate airframe test.
Dogfighting defines multi role.

Larger flight envelope = better aircraft

compare flight envelopes and you have the 'better' aircraft.

F-35 is a money scam, I cannot view it as other.

Strange Faction 1 week ago
+Charles Hixon When it cannot run from nor out turn SAM, the only option is to stay and slay SAM.. You only mention technologies that you can put on any aircraft, i.e. weapon system dependent technology, not the aerodynamics of the airframe.

With its SAM capabilities you are only mentioning one of its stopgaps to combat its incapabilities. IMO all the computerization of this contraption makes the pilot an enigma. Creating another big Achilles heel. The rule of computers; they can be hacked..

The approach is just completely wrong. On purpose. It'll always be a set back. It is too complex. Too many weak points. In war simplicity always prove useful. This will cause a heck of revenue.

Charles Hixon 1 week ago
+Strange Faction Perhaps. Only time will truly tell. I think much of the premise of the F-35 was that SAM missiles have kinetically advanced beyond the ability to physically evade. So instead all the eggs were put into the signature basket. Being able to evade SAMs via avoiding detection and engage the enemy with advanced sensors seems like a viable option for the future. After all that too i don't understand where the the idea that it is very bad at maneuvering as it is allegedly as maneuverable as an F-18 and accelerates like an F-16 (with pods and combat fuel/ordanance loads)

Strange Faction 1 week ago (edited)
Allegedly, they show virtually none demonstrations of its capabilities, fishy enough for you? Yes only time will tell if its any good, but from the looks of it you can tell it relies on aerodynamic instability, not simplicity and wing-lift provided agility like a normal aircraft.. Fly it in X-Plane and you'll know how much instability those computers have to compensate for, just sayin'. Those pilots have to be dumb, not to be scared by flying this contraption, that's an understatement. It's true for the F-22 too...

Just from the looks of a conventional aircraft you can tell the drag/lift and performance, if knowing the output.. Allegedly it's measurable science, not witchcraft..

The F-18 handles a bit like a bag of potatoes, not kidding, try it in X-Plane... Though I have to give it credit for being the most agile fighter among the aircraft spawned by US Military programs..

The F-16 is still the most agile western US fighter jet to date.. Conceived by F-15 developers fed up with the F-15 project.. The criteria they made for the F-16 was to be half as big as the F-15 and outperform the F-15 in a dogfight.. The American Air Force have always had the problem of wanting everything in aircraft, ruining the design.. The F-16 is proof of just that, they set out with a vision, not ruled by military specifications and did so perfectly... Remember the F-16 was a private project that out performed all the military programs...

The F-16 is outdated now, especially aerodynamically compared to the Gripen, nonetheless it's still the better choice for a US fighter aircraft.. No doubt, the F-16 is the best fighter jet ever produced by a US company..

Nope the F-35 does NOT accelerate like an F-16, not by a long shot.. In the F-35 the transonic transition takes +40 seconds (because of drag).. It was announced last year..

It would be better if the F-35 handled like the F-16 and accelerated like the F-18, but still disappointing... And WHY the hell does an aircraft due for delivery in 2037 only accelerate like an aircraft from 1978 and handle like an aircraft from 1983 even if true, isn't that disappointing to you?? Aircraft? Is that progression or recession?

Buying a fighter jet performing on par with jets 50 years ago is a bit of a joke, isn't it? (Based on the alleged 2037 US delivery. If ever, like the F-104...)

Is it possible the Gripen's STOL capabilities is enough for the UK future fighter jet demand?

I don't get why the UK don't develop their own new STOL/VTOL capable aircraft, in my opinion UK fighter jets have always been superior to US fighter jets.. UK military aircraft is like the F-16, built for perfection.. A new Harrier would be much better for England's STOL/VTOL need, is my guess..

