All these people seem to be experts on modern fighter planes. Has anybody here flown an F-35? Has anybody seen one flying? If the pilots of the F-35 say its a "dream to fly", and will make doing their jobs a lot easier, then who are you to argue? Its the pilots that have to fly the plane, not the youtube experts. Our pilots will master this plane just as they did the F-16 and become deadly proficient in it. I think some of you are just butt hurt because Lockheed didn't ask for your expert advice when designing it.
This is from Wikipedia, "The YF-23 design was more stealthy and faster, but the YF-22 was more agile." That quote originally came from a documentary. And a better radar? The radar is made by Gumman anyway!
During the ATF flyoff the aircraft were limited to mach 1.8. The aircraft is slowly raised up in the flight envelope so that all the systems can be checked for issues. The aircraft were originally limited to mach 1, then mach 1.4, then mach 1.8.
The F110 has an SFC of 0.745, and let's say that the SFC of the F414 around 0.8, roughly that of an F404. SFC is expressed in lb of fuel per unit thrust, so we have to multiply by the thrust. For the F110: 0.745*16,600lf thrust dry = 12367 For the F414 : 0.8*12500 = 10000. With afterburner: For the F110: 1.971*28000 lf thrust dry = 55188 For the F414 : 1.7*22000 = 37400. The F110s burn a lot more than the F414s, although they're more effective per unit thrust dry ( and worse on AB).
"In my opinion a modernized F15 or the new superhornet beats the shit out of the F35 if she is not 100% invisible" South Korea just restarted their fighter procurement competition even though the F-15SE had already won (last aircraft standing because the other two, typhoon and F-35 could not meet the budget). The reason was the capability gap between the F-15 and F-35.
Yes, the F-4 worked out well. All they had to do was use it as it was designed to be used instead of trying to make it work with poorly thought out ROE restrictions. The ability to swing roles between a fighter and strike plane was also very useful. Just like the F-18 and F-16, and the late model F-15's none of which are single role. The F-35 is simply following the trends of technology.
Beyond Visual Range, which basically means combat is fought using radar and medium to long range missiles. The opposite is WVR or Within Visual Range where short range missiles, IR sensors, guns, and eyesight can play a larger role in combat.
Yes the f-16 is more nimble but the thing you don't know is first f-35 is a stealth plane. The plane has a gadget that scans 360 view around the plane that the pilot has a helmet that allows him to look all the way around his jet. The 35 has the best engine that we have to date and can carry heavier bombs or more and can still reach its highest speed while the f16 can't carry as many bombs nor acually reach its highest speed while fully stocked on ammo and misses... Now the f-16 is more maneuverable but not more fast when you talk about a fully loaded plane. And the f-35 makes it easier to see who is friend and foe using the scanner I talked about. That does include land. It scans the ground and cam see in buildings using infrared and sees people that are enemies and can give that data to the ground forces or can blow them up. Now during the night the helmet that was previously mentioned can also work perfectly during the night makeing it easy to spot the enemy in the air and take them out will the enemy can't seem the f-35
Nezarious Skylord Actually stealth are not really stealth anymore, but the 360 view is really cool, gives more time to the pilot to pull the eject handle.
Andre Glegg While I think you're underestimating the advantage of having a longer reach on the sensors, it has a LOT more than BVR to save it. For one, it has the most sophisticated targeting system ever put into a fighter. It has 360 degree targeting and can even fire missiles at something that's BEHIND it. All it has to do is exit the fight and lob missiles at anything attempting to chase it.
Hmm you think it should get blown up ehh well here's why it shouldn't... Yes the f-16 is more nimble but the thing you don't know is first f-35 is a stealth plane. The plane has a gadget that scans 360 view around the plane that the pilot has a helmet that allows him to look all the way around his jet. The 35 has the best engine that we have to date and can carry heavier bombs or more and can still reach its highest speed while the f16 can't carry as many bombs nor acually reach its highest speed while fully stocked on ammo and misses... Now the f-16 is more maneuverable but not more fast when you talk about a fully loaded plane. And the f-35 makes it easier to see who is friend and foe using the scanner I talked about. That does include land. It scans the ground and cam see in buildings using infrared and sees people that are enemies and can give that data to the ground forces or can blow them up. Now during the night the helmet that was previously mentioned can also work perfectly during the night makeing it easy to spot the enemy in the air and take them out will the enemy can't seem the f-35
Ya Right for every hour of flight time it requires 30 hours of maintenence, it was farmed out to 44 states for its different parts and they have to be machined at final accembly for them to fit together. The Aussies had a mock war game putting the F-22, the F-35, and the F/A-18 Super Hornet up against the new Sukihoi's and Migs. The Su and Mig pilots said it was like nocking baby seals over the head getting kills.
If I was the president of USA I would upgraded all the F-16A/B/C/D Block Model to the F-16E/F Block 70 Super Viper. The same F-16 was offered to IAF MMRCA which failed along with Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Gripen. I would give the F-16E/F some of F-35 avionics, stealth technology, and of course the F-16E/F does have stealth features such as internal fuel tank.
They were taking out mirages mainly, not a4's. And that was due to the ability for the plane to nearly stop mid air and allow their opponent to pass, then shooting them in the back.
