It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35- Is this possible? Slow speed loop

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynosYes, its just too damn heavy.


Mmmhmmm. thanks for awnsering that question.


Indeed the only reason the X-35B and its Boeing rival were required to demonstrate VTO was because the Russians had done it with the Yak 41 (The French had also done it in the 1960's with the Mirage IIIV but this seems to be glossed over).


It is Yak 141 "Freestyle" (NATO...
) that performed VTO but i assume it is typo.

I checked it up with the Mirage and nice find waynos.



I think the far more serious defect is that the nozzle cannot be used for manouvering. I mean, how ridiculous is that? The F-35B basically has an automated process that means whenver the nozzle is rotated, the lift fan spools up, the wheels come down and it lands. That is its sole function, which seems a waste.


I second that. I mean, hunderds of kilograms wasted for a pupose that cant be done in the first place (VTOL). BTW every new fighter airframe (A completely new aircraft) in this age should have TVC as a standard feature. If only to aid it in dogfights. That on its own is more then enough reason to not omit TVC from new fighters.

[edit on 26/12/2009 by James R. Hawkwood]




posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Well I would rather have the sensor suite of the F-35 than vectored thrust. It does not need to get right behind an enemy aircraft to launch IR missiles at it, it has IR sensors in a 360 degree view. Vectored thrust nozzles add weight, complexity and probably even radar reflectivity.

The USSR had the Yak-38, and it was horrible. Probably killed more of their naval pilots than any other plane, and it would have been worthless in combat.

Mach 1.6 is somehow very very slow? On whose planet. Planes rarely fly that fast anyways, and 1.6 is right around where the F/A-18 flies, or even a loaded F-16.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilotWell I would rather have the sensor suite of the F-35 than vectored thrust.


Not both? What a shame...


It does not need to get right behind an enemy aircraft to launch IR missiles at it, it has IR sensors in a 360 degree view.


Then why does the F-35 have an gun onboard? It adds weight, complexity and radar reflectivity...


And do you realise that the F-35 only has room for 2 to 3 IR missiles? What next? Relying on a wingman? What if the wingman was 10KM away?


Vectored thrust nozzles add weight, complexity and probably even radar reflectivity.


And so does the spool fan in the front center of the AC which was made to make VTOL possible which now in it current weight form cant. I would say, remove that useless spool fan and install proper TVC in the back to still having STOL without having that useless spool fan wasting space and adding weight.

Asides that, it would greatly help gun battles that are bound to happen someday.


The USSR had the Yak-38, and it was horrible. Probably killed more of their naval pilots than any other plane, and it would have been worthless in combat.


That is where i agree on you my friend. The Yak-38 was actualy intended to be a stop-gap meassure plane in the Soviet aviation cruiser evolution to full sized planes derived from land based variations. (See SU-27K (33) and MiG-29K (diferent versions)


Mach 1.6 is somehow very very slow?


For modern fighters? Extreemly slow. I believe that mach factor is the CRUISING speed of the F-22...


On whose planet. Planes rarely fly that fast anyways, and 1.6 is right around where the F/A-18 flies, or even a loaded F-16.


Well, at least the F-18 and F-16 can go faster in an emergency like a war situation...

Example is the Iraqi MiG-25's in the Second Gulf war (1991). they managed to evade all kinds of threats including F-15's due to their incredible speed.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   




It is Yak 141 "Freestyle" (NATO... ) that performed VTO but i assume it is typo.

I checked it up with the Mirage and nice find waynos.


Yak-38?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


Hi James'


It is Yak 141 "Freestyle" (NATO... ) that performed VTO but i assume it is typo.


You might be interested in the little factoid that the aircraft was developed, and was known internally, as the Yak 41, as the successor to the Yak 36 and Yak 38 (dunno why they suddenly switched from even to odd numbers though). The additional 1 was added for an appearance at the Paris air show because three digits looked better for marketing purposes, strange but true, and any series production aircraft would have entered service as the Yak 41. Being an old stick in the mud I stuck with the original, a bit like saying Harrier instead of AV-8B, just a habit. sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

[quote/] BTW every new fighter airframe (A completely new aircraft) in this age should have TVC as a standard feature. If only to aid it in dogfights.

