the bay`s are still the same design and crammed full as before - they can`t change mcuh if anything without a very costly redesign and `fix`
for aircraft allready on the production line.
I agree - however the weapons do fit.
There is also structural support for other options than the current inboard AMRAAM store and outboard JDAM/JSOW store.
F136 - produces more thrustthan the F135 , is allready reported to be more fuel effiecient and is lighter.
Well it's years behind the F135. The F136 has only 800 SDD & non-SDD hours while the F135 is at 11800 hours in SDD alone and it's flying on aircraft
too. Additionally I have seen no figures for either engine, only the F135 has a "do not exceed weight" of 6504 lb. Both engines are supposed to be
indistinguishable from eachother from a pilots perspective, and completely interchangable.
I don't see how the F136 is better than the F135 when there are no figures (only "reports") for either, and furthermore the F136 is YEARS behind
the F135. And certainly, I don't see why LM Aero would tell everyone the F136 is better, that's even more absurd - it would be like Boeing telling
everyone the F110-129 is better than the F100 with the F-15.
the F35 is weighing in at 49,000lbs in A2A config , with a 42,000 lb thrust engine , is walking backjwards in thrust to weight
ratio.
The F-35 would have to be made of unobtainium to get a >1 T/W ratio when loaded up with 18,840lb of fuel. That's a 0.40 fuel fraction right there; if
you load up an Eagle or Viper with that fraction you end up with an Eagle with 3 600 gallon tanks and an additional 3000lb of conformal tank fuel, and
a Viper with 3 370 tanks to even get to a 0.35 fraction (and these tanks are subsonic only IIRC).
If you do the math in such a case the F-35 is close to the F-15SE (only the F-35 is flying CLEAN), and better than a block 52 F-16 (only the F-35 is
clean). If you don't need the range then lighten the F-35 up and the result is similar.
*F-35 at 67% fuel.
*F-15SE has regained 3000lb of fuel in the conformal tanks / bays, is 500lb lighter than F-15E, and has weightless conformal bays (100% fuel).
*Gripen NG are estimates and does NOT have a growth F414 engine.
*F-22 fuel capacity is a bit off.
And no, the F-35 is not overweight, they have an extra 250lb of weight reduction that can be included, if nessesary.
the wing area is 460 square feet , smaller than that of the typhoon, with a wing load of 108 lb.foot - thats enourmous and add together to
make an aircraft , with those numbers , less able to be `flung around` than the F-105 , which has amoungst the worst combat record ever.
F-105 this, F-105 that. Guess the F-16 (with one of the BEST combat records) which the F-35 beats sucks too, eh? And the F-15SE doesn't fare much
better, or does the Gripen, for that matter. Besides, the F-35 is designed to fight far more like an F-16 than the Thud.
IIRC, the price of the F-16 doubled during development, and furthermore huge amounts were procured before development was finished.
those bays - 1 bomb and 1 self defence missile per side
Yep, it's pretty small. However it is likely we can vary internal and external munitions depending on the threat. The LO will be destroyed however it
will be smaller than any generation 4 aircraft by a large margin which is still tactically significant.
remove the best feature set and the countries funding it must ask ` why?`
Agreed.
If it were that bad then Israel wouldn't be calling it "the ideal fighter plane" that "they'd like to have very much".
[edit on 10/7/2009 by C0bzz]