My figure is not low. This is the figure from 98' for a F-14 D. Grumman had taken a D and upgraded it to the E variant, lowering its RCS, upgrading all the technology on the F-14, including avionics, radar, cockpit, thicker wings, 3D TVC, etc, showing it would cost 15 million to upgrade the fleet of F-14's giving them double what the D brought to the fleet. They brought this forward to compete against the F/A-18E/F that 1. cant do a third of the F-14D and 2. cost 63 million in 98'.
I noticed a UK flag on the side of the F35 does that mean we have some as well :P it'd be nice to have some more planes other than the 16 eurofighters that currently make our fighter airforce
He said the F-18A-C, which is the regular hornet, not the superbug which is in fact being replaced by the F-35. On the other hand, the A-10 is also scheduled to be phased out in favor of the F-35, just at a later date.
on its wings and gloves that increased its already great agility, upgraded its radar so it had 2 radars sitting in its nose. The F/A-18 was allowed funding to fix its maintenance issues, whereas the F-14 wasnt because Chenney tried to buy 40% of Grumman and they wouldnt sell, hence why we dont have an F-14 that is double the D capability, which the SH cant do double of. It would also have increased agility and the AST 21 was an option to go against the Naval ATF. Btw, Grumman did all the...
JSF also replaces F-14's which are far more capable aircraft than the JSF Just a few months ago: US defence analyst Pierre Sprey, told the ABC the JSF was inferior to the widely used F-16 - an aircraft dating from the early 1970s which remains in production. "We have an airplane that can't turn to escape fighters, can't turn to escape missiles, sluggish in acceleration because it's so big and fat and draggy and doesn't have enough motor for the WEIGHT," All looks well on paper, not in reality
Yes its possible, the F-14 was designed as well for that exact same thing. Its Radar covered low flying objects, up to near 100,000 ft. It was tested and done by the plane. A plane which was built in the 60's. We have more efficient ways of doing it now. If you have air superiority, which they didnt, then the planes would not be up in the air getting the chance to launch them. The harrier was not a fighter. It was an attack plane with some fighter capability. Hence the name AV-8A Harrier
Hans, I agree with you 100%. The F-35 is becoming as costly as the F-22 and is far less capable. We should have allowed our allies, some of whom wanted the F-22 over the F-35 and we could have gotten the F-22's unit cost down. I noticed you selected the JAS-39, me personally I think the Eurofighter Typhoon is even better than the JAS but that is one man's opinion. Regards,
Yes, but the F-22 isn't being used in Afghanistan because the F-16 is doing good as a multi-role fighter, so that is why the air superiority F-22 isn't needed.
aircraft they discuss. The F-14 has a combat radius of 500 nautical miles(nmi) or 575 miles with a hi-low-hi profile. The F/A-18 E/F has a combat radius of of 390nmi or 440 miles with drop tanks in a hi-hi flight profile. Which is 135 less than the F-14 with drop tanks. The F-14 has internal fuel capacity 16,200lbs with 3800 lbs external, equaling 20,000 lbs total. The F/A-18 SH has 14,400 internal and 2400 external totaling 16,800. The F-14 has a ferry range of 1910 miles, the E/F 1800+
Imo the F-35 should have had side bays for the 9Xs with the ability to lock on before launch with its HMS. It would have changed the design a bit and increased cost, but many countries will use the F-35 as their primary fighter and they need WVR capabilities that really work.
I usually like the F-35, but I agree that the DAS/helmet effectiveness in WVR is a big concern. The DAS doesn't provide the distance, only the direction. How can a 9X lock on its target in a 1-2 seconds turn with no more target information? I doubt it would work a significant proportion of the time.
>> The F/A-18 SH has 14,400 internal and 2400 external totaling 16,800. The F-18E can carry 3x480gal in strike config or CAP, which is = 1440gal. The density of fuel is 7.15 pounds per US gallon, so 1440gal = 10296lbs. Grand total 14,400 + 10300lbs = 24700lbs. The drag problem is more in supersonic, because of the canted pylons. The F-14 also of course benefits from its variable geometry wing.
The reason their were no comparisons is simple. there are non... vertical lift and stealth are with the f35 - everything and i mean everything else is against it . its basically a brick with small wings that cant do anything new excepts vert and short combat life.
Well, the whole idea was to have a common platform to save cost. Developing 3 variants was supposed to cost 40% more than one. When you have the STOVL aircraft, why not just replace the lift fan with a tank plus a few other minor changes in order to make a CTOL variant. And replace the wing, landing gear and arresting hook for a carrier variant. The JSF just makes sense. It's just that LM fucked up the weight 10 years ago, and the US gov didn't see the problem coming even though it was obvious.
The F-14D in 1998 cost 38 million, the F/A-18 cost 63 million, the C cost 29 million. The cost for the Super Hornet does not justify the aircraft because of the minimal gains that it has in part of the flight envelop. The C is still more agile, it just doesnt have the range which, could have been fixed by simple modifications that were found in the GAO reports. The F-14 was slightly more expensive than the C variant of the Hornet. Once again I stated for you to look up the combat radius of...
Are you crazy? The only time the harrier had any success in air combat was when the Brits used it in the Falkland wars going against a handful of A-4 (attack planes) Thats because we gave the Brits the new updated sidewinder. Some of the harriers were even shot down in combat.
