What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[Mave]

Mojocvh said:

$$$$tealth, isn't that why we were duped into buying the it in the first place? Then the shorter ranged, heavier, slower, even less maneuverable [!!] F35B via Cameron, so wheres it at now?? Flying about with no internal weapons that's where.

Mojocvh said:

Why do you feel we were "duped"? If you want to fly it stealthy, you can. You've still got a reasonable range on internal fuel. If you don't want to fly stealthy, you can carry additional fuel and additional bomb load. If you've chosen to go STOVL carrier, you've got more capability than a Harrier. If you've chosen to go CATOBAR, you've got more range and weapons load than an F18E.

Mojocvh said:

35 tons, 35 TON single seat aircraft.....hmm

So - 15 Tons empty, 35 Tons loaded - compared to ~15/30 for an F18E, 13/30 for an F15C. What's the problem? It was designed to carry a lot of bombs.

[Mojocvh]

"You've still got a reasonable range on internal fuel."

Apparently not.

[aeropilot]

Mave said:

Mojocvh said:

Mave said:

Mojocvh said:

£100 million 2.5g fighter. Ridiculous.

Have you got a source for that 2.5g?

safety limitation due to the fan moving; they have an extra 0.7g more than I originally specified.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-test-jets-und...

That's not a $100M 2.5g (or 3.2g) jet. That's a jet that's got a limitation while they roll out a mod (either by doing the "burning in" process, or by modifying the engines.

The jet were already being g limited to around 4.5g long before the summer engine fire situation which has imposed the more strict g limit.

The Dave is a lame duck - should have been killed off years ago, but there are too many political careers riding on it, so money and time will be throw at it regardless of the fact it's likely to be the biggest white elephant in military history.

[Mave]

Mojocvh said:

"You've still got a reasonable range on internal fuel."

Apparently not.

Based on what?

[SlipStream77]

Mave said:

SlipStream77 said:

It was pretty successful in GW1, no allied aircraft were lost when accompanied by a SEAD escort.

So you need extra aircraft to perform the SEAD tasking, right?

You will if the '35s carry externals.

It's not like stealth aircraft are immune to SAMs anyway...

http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/27/vega-31-shot-...

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

SlipStream77 said:

It's not like stealth aircraft are immune to SAMs anyway...

That wasn't a lack of Stealth, that was an excess of stupidity on the part of the Spams using the same ingress and egress routes several nights running.

Despite the Serbian claims referenced in that report as to them detecting and tracking the a/c on Radar, the Serbs worked the route out from the noise of the a/c overflying coupled with a few fleeting Radar 'paints'. They then shotgunned multiple missiles into the sky along the projected track.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 24th December 20:55

[Mave]

SlipStream77 said:

You will if the '35s carry externals.

Is it going to be loaded with externals in that environment?

[Mave]

aeropilot said:

The jet were already being g limited to around 4.5g long before the summer engine fire situation which has imposed the more strict g limit.

So it's not a 2.5 or a 3.2g jet. Can an F16, or F18, or Rafael, or sea harrier pull 4.5g STR while carrying 15 tonnes of fuel and weapons?

[aeropilot]

Mave said:

So it's not a 2.5 or a 3.2g jet. Can an F16, or F18, or Rafael, or sea harrier pull 4.5g STR while carrying 15 tonnes of fuel and weapons?

Dunno, but nor can the F-35, so what's your point

[Mave]

aeropilot said:

Mave said:

So it's not a 2.5 or a 3.2g jet. Can an F16, or F18, or Rafael, or sea harrier pull 4.5g STR while carrying 15 tonnes of fuel and weapons?

Dunno, but nor can the F-35, so what's your point

I thought it was fairly obvious. People getting all hung up on top trump numbers like max g, max speed, without considering how these aircraft are actually operated. "It can't do Mach 2" - but no-one ever does Mach 2. "It can't pull 9g" - but no-one ever pulls 9g with a full combat load.

"The daily mail says we've bought a 2.5g white elephant". Oh, maybe it's 3.2g. Oh maybe 4.5. Oh, so the aircraft we're comparing them to can only do 4.5g anyway when they're loaded up...

[Mojocvh]

....though Mirage 2000 and Rafale can pull to 11......


Anyway, Merry Christmas to all.

[RizzoTheRat]

Mojocvh said:

....though Mirage 2000 and Rafale can pull to 11......

With a full weapon load?

[Mojocvh]

RizzoTheRat said:

Mojocvh said:

....though Mirage 2000 and Rafale can pull to 11......

With a full weapon load?

enough to nail raptors.

'nuff said.

[Mave]

Mojocvh said:

RizzoTheRat said:

Mojocvh said:

....though Mirage 2000 and Rafale can pull to 11......

With a full weapon load?

enough to nail raptors.

'nuff said.

So a gun camera then, the operational load of choice

Still wondering how a combat range on internal fuel similar to a Phantom, Tomcat, Hornet, Super Hornet or Harrier has "apparently not" got a reasonable range on internal fuel?

[RizzoTheRat]

Which variant? Quoted radius for the B is about 450 miles compared to 600ish for the A and C isn't it? But is that with or without external tanks? Superhornet with a centreline tank is similar range than the A and C, so presumably similar to the B with no external tank.

ETA: Is there a weight/kit limit for the B operating off our carriers?

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Thursday 25th December 22:48

[Mave]

Mave said:

Mojocvh said:

RizzoTheRat said:

Mojocvh said:

....though Mirage 2000 and Rafale can pull to 11......

With a full weapon load?

enough to nail raptors.

'nuff said.

So a gun camera then, the operational load of choice
Anyhoo, that 11g is an instantaneous turn rate, NOT a sustained turn rate. The F35 has demonstrated approx 10g instantaneous. The max sustained turn rate for a Mirage 2000 is more like 6.5g, in a light AA loadout (2 AAMs, cannon, 50% fuel).

Still wondering how a combat range on internal fuel similar to a Phantom, Tomcat, Hornet, Super Hornet or Harrier has "apparently not" got a reasonable range on internal fuel?

[Godalmighty83]

RizzoTheRat said:

Which variant? Quoted radius for the B is about 450 miles compared to 600ish for the A and C isn't it? But is that with or without external tanks? Superhornet with a centreline tank is similar range than the A and C, so presumably similar to the B with no external tank.

ETA: Is there a weight/kit limit for the B operating off our carriers?

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Thursday 25th December 22:48

Without external tank, as far as I'm aware no drop tank has yet to have been tested and signed off on the Dave.

The CVF can operate max loaded B's depending on ambient conditions. You will need no headwind and very high air temperatures before weight would be an issue. The superhornets combat range on internal tanks is about 375-390m depending on profile. With the extra drag and load limits of drop tanks the FA18 has no performance advantage but considerably greater RCS.

[Mave]

RizzoTheRat said:

Which variant? Quoted radius for the B is about 450 miles compared to 600ish for the A and C isn't it? But is that with or without external tanks?

That's on internal tanks only.

[Mojocvh]

Godalmighty83 said:

Without external tank, as far as I'm aware no drop tank has yet to have been tested and signed off on the Dave.

The CVF can operate max loaded B's depending on ambient conditions. You will need no headwind and very high air temperatures before weight would be an issue. The superhornets combat range on internal tanks is about 375-390m depending on profile. With the extra drag and load limits of drop tanks the FA18 has no performance advantage but considerably greater RCS.

What is the current certified internal weapon carriage of the f35B?

[IanMorewood]

4x AIM120 I think.