I agree, it is also argued (specifically in the case of the Typhoon) that TVC increases engine thrust whilst simultaneously reducing fuel burn , increasing range, cruising altitude and supercruise speed and reducing wear and mainainence costs as the time between serices is also increased.

At least this is what Eurofighter are telling the RAF as they vie to get it onto tranche 3


Without vertical landing capability (and the lift fan) the F-35 would be of no attraction to the USMC, RAF or RN.

Whether they actually need this capability or not, they all think they do.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood

Originally posted by firepilotWell I would rather have the sensor suite of the F-35 than vectored thrust.


Not both? What a shame...


It does not need to get right behind an enemy aircraft to launch IR missiles at it, it has IR sensors in a 360 degree view.


Then why does the F-35 have an gun onboard? It adds weight, complexity and radar reflectivity...


And do you realise that the F-35 only has room for 2 to 3 IR missiles? What next? Relying on a wingman? What if the wingman was 10KM away?


Vectored thrust nozzles add weight, complexity and probably even radar reflectivity.


And so does the spool fan in the front center of the AC which was made to make VTOL possible which now in it current weight form cant. I would say, remove that useless spool fan and install proper TVC in the back to still having STOL without having that useless spool fan wasting space and adding weight.

Asides that, it would greatly help gun battles that are bound to happen someday.


The USSR had the Yak-38, and it was horrible. Probably killed more of their naval pilots than any other plane, and it would have been worthless in combat.


That is where i agree on you my friend. The Yak-38 was actualy intended to be a stop-gap meassure plane in the Soviet aviation cruiser evolution to full sized planes derived from land based variations. (See SU-27K (33) and MiG-29K (diferent versions)


Mach 1.6 is somehow very very slow?


For modern fighters? Extreemly slow. I believe that mach factor is the CRUISING speed of the F-22...


On whose planet. Planes rarely fly that fast anyways, and 1.6 is right around where the F/A-18 flies, or even a loaded F-16.


Well, at least the F-18 and F-16 can go faster in an emergency like a war situation...

Example is the Iraqi MiG-25's in the Second Gulf war (1991). they managed to evade all kinds of threats including F-15's due to their incredible speed.


The gun on the F-35 will be primary for, what the gun on the F-16 has gotten its most use in, that is air to ground. Its good to have a gun, but the F-35 will be a multi role aircraft just like the F-16 is.

And no, Mach 1.6 is not slow, and an F/A-18 is not going over 1.6 with anything on the wings. And as soon as it does so, its pretty much out of gas. It is a draggy airframe that is not fast. An F-16 is a bit faster and less draggy, but combat aircraft in these roles spend so little time at those speeds. You may think that fighter aircraft routinely fly around at supersonic speeds, but its not the case.

You cant compare an F-35 to a MiG-25. Two different kinds of aircraft with completely different roles. And an F-15 is really in a practical sense, not much slower than an MiG-25 either. And how did those MiG-25s evade all threats yet get shot down by F-15s during the war and by an F-16 afterwards?
Israeli F-15s also shot down Syrian MiG-25s in the 80s



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Yak-38?

en.wikipedia.org...


He was talking about the Yak 141/41 VTOL AC. The succesor of the Yak 38.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynosYou might be interested in the little factoid that the aircraft was developed, and was known internally, as the Yak 41, as the successor to the Yak 36 and Yak 38 (dunno why they suddenly switched from even to odd numbers though). The additional 1 was added for an appearance at the Paris air show because three digits looked better for marketing purposes, strange but true, and any series production aircraft would have entered service as the Yak 41. Being an old stick in the mud I stuck with the original, a bit like saying Harrier instead of AV-8B, just a habit. sorry for any confusion I may have caused.