Both are Lockheed Martin products. For various reasons, the F22 production/manufacturing has ended just before the F35 goes into the production mode. i don not remember the cost comparison of the two, - but with thought that F35 ending up having a few thousand build for all 3 variants and all users, it shoudl end up cheaper - versus less than 200 F22s built, only 1 variant, only 1 user.
How do you know about it's manoeuvrability? It has so far never been captured on video. The requirement is for it to be more manoeuvrable than a CLEAN F-18 which is pretty damn good. It has also been tested to sustained 50 degrees alpha.
"For instance, it was reported in the media recently that the F-35 reached Mach 1.6 in a test. Few glowing statements were spared. Not reported was that after the flight, the aircraft program was limited to Mach 1 performance because of damage to the horizontal stabilisers and engine thermal protection. Glowing media reports have also stated that the F-35 helmet and distributed aperture system (DAS) have been working great... Cont.
That is true. But in the F-35's defence I'm sure over 9 countries would not have invested billions of dollars into an aircraft that couldn't turn properly. I believe the true role of the F-35 is to not be a total multi-role fighter jet but to be a supersonic radar penetrating bomber, that has some ability to defend itself. But it does look o so sexy.
The latest batch of F-18E costs about 44 millions, plus about 9 millions for the 'engines' I mean. The F-18E is much cheaper to operate, and that's even more important than the cost of the aircraft .
How did they have the same enginge if the 2 YF-23s were fitted with different engines? And those engines weren't even fixed with thrust vectoring, which you NEED in a modern air superiority fighter.
I love people who discuss aircraft and know absolutely nothing about them. When you test G's on an aircraft you are testing its ability to survive the force of gravity so you dont fly the aircraft apart. Just because an aircraft is designed to survive 9 G's does not mean that it is an agile aircraft. The F-14 can pull over 9 G's. The manual limits the F-14D to 7.6 so that you dont age the aircraft faster than it should but, the aircraft can pull more than 9 G's.
You want comparison? 2:07 both aircraft turns at the same TR. F-35 turns with full afterburner while F-16 (with an EFT) needs airbrakes to prevent aircraft from accelerating away. So much for F-35's maneuverability...
F-35 is not replacing the A-10 or the Naval F/A-18 Super Hornet. The reason it doesn't have guns on the exterior is because it's built with stealth technology, and external weapons will cause that technology to fail. It's even built with internal hardpoints for mass effect weapon deployment.
Anyone know the thrust to weight ratio? We know its better than 1 to 1 with STOVL plus super sonic. Its got tons of power to do all that. I heard a guy saying it couldn't even go straight up after take off. I said "did you arrive on planet earth today because a vertical take off is straight up". lol If it can do that without wind under the wing imagine what it could do with wind. It may have a case of Gen 5 BUGS in the system but they will be worked out, cause Its got allot of new systems.
You are forgetting the fact that the F/A-18 horrible drag coefficient causes it to have less of a combat radius than the F-14. The F-14 can fly a high low high combat profile and still have a great radius, the F/A-18 cant do this and has to fly a high-high flight profile and still doesnt have the range of the F-14. I already went over Grumman, out of its own pocket, fixed the majority of F-14 maintenance woes. The Hornet had the same but, was given funding to fix these...
Yep, never mind, just checked out some stuff. F-22 is one sexy plane. F-35 is still a great plane, but I'd love to see the U.S. put some more F-22's out there, maybe take out any older models that are still in use (F14, if those are still used, not sure.)
The F-22 is now being stationed in the middle east, which means its on a combat mission, second the F-22 is more maneuverable (1st plane in service with thrust vectoring), but why are people comparing the F-35 and F-22? The F-22 is air dominance while the F-35 is multirole, not all that similar.
F16C and further on is also MULTIrole fighters. Outmanouver in Top Gun Style is history. It may be fun to watch, but it is not the reality today with BVR missiles and IR missiles that can be fired head-on. It's pretty much a game of getting the missile of the rails first.
Eh, my issue with the superbug is the production line (baring any surprise orders) is closing in 2018.At that point, not only is the upgrade path for the plane going to be incredibly uncertain, but maintenance costs will skyrocket. At the same time the F-35 will be in FRP, with a clearly defined upgrade plan that stretches into the 2030's. One has to take the future into consideration when making purchases such as these, not just the present.
the F22 is NOT JUSTAir to Air. In fact for a while it even carried the F/A designation before they desided to make ATG secondary It has the avionics to suuport ground attack missions, can carry up to 2 GBU32 ( 1000lb) and eight small diameter bombs.
4 The F-35C's arresting hook does not work and the rear fuselage of the plane will need a redesign because it is to short. 5 Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth. 6 The wing buffet is worse than previously reported. With this issue there is no way you can say the F-35 is as agile as an F/A-18. 7 The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan. 8 The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas. This after 6 years...
They carry the same type of targeting pods. The F-18 can carry 3 480 gal tanks in strike missions + 4 other pylons for bombs, vs 2 small tanks for the F-14. Are you willing to pay almost twice as much for just more supersonic speed and a larger radar? It's not worth it!!! Moreover the maintenance cost of the F-14 would be much higher. If you really wanted a high performance heavy fighter the right idea is a naval F-22, which enables you to benefit from the economy of scale with the AF.