I truly hope my country decide to keep with the F-16, despite the huge sums we have invested in F-35 development so far.. Regardless if the F-35 is good or bad, the F-35 will ruin us economically, our air force budgets will quadruple at least if picking the F-35, not kidding.. Our politicians and military officials are all paid off by Lockheed Martin, to vote for the F-35 to be our next fighter jet, our next fighter jet is not exactly a 'choice'. Just like they did with the disastrous F-104 Starfighter.. Although our pilots seems to want the JAS-39 Gripen, our pilots have tried both F-35, Typhoon and the Gripen, but pilot evaluations of jets don't matter at all, bureaucratically that is. I wonder why our pilots even test different aircraft for that purpose. Like our pilots I wish we settle for the Gripen, but that'll NEVER happen. It'll stay a pilots wish, a mere wish NOT EVER granted by our corrupt politicians and military officials.. I know wishing for the Gripen is nothing but a wish, I even bet Sweden will give us one free of charge, just to proudly "show" it to us. I sincerely hope we'll accept such an offer. I can only wish for the Gripen as our next fighter jet. Next best is to hope we just buy some new F-16..

It's gonna be funny though. Norway has F-16 and one F-35 so far. While neighbors with Sweden they often play "friendly games" and so far, it seem both the F-16 and the F-35 is beaten utterly senseless by the cheap JAS-39 in conventional roles such as; dogfighting, bombing and ground support.. I bet Sweden have lots of data on Gripen vs. early state F-35 they would love to share, if only they could (respecting the 'secrecy')..

Yes it is hard to avoid modern Russian SAM, but fired at a distance most fast and highly agile aircraft like the Gripen have good chance of escaping instead of staying and try to slay the stockpiles of SAM in the area, like finding out how many waves of SAM you can defeat in a $100M aircraft before one hits.. It seems a futile strategy relying on exhausting stockpiles of enemy SAM, sounds like something a pilot would LOVE TO DO.. Lets find out how many SAM our way we can defeat, because running is not an option..

Buying and maintaining the F-16 is almost free of charge compared to maintaining the F-35.. The performance of a fighter aircraft is NOT everything..
In a fight; quantity > quality > maintainability > performance, always win..

What will win here?
1 F-35 vs. 35 MiG-21?
It's on par in a cost wise perspective..

It all rely on cost of purchase, service and maintenance, nothing else....

If your country can economically maintain a 100 F-16s. They would roughly be able to maintain maybe 20 F-35s for the same price, max. And 400 'modern' MiG-21.
What would you prefer from a cost perspective?

In war simplicity have ALWAYS proven superior to complexity, ALWAYS..
And complexity have ALWAYS proven an Achilles heel.. History is still to prove us otherwise, speaking of all the eggs in one basket..

Stealth is complexity too, yes stealth, only until some way of detection is conceived of (IR, sound, satellites and low freq. radar), then stealth will be nothing but a measure to suck out performance, due to the radical 'stealth' angles..
Initial stealth > Performance?
Really?

Allegedly the F-35 is "All weather", strangely enough it is grounded during electrical storms..
In that case; all your base are belong to Putin, with his simple aerodynamic attackers and fighters not afraid of thunder..

BTW. "stealth" is only "stealth" to western means of radar detection. Russia have had measures to detect stealth for three decades now. Selling their mobile low freq. radar stations to everybody with money... Yes the PAK-FA is stealth and it actually makes sense; western high freq. (microwave) radar is not able to detect stealth, only low freq. is..

Initial stealth is a perk to a multi role jet, not a necessity..

I seriously wonder why the human co-pilot (that's what he is) is even necessary in this aircraft.. A F-35 drone would actually make sense in contrast to a human piloted F-35..

My personal bet is the F-35 will be the worst investment ever spawned by the 20th century and the best money scam by Lockheed Martin  ever..

Capitalism
Capital = revenue
Ism = ideology
Capitalism = the ideology of revenue

Purchase & repair = revenue
Simple.. Regardless if any good or bad, Lockheed Martin / Skunk Works will make huge astronomical profits on this aircraft, especially when failing, that's the truth..

Yes if void of common sense; only time will tell...
Now we just wait and see; if I'm void of common sense (;