On the contrary. It forced me to recheck my sources and thanks for clearing it up for everybody else.


I agree, it is also argued (specifically in the case of the Typhoon) that TVC increases engine thrust whilst simultaneously reducing fuel burn , increasing range, cruising altitude and supercruise speed and reducing wear and mainainence costs as the time between serices is also increased.

At least this is what Eurofighter are telling the RAF as they vie to get it onto tranche 3


Now you people see why TVC is important? I can add another point: It shortens take of distance by pointing the thrust vectors up in the sky forcing the AC to lift up faster.


Without vertical landing capability (and the lift fan) the F-35 would be of no attraction to the USMC, RAF or RN.

Whether they actually need this capability or not, they all think they do.


If it needs to land vertical then why dont they demand that the F-35 can also take of? Or are they drowned in Lockheed propaganda images of the X-35B showing an extreemly lightend down AC doing VTOL?

Its a shame realy if the F-35 can only use that heavy complex radar reflecting spool fan for only landing...



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
HAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHA!!!!

this BF2!! !Battlefield 2 ITS a #ing GAME!!!!


lolz!



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilotThe gun on the F-35 will be primary for, what the gun on the F-16 has gotten its most use in, that is air to ground. Its good to have a gun, but the F-35 will be a multi role aircraft just like the F-16 is.


And a crap multi-roler at that. It is even less maneuverable and far more slower then the F-16.

For CAS its a good thing though. But then again, the F-16 can just lower its speed to do the exact same thing.


And no, Mach 1.6 is not slow, and an F/A-18 is not going over 1.6 with anything on the wings. And as soon as it does so, its pretty much out of gas. It is a draggy airframe that is not fast. An F-16 is a bit faster and less draggy, but combat aircraft in these roles spend so little time at those speeds. You may think that fighter aircraft routinely fly around at supersonic speeds, but its not the case.


The F-18 and the F-16 at least have the luxury to go faster then mach 1.6 due to having higher max speeds.
Also the range of the F-18 and 16 exceed the F-35's range and can use that spare range to sacrifice fuel for speed.

And yes you are right that these fighter AC's are not routinely flying mach 1.6+ but in war time situations that will become the norm.


You cant compare an F-35 to a MiG-25. Two different kinds of aircraft with completely different roles.


I know that but i used the MiG-25 as an EXAMPLE! An example that speed on a AC is IMPORTANT!


And an F-15 is really in a practical sense, not much slower than an MiG-25 either.


Yeaaaaaah, suuuuuuuure.... F-15: Mach 2.5 max. MiG-25: Mach 2.9 Safe max./ Mach 3.2 Unsafe max.


And how did those MiG-25s evade all threats yet get shot down by F-15s during the war and by an F-16 afterwards?


The USAF planes came from all directions and harrased the MiG-25's constantly and even then, most of them were shot down on the ground when the MiG's RTB'd.


Israeli F-15s also shot down Syrian MiG-25s in the 80s


Those Israeli F-15's only managed to shoot down those MiG's because the Israeli's had lain down a trap for the MiG's.

Before that trap was made. The MiG's constantly managed to evade the F-15's with relative ease.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


VTO does not have a practical application, thats why it is not used. The 1960's idea of dispersed Harriers operating from forest clearings in isolation from each other was seen to be impractical when the RAF tried it during the following decade. When such mission profiles were flown the aircraft tended only to carry 2 x sneb rocket pods and underwing drop tanks, or two 500lb bombs instead of the drop tanks and no range.

Far more useful is the ability to carry a full warload after a STO run where the wings as well as the engine contribute to lift *. or even to run, fully laden, off the end of a ski jump and then, after the mission is completed, to be able to land vertically back onto the ship with no risk of overrun or go-around or to simply plop your aircraft back onto the ground in its own length and not rely on there still being enough runway available to use.