The radar is part of it I suppose, by I was thinking more of the Harrier's speed. It can go supersonic like most other fighters which limits its ability to climb and also hurts its ability boost its missiles ranges and leaves it with less energy to avoid incoming missiles.
The radar of that JSF should have been compatible with the F-18C and AV-8Bs or maybe with a different antenna, and the best airframes should have been upgraded, so the Navy would have by now an extra 300 aircraft or so with AESAs. Instead of the STOVL variant, the America class LHA should have been armed with more helos and the AGS and possibly TLAMs vertical launchers. The AGS can provide much more firepower for beach landing than JSFs... Small VLO UAVs would have been used for targeting.
I suggest you look up the things Grumman did to the F-14D in order to fix the maintenance on the F-14. Grumman brought this information to Congress to prove that they could get the Tomcat maintenance costs down. Grumman also lowered the RCS by replacing plates on the F-14 that allowed radar through and trapped it in the fuselage of the aircraft, lowering the RCS immensely. The F-14 engines do not comsume more fuel than the Hornet. I love talking to people who dont look up any data on the....
btw I told you to read all the other GAO reports under the top link that go over the issues other than the pricetag of the F-35. You do realize that the F-35 is closing in on the F-22's price range and it gives half of the capability of the F-22 right? There are quarterly GAO reports that you can read, I suggest you start going over them and reading them when they come out...
Even with all the extra tanks on the F/A-18, the SH does not have the combat radius of the F-14, the aircraft is a joke. The F-14 E should be sitting on our decks. Grumman had fixed every maintenance issue on the F-14 and made it less maintenance heavy than the SH. It had redesigned every part of the Tomcat that gave them issues, modernized the cockpit, reduced its RCS without screwing with its armor or capability, unlike the SH, gave it 3D TVC, gave it a thicker wings and newer technologies..
The second page has an article that I linked, if you cared enough to actually get involved with the discussion, you would have read more than one comment. Why do you think the two guys I was talking to about the Hornet stopped commenting? Look at its combat radius compared to the F-14, why do you think the NAVY lost 50% of its defensive shield under the Hornet? Why do you think it cant hit targets deep in land? The F-16 is one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the world. You really...
@RayisSHORT Wrong. It exeeds in some parts - that is stealth and supercruise, but there are jets that beat it in all other categories. Most beat it in maintenance :P
The f-35 is not an air superiority fighter anyway, it's systems are made for it's multirole jobs, the f-22 is made almost purely to take down other aircraft.
This was a statement given by Lokheed Martin The F-35A is expected to match the F-16 in maneuverability and instantaneous and sustained high-g performance (ie. 9gs), and outperform it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability, and survivability. It is expected to match an F-16 that is carrying the usual external fuel tank in acceleration performance. Dont judge the plane just because it looks bulky and stuff, and dont believe every blogger
This being said, personally I think the US should have cancelled the F-22 in 92 and should have developped the JSF instead of the F-22 and F-18E. The STOVL variant would have been scrapped. LM would have used its experience with the YF-22 to make a single-engine variant shorter with a narrower fuselage. The priority would have been given to the Navy variant. By now the USAF and the USN would both have like 300 a/c.
you did a good job on the movie. keep up the good work.
@b747sound
Congrats!!! That's one sick plane!! Get goosebumps seeing that thing...
Pretty impressive that you were able to commandeer a chase plane fast enough and maneuverable enough to keep-up while filming your movie...
No plane is ever going to beat the sheer coolness of a fully loaded F-16.
FANTASTIC landing!!!!
and that, ladies and gentlemen, is how to successfully troll a troll
All these people seem to be experts on modern fighter planes. Has anybody here flown an F-35? Has anybody seen one flying? If the pilots of the F-35 say its a "dream to fly", and will make doing their jobs a lot easier, then who are you to argue? Its the pilots that have to fly the plane, not the youtube experts. Our pilots will master this plane just as they did the F-16 and become deadly proficient in it. I think some of you are just butt hurt because Lockheed didn't ask for your expert advice when designing it.
But they get experts who write articles on the F35 and it has not been good review from what I have heard and seen.
+Jake Hayes they did the same thing with the f-16 all the bad reviews are for is just to get more money. And it works.
Jake Hayes The articles are only to produce more revenue and NOT written by experts.
Some are experts.
Jake Hayes Not on the F-35. Bet they haven't flown them or worked on them, so how could they know?
ok cool. but you said the Harrier is very poor at BVR. does this have to do with its Blue Vixen radar or its other components or the missiles?
Man it'd be a dream come true if civvies could own one but unarmed! XD i'll be super happy!
This is from Wikipedia, "The YF-23 design was more stealthy and faster, but the YF-22 was more agile." That quote originally came from a documentary. And a better radar? The radar is made by Gumman anyway!
@ceconk123 The main reason why the weapons are inside is to keep it's stealth. But also to minimize the drag.
During the ATF flyoff the aircraft were limited to mach 1.8. The aircraft is slowly raised up in the flight envelope so that all the systems can be checked for issues. The aircraft were originally limited to mach 1, then mach 1.4, then mach 1.8.
@ahgoon69er No, The F-16 is a multi role fighter, meaning it can do pretty much anything well.
The F110 has an SFC of 0.745, and let's say that the SFC of the F414 around 0.8, roughly that of an F404.
SFC is expressed in lb of fuel per unit thrust, so we have to multiply by the thrust.
For the F110: 0.745*16,600lf thrust dry = 12367
For the F414 : 0.8*12500 = 10000.
With afterburner:
For the F110: 1.971*28000 lf thrust dry = 55188
For the F414 : 1.7*22000 = 37400.
The F110s burn a lot more than the F414s, although they're more effective per unit thrust dry ( and worse on AB).
The pilot in the F16 lives because of those G-pants, he pulls some sick G's.
"In my opinion a modernized F15 or the new superhornet beats the shit out of the F35 if she is not 100% invisible"
South Korea just restarted their fighter procurement competition even though the F-15SE had already won (last aircraft standing because the other two, typhoon and F-35 could not meet the budget). The reason was the capability gap between the F-15 and F-35.
Yes, the F-4 worked out well. All they had to do was use it as it was designed to be used instead of trying to make it work with poorly thought out ROE restrictions. The ability to swing roles between a fighter and strike plane was also very useful. Just like the F-18 and F-16, and the late model F-15's none of which are single role. The F-35 is simply following the trends of technology.
@Pincer88
Things are cheap for a reason, not always for the better either.
GOOD
@MilitaryAircraft101 well of-course it will face latest fulcies and flankies..! like USA , Russia also keeps updating its fighter aircraft..
Beyond Visual Range, which basically means combat is fought using radar and medium to long range missiles. The opposite is WVR or Within Visual Range where short range missiles, IR sensors, guns, and eyesight can play a larger role in combat.
The only possible option if you are engaged in combat while you flying an F-35 release the flares and at the same time pull the eject handle.
Yes the f-16 is more nimble but the thing you don't know is first f-35 is a stealth plane. The plane has a gadget that scans 360 view around the plane that the pilot has a helmet that allows him to look all the way around his jet. The 35 has the best engine that we have to date and can carry heavier bombs or more and can still reach its highest speed while the f16 can't carry as many bombs nor acually reach its highest speed while fully stocked on ammo and misses... Now the f-16 is more maneuverable but not more fast when you talk about a fully loaded plane. And the f-35 makes it easier to see who is friend and foe using the scanner I talked about. That does include land. It scans the ground and cam see in buildings using infrared and sees people that are enemies and can give that data to the ground forces or can blow them up. Now during the night the helmet that was previously mentioned can also work perfectly during the night makeing it easy to spot the enemy in the air and take them out will the enemy can't seem the f-35
Nezarious Skylord
Actually stealth are not really stealth anymore, but the 360 view is really cool, gives more time to the pilot to pull the eject handle.
the best thing the f35 can do is get blown up by the enemy
If you knew more about the F-35 you would not say that.
kraigthorne bvr cant save it.
Andre Glegg
While I think you're underestimating the advantage of having a longer reach on the sensors, it has a LOT more than BVR to save it. For one, it has the most sophisticated targeting system ever put into a fighter. It has 360 degree targeting and can even fire missiles at something that's BEHIND it. All it has to do is exit the fight and lob missiles at anything attempting to chase it.
Hmm you think it should get blown up ehh well here's why it shouldn't... Yes the f-16 is more nimble but the thing you don't know is first f-35 is a stealth plane. The plane has a gadget that scans 360 view around the plane that the pilot has a helmet that allows him to look all the way around his jet. The 35 has the best engine that we have to date and can carry heavier bombs or more and can still reach its highest speed while the f16 can't carry as many bombs nor acually reach its highest speed while fully stocked on ammo and misses... Now the f-16 is more maneuverable but not more fast when you talk about a fully loaded plane. And the f-35 makes it easier to see who is friend and foe using the scanner I talked about. That does include land. It scans the ground and cam see in buildings using infrared and sees people that are enemies and can give that data to the ground forces or can blow them up. Now during the night the helmet that was previously mentioned can also work perfectly during the night makeing it easy to spot the enemy in the air and take them out will the enemy can't seem the f-35
The F-16 is still a relevant bad-ass, even considering that it costs only a tiny fraction of what the F-35's price tag will demand.
Cool...but isn't AV8B Harrier II better??
Ya Right for every hour of flight time it requires 30 hours of maintenence, it was farmed out to 44 states for its different parts and they have to be machined at final accembly for them to fit together.
The Aussies had a mock war game putting the F-22, the F-35, and the F/A-18 Super Hornet up against the new Sukihoi's and Migs. The Su and Mig pilots said it was like nocking baby seals over the head getting kills.
If I was the president of USA I would upgraded all the F-16A/B/C/D Block Model to the F-16E/F Block 70 Super Viper. The same F-16 was offered to IAF MMRCA which failed along with Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Gripen. I would give the F-16E/F some of F-35 avionics, stealth technology, and of course the F-16E/F does have stealth features such as internal fuel tank.
The harrier was one of the best dog fighters ever made, and it proved speed isnt everything.
They were taking out mirages mainly, not a4's. And that was due to the ability for the plane to nearly stop mid air and allow their opponent to pass, then shooting them in the back.