*Which remionds me. The F-35B is promoted as being, and required to be, STOVL capable. Without TVC where does the STO element come from? CTOVL would appear to be a more accurate description?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood





And a crap multi-roler at that. It is even less maneuverable and far more slower then the F-16. For CAS its a good thing though. But then again, the F-16 can just lower its speed to do the exact same thing.


A crap plane? I dont think anyone but you really thinks it will be a crap airplane. Its still manuverable, and it does not have to point its nose at a plane to get a shot off. And since it is less detectable, its less likely to ever get into that kind of phone booth furball that will need all that manuverability.




The F-18 and the F-16 at least have the luxury to go faster then mach 1.6 due to having higher max speeds. Also the range of the F-18 and 16 exceed the F-35's range and can use that spare range to sacrifice fuel for speed. And yes you are right that these fighter AC's are not routinely flying mach 1.6+ but in war time situations that will become the norm.


Those planes have already been in war, and did not spend their time flying around at supersonic speeds. Those speeds in anything but an F-22 require afterburner, and that goes through fuel fast. An F-18 with any stores, and especially drop tanks, A/G ordinance, is not going anywhere near 1.6 under any circumstances. Neither is an F-16 for that matter. Dont confuse a max mach speed with a clean airplane under perfect circumstances, as a typical combat airspeed.

F-16s and F-18s did not spend their time going over Iraq or Kosovo at 1.6 or more, just because you think it is normal. Those are not cruise speeds, but more of dash speeds for a relatively clean plane.



I know that but i used the MiG-25 as an EXAMPLE! An example that speed on a AC is IMPORTANT!




Yeaaaaaah, suuuuuuuure.... F-15: Mach 2.5 max. MiG-25: Mach 2.9 Safe max./ Mach 3.2 Unsafe max.


A Mig-25 in combat is not going to fly Mach 2.9. Why? Well put 4 of its big radar guided missiles on it, its maybe a M2.8 aircraft at most for a dash speed, and its thirsty engines will run out it of gas pretty fast. Anything over 2.8 also is probably going to require an engine change too. MiG-25 also does not air refuel, and is not a refueling aircraft. if you think a Mig-25 is superior to an f-15 in any way, you are mistaken.




The USAF planes came from all directions and harrased the MiG-25's constantly and even then, most of them were shot down on the ground when the MiG's RTB'd.


Shot down on the ground? What is that? MiG-25s are not some super
fighter, just because it had a slightly higher mach speed than an F-15.




Those Israeli F-15's only managed to shoot down those MiG's because the Israeli's had lain down a trap for the MiG's. Before that trap was made. The MiG's constantly managed to evade the F-15's with relative ease.


You seem to think that superior tactics like traps are somehow like cheating.
MiG-25s had evaded F-4/AIM-7 launches, but the F-15 changed the game completely. Those were also the Recon version too of the Mig-25 too, the Foxbat-B, not a fighter version, so they were not actually even fighter aircraft since they could not engage anything. And like I have pointed out multiple times, a clean aircraft is much faster than an aircraft loaded for combat.

You seem to not be differentiating speeds for a short dash under afterburner for a clean airplane, compared to a cruise speed for a plane loaded for combat. And speeds for US aircraft have been doing down since the 1960s, because there are a lot more important things than a Maximum dash speed, since aircraft so rarely actually do that.




[edit on 30-12-2009 by firepilot]

[edit on 30-12-2009 by firepilot]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 



And since it is less detectable, its less likely to ever get into that kind of phone booth furball that will need all that manuverability.


I happen to think this is a complete red herring when looking at the usefulness of the F-35 or any other modern fighter.

Whilst that is the situation now, the F-35 will serve for 25 years, 40 if current trends are continued. I am sure the US and UK militaries and Lockheed and BAE are not kidding themselves that detection capabilities will not improve over the next few decades. Stealth technology will also improve of course, but there will be periods where these magical gen 5 fighters (of any denomination) will have to slug it out just as every previous fighter has had to.

You cannot always dictate the circumstance either, there are many instances, even now, where you *cannot* simply lob a missile at a target from a point that is BVR.

Russian bomber overflights are an example where we have all seen photos of the Bear and the F-16/Tornado/whatever in the same frame.

What if you are closing for a visual on an Su-32 and he turns to fight. Are you gonna say "wait, I'm stealthy you know, let me get 100 miles away and then we'll start".

The turning fight will *always* be a possibilitty and the fighter will always need to be ready for it.

IMHO of course



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
And since it is less detectable, its less likely to ever get into that kind of phone booth furball that will need all that manuverability.


Aye... like the F-4 would not need a gun due to its missiles.


The more things change, the more they stay the same.




Originally posted by firepilot
Those planes have already been in war, and did not spend their time flying around at supersonic speeds.


I would seriously question the usefulness of doctrine and tactics developed for use against a technologically advanced foe based on the experiences in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact, it would be idiotic.




Originally posted by firepilot
An F-18 with any stores, and especially drop tanks, A/G ordinance, is not going anywhere near 1.6 under any circumstances.


An F-18 (all variants) is a terrible airframe. Trying to achieve favourable comparison with it means little.




Originally posted by firepilot
A Mig-25 in combat is not going to fly Mach 2.9. Why? Well put 4 of its big radar guided missiles on it, its maybe a M2.8 aircraft at most for a dash speed, and its thirsty engines will run out it of gas pretty fast.


The MiG-25 is obsolete.

The MiG-31 can do more than Mach 2.3 for approximately 900 miles. That enough for you?




Originally posted by firepilot
MiG-25s are not some super fighter, just because it had a slightly higher mach speed than an F-15.


The MiG-25 and MiG-31 are pure interceptors, not fighters.

Undoutedly, the F-15 is a better all round aircraft. Undoutedly, The MiG-31 is a better interceptor.





You seem to not be differentiating speeds for a short dash under afterburner for a clean airplane, compared to a cruise speed for a plane loaded for combat. And speeds for US aircraft have been doing down since the 1960s, because there are a lot more important things than a Maximum dash speed, since aircraft so rarely actually do that.


Acceleration and energy conservation are key to dogfighting. The F-35 has neither attribute in abundance.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

An F-18 (all variants) is a terrible airframe. Trying to achieve favourable comparison with it means little.

Better tell that to the people who operate them.


*hides*

[edit on 6/1/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Earlier in the thread I questioned the STOL element of the F-35B's STOVL capabilitiy.

I think the video on Flights website, linked below, provides the answer I was looking for.

It is apparent from this video, in which BF-1 engages the VL system, that there is at least an 'intermediate' setting in which the aft nozzle only vectors a few degrees downward, allowing the F-35 to continue to fly in formation with the F-18 chase plane with all doors open.

I would surmise that this nozzle setting would allow for STO operations *if* it can be selected without also engaging the lift fan, which would be disastrous at full thrust in a take off run. I think it is inconceivable that Lockheed would not think of this so I will assume that is how its done unless someone can say different?

Please note, this does not mean that the aircraft can use TVC in combat manouvres. There are two large doors vbelow the nozzle which have to open to allow the nozzle to move.

Also, for anyone thinking it is a VTOL type, note how the system being tested is described only as the 'Vertical Landing System'.

www.flightglobal.com...

[edit on 13-1-2010 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Maybe it could be done by strong vector trust engines but it would look much faster than this, as someone said when up side down there is no power to keep it up so it should be fast enough to turn it around before it crashes. And the "take off" in the air would be much slower... like Hurrican's a like.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
For people still wondering if this was real or what not go to google or anything and type in BF2 jet stunts

www.metacafe.com...

at a 1:07 that is the same carrier in the OP's video

it is a game and nothing more, the designers even admitted that the players started using the jets and helicopters in ways they never thought possible

PS I personally like the Helicopter stunts



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join