My figure is not low. This is the figure from 98' for a F-14 D. Grumman had taken a D and upgraded it to the E variant, lowering its RCS, upgrading all the technology on the F-14, including avionics, radar, cockpit, thicker wings, 3D TVC, etc, showing it would cost 15 million to upgrade the fleet of F-14's giving them double what the D brought to the fleet. They brought this forward to compete against the F/A-18E/F that 1. cant do a third of the F-14D and 2. cost 63 million in 98'.
Another advantage of the f-35 is that it can take off and land vertically.
yeah true because it is older. btw what is BVR?
I noticed a UK flag on the side of the F35 does that mean we have some as well :P it'd be nice to have some more planes other than the 16 eurofighters that currently make our fighter airforce
The F-16 is terrible for ground support. The F-35 cannot make up its mind about what it wants to be.
The A-10 one hell of a killin' machine!
does this plane have elerons?
He said the F-18A-C, which is the regular hornet, not the superbug which is in fact being replaced by the F-35. On the other hand, the A-10 is also scheduled to be phased out in favor of the F-35, just at a later date.
The things i would give to be in flight school :)) practically my devotion
"It takes a pair of steel balls to land on a carrier" so now we know why you aren't a pilot
on its wings and gloves that increased its already great agility, upgraded its radar so it had 2 radars sitting in its nose. The F/A-18 was allowed funding to fix its maintenance issues, whereas the F-14 wasnt because Chenney tried to buy 40% of Grumman and they wouldnt sell, hence why we dont have an F-14 that is double the D capability, which the SH cant do double of. It would also have increased agility and the AST 21 was an option to go against the Naval ATF. Btw, Grumman did all the...
JSF also replaces F-14's which are far more capable aircraft than the JSF
Just a few months ago:
US defence analyst Pierre Sprey, told the ABC the JSF was inferior to the widely used F-16 - an aircraft dating from the early 1970s which remains in production.
"We have an airplane that can't turn to escape fighters, can't turn to escape missiles, sluggish in acceleration because it's so big and fat and draggy and doesn't have enough motor for the WEIGHT,"
All looks well on paper, not in reality
Yes its possible, the F-14 was designed as well for that exact same thing. Its Radar covered low flying objects, up to near 100,000 ft. It was tested and done by the plane. A plane which was built in the 60's. We have more efficient ways of doing it now.
If you have air superiority, which they didnt, then the planes would not be up in the air getting the chance to launch them.
The harrier was not a fighter. It was an attack plane with some fighter capability. Hence the name AV-8A Harrier
Hans, I agree with you 100%. The F-35 is becoming as costly as the F-22 and is far less capable. We should have allowed our allies, some of whom wanted the F-22 over the F-35 and we could have gotten the F-22's unit cost down. I noticed you selected the JAS-39, me personally I think the Eurofighter Typhoon is even better than the JAS but that is one man's opinion. Regards,
Yes, but the F-22 isn't being used in Afghanistan because the F-16 is doing good as a multi-role fighter, so that is why the air superiority F-22 isn't needed.
aircraft they discuss. The F-14 has a combat radius of 500 nautical miles(nmi) or 575 miles with a hi-low-hi profile. The F/A-18 E/F has a combat radius of of 390nmi or 440 miles with drop tanks in a hi-hi flight profile. Which is 135 less than the F-14 with drop tanks. The F-14 has internal fuel capacity 16,200lbs with 3800 lbs external, equaling 20,000 lbs total. The F/A-18 SH has 14,400 internal and 2400 external totaling 16,800. The F-14 has a ferry range of 1910 miles, the E/F 1800+
Imo the F-35 should have had side bays for the 9Xs with the ability to lock on before launch with its HMS. It would have changed the design a bit and increased cost, but many countries will use the F-35 as their primary fighter and they need WVR capabilities that really work.
In higher altitude, every fighter stalls.
@bored306 the f-35 platform is as far as i know being shared among the the uk, usa, and other allied countries.
I usually like the F-35, but I agree that the DAS/helmet effectiveness in WVR is a big concern. The DAS doesn't provide the distance, only the direction. How can a 9X lock on its target in a 1-2 seconds turn with no more target information? I doubt it would work a significant proportion of the time.
>> The F/A-18 SH has 14,400 internal and 2400 external totaling 16,800.
The F-18E can carry 3x480gal in strike config or CAP, which is = 1440gal.
The density of fuel is 7.15 pounds per US gallon, so 1440gal = 10296lbs.
Grand total 14,400 + 10300lbs = 24700lbs.
The drag problem is more in supersonic, because of the canted pylons. The F-14 also of course benefits from its variable geometry wing.
Don't worry kids! No actual comparisons were made during the making of this film!
The reason their were no comparisons is simple. there are non... vertical lift and stealth are with the f35 - everything and i mean everything else is against it . its basically a brick with small wings that cant do anything new excepts vert and short combat life.
Well, the whole idea was to have a common platform to save cost. Developing 3 variants was supposed to cost 40% more than one.
When you have the STOVL aircraft, why not just replace the lift fan with a tank plus a few other minor changes in order to make a CTOL variant.
And replace the wing, landing gear and arresting hook for a carrier variant.
The JSF just makes sense. It's just that LM fucked up the weight 10 years ago, and the US gov didn't see the problem coming even though it was obvious.
The F-14D in 1998 cost 38 million, the F/A-18 cost 63 million, the C cost 29 million. The cost for the Super Hornet does not justify the aircraft because of the minimal gains that it has in part of the flight envelop. The C is still more agile, it just doesnt have the range which, could have been fixed by simple modifications that were found in the GAO reports. The F-14 was slightly more expensive than the C variant of the Hornet. Once again I stated for you to look up the combat radius of...
Are you crazy? The only time the harrier had any success in air combat was when the Brits used it in the Falkland wars going against a handful of A-4 (attack planes)
Thats because we gave the Brits the new updated sidewinder.
Some of the harriers were even shot down in combat.
Both are Lockheed Martin products. For various reasons, the F22 production/manufacturing has ended just before the F35 goes into the production mode. i don not remember the cost comparison of the two, - but with thought that F35 ending up having a few thousand build for all 3 variants and all users, it shoudl end up cheaper - versus less than 200 F22s built, only 1 variant, only 1 user.
yes they are part of the project
How do you know about it's manoeuvrability? It has so far never been captured on video. The requirement is for it to be more manoeuvrable than a CLEAN F-18 which is pretty damn good. It has also been tested to sustained 50 degrees alpha.
"For instance, it was reported in the media recently that the F-35 reached Mach 1.6 in a test. Few glowing statements were spared. Not reported was that after the flight, the aircraft program was limited to Mach 1 performance because of damage to the horizontal stabilisers and engine thermal protection. Glowing media reports have also stated that the F-35 helmet and distributed aperture system (DAS) have been working great... Cont.
@Cthemaid Survivability for this aircraft is projected to be better than that of the f-16 and f-15. And it is a capable turner.
That is true. But in the F-35's defence I'm sure over 9 countries would not have invested billions of dollars into an aircraft that couldn't turn properly. I believe the true role of the F-35 is to not be a total multi-role fighter jet but to be a supersonic radar penetrating bomber, that has some ability to defend itself. But it does look o so sexy.
The latest batch of F-18E costs about 44 millions, plus about 9 millions for the 'engines' I mean.
The F-18E is much cheaper to operate, and that's even more important than the cost of the aircraft .
It is. The loss of the warships was due to the excersit (not sure if correct spelling) missile. Have you ever seen a fighter jet shoot down a missile?
@oddis42 So is the F-22 and F-35
@kamilktakamilktakami They aren't inside because they look bad,they are put inside to reduce the friction force.
How did they have the same enginge if the 2 YF-23s were fitted with different engines? And those engines weren't even fixed with thrust vectoring, which you NEED in a modern air superiority fighter.
I love people who discuss aircraft and know absolutely nothing about them. When you test G's on an aircraft you are testing its ability to survive the force of gravity so you dont fly the aircraft apart. Just because an aircraft is designed to survive 9 G's does not mean that it is an agile aircraft. The F-14 can pull over 9 G's. The manual limits the F-14D to 7.6 so that you dont age the aircraft faster than it should but, the aircraft can pull more than 9 G's.
You want comparison? 2:07 both aircraft turns at the same TR. F-35 turns with full afterburner while F-16 (with an EFT) needs airbrakes to prevent aircraft from accelerating away. So much for F-35's maneuverability...
F-35 is not replacing the A-10 or the Naval F/A-18 Super Hornet. The reason it doesn't have guns on the exterior is because it's built with stealth technology, and external weapons will cause that technology to fail. It's even built with internal hardpoints for mass effect weapon deployment.
Anyone know the thrust to weight ratio? We know its better than 1 to 1 with STOVL plus super sonic. Its got tons of power to do all that.
I heard a guy saying it couldn't even go straight up after take off. I said "did you arrive on planet earth today because a vertical take off is straight up". lol If it can do that without wind under the wing imagine what it could do with wind. It may have a case of Gen 5 BUGS in the system but they will be worked out, cause Its got allot of new systems.
You are forgetting the fact that the F/A-18 horrible drag coefficient causes it to have less of a combat radius than the F-14. The F-14 can fly a high low high combat profile and still have a great radius, the F/A-18 cant do this and has to fly a high-high flight profile and still doesnt have the range of the F-14. I already went over Grumman, out of its own pocket, fixed the majority of F-14 maintenance woes. The Hornet had the same but, was given funding to fix these...
Yep, never mind, just checked out some stuff. F-22 is one sexy plane. F-35 is still a great plane, but I'd love to see the U.S. put some more F-22's out there, maybe take out any older models that are still in use (F14, if those are still used, not sure.)
The F-16 is also the most used fighter jet ever produced.
The F-22 is now being stationed in the middle east, which means its on a combat mission, second the F-22 is more maneuverable (1st plane in service with thrust vectoring), but why are people comparing the F-35 and F-22? The F-22 is air dominance while the F-35 is multirole, not all that similar.
So how exactly does this video have anything to do with the F35 Vs the F16?
F16C and further on is also MULTIrole fighters.
Outmanouver in Top Gun Style is history. It may be fun to watch, but it is not the reality today with BVR missiles and IR missiles that can be fired head-on. It's pretty much a game of getting the missile of the rails first.
Eh, my issue with the superbug is the production line (baring any surprise orders) is closing in 2018.At that point, not only is the upgrade path for the plane going to be incredibly uncertain, but maintenance costs will skyrocket. At the same time the F-35 will be in FRP, with a clearly defined upgrade plan that stretches into the 2030's. One has to take the future into consideration when making purchases such as these, not just the present.
the F22 is NOT JUSTAir to Air. In fact for a while it even carried the F/A designation before they desided to make ATG secondary
It has the avionics to suuport ground attack missions, can carry up to 2 GBU32 ( 1000lb) and eight small diameter bombs.
4 The F-35C's arresting hook does not work and the rear fuselage of the plane will need a redesign because it is to short. 5 Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth. 6 The wing buffet is worse than previously reported. With this issue there is no way you can say the F-35 is as agile as an F/A-18. 7 The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan. 8 The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas. This after 6 years...
that f-16s still a badass fighter jet.
@TheWWIIFan Right now it's from leeuwarden i tought...
The avionics actually make it so that the F-35 might be able to get the upper hand on the F-22 depending on which way it's going.
They carry the same type of targeting pods. The F-18 can carry 3 480 gal tanks in strike missions + 4 other pylons for bombs, vs 2 small tanks for the F-14.
Are you willing to pay almost twice as much for just more supersonic speed and a larger radar? It's not worth it!!!
Moreover the maintenance cost of the F-14 would be much higher. If you really wanted a high performance heavy fighter the right idea is a naval F-22, which enables you to benefit from the economy of scale with the AF.
The radar is part of it I suppose, by I was thinking more of the Harrier's speed. It can go supersonic like most other fighters which limits its ability to climb and also hurts its ability boost its missiles ranges and leaves it with less energy to avoid incoming missiles.
@hotpocketpoison The Canadian Air Forces pilots are on par with some of the best in the world, and I for one are glad that they are our allies.
The radar of that JSF should have been compatible with the F-18C and AV-8Bs or maybe with a different antenna, and the best airframes should have been upgraded, so the Navy would have by now an extra 300 aircraft or so with AESAs.
Instead of the STOVL variant, the America class LHA should have been armed with more helos and the AGS and possibly TLAMs vertical launchers. The AGS can provide much more firepower for beach landing than JSFs... Small VLO UAVs would have been used for targeting.
I suggest you look up the things Grumman did to the F-14D in order to fix the maintenance on the F-14. Grumman brought this information to Congress to prove that they could get the Tomcat maintenance costs down. Grumman also lowered the RCS by replacing plates on the F-14 that allowed radar through and trapped it in the fuselage of the aircraft, lowering the RCS immensely. The F-14 engines do not comsume more fuel than the Hornet. I love talking to people who dont look up any data on the....
F-16'Nın karizması başka :D
btw I told you to read all the other GAO reports under the top link that go over the issues other than the pricetag of the F-35. You do realize that the F-35 is closing in on the F-22's price range and it gives half of the capability of the F-22 right? There are quarterly GAO reports that you can read, I suggest you start going over them and reading them when they come out...
@Jncs721 it isnt made to replace the F-22, its made to replace the F-16, the F-18 and the harrier.
The F-22 was more manueverable at all speeds. The only thing the YF-23 had on the F-22 was stealth and speed.
Even with all the extra tanks on the F/A-18, the SH does not have the combat radius of the F-14, the aircraft is a joke. The F-14 E should be sitting on our decks. Grumman had fixed every maintenance issue on the F-14 and made it less maintenance heavy than the SH. It had redesigned every part of the Tomcat that gave them issues, modernized the cockpit, reduced its RCS without screwing with its armor or capability, unlike the SH, gave it 3D TVC, gave it a thicker wings and newer technologies..
The second page has an article that I linked, if you cared enough to actually get involved with the discussion, you would have read more than one comment. Why do you think the two guys I was talking to about the Hornet stopped commenting? Look at its combat radius compared to the F-14, why do you think the NAVY lost 50% of its defensive shield under the Hornet? Why do you think it cant hit targets deep in land? The F-16 is one of the most maneuverable aircraft in the world. You really...
@RayisSHORT Wrong. It exeeds in some parts - that is stealth and supercruise, but there are jets that beat it in all other categories. Most beat it in maintenance :P
To the people saying the F-35 doesn't need to be able to fight. Is that the same as when people said the F-4 Phantom didn't need a machine gun?
The f-35 is not an air superiority fighter anyway, it's systems are made for it's multirole jobs, the f-22 is made almost purely to take down other aircraft.
So many doubts ask a pilot who flies one and they are happier then when they flew the f-16 F-35 is coming along at a good pace.
This was a statement given by Lokheed Martin
The F-35A is expected to match the F-16 in maneuverability and instantaneous and sustained high-g performance (ie. 9gs), and outperform it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability, and survivability. It is expected to match an F-16 that is carrying the usual external fuel tank in acceleration performance.
Dont judge the plane just because it looks bulky and stuff, and dont believe every blogger
The following comparison of the P-51 vs F-22
it is a awesome plane and always rocks
This being said, personally I think the US should have cancelled the F-22 in 92 and should have developped the JSF instead of the F-22 and F-18E. The STOVL variant would have been scrapped. LM would have used its experience with the YF-22 to make a single-engine variant shorter with a narrower fuselage. The priority would have been given to the Navy variant. By now the USAF and the USN would both have like 300 